Talk:COVID-19 misinformation/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Covid in the US in 2019

@Pieceofmetalwork and Alexbrn:, I think the NPR article suggesting Covid may have been in the US in late 2019 should be retained. I get the argument that NPR isn't a MEDS source however, neither are the other sources in the section. The NPR article is reporting on the results of a specific, named study. I'm a bit concerned about how to handle the total section. The NPR article doesn't specifically mention the scenario Hanson mentioned but if the NPR report it true it lends credibility to at least part of the theory that Hanson mentioned. As such I think it should stay but perhaps the section header needs to be changed. Springee (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

We should really avoid unreliable medical sources amplified in lay press. The stuff about COVID being abroad earlier (there are similar claims about Italy) is borderline fringe - or at least raises a WP:REDFLAG - so the sourcing needs to be solid I'd suggest. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

But NPR cites a study by name. Would you be ok directly citing the named study? I don't think a single citation in that section goes directly to a medical article. Springee (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because it's an unreliable source per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Using that argument most sources in this article need to be removed. The entire California section needs to be removed since none of the sources are medical journals. That includes the interviews with experts who dispute the original claim (they didn't publish the counter claims in a medical journal). I don't see an issue with using the NPR article here as it directly links to the medical paper [[1]]. The article summary is very clear, "These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020." Perhaps we should cite both the NRP article and the medical article. Regardless, this is medical evidence that COVID-19 was in the US earlier than Jan 2020. I think you will have to show which parts of MEDRS is being violated here. Springee (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If the article is terrible that's not an argument for making it worse (and it ain't necessarily, since WP:PARITY allows the use of normally-poor sources for contextualizing fringe claims). The antibody "evidence" is primary research and this is often wrong, which is why it is not used for biomedical claims on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS. We would need a medical secondary source. (The WP:WHYMEDRS essay gives background reasoning, if you're interested.) If in doubt, ask at WT:MED. In general, this COVID-19 topic is under general sanctions and adding health claims sourced to non-WP:MEDRS is sanctionable. This is meant to be an article describing misinformation, not propagating it! Alexbrn (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I just added the link to the article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. How does that not pass WP:MEDRS? This isn't a case of spreading misinformation. This is simply reporting what a RS says about the topic. The implied threat of sanction is really problematic and I would ask that you strike it. Springee (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's PMID 33252659. It's not RS for biomedical content, since it's a primary source (and if it were RS, the way it was used did not reflect its tentative conclusion in any case). Alexbrn (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not reliable for this content? It's a journal of infectious diseases. This is a question about an infectious disease. I agree the results are tentative but that doesn't mean we should act as if they are totally wrong. It is reasonable to say there is evidence that the virus may have been in the US earlier than expected based on this evidence. We should not say "the virus has been". I don't think your objections are valid. I have opened a RSN question here.[[2]] Springee (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to read and understand the links I gave. You are repeating a very common misunderstanding about medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is you aren't explaining your thinking. Also, this isn't a case of medical treatment etc. This is simply a case of history at this point. When did the virus show up in the US. We aren't citing any review papers to say it showed up only after mid-January so why object to quoting a paper that says it may have shown up earlier? I would have no objection to removing the whole passage but if we are going to use new articles to say this information was wrong then we should be able to use a news article to say this study says there is evidence it might be correct (without overstating the conclusion). Springee (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Assertions about antibodies being present in a population is WP:Biomedical information, which needs WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? Why apply a sourcing standard that was adopted to protect readers from getting bad information to a question of when the virus was first in the US (a question of a few months almost a year back)? I think you are abusing the intent of MEDRS. Are you suggesting there is a dispute if these antibodies indicate what the researchers claim? Springee (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. MEDRS applies (as it explicitly says) to "all biomedical information". If you want to change its scope, argue the case at WT:MEDRS; here is not the place. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Look at why MEDRS was created. It says right at the top of the page. Additionally the examples make it clear that not everything medical is covered by MEDRS.[[3]] So if we are talking about the history of development of insulin as a treatment for diabetes we don't need a review paper to talk about the work of Banting, Best et al. In this case if the article was arguing that the antibodies in question were or were not indicators of the virus I would agree, that becomes MEDRS territory. This is talking about this history of the virus in the US so I don't see that the standards need to be the same. Again, if all of this needs to be MEDRS level stuff then why are we accepting a BLP accusation that isn't backed by MEDRS? Springee (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As I say, if you want to alter the guidelines, then make your case. Anyway, reading the sources I now realise this is all a proxy discussion for talking points in US politics, an area I like to avoid. So pardon me if I don't respond further. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't assume what my intents are. That is not AGF. I do not believe your rational is correct which is why we are here. Springee (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to explain Alexbrn's thinking. It's not that difficult. Quacks, charlatans, and liars with political agendas try to get their misinformation about biomedical subjects into Wikipedia. To prevent this, MEDRS only allows those sources that are most difficult to infiltrate. There are many examples of primary studies being used to transport misinformation, the Lancet MMR autism fraud being one of the most prominent. Also, primary studies are often written in a way laymen misunderstand. So, primary studies are not good sources. Quoting bad journalistic sources quoting primary sources is bad, and quoting primary sources themselves is not much better.

