Talk:Li-Meng Yan - Knowledge

1957:

Hong Kong (who uses an alias online), tweeted on Tuesday. Twitter suspended Yan's account on Wednesday for her lead role in writing the fact-challenged paper....she's promoted hydroxychloroquine as effective against Covid-19 — echoing Trump and other prominent conservatives — despite ample scientific evidence against that claim. G News, the Bannon and Guo-backed website, publicized her comments on the drug. Whether she truly believes the medication is helpful or is just boosting conservative talking points to stay in Bannon and Guo's good graces is unclear. Kholin thinks it's the latter. 'I think it's being in an atmosphere that fosters conspiracy theories while feeling pressured to justify her existence,' she told me, 'and honestly that fear is fully justified.'

590: 875: 854: 885: 1814:

withdrawn—but in the interim, the paper received extensive media attention. If preprint servers try to vet the material, authors find other outlets. A two-page note—not even a research paper—claimed that SARS-CoV-2 is an escaped bioweapon and was posted to the academic social media platform ResearchGate (29). Though quickly deleted from the site, this document took off, particularly within conspiracy circles. A deeply flawed paper making similar arguments was posted to the file-sharing site

527: 580: 559: 753: 685: 664: 774: 237: 465: 441: 207: 410: 2127:

Snopes article, the Science article, and the several quotes from experts in secondary sources that you have said nothing about whatsoever. So the ONUS is on those seeking to remove to provide evidence that it isn’t a commonly accepted perception of Yan. We have at least 2 sources showing it is, and several more that I believe show it is, that you have provided only

339: 288: 2606: 1496:, and we should cover everything ever said or done regarding her with respect to COVID-19 in excruciating detail, far more than any other encyclopedia ever would, to be preserved on the internet for the rest of her life, and beyond, as a warning to anyone who would ever dare publish a preprint. It will make me sleep better. 2103:" Your link includes a talk page comment saying they "wouldn't propose it as a source for article content, but as context of how the report is referred to across the political spectrum." We are not talking about how Yan is referred to across the political spectrum, we are talking about potential sources to use on her BLP. 475: 2287:

I only said "this is definitely a conspiracy theorist thinking", and this is just my personal opinion. The provided citation does NOT say explicitly "she is a conspiracy theorist". One needs multiple RS saying just that, so this can be described prominently on the page (including an explanation which

1926:

This particular conspiracy around deliberate release form a laboratory has been doing the rounds throughout the pandemic. It has been rebutted several times already. Ultimately, it could be damaging to public health if reported uncritically without looking at the wider evidence. If people are exposed

2572:

A Chinese academic spreading the conspiracy that China was responsible for creating and releasing SARS-CoV-2 says Facebook is "scared of the facts" about COVID-19 after her claims on the platform were flagged as false. Li-Meng Yan, a former post-doctoral fellow at Hong Kong University who has spread

1734:

1704:

Research shows papers posted to online sites also can be hijacked to fuel conspiracy theories. Yan's paper on Zenodo — despite several blistering scientific critiques and widespread news coverage of its alleged flaws — now has been viewed more than 1 million times, probably making it the most widely

1325:

It's worth pointing out, the quote being referred to mentions these two strains solely in the context of being 'debunked' by reviewers. I'm not sure we should go into detail on a debunked claim, or at least this specific one. The subtext of the original suggestion seems to be to imply that something

2426:

That's a document published by Republican Party staffers/politicians, is it not? They're politicians, so they barely even qualify as a reliable source for their own opinions (since we usually hold the standard that noteworthy political views are reported in independent sources before being reported

2077:

we should have several, high-quality sources that are accurately represented. Quotes about "blistering scientific critiques", a "deeply flawed paper" and "utter garbage" are not usable for describing someone as a conspiracy theorist unless you think these quotes are synonymous with the description.

1870:

Last I checked, just accusing an entire global community of scientists who rely on evidence to assess data is not itself evidence of said worldwide conspiracy to deliberately cause a pandemic and cover it up. It does, however, fit neatly into a "Blame China" agenda....So thanks a lot to Dr. Yan and

2542:

Chief among their complaints was that the report ignored the vast body of published literature regarding what is known about how coronaviruses circulate in wild animal populations and the tendency to spill over into humans, including recent publications about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The experts

2205:

Actually, the current consensus is that the "lab leak" is just something unproven and remotely possible, although not very probable. Given that, I believe that labeling her "a conspiracy theorist" right now is excessive and a violation of our BLP rules. Besides, an accidental release of a pathogen

1956:

Other experts were similarly dumbfounded by the paper, especially since Yan has a prolific and solid publication record on infectious diseases. 'You know better than to put your name behind this utter garbage, much less write it yourself,' Jasnah Kholin, Yan's former colleague at the University of

1764:

1391:

