Talk:COVID-19/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

"Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus until a consensus is reached. Wow (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Antihistamines ... prevention and treatment of Covid

Suggested edit ...

Antihistamines ... prevention and treatment of Covid

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129342/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1202696/full

https://ufhealth.org/news/2020/existing-antihistamine-drugs-show-effectiveness-against-covid-19-virus-cell-testing

https://www.mycovidteam.com/resources/antihistamines-for-covid-19-can-benadryl-zyrtec-etc-help-with-symptoms 98.46.116.219 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now

1. None of those sources establish that antihistamines prevent COVID-19. There are statements like we believe that antihistamines may have played a role as a preventive drug for COVID-19 which should be studied & Clinical trials will be necessary to establish the drugs’ effectiveness in prevention, early treatment and as a secondary therapy for severe COVID-19.
2. The first three sources are primary sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources states Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. [...] Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content.
3. The mycovidteam.com does support using antihistamines for treating COVID-19 and is a tertiary source. However, the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Definitions specifies:
   • A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
   • A tertiary source summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate- or graduate-level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources.

Thus, none of the sources that you posted qualify for this article. If you do find a source that supports these criteria, please feel free to circle back & post it. Peaceray (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources ...

"should be approved for emergency use towards Covid‐19 management at the moment"

Covid‐19 Histamine theory: Why antihistamines should be incorporated as the basic component in Covid‐19 management?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9903129

"Antihistamines have also been shown in small studies to reduce some Long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, brain fog, and an inability to exercise"

https://time.com/6263356/long-covid-treatment-prevention/

https://www.prevention.com/health/a39122406/anthihistamines-long-covid-symptoms/

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220214/Antihistamines-may-offer-hope-for-long-COVID-patients.aspx

https://www.livescience.com/antihistamines-to-treat-long-covid-pasc 98.46.117.90 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Mink

I request changing "strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign" to "strict quarantines and the slaughter of all the country's mink"--94.189.43.2 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

nasal vaccinations

can someone add something about the various efforts toward nasal vaccinations (such as in use in all of India!) somewhere?

pre-trial US example https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50133-2 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Would belong at COVID-19 vaccine, if WP:MEDRS can be found. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Fatigue

what is its 41.216.201.40 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Check out fatigue. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

see also Long_COVID 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The relationship between community stigma towards Covid-19 patients

COVID-19 survivors are a vulnerable group at high risk when returning to their communities. Therefore, creating a safe environment and providing respectful care, including addressing complex stigma factors, is vital for developing appropriate interventions.[https://scholar.unair.ac.id/en/publications/does-digital-financial-inclusion-forecast-sustainable-economic-gr FIn4nwatin (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the majority of this you would need some research to back up your claims. The link you provided does not. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: Perhaps they intended to post this link to Association of stigma with mental health and quality of life among Indonesian COVID-19 survivors. Fabrickator (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

I suggest removing the label of "wet market" in this sentence

According to articles published in July 2022 in Science, virus transmission into humans occurred through two spillover events in November 2019 and was likely due to live wildlife trade on the Huanan wet market in the city of Wuhan (Hubei, China).[412][413][414]

Wet market is a generic word that describes any market that sells perishable goods that was used as a bureaucratic term in Singapore. It has never been used in China, it only became commonly known/used when some journalists latched onto the term during covid because frankly, the phrase carries a lot of negative connotations with it.

Importantly, the sentence implies heavily that is the name of the market, as it is "the Huanan wet market" instead what it's name actually is Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market or 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 in the native language.

If you're going to label that market as a wet market, then all links to Costco or Whole Foods should also be with "wet market" labels. Morleyx42 (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done*your logic...If you're going to label that market as a wet market, then all links to Costco or Whole Foods should also be with "wet market" labels, does not seem correct, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What wikipedia rule/guideline does "this doesn't seem correct" fall under?

Because it seems correct to me, and Wikipedia is big on accuracy. Besides, aside from the whole question of whether or not "wet market" is an appropriate label, "Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market" is more precise and accurate.