This subject, "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic", is obviously prone to misinformation, mainly by liars with political agendas but also by quacks and charlatans, so we try to be especially strict here. It does not matter which exact problem has inspired the MEDRS guideline and was its first and main application. We apply it here because it is needed here. The archives of this Talk are thick with attempts to give the liars with political agendas more say. Maybe that, in combination with the NPR source, is why Alexbrn thinks this could be where you are coming from. He cannot know it is just synchronicity again, as in those cases when you just happened to be, by random chance, always in favor of edits that make climate change denialists look good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's actually interesting, when I wrote "this is all a proxy discussion for talking points in US politics" I meant the material in the sources, but Springee took it to refer to their intent. Still, if the cap fits ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please AGF. Your statement was ambiguous. Rather that remove it you have doubled down. Springee (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, there's a good faith way to interpret it, and a bad faith way. I commend the former! Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The good faith way to address this is make it clear that wasn't your intent.Springee (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I did when I wrote what "I meant". Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, leaving the ambiguous statement leaves it for others to question only to have to dive down later to see what you meant. Springee (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you are also making an argument that doesn't AGF. You are welcome to raise that argument on my talk page but not here. Again, there seems to be a double standard on sourcing. We are allowed to have non-MEDRS say the original speculation was wrong but we aren't allowed to use NPR or the CID study to say the virus may have been in the US prior to the earlier estimates. Springee (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY. Crank theories are seldom considered in heavy-weight sources (the authors have better things to do, see), so a lightweight source is fine for debunking purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting NPR and CID are trying to promote a crank theory? Springee (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm explaining why our WP:PAGs tell us we don't need WP:MEDRS to debunk crank theories, which you seemed not to know. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but it appears that at least part of this theory may have truth behind it. Please note that this study was authored in part by representatives of the CDC (including the lead author). You jumped to the conclusion that the theory must be total bunk based on what? I agree with Pieceofmetalwork's view that we should include both what has and has not been validated about the theory rather than just brand it as "false" and move on. That doesn't make for a better article. Springee (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. We need to base content on reliable sources, not editors' speculation. Anybody re-inserting non-WP:MEDRS content for novel biomedical claims without a clear consensus is probably going to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nor is this discussion meant to be a place for red herrings. Discussions of article improvements are exactly why this talk page exists. You have jumped to the conclusion that MEDRS is the standard needed in this case. That is clearly in dispute. Repeating the claims of an article that came out of the CDC and is ready to be released by a quality journal can hardly be considered a "novel claim". Springee (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear what this is about now.

Earlier, you wrote I think you will have to show which parts of MEDRS is being violated here. and I just added the link to the article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. How does that not pass WP:MEDRS? This suggests that you think the material is sourced to a MEDRS-compatible source.

Then you wrote We are allowed to have non-MEDRS say the original speculation was wrong but we aren't allowed to use NPR or the CID study to say the virus may have been in the US prior to the earlier estimates. This suggests that you accept that it was not MEDRS-compatible, but that we have apply the same standard for FRINGE claims as for non-FRINGE claims.

Now you say You have jumped to the conclusion that MEDRS is the standard needed in this case because Repeating the claims of an article that came out of the CDC and is ready to be released by a quality journal can hardly be considered a "novel claim". This suggests that you accept that it was not MEDRS-compatible, and novel FRINGE claims do need MEDRS-compatible sources, but the material is not FRINGE.

