Talk:COVID-19 misinformation

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Original research

Work in progress; comments welcome
 – additional sources added but text needs updating to match

From the article's section "Treatment"

Treatment

Main article: List of unproven methods against COVID-19

Widely circulated posts on social media have made many unfounded claims of treatment methods of COVID-19. Some of these claims are scams, and some promoted methods are dangerous and unhealthy. Herbal treatments

Various national and party-held Chinese media heavily advertised an "overnight research" report by Wuhan Institute of Virology and Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences, on how shuanghuanglian, an herb mixture from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), can effectively inhibit COVID-19. The report led to a purchase craze of shuanghuanglian.

The source provided for the last paragraph is here [5]. However, I cannot see from the article why it belongs on COVID-19 misinformation. It does, however, seem relevant to the main article List of unproven methods against COVID-19.

From a cursory read, this seems to be a recurring problem throughout the article. Am I correct in saying that sources should specifically state that the information is (according to the lead) false information, including intentional disinformation, or a conspiracy theory? Lightbloom (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article is very wide (your copied text from the lede truncates it), and include bogus treatments. The 'Treatments' section here is referencing List of unproven methods against COVID-19 as a "main" article, so it should really be just a brief summary of that article. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should just have a brief summary. The given examples with sources in this section seem to not mention specifically that the treatments don't work, just that they haven't been proved yet or that they are traditional remedies, so listing them here in detail draws a connection that constitutes original research. Lightbloom (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something 'hasn't been proved' but is offered as a treatment, that's quackery and misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but the sources don't seem to mention it is quackery and misinformation so I think it falls under original research to specifically detail it in COVID-19 misinformation. I provided one example but this looks like a common pattern throughout. Lightbloom (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article states its scope, which is quite wide. Things here should fall in that, but there doesn't need to be 1:1 word matching with this article's title. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the example I gave constitutes false treatments though. Again, the sources don't seem to state that they don't work, just that they aren't proven, so to list them here constitutes original research. Also, I don't think the scope of the article covers unproven treatments. If that were the case, ongoing medical studies for COVID-19 treatments would be classified under this article. Lightbloom (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In evidence-based medicine the assumption is something doesn't work until shown otherwise, since in nearly all cases treatments cannot be disproven. If something subject to "ongoing medical studies" was offered as an effective treatment, that would be misinformation too. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to my original example, it states a Chinese medical report stated that an herb mixture can effectively inhibit COVID-19. Can is ambiguous language, it doesn't state whether it's effective or not. Also, according to the article, further studies are ongoing in various Chinese institutions. Lightbloom (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new cite which explicitly links shuanghuanglian to misinformation, as well as calling it a "fictitious cure". MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think your source sheds some more light. It states

Wuhan Institute of Virology had discovered that the SHL herbal remedy could ”inhibit” 2019-nCov [22]. The study was launched by laboratory in vitro studies and required further clinical studies to confirm its effectiveness on humans. However, this finding was commonly misinterpreted as 'SHL helps to prevent or cure coronavirus.

The current text seems to imply that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had published COVID-19 misinformation. In fact it seems their report was misinterpreted by the media. Perhaps it would be useful to update the text to match the new source. Lightbloom (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCR testing

Someone switched the order of paragraphs under § PCR testing so that the first sentence read: In reality, the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 is highly sensitive to the virus, and testing laboratories have controls in place to prevent and detect contamination. This is hard to understand without first having any mention of the false claims about "problems" like these. I've restored the original order so it makes more sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation on school safety

Schools in the U.S. were kept closed long after it was proven that they were not a significant risk for transmission. This should be cited in the article. Here are some sources for the true information about the risk of keeping schools open:

May 28, 2020: Reopening schools in Denmark did not worsen outbreak, data shows

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-05-28/opening-schools-in-denmark-did-not-worsen-outbreak-data-shows

July 13, 2020: German study finds no evidence coronavirus spreads in schools

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/13/german-study-finds-no-evidence-coronavirus-spreads-schools/

July 21, 2020: No known case of teacher catching coronavirus from pupils, says scientist

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-known-case-of-teacher-catching-coronavirus-from-pupils-says-scientist-3zk5g2x6z

Mn06hithere227 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be any "misinformation". The relative benefits and harms of school closure in various countries may have been debated and re-assessed over time; that's more "science" than misinformation. See PMID:34311990. Bon courage (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikipedia article "Infodemic"

The reader may find it helpful to refer to the Wikipedia article on 'Infodemic'. Please include the link if you agree. WikiAuthor1234567890 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_misinformation"