So I'd like this to be re-opened or whatever it's called. 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses established terminology as used by the best sources, not peculiar quirky wording cooked up by an editor. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

How about we be a little more WP:CIVIL and look at the Wikipedia article Wet market and also Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and decide what would fit in the sentence better? While the lead in the article for Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market does not mention "Wet market" it is referred to as a wet market in the body. The citation for the sentence in question does use the phrase "Huanan wet market", but also specifically refers to "Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market" and that seems more precise to me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

a wiki link for "ventilation" in the prevention section

could be Air_purifier#COVID-19 for example. 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No 2601:1C2:882:7BD0:540A:A219:84B1:610A (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Zuckerberg's revelations

[3] (The Guardian), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.; there are many reliable sources about this, e.g. The Guardian. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the article, this is trivia, WP:NOTNEWS. Zefr (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning in the misinformation article, using secondary sources and not WP:NEWSPRIMARY ones e.g.[13] Seems this is just a politically strategic complaint rehashing old grievances about FB having to do some work to clean up its act. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, great idea. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely more relevant to COVID-19 misinformation, but I wonder whether it would be difficult to write accurately and neutrally on this subject. The facts appear to be:

• Zuckerberg thinks that the people in his company, operating with the same limited information as the rest of us, sometimes made decisions that now, with greater information, they would make differently. (In other shocking news, the Sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow morning.)
• The US government wanted the company to remove more posts than they actually did. (Imagine this from the POV of someone accustomed to Internet censorship in China: The government asked you to remove a post, and you didn't?!)
• The final decision about whether to remove a post was always made by the company, not the government.
• When they didn't remove all the posts the government wanted them to remove, then... um... well... nothing actually happened to them. The government employees let the Facebook employees know that the government employees disagreed with the Facebook employees decision. The company was not fined, punished, sanctioned, closed, banned, or anything else.
• Some of the posts the company and the government employees disagreed about were humor or satire posts. I imagine that any adult can understand that a joke post can be misunderstood.

I suspect that what's wanted by people promoting these stories is:

• Bombshell news! Zuckerberg sometimes felt pressured 😱 when government officials (doing their best to keep people alive during a period of substantial uncertainty) said they wanted his company to discourage the spread of harmful information by removing even more posts. Poor little billionaire with his temporary uncomfortable feelings! Poor little employees who sometimes had trouble telling the difference between a joke and a serious post! Poor little users who sometimes (but not usually) had their posts incorrectly removed! Poor little liars and gullible people who sometimes (but not always) had their incorrect posts removed! Poor little malicious actors who didn't get to spread as much anti-Asian hatred as they wanted to! Poor little stupid people, who didn't get encouraged often enough to try injecting bleach to cure COVID-19 infections, and thus didn't get Darwinned out of existence!

I really think we are at risk of making a mountain out of this molehill. At a Six Sigma level, which is patently unreasonable, they would only make a bad decision 0.00034% of the time – about 1 in 300,000 posts. Given their volume, that means that mistakes would happen every day, all day long.

I suspect that this is something that will be easier to address in a couple of years, when we have serious scholarly sources available. What we've got right now looks more like quick reactions to a self-serving politically minded press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This article as a YouTube "Information Panel"

the first two sentences of the lede is used extensively as a so-called "Information Panel," (which also provides a link to the article) on YouTube videos that discuss Covid-19.

As this garners considerable traffic and even more viewer impressions on YouTube, it seems inappropriate to include the first known case being in Wuhan within that very brief opening. Similarly, the article could say within the first two sentences that viralogists from Wuhan, China were the first to publicly identify the virus. (To be clear, I propose neither be included in the first two sentences of the lede and am just mentioning that to demonstrate the potential implications for framing such minutiae in portion of the lede that gets used for fact-checking purposes). The importance of Wuhan, China to the article of Covid-19 should be lower in the lede, or arguably not included in the lede at all.

For the sake of both prioritizing the most important facts within the article, as well as maintaining appropriate brief descriptions used by off-site platforms, I propose that the second sentence should be changed to discuss the severity, ie the spread and lethality, of the virus.