I am trying to keep up with your stance: does The NPR article doesn't specifically mention the scenario Hanson mentioned but if the NPR report it true it lends credibility to at least part of the theory that Hanson mentioned. still hold? Are you still trying to lend credibility to Hanson's FRINGE ideas, only switching the reason for another reason and then for yet another reason, without saying whether you consider the old reasons to be refuted, or are you now trying to argue for some other edit? This looks a bit like a Gish gallop to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again you are making bad faith accusations. As I don't normally work in MEDRS I was, not unreasonably, surprised that a report authored by researchers at the CDC and other government agencies, published in a reliable epidemiological journal would be considered unreliable. Remember, when the other editor added this content to the article it was removed only on the grounds it was not reliable for the claims being made. That claim is that SARS-CoV-2 was in the US in the 13 Dec to 17 Jan time period. I early on acknowledged that regardless of the validity of this claim it may be considered SYTH to mix it with the theory Hanson brought to public attention. Had the objection been on those grounds I would have agreed. The problem is the objection is based on the opinion that this report is not reliable for the claim that there is evidence the virus was in the US in December. Looking at the MEDRS and Biomedical Information articles I do not agree this falls into the strict limitations. Yes, in cases where things like alternative treatments etc are suggested this article should follow MEDRS vs standard RS. This isn't one of those cases. The argument that this CID article is FRINGE or a crank theory is laughable. That doesn't mean the theory reported by Hanson was based on solid reasoning and the fact that the CID article says this wasn't wide spread certainly would undermine the heard immunity aspect. So if the argument for removal were that this content, while reliable, shouldn't be used to imply the original theory had validity, I'm OK with that. Note that I haven't restored this content to the article (regardless of why, we don't have consensus so it shouldn't be restored) so all the implied threats in Alexbrn comments are nothing more than bad faith accusations. Your suggestions of motive on my part are again bad faith accusations that have no part in this discussion. Springee (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So the purpose of quoting the CID article is not lending credibility to Hanson's fringe ideas any more? Then what is its purpose now? The article is supposed to be about misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. How is it relevant to that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As a reminder: This was the original justification. The NPR article doesn't specifically mention the scenario Hanson mentioned but if the NPR report it true it lends credibility to at least part of the theory that Hanson mentioned. As such I think it should stay but perhaps the section header needs to be changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That the virus was in the US earlier than originally thought is relevant background. It should be clear there is no evidence to support the heard immunity part per the original edit. However, the current, non-MEDRS sources say they knew the theory was wrong based on his testing for antibodies. We now have data that supports that part. I believe this is why the content was added and why I support it. ImTheIP noted that there is now evidence that the virus was in Europe earlier than thought as well [[4]]. Again I ask why we accept a non-MEDRS source to say the virus wasn't here but insist on one to say it was just 30 days earlier. Springee (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We have no reliable source for claims that virus was around earlier than generally thought. We have tentative, suggestive, primary research that is possibly wrong. We won't know until reliable sources review it (i.e. secondary sources). Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion depends on how we treat this source. That it must be treated as MEDRS is disputed. It turns out there was a study reported on in September which suggests the same using statistical analysis of clinical admissions. This one was CDC in collaboration with UCLA. [[5]][[6]]. Again this seems like relevant information though it also does not prove (in fact it appears to further disprove the herd part by better establishing that the virus was not wide spread prior to February. BTW, this information is part of the time line article.[[7]] Do you think MEDRS applies there? Also here [[8]]?Springee (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that after pointing this out Alexbrn removed the references. Springee (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

ventilators

There's nothing on one of the most common lies spread about covid, that less people would die if ventilators weren't used.

• more information: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/ventilators-covid-19
• better for most readers: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200415/ventilators-helping-or-harming-covid-19-patients --Espoo (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Casedemic

This section should probably be removed. It's an indisputable fact that in many instances "cases" (positive tests) have been decoupled from deaths for far longer than any "lag time". The significance of that is up for debate, but I think this article should stick to provably false information instead of "interpretations/opinions I don't agree with". 108.208.66.155 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, looking at sources it seems the term "casedemic" is very much alive in the crank-o-sphere, and it embodies a conspiracy theory. I have clarified the section using the excellent SBM source of 23 November as a basis - read this if you want to understand why "casedemic" is a myth that we need to cover. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of material about China

What seems to be perfectly normal, well-verified content about Chinese misinformation (see below) has been removed both by CaradhrasAiguo and Félix An. This seems problematic, as the material is well-sourced and on-topic. I propose this be restored.

Leaked documents show that China's public reporting of cases gave an incomplete picture during the early stages of the pandemic. For example, on 10 February 2020, China publicly reported 2,478 new confirmed cases. However, confidential internal documents that later leaked to CNN showed 5,918 new cases on 10 February. These were broken down as 2,345 confirmed cases, 1,772 clinically diagnosed cases and 1796 suspected cases.

References

Discussion

I added the material in the first place. I agree it should stay. I am confused by the "soapbox" accusation in the edit summaries. The source is CNN. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Which was why I reverted the revert, the accusation of "soapboxing" was (at best) erroneous. I see no issue with the material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I too am baffled by this strange reversion (and even more by the second reversion which refers to the first). What is going on? In lieu of some credible policy-based reason this material shall be restored. Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it should stay as well. I am a bit puzzled that this material would be OK yet the NPR/CID report would be excluded on the grounds it isn't RS. Springee (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I also find the reversions baffling and pretty close to unexplainable policy/guideline wise. I can’t tell if the original edit summary is calling the CNN piece disinformation or Adoring nanny’s contribution disinformation but neither seem to be justified or explainable, especially on a page under discretionary sanctions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is baffling, if anybody would have done the least bit of homework: the medically-diagnosed cases (as opposed to those confirmed by PCR) were already reported here on Wikipedia on 12 Feb. The present version of the template makes it abundantly clear that the Wuhan municipal health commission had already reported the medically-diagnosed back to 10 Feb. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But anyway, how is a template created on 22 Feb relevant to an act of misinformation by the PRC of 12th Feb? Or are you saying we need to be clear that it's the PRC (not the medics) who are the culprits here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd, the template is citing WP:RS which refute the notion (asserted above) that the PRC was publicly concealing clinically diagnosed cases on 10 Feb. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, so once we've got past the nonsensical messages and snide links, what you're saying it that CNN is wrong because of some unspecified RS? Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a corroborating source in:

• Philip Sherwell (6 December 2020). "Leak exposes how Beijing ordered under‑reporting of Wuhan coronavirus cases". The Times.