The statement "conspiration theory" is not supported by the linked source (Nr.26 National Geographic) - is unsourced or poorly sourced. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article." Please find a reliable source here -

2680:

Given the newly released report from the US Department of Energy stating that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation and that more study into the lab leak explanation is needed this article may need to be updated. Especially given that the articles cited to refute Li-Meng Yan have

2483:

Since SARS-CoV-2 was first discovered in January 2020 and subsequently declared a pandemic the following month, conspiracy theorists have peddled notions that the virus was made in a lab and intentionally released as a biological weapon despite rigorous scientific research proving otherwise...And

2365:

piece, which should be considered as a source on a case-by-case basis. If you believe these describe Yan as a "conspiracy theorist" or her beliefs as "conspiracy theories," then you very likely also would support inclusion of this category. If you distrust these sources or find them too weak, you

1350:

from XiangYa Medical College of Central South University (China), and PhD from Southern Medical University (China). Her research interests include investigations of infectious diseases or inflammation via different animal models. Her research has recently focused on study of universal influenza

2126:

I actually do think “utter garbage” is synonymous with “conspiracy theories” in this context, yes. And what about the other sources we have? ONUS only applies to the non status quo and unsourced material. For quite a few weeks now, this article has included the word “conspiracy.” And we have the

1993:

says "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable." The PNAS paper says a document, which was not written by Yan, "took off, particularly within conspiracy circles". The "shitshow of disinformation" quote is not included in the CNN article. The quote in the Vox article is too vague to

2172:

If a source doesn't consider "conspiracy theorist" an appropriate description then they will simply not use it, they will not specifically say they are "not a conspiracy theorist" (as I'm sure you're aware). I have also already mentioned the quotes from experts so I suggest you read my earlier

1434:

We don't need MEDRS to say "X is a conspiracy theory" (although there are plenty which do say this explicitly); the same way we don't need MEDRS to say "WHO published a report on the matter". There are plenty of sources, including MEDRS, calling the particular story promoted by Yan (deliberate

1246:

The current version of the article includes a quote mentioning the ZC45 or ZXC21 bat coronaviruses, but no further information about these two coronaviruses (not even very basic information such as where in China they were collected, by whom, when, or in which laboratories they were stored) is

1813:

For example, there is no credible evidence that SARS-CoV-2 responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic has a bioengineered origin, but a series of preprints has pushed false narratives along these lines. One such paper, posted to bioRxiv (28), was quickly refuted by bioinformaticians and formally

2078:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two quotes from experts (Rasmussen and Head) cannot be used for a statement of fact but should be attributed. Even if "Jasnah Kholin" described her as a conspiracy theorist, should we refer to them as a subject-matter expert when they are pseudonymous?

2330:

However, Yan has, more than any single person, endorsed the most FRINGE version of this story, the most conspiracy laden (that there is suppression from government bodies who are "in on it" and scientific authorities who are silencing her publication on orders from "them" etc.

2168:

I didn't think I would need to justify that "garbage" and "conspiracy theories" are not synonyms. Conspiracy theories are one of many things that would fall under the umbrella of "garbage". Once again, this is a BLP so trying to conflate the two terms is especially

2384:

one in particular provides Abstract of their unpublished paper. The Abstract and some other things do not look in her favor, but I would rather refrain from commenting. I self-reverted, meaning this is your responsibility. There still can be "lab leak or worse.

1284:

TITLE Direct Submission JOURNAL Submitted (05-JAN-2018) Institute of Military Medicine Nanjing Command, Nanjing, Institute of Military Medicine Nanjing Command, Nanjing, NO. 293 East Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, JangSu 210002, China

2573:

theories about the origins of the virus via two non-peer reviewed papers, hit out at the social media giant Wednesday after it placed a fact-checking warning over a link to an interview she conducted with India-based news outlet WION in September.

1735:

1407:

I've reworded the section, and moved the claim the a later section regarding Yan's claim of "censorship". I believe this better fits the source's wording, which does explicitly link her claim to academic journals "plotting with conspirators":

2065:, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." My comment was about whether or not the sources in your list were usable to describe her as a conspiracy theorist. You're giving examples of 2234:

The lack of financial disclosure in Yan's papers was described as a lapse in ethical transparency by Dr. Adam Lauring, particularly when publishing "what are essentially conspiracy theories that are not founded in

1474:

1579:

I think the category "conspiracy theorist" should only be used in cases when someone can be immediately and unequivocally described in the lead as a "conspiracy theorist" per multiple RS. According to the lead,

153: 2268:

Am I misunderstanding? You're agreeing that she's a conspiracy theorist (due to her allegations of a global conspiracy to silence her publications), but don't think she should be in the category because you

2752: 2588:

To add to this article: mention of Yan's husband, Ranawaka Arachchige Prasad Mahendra Perera (as well as the fact that he was granted an H1B visa valid for two years, entering the U.S. on March 23, 2021).