If you have opposing or alternative thoughts on the first two sentences, I am interested in hearing them. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:4010:2BF9:AAE6:C475 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad list of treatments

In the "treatment" section, image "An_overview_of_COVID-19_therapeutics.." lists Ivermectin, Chloroquine, which I know have been debunked. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @OsamaBinLogin. I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

Changing this:

"A low level of blood lymphocytess may result from the virus acting through ACE2-related entry into lymphocytes.[157]"

to the following:

"COVID-19 can lower lymphocyte presence in blood and can be a valuable prognostic marker. This lymphopenia may be caused by several factors, including at least lymphocyte trafficking (especially to the lungs and large bowel)[add1][add2] and possibly direct infection through the ACE2 receptor.[157]"

[add1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9050483/

[add2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473169/

The reason for this change is that there is well-recorded evidence as above that the lymphopenia is not only due to direct infection, and a consensus is not clear on what the primary cause of lymphopenia in COVID-19 is. There's clear cut evidence of it for trafficking, but the direct infection causing apoptosis is less clear but commonly posited in research. Noahkahn (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

request needs better sources, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

You guys should reflect a bit on why people aren't donating to Wikipedia as much as you hoped they would, and whether your censorship and political bias in the past has anything to do with that. Good luck. 71.38.187.20 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The people who write the articles are all WP:VOLUNTEERS. Also, I haven't heard anything indicating that there is any problem along the lines of "people are donating as much as you hoped". As far as I know, this donation campaign is doing okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

After the paragraph:

The first known case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.[21] Most scientists believe the SARS-CoV-2 virus entered into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.[22][23] Social and environmental factors including climate change, natural ecosystem destruction and wildlife trade increased the likelihood of such zoonotic spillover.[24][25][26][27]

you might want to insert a paragraph:

There are reports that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus may have existed earlier, although its impact on human health before the pandemic outbreak is not clear and well studied. Traces of the coronavirus have been detected in wastewater in several locations around the world since the summer of 2019. [28], [29], [30], [31). There are also clues that it could have been present in Europe in the fall of 2019, which could be indicated by the excess deaths observed in various NUTS3 regions [32]

[28] Apolone, G., Montomoli, E., Manenti, A., Boeri, M., Sabia, F., Hyseni, I., Mazzini, L., Martinuzzi, D., Cantone, L., Milanese, G., Sestini, S., Suatoni, P., Marchianò, A., Bollati, V., Sozzi, G., & Pastorino, U. (2020). Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the pre-pandemic period in Italy. Tumori Journal, 33176598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300891620974755

[29] Fongaro, G., Stoco, P. H., Souza, D. S. M., Grisard, E. C., Magri, M. E., Rogovski, P., Schörner, M. A., Barazzetti, F. H., Christoff, A. P., de Oliveira, L. F. V., Bazzo, M. L., Wagner, G., Hernández, M., & Rodríguez-Lázaro, D. (2021). The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in human sewage in santa catarina, Brazil, November 2019. Science of the Total Environment, 778, 146198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146198

[30] Chavarria-Miró, G., Anfruns-Estrada, E., Martínez-Velázquez, A., Vázquez-Portero, M., Guix, S., Paraira, M., Galofré, B., Sánchez, G., Pintó, R.M., & Bosch, A. (2021). Time-evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19 in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 87(7):e02750-20 https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02750-20

[31] La Rosa, G., Mancini, P., Bonanno Ferraro G., Veneri, C., Iaconelli, M., Bonadonna, L., Lucentini, L., & Suffredini, E. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northern Italy since December 2019: Evidence from environmental monitoring. Sciences of the Total Environment, 750, 141711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141711

[32] Śleszyński P., Kurek S., Krzystofik R., Owsiński J., 2024, Do variations in anomalous mortality in Europe in fall and winter of 2019–2020 tell us anything on the timing of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak?, Population Space and Place, 30, 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2724 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp.2724

46.205.194.183 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

not done. All the research papers you've provided are primary research articles, meaning they are not suitable for medical content on wikipedia, including epidemiology like this. I had difficulty finding secondary sources for these claims.