To quote:

China reported 2,478 confirmed new cases nationwide on February 10, even as provincial health authorities circulated a document — marked as “internal” and “confidential” — that identified 5,918 newly detected cases, more than twice the official tally released by Beijing.

There's also quite a lot about how Beijing is trying to falsify the origin of the virus, which probably merits some coverage in this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is disruptive WP:IDHT. The RS is right there in the link to the version history, a live version being here; CNN had already reported the changing case definition on 21 Feb (again cited in the template). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

With The Times and CNN as sources, I think we're done here. Live versions of web pages are obviously irrelevant to what happened on 10 February, as is whatever happened on 21 February. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note CaradhrasAiguo has been blocked as a sock. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should be separate page

Conspiracy theories doesn’t always mean “misinformation”. So a separate page is needed. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

They don't "mean" misinformation, but they are a type of misinformation which, per WP:NOPAGE, make very good sense here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

ChandlerMinh, I ended up renaming the "Conspiracy theories" section today to "Origin misinformation". Also, I think the "government" section is a better section to split out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Dec 2019 cases outside China

Are studies suggesting that COVID spread outside of China before 2020 credible? If not, perhaps we should mention them in this article. [9][10] –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the source. A bit of a WP:REDFLAG around such claims. Research out of China would need to be treated with special caution, given there is RS saying the PRC are pushing for a "foreign origin" narrative. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Daily mail is Boris Johnson?

Why is the dailymail making up cobr quotes being used to justify a section in the 'government' section of this article? The implication is that the British Government (and Boris Johnsons' name is, awkwardly, jammed in there) has spread misinformation...which is not supported by the citations. If that dailymail article belongs here (or anywhere on wikipedia) at all, it certainly isn't in the government. 81.135.234.139 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted the section you mentioned. Just because Vanity Fair mentioned it does not make it reliable. Mail On Sunday is an unreliable source per WP:MAILONSUNDAY. And it was quoting an anonymous source, which is unreliable per WP:RSBREAKING. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RNA vaccine

Wanted to add some info about misinformation pertaining to the use of RNA in vaccines (see RNA vaccine#Culture and society). Where would that fit? Alexbrn (talk)

Alexbrn, Support. I think it'd be a good fit for a sub-heading in the "Vaccine misinformation" section. We could mention the rumors about it changing a person's DNA. You might also want to do a main or see also to this article: RNA vaccine#Culture_and_society. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting "Government" section

I don't know if this has been discussed before and what the status of that conversation was, but I am in supporting of spinning off the entire government section into its own article. The topic seems to be distinct and notable. Love of Corey (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey, Support. I support spinning off any part of this article, as it is currently very big. If you don't spin off the entire government section, I'll probably be bold and spin off the United States Government section soon, as it is the biggest "sub-heading 1" in the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we should spin off the entire government section, just to get as much excess content out of the way as we can. Love of Corey (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey, I'm fine with that. You left this open for 2 weeks, the tally is 2 support, 0 oppose. Probably OK to split it off. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that people who would oppose such a move simply forgot the topic even existed, and would therefore object if such a split happened. Love of Corey (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey, I think WP:BRD applies here, as to most things on Wikipedia. Everything is reversible. I'll probably split this myself in the future if somebody doesn't beat me to it. Article is too big. It is 2x 116kb, 16kb over the recommended max prose size of 100kb in WP:SIZERULE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Change name to "COVID-19 misinformation"?

The current title seems a bit long. Any interest in changing the title to be more concise? Option 1: "COVID-19 misinformation". Option 2: "COVID-19 pandemic misinformation". Option 3: keep same. Personally I prefer option 1. Eager to hear other opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• "Misinformation related to COVID-19" should be the title. Right now, the way it's worded implies that the article is about misinformation related to only the pandemic and not also the disease itself. My suggestion has ambiguity that serves the content of the article better without modifying the article title too much or being too lengthy. JustStalin (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation on misinformation?

There is a huge danger with an article like this that it conflates genuine misinformation with views that health authorities don't uniformly support.

Take the inclusion of ivermectin, for instance. Here are examples of metaanalyses on its efficacy in relation to C19:

"100% of the 10 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated reduction of 74%, RR 0.26 [0.12-0.56]."

"There are a number of randomized and prospective studies and all have shown efficacy in clinical outcomes ... (Khan et al., 2020; Nunez et al., 2020; Alam et al., 2020; Gorial et al., 2020; Chowdhury et al., 2020). ... HCurrently, there are 36 randomized clinical trials of ivermectin alone or in combination for ambulatory and hospitalized patients listed on clinicaltrials.gov."

And there are many more: https://c19ivermectin.com/

Unlike these sources, the section on ivermectin, as far as I can see, links to no scientific studies on its effectiveness, and makes no attempt to address the multiple studies showing positive outcomes. I am not saying that it works. I don't have the expertise to do that. What I am saying is that it may be irresponsible to include it here. And more generally, lumping together obviously looney theories with scientific research that is still ongoing/inconclusive may do more harm than good. Orthorhombic, 03:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

References

You're linking to fake, self-published journal articles and other dubious, non-WP:RS sites. While it is true ivermectin is under investigation, there is no good evidence it works and the claims its proponents are making - that it's a "miracle" drug that "obliterates" COVID-19, are pure quackery given the state of the science. Some high-quality research should be available later this month. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Covert Operations

Newbie here, go easy on me!