986: 541: 1927:

to and then believe conspiracy theories, this will likely have a negative impact on efforts to keep COVID-19 cases low and thus there will be more death and illness than there needs to be... - Michael Head

1093:

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.

1412:

Two other notes: the second source for this sentence (Newsweek) categorized their article under "conspiracy theories", and we need to be cautious with the "censorship" claim as it's essentially a

2681:

been shown to be propaganda with little to no scientific basis supporting their claims. Leaked emails to Fauci reveal an official cover-up and suppression of the lab leak theory did take place.

323: 2071:"If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." 2747: 2237:

I generally agree, we better cover the conspiratorial claims (both made by herself, and allegations by others) in the body of the article, rather than by merely lumping her into a category.

2035:" referring to Yan's paper. Re: Vox, you should examine the quotes I pulled out, they make very clear that this former colleague of Yan's considers the ideas expressed in the papers to be " 2777: 2081:

Since this is a BLP, post-2013 Newsweek is not a good enough source to label someone as a conspiracy theorist. We would only use their articles for uncontroversial statements of fact. The

1095: 1079: 1075: 1067: 1063: 1052: 2039:." Further, you have not addressed the several other sources provided which reference Yan's views as "conspiracy theories." Do you have any reliable sources which describe Yan's views as 2254:. Yes, this is definitely a conspiracy theorist thinking. But I assume she was placed to the category because of her claims with regard to the "lab leak". If so, see my comment above. 1818:(30). It received considerable attention after the author appeared on cable news promoting the claims and the US president tweeted a video clip of a cable news host praising the work 1410:

The experts also pointed out that the report whipped up wild conspiracy theories and wrongly accused academic journals of plotting with conspirators by censoring important evidence.

1261:

I don't want to get involved with this possibly controversial page, but if someone else wants to add the information, The publication is: Emerg Microbes Infect 7 (1), 154 (2018)

979: 536: 451: 389: 2082: 1871:

the Steve Bannon-led foundation financing this propaganda from all the scientists who will have to waste time debunking this shitshow of disinformation. - Angela Rasmussen

198: 2792: 2757: 2543:

also pointed out that the report whipped up wild conspiracy theories and wrongly accused academic journals of plotting with conspirators by censoring important evidence.

1765:

also pointed out that the report whipped up wild conspiracy theories and wrongly accused academic journals of plotting with conspirators by censoring important evidence.

735: 725: 1896: 972: 147: 2013: 1019: 2797: 2772: 2012:

to help establish how to refer to something in the context of many multiple sources before, without citing it in articlespace for exactly this RSP consensus. See

636: 2228:

We make very cautious, guarded references to conspiracy in the article body. Once regarding the claims made in her papers, as described by a secondary source:

2210:. A conspiracy to hide the fact? Yes, maybe. But the Chinese authorities do behave as if they had something to hide. We just do not know what is it, exactly. 1435:

bioweapon) as a conspiracy theory. IMHO, and for what it's worth, her SELFPUB claims of censorship are consistent with it being a conspiracy theory - see the

2737: 2296:. Only then she can be included into such category. Now, if what she supports (lab leak theory I assume?) is not a conspiracy theory, then we can not do it. 394: 252: 2230:

Yan stated that evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic.

1466:

Yan stated that evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic.

1369:

Master of Science is generally abbreviated M.S. or MS in countries following United States usage and MSc or M.Sc. in countries following British usage. . .

2807: 907: 836: 826: 701: 377:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 349: 2787: 1059: 1048: 1040: 1036: 79: 2252:"Yan stated evidence of genetic engineering was censored in scientific journals, allegedly as part of a conspiracy to suppress information on the topic" 2165:

disputed content. The policy does not only apply to unsourced material since it specifically says "not all verifiable information needs to be included".

2496: 1659: 2822: 945: 935: 2146:

Listing sources that mention Yan and the word "conspiracy" regardless of whether or not the two are connected (or whether the source is reliable) is

2812: 2732: 1196: 1181: 1166: 1018:

remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (

2767: 2762: 2525: 1747: 1071: 493: 369: 1994:

refer to Yan directly ("I think it's being in an atmosphere that fosters conspiracy theories while feeling pressured to justify her existence").