As an aside, there are explanations for these findings that do not necessarily mean SARS-COV-2 was circulating earlier. Depending on how carefully such sensitive experiments are conducted, they may pick up traces of viruses RELATED TO sars-cov-2 that have been circulating in humans for a very long time. In particular, antibody ELISA sero-prevalence assays have always suffered from this problem. PCR probes detecting SARS-COV-2 RNA have this problem also (overly sticky probes), even moreso because RNA isn't very long lived in nature.

scientist hat off, wiki hat back on. Regardless, we would need reliable MEDRS-quality secondary sources (a review article, textbook, etc) which describes such claims in more context before we include it here in this article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2025

While most scientists supported the zoonotic hypothesis, this was in the early stages of the pandemic (2021-2022). However, as of 2023-2025 several US intelligence agencies (Dept Energy, FBI, and as of Jan 26, 2025 the CIA) place the lab leak hypothesis as the most likely hypothesis, with varying levels of confidence. Confidence largely remains low given the lack of an intermediate host (i.e., bridge animal), which had been found for SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, and the evolutionary distance to the nearest natural virus, the bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), which has a 96.2% similarity to that of a SARS-CoV-2. The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had been studying the bat RaRG13 virus, as recently as 2017, propogating and modifying the virus for infection in human cells. WIV published a 2015 paper co-authored by researchers from WIV and the University of North Carolina describing the creation of a chimeric coronavirus by combining the spike protein of a bat coronavirus with a SARS-CoV backbone. This hybrid virus was shown to infect human cells via the ACE2 receptor. 2600:1017:A410:6E1E:FD8E:AB67:C948:F2CD (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done - This request - or absence of an actual "change x to y" with a convincing source - was more of a counter-narrative to the spillover mechanism which remains the prevailing scientific explanation, as is well-represented under the History section. Zefr (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Quick note: various ref names for the same reference

Hello, Andersen et al. 2020 ("The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2") is currently referenced under various ref names: ref name="NM-20200317" and ref name="zoonotic". Dirk123456 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed - next time, apply WP:REFNAME. Zefr (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

House of Reps Report conclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The final report of U.S. House of Representatives on the Coronavirus Pandemic (4 December 2024) bluntly states – "FINDING: SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident.". The Democratic Party's report on this report took issue with some of its findings but states: "Today, a zoonotic origin and lab accident are both plausible, as is a hybrid scenario reflecting a mixture of the two....However... without greater transparency from the Chinese Communist Party it will be difficult, if not impossible, to know the origins of COVID-19." A summation of this surely needs to appear in the header given it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government which funded the work at Wuhan. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Junk source, of no use to Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

95% of the world's people don't live in the USA, the country that most politicised the pandemic. I see little value in using this information. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The report is garbage and probably fails WP:MEDRS. It is not true that it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government as it is a report from the legislature, not the executive. It warrants discussion at COVID-19 lab leak theory, but I concur it adds little here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's utterly juvenile, bad faith replies like this that make people lose trust in Wikipedia. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's junk sources that make people lose trust in Congress. Per this article:

The conclusions themselves aren't especially interesting; they're expected from a report with partisan aims. But the method used to reach those conclusions is often striking: The Republican majority engages in a process of systematically changing the standard of evidence needed for it to reach a conclusion. For a conclusion the report's authors favor, they'll happily accept evidence from computer models or arguments from an editorial in the popular press; for conclusions they disfavor, they demand double-blind controlled clinical trials.
...
So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn't like? By acting like it doesn't exist. "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced," the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

FOIA documents show that Dr. Fauci was concerned it was a lab leak even before it made news. Is he now a bad source? 50.107.31.239 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Having concern is not the same as certainty. Peaceray (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It's what scientists do; they have hypotheses, test them against evidence, and form conclusions. Fauci and other virologists went through this process in 2020; the conspiracy theorists OTOH omit the science stage and adopt a belief-based approach. This is sourced/covered in our lab leak article. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This article with regard to origin, is so utterly outdated and absurd it should be deleted and restarted with the point of view of the gain of function lab leak fact.

Why would anyone still use the "bat excuse" when we know better... Unless there is some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci.