There’s a specific part to this that bothers me:

“It has also been reportedly spread by covert operations backed by states to generate panic and sow distrust in other countries.”

Shouldn’t this statement require a reference? By definition ‘covert operations’ would not be easy to evidence, unless there’s a specific example I’m unaware of...? Chausettes (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted that sentence. Let's see if someone improves the situation. -- Valjean (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Consider creating separate page for actual falsehoods vs. theories

The word "misinformation" implies that all the information discussed on this page is somehow related to false information. But that is not actually what the page says. It notes several examples of theories that have been neither proven nor disproven. For example, speculation that the virus was somehow linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been neither proven nor disproven. ("Ebright [...] said a laboratory leak origin could not be ruled out."] My point is that a theory lacking evidence is not the same as one that has been disproven. In this case, everyone seems to agree that we don't know where the virus came from. I would suggest separating information that has actually been proven false from information that is simply speculation without evidence. Conspiracy theories throughout history have not always been false. Scoppettone (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Most conspiracy theories cannot be "disproven". This pages makes most sense if all the crankery is collected together. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have created a draft on the accidental lab leak theory here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The article's claim that every conspiracy/alternative/unproven theory is misinformation is itself misinformation. Wikipedia should stick to the facts, but never does. 122.151.240.183 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Trusting the World Health Organization

Did I miss the information, the WHO was defending or covering up communist China for not being truthful or at least more informative the COVID-19 was creating and spreading! Plus, where in the article does it mention China stop reporting on COVID-19 stats and is acceptable apparently to the WHO! As far as the Cornell U. Research, why not post it or at least make reference to where the data can be reviewed, prior to just taking the work of some unknown at a liberal university!2603:6080:9401:3800:1CDD:6AAC:D7FF:2171 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2603:6080:9401:3800:1CDD:6AAC:D7FF:2171, the university study is not linked in the lede but it is in the article body. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Accidental Leakage Theories

Ebright's quotes do not reflect his full position and should be expanded upon: He argued that the probability that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from a lab is "substantial", citing a history of accidents that involved researchers becoming infected and lax safety standards at labs such as the WIV, and said the assertion that the WIV could not have been involved in leaking the virus "is not credible".

A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to rule out the possibility that the virus leaked from the WIV. This should be added after the sentence, "Other researchers have said that there is little chance it was a laboratory accident."

Intelligence agency statements

The sentence, "Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, claimed the SARS-CoV-2 virus 'likely' came from a Wuhan virology testing laboratory, based on 'circumstantial evidence'," does not accurately reflect what the source says. The word "came" should be changed to "escaped".

Also, it is very important to note that the US intelligence community has explicitly declined to rule out the possibility of a lab leak. Add the following to this section:

An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community explicitly declined to rule out the possibility that the virus had escaped from the WIV. An anonymous U.S. intelligence official said, "There’s been speculation: Did it come from a market? Did it come from a lab? We just don’t know."

JustStalin (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do think this section is way too long and unwieldy. Can't we say all that needs to be said in a few sentences? That some people have said the virus came from Chinese lab work, and while this is theoretically possible there is no evidence for it; that other claims it came from bio-weapons programs are bunk? Alexbrn (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is way too much notable misinformation about this to be condensed down to just a few sentences. JustStalin (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Alexbrn is basically right. If this were proven true, it would have due weight for much greater coverage. Since it's unproven speculation, its due weight doesn't rise to a level deserving more than a few sentences, IOW a very short paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But it's not unproven speculation, it's a proven fact that the scientific and intelligence communities have so far explicitly refused to completely rule out the lab leak theory. It is currently the majority position that the theory cannot be ruled out, which I have demonstrated with multiple reliable sources. Omitting these facts from this article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. JustStalin (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm.....that's the nature of all scientific statements. There is no such thing as 100% in science, but there is such a thing as 99.999999999....% probability. Even the theory of gravity leaves open the door that there is a 0.000000000000000000000....1% chance it might be wrong. With those odds, would you waste bytes here or money in a bet that it is wrong? We need much better than that "in RS mentions" to establish due weight for more than very short mention here, something that can be easily managed with a few sentences. Which RS should be used for that? -- Valjean (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since it's the majority position in the scientific community that the lab leak theory can't be ruled out, that fact and other claims/sources supporting that fact should be given more weight (than minority positions) in a section specifically dedicated to misinformation about that specific theory. JustStalin (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

When scientists write something, most of the text is useless for our purposes of writing encyclopedia articles. There is lots of detail and also some filler. We need to pick the interesting parts. It is obvious to everybody (not just the "majority", it's really everybody, for the reasons Valjean has given) that things such as leaks can never be ruled out completely, and when scientists feel compelled to mention it, that mention is just filler.

For those people who like the world to be like fictional thrillers and whodunits, where nothing is like it seems to be, that mention is highly interesting because it helps them fuel their fantasies. But why should we pander to them? This is a reality-based encyclopedia. That "fact" does not belong here and should not be given any weight. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The journalists in the articles I'm citing already did pick out the interesting parts. That's what this is.

I disagree that it's obvious to "everybody". Having the lab leakage theory listed in a section about origin misinformation, without explicitly mentioning that the theory has not been disproven, could easily mislead the reader into the false impression that it has been disproven. It could also give the reader the false impression that the claim (that it hasn't been disproven) is a minority viewpoint, which already happened in this very discussion. If experienced Wikipedia editors have been mislead, then it's obvious that this section is not clear enough on this point.

Your claim that "things such as leaks can never be ruled out completely" is false. It could someday be proven that the virus didn't leak from a lab, which would completely rule out the lab leak theory. And just because someone might use what is written on Wikipedia to "fuel their fantasies" is not a good enough of a reason for exclusion. JustStalin (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We still have to pick the interesting parts from what the journalists write. This is not one of them.

I'd ask how on Earth someone would 100% disprove that idea, as opposed to showing that it is highly unlikely, but that would lead further away from improving the article. If "it can be 100% ruled out" is really a minority viewpoint instead of obviously false by definition, you surely can point to one scientist who holds that position in an RS.

You claimed that something "happened in this very discussion", but it is not clear to me what that something is. It sounds as if somebody "in this very discussion" got the impression that "it hasn't been disproven" is a minority viewpoint. But who and when?

There is a continuum between definitely 100% true statements and definitely 0% true statements, and the only ones who keep emphasizing and blowing out of proportion the difference between 0% true and epsilon % true, with epsilon very close to zero, are the fringe proponents who believe in those epsilon-%-true statements. Since we have WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, we should not emulate those fringe proponents. Instead, we should ignore that tiny difference until it becomes so big that a considerable portion of the science community takes it really seriously rather than just covering their asses by saying as an aside they can't rule it out completely. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that it's not interesting. It's an extremely notable point that supports the majority position, yet is totally absent from the article.

I explained in my previous post that someone could 100% disprove the lab theory by proving that the virus first transmitted to humans elsewhere, or by another method, etc. Shi Zhengli is quoted in this very article saying that it definitely did not leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (minority viewpoint), yet this article is totally silent about the fact that the scientific community and US intelligence have explicitly refused to rule out the possibility (majority viewpoint).

Valjean's first post in this section erroneously called the claim (that scientists and US intelligence have refused to rule out the possibility) "unproven speculation" because he incorrectly believed it was the minority view rather than majority view. This section's lack of a neutral point of view is misleading to readers.

The scientific and intelligence communities have been increasingly demanding more information about the origin of the pandemic in an attempt to rule out the lab leak theory. Adding a couple sentences about the majority view that it hasn't been disproven is not "emulating fringe proponents". It's correcting the clear violation of WP:NPOV that is occurring by omitting it. JustStalin (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't beleive this article is the right entry to flesh out the lab leak theory. It would best to trim down the section and create a new entry on the topic. I have created a draft here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No way. Get your article approved first, then focus on cutting down on this page. JustStalin (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am working on a new draft, as there were some copyright issues, but two reviewers suggested to merge it with this page. So here I am trying to get a consensus on this page that the lab leak theory ought not be considered as "misinformation". ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You folks keep making nebulous statements about more or less detail on this in the article. You have had enough debate about due weight. Please make specific proposals as to what should be added and/or removed and then form a consensus. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed trimming of the section

I agree the section needs substantial trimming. I took a stab at the first subsection [11] removing most of the one-offs and quotes.

Original section:

A number of allegations have emerged supposing a link between the virus and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); among these is that the virus was an accidental leakage from WIV. In January 2020, editors at the scientific journal Nature affixed a cautionary warning to an article by Richard H. Ebright who wrote about the WIV in 2017 and noted that the SARS virus had escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing before; the editors warned that unverified theories, unsupported by scientists, were being promoted to suggest that the WIV played a role in the COVID-19 outbreak. In an interview with BBC China in February 2020, Ebright refuted several conspiracy theories regarding the WIV (e.g., bioweapons research, or that the virus was engineered), but said a laboratory leak origin could not be "completely ruled out." Other researchers have said that there is little chance it was a laboratory accident.

On 14 April, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, in response to questions about the virus being manufactured in a lab, said "it's inconclusive, although the weight of evidence seems to indicate natural. But we don't know for certain."

Days later, multiple media outlets confirmed that US intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that the virus started in the WIV.

On 18 May 2020, an official UN investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 virus was supported by over 120 countries despite China's objection, A two-member advance team was sent to China to organise the investigation in July 2020, although the team failed to visit Wuhan in their three-week stay there.