Read' Rand Paul

Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up

And now "Talk" is subject to censorship?

btw, the persistent use of the term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative for other scientific views is notable. The only "conspiracy theory" I see anymore after FOIA revealed early interchanges of the principles is that CV wasn't gain of function and magically came from animals when principles said (early on) that wasn't possible. Ecgberht1 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds does this constitute WP:SOAPBOXing yet? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No, because facts re: FOIA revelations, and a reference are provided. Ecgberht1 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The reference is sub-par, and its inclusion is not merited. Specifically, it is WP:BIASED. If you find a better source substantiating your view, we are more than happy to review it and potentially include it. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this constitutes soapboxing. It's also an NPA violation, accusing editors of some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci. You're really pushing it here, and I highly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Key word, "unless" (which you omit). That's NOT an accusation unless you identify with it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not how language works. Drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You first. Language does not "work" by using straw men and misquoting others. Seeking sanctions for your violation of NPA. Ecgberht1 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

How about the persistent use of "conspiracy theory" for the presentation of any information that challenges the orthodoxy of "animal VIRUS"? Would that be considered NPA? Ecgberht1 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any instance of that where the use of "conspiracy theory" is not in reference to sources characterizing the theory as such? BD2412 T 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a whole article on it wrt CV.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation Ecgberht1 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, if you don't stop with such loaded language and bludgeoning, we'll have to seek sanctions to have you barred from this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That's your solution for not having a response. Seeking sanctions for harassment as well. Ecgberht1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey bud, if you've been offended by anything I've written then I'm sorry you have been. What I suggest is that before spouting "subpar" and claiming "bias"about a reference you know nothing about, you actually read the book. You can get it free on Hoopla, it's loaded with solid evidence for the lableak theory and details why the natural development in animals is impossible. You can skip right to chapter 4, but I encourage starting at the beginning.

I hope you have sufficient interest in the science to explore it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And this is just condescending as fuck. WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Read: "I have no response, haven't read your reference, and have no interest in doing so. I'll just judge it based on my belief about the author, and then attack you with ad hominem and expletive".

Nice going! Ecgberht1 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about it, no, I do have to demolish your "reference." It is by Rand Paul, an opthamologist who has no background in viral pathology who, when faced with changes in the certification for his practice, chose to create his own unaccredited board to give himself a "certification" just to spite the real one. Then let it fall apart when he moved into politics. The man's a con artist with no qualifications in this area, so attempting to push him as some kind of expert on this topic is daft. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's called ad hominem. It doesn't address the source material. It just attacks the writer.

Fail. Ecgberht1 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I know enough about immunology and pathology to understand that Rand Paul's conclusions are inconsistent with existing literature (systematically reviewed literature, at that). The solid evidence you speak of is, at best, speculation. Bats have been well known throughout history to be hot breeding grounds for viruses and other nasty pathogens, and although zoonosis is usually uncommon, that is not to say it is impossible. There is significant misinterpretation and misconstruing of statistics that have been weaponised by certain people to serve a political purpose. I do believe one of the arguments for the lab leak theory is the CGG codon argument, with proponents arguing that such a rare combination of two sequential codons being a "tell-tale" sign of genetic engineering. Well, yes, it is rare in nature, but again, not impossible. It is important to remember lots of things in nature happen (and don't happen) because things line up (or don't). Confirmation bias often leads people to draw connections between things that do not necessarily exist. It is sub-par because it is written with an ulterior motive, that is, to signal his virtue that he is standing for what is "right" and uncovering the "truth", whatever that means to his voters. You are being conned. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I know enough about logic and science to understand that ...

"although zoonosis is usually uncommon, that is not to say it is impossible"

"yes, it is rare in nature, but again, not impossible."

... are examples of the "monkeys might fly out my butt" theorem. Monkeys flying out my butt is rare in nature, but not impossible. smh.

On the other hand, when the Wuhan Institute of Virology, doing research on gain of function of viruses, when individuals there are getting sick, when the CDC says, "The risk of pets spreading COVID-19 to people is low but that it can spread from people to animals with close contact", and the wet market is a stone's throw from the wet market, parsimony demands that the lab is where it originated. Why some individuals here still insist that this thing came from zoonosis from the wet market makes no intuitive, observational, or scientific sense. Ecgberht1 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"the wet market is a stone's throw from the Institute of Virology". Ecgberht1 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.