References

Trimmed version:

A number of allegations have emerged supposing a link between the virus and Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); among these is that the virus was an accidental leakage from WIV. In January 2020, editors at the scientific journal Nature affixed a cautionary warning to an article by Richard H. Ebright who wrote about the WIV in 2017 and noted that the SARS virus had escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing before; the editors warned that unverified theories, unsupported by scientists, were being promoted to suggest that the WIV played a role in the COVID-19 outbreak. In an interview with BBC China in February 2020, Ebright refuted several conspiracy theories regarding the WIV (e.g., bioweapons research, or that the virus was engineered), but said a laboratory leak origin could not be "completely ruled out." Other researchers have said that there is little chance it was a laboratory accident.

References

I think the subsections should be similarly trimmed back. The organization of the sub-sections around publishers and types of sources seems to give inappropriate weight to them, so should be rethought.

I'm working very broad brush here, so apologies if I'm overlooking important detail. --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one that made the sub-sections. Before I added those, it was just a large section of unorganized prose. I'm not married to the current subsection names and groupings, feel free to improve them.

I think your copyedit looks fine. Looks like this section was originally written in a play-by-play, breaking news, add-a-sentence-a-day style. Now that the topic has stabilized, it's a good time to condense and summarize.

It may make sense to trim even more heavily. This is currently the largest "sub-heading 1" in the article. If it stays its current size, it may be a good candidate to spinning off into its own article. That is, if it deserves the weight. Trimming might be better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge 'Washington Post article' and 'Vox article' sections

As it stands, the Accidental Leakage Theories section clearly violates WP:NPOV because it does not accurately portray the scientific community's safety concerns regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These two sections should be merged into a more general discussion about lab safety, perhaps titled "Lab Safety Concerns". The following should be added to the new section:

In a 2019 article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argued that over time, releases of potential pandemic pathogens from high security BSL4 laboratories are fairly likely, and that human error is the cause over 70% of the time. In April 2020, he further elaborated, "Even if a lab is mechanically safe, you can’t rule out human error. Accidents happen, and more than 70 percent of the time it’s due to the humans involved." In a 2019 paper published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, Wuhan chief scientist Yuan Zhiming described "widespread systemic deficiencies with training and monitoring of high-security laboratories where disease-causing pathogens are studied". In addition, U.S experts and scientists who reviewed experiments at the WIV said the precautions taken by scientists would not necessarily have protected them from exposure to the virus. The experiments caused Chinese scientists to issue mulitple warnings about a novel SARS-like disease possibly transmitting from bats to humans.

JustStalin (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Blending 2019 with 2020 violates WP:SYNTH at the very least. The rest is speculation and innuendo. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversions

JustStalin performed a large revert to a previous version of the misinformation section.[12] A couple of points:

• WP:DRNC. Reverting for no reason other than a demand to get consensus is disruptive.
• Per the general sanctions applying to this topic, credibly-challenged removed content must not be restored without consensus. To be clear, I (and others) have challenged this material as being WP:UNDUE, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. Some piecemeal expansion (as was happening) may be okay but this old version is way too long. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert "for no reason other than a demand to get consensus". I reverted because there was a consensus established on the Talk Page of how that section should look (see above, under the Accidental Leakage Theories - Proposed trimming of the section".) That change was made, and you simply took it upon yourself to not only remove that, but other credibly sourced material without first discussing it on the talk page.

It's also already been discussed that it is the majority scientific position that the lab leak hypothesis cannot be ruled out, so WP:UNDUE does not apply to anything that supports that majority position. All of the well sourced content that supports that majority position should remain under the section discussing misinformation related to that hypothesis. If you want to trim that section down further, be my guest and make some more suggestions. But don't simply delete properly sourced content that supports the majority scientific position without discussing it first. JustStalin (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Prior consensus is not needed to make an edit: Wikipedia has WP:BOLD editing as a way of making progress. The WP:ONUS lies on editors wanting to get consensus for inclusion of disputed content, and that is amplified by the special provisions of the general sanctions. Work for that if you want. But ripping out high-quality academic peer-reviewed sourced and reverting back in, instead, a load of WP:UNDUE junk (as you did) is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Not only are you misrepresenting my argument, but you're also misrepresenting WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS. Nobody is arguing that consensus is not needed to "make an edit". Consensus was already achieved long ago to include that content. The onus is on you to achieve consensus that the "information does not improve the article and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

If you want to add high quality academic peer-reviewed sourced content, be my guest. But don't vandalize the page by removing well-sourced content that supports the majority scientific position without explicitly discussing it first. JustStalin (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I did add it, and you removed it (twice). Personal attack noted: you need to read WP:NOTVAND. You should also read WP:OWNERSHIP. Editors do not need to discuss things with you before making changes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You added it while simultaneously removing well-sourced content that supports the majority scientific position (twice). I meant to say "disruptively edit", not "vandalize". What you're doing is disruptive editing at the very least.

I didn't say that editors need to discuss things with me before making changes". You have been consistently misrepresenting my argument this entire discussion. You are making it very difficult for me and others to assume good faith. JustStalin (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Effectively you are, because no editor has objected (and other editors have instead been working on the section). How you get "the majority scientific position" by deleting their work, and high-quality WP:MEDRS sourcing, and instead using older lay-press, is a special puzzle. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who deleted the entire "Accidental Leakage Theory" subsection with little to no discussion when others were working on it. This is a page about misinformation related to the pandemic, and there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the accidental lab leak hypothesis. That section contained lots of well-sourced information that supported the majority scientific viewpoint that the lab leak hypothesis cannot be ruled out at this time. That section clearly should be included in the article. JustStalin (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Gauging consensus is a delicate art. We are where we are. If you want something different to what's there now, make a case for it and work for consensus. It we have a recent top-level source saying this speculation can be discounted, it's kind of problematic to try and undercut that with lesser sources. Please be aware of WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable core policy. Also maybe heed WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The case I have made is that you disruptively edited the page and removed the entire "Accidental Leakage Theory" section with little to no discussion (certainly no consensus was reached) and it should be restored. The onus is on you to discuss what should be removed and work towards consensus. That section had multiple sources stating that the lab leak hypothesis could not be ruled out. If you're going to discuss misinformation related to the theory, then not including the well-sourced majority scientific position (that it can't be ruled out) is a violation of WP:NPOV. WP:PROFRINGE does not apply here, because the claim that it can't be ruled out is not the minority position. JustStalin (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling that the majority scientific viewpoint is a ... highly contestable statement, to say the least, and one open to equivocation. Would any expert say that the lab leak hypothesis (to give it an overly dignified name) violates the laws of physics? No, it's probably not ruled out in that sense. But that's a far cry from regarding it as within the horizon of reasonable options. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a false equivalency. There was no reliable source cited that said the lab leak hypothesis doesn't violate the laws of physics. However, we had multiple sources stating that the lab leak hypothesis could not be ruled out. If you're going to discuss misinformation related to the theory, then not including the well-sourced majority scientific position (that it can't be ruled out) is a violation of WP:NPOV. JustStalin (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note JustStalin has just done it again, over-writing new high quality sourcing (PMID 32945405) with a blanket reversion to older/lesser content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Restored. XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, so much for that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's a third revert on a topic under GS. This is going to need admin attention. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Accidental Leakage Section Deleted

This is a page about misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the accidental lab leakage hypothesis. Why is that section being blanket removed with little to no discussion agreeing that that should be done? JustStalin (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want some specific content, say what it is and make your case. You have been warned for edit warring, so avoid any more of that. In general, look for good quality sources - things have moved on a bit in recent months. In particular we can use good secondary sources on the misinformation issue, as we should! Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The content was already there with good quality sources. You deleted it, were warned about disruptive editing, then deleted it again anyway. That section should be restored immediately until consensus is reached on how this information should be presented. JustStalin (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's no consensus on how to present material of a high-stakes nature, the safest course of action is often to omit it until such a consensus has formed. No grand principle says that inclusion is the default course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." There was no consensus to make that bold edit to remove the Accidental Leakage Theory section. Please restore it until consensus is reached on how this information should be presented. JustStalin (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It does "commonly result" in that. But not always, and obviously not here, and per WP:ONUS the burden for achieving consensus is now on editors seeking inclusion. Note also the special sanctions mentioned below which amplify the WP:ONUS requirement. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The sanction says: "Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." What is your credible policy-based rationale for boldly editing the page to remove the entire "Accidental Leakage Theory" section without consensus? JustStalin (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE, especially in the light of recent WP:MEDRS quality sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How so? Simply asserting that without further elaborating does not support your position. JustStalin (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And for COVID topics, per WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019#Application notes editors who restore disputed content without consensus are skating on very thin ice. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That content that you disruptively removed by bold edit was already previously included by consensus, and that consensus was not overturned at any point. It should be restored per WP:NOCON. JustStalin (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll find that WP:CCC, and evidently that has happened here. Now, are you actually going to propose any - you know - article improvements? or continue on with processology antics? Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing on the talk page that indicates that consensus has changed. JustStalin (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That is obtuse. Consensus resides in edits to the article page as well as Talk. Anyway, I'm not going to respond to further processology; I want to WP:FOC! If you have a process complaint take it to a drahma board. A reminder: you are at 3RR. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CCC: "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." Please revert your disruptive bold edit until consensus is established on how to deal with this information. JustStalin (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not "proposing" to change the consensus, I want to uphold it - as established by the edits of multiple editors. My advice: read WP:1AM, drop the WP:STICK and then WP:FOC. It is richly ironic that an editor at 3RR who is WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page and not WP:LISTENing is throwing around (silly) accusations of disruptive editing! Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Ivermectin

So... if anything is listed in this Treatments section, Wikipedia editors have determined that that treatment is "misinformation". Got it. So you have reached a firm conclusion that Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Ivermectin are ineffective and/or unsafe? Does anyone see the problem with this, or is it just me? Tvaughan1 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia verifies content with cited sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem with it. My view is that Wikipedia is taking a position on COVID-19 therapies that is in direct contradiction to the medical authorities in the US. Extremely problematic. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It is extremely problematic, and will likely get you banned. Wikipedia, by contrast needs to have text backed by good sources, not the "views" of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)