2827: 1528:@Shibbolethink: AP is trying to attack an absurd strawman of their own construction. Unless they can come up with actual concerns and not just 1044: 1004: 692: 669: 646: 2349:

More than anything, this is not a referendum on the lab leak. It is a discussion which hinges on one's interpretation of these three sources:

1025:

In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be

1010:

There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of

802: 85: 2802: 2682: 2629: 2590: 2440: 1541: 1448: 1248: 1029:. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the 497: 2782: 2742: 2555: 1717: 1229: 1090: 911: 44: 2817: 501: 1436: 492:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2409: 1557: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 781: 758: 612: 1855:"Weird science: How a 'shoddy' Bannon-backed paper on coronavirus origins made its way to an audience of millions CNN Politics" 1688: 488: 446: 99: 30: 2157:

policy is not about the status quo of a page and it doesn't say it only applies to newly added content. The point is there is

898: 859: 104: 20: 1854: 2675:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2719:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2390: 2325:," which is such a broad and vague category that it becomes very difficult to pin down or attribute as a belief to anyone. 2301: 2259: 2215: 2150:. Pointing out when sources do not say she is a conspiracy theorist (or are not reliable) is nothing to do with WP:CHERRY. 1593: 304: 168: 74: 2616:/Privacy concerns, since this person's husband is entirely irrelevant to this person's claim to fame (unlike with, say, 421: 271: 244: 135: 603: 564: 65: 1003:

There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (

1172:

The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of

1397: 1360: 801:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

611:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

300: 267: 206: 194: 190: 185: 1464:

The "I'm being censored" claim is exactly what I moved it to, using the non-MEDRS NatGeo source's specific claim:

345: 217: 2625: 2594: 2556:"Chinese virologist who claims covid was made in lab says Facebook "scared of the facts," promotes Parler page" 2436: 2386: 2310: 2297: 2255: 2211: 1718:"Chinese virologist who claims covid was made in lab says Facebook "scared of the facts," promotes Parler page" 1589: 1537: 1444: 1252: 1188: 1173: 2686: 2427:

here). And they're not qualified virologists or public health experts so their statement is not an acceptable

1268:

the sequences are here together with information about the individuals submitting and the dates of submission:

129: 1225: 378: 109: 2705: 2278: 2242: 1529: 1481: 1425: 1331: 259: 270:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

2381: 1940: 1824: 1501: 1393: 1356: 427: 125: 2047:

describe them as such in wiki-voice, given that we have several RSes which do describe them as such. --

1689:"Scientists said claims about China creating the coronavirus were misleading. They went viral anyway" 1493: 388:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 2232:

And again directly quoting one of the rapid reviews contributors regarding the ethics of her paper:

409: 338: 2621: 2432: 2066: 1982: 1978: 1533: 1459: 1440: 1083: 263: 175: 161: 55: 700:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2655: 2613: 2367: 2178: 2132: 2108: 2048: 1999: 1877: 1619: 1515: 1347: 1220: 392:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 222: 70: 884: 874: 853: 526: 1101:

The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (

2701: 2467: 2289: 2274: 2238: 2190: 1910: 1798: 1477: 1421: 1413: 1377: 1327: 1315: 579: 558: 51: 1352: 2417: 2147: 2128: 1790: 1564: 1553: 1497: 1469: 1370: 773: 752: 697: 480: 219: 2131:

arguments against. Do you have any sources that say she is ‘’not’’ a conspiracy theorist?—

1889: 1839: 1511: 1177: 1011: 890: 385: 2008:

Re: Newsweek, it also says "should be decided on a case-by-case basis." And we have used

311: 141: 2412:(August 2021) seems to suggest the lab leak was 'for certain', not a conspiracy theory. 1159: 1157: 684: 663: 2651: 2617: 2497:"Anti-China virologist and conspiracy theorist Yan Limeng may be Beijing's best friend" 2154: 2062: 1977:

Some of the quotes and sources in your list are not really usable. The SCMP article is

1941:"The bogus Steve Bannon-backed study claiming China created the coronavirus, explained" 1660:"Anti-China virologist and conspiracy theorist Yan Limeng may be Beijing's best friend" 1586:

offered "contradictory and inaccurate information that does not support their argument

1514:? And do you have an RS-based argument for how such material is improperly weighted?-- 2726: 2513:

Anti-China virologist and conspiracy theorist Yan Limeng may be Beijing's best friend

2428: 2174: 2104: 2074: 1995: 1990: 1853:

CNN, By Rob Kuznia, Scott Bronstein, Drew Griffin and Curt Devine (21 October 2020).

1676:

Anti-China virologist and conspiracy theorist Yan Limeng may be Beijing's best friend

1015: 794: 790: 236: 2647: 2337: 2322: 2030:

A deeply flawed paper making similar arguments was posted to the file-sharing site

1607: 1417: 1373: 1311: 1192: 1026: 595: 1778: 1279: 2022:

blistering scientific critiques and widespread news coverage of its alleged flaws

1618:." And here are several experts describing Yan's views as conspiracy theories. -- 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 2526:"The coronavirus wasn't made in a lab. So why does the 'Yan report' say it was?" 2413: 1748:"The coronavirus wasn't made in a lab. So why does the 'Yan report' say it was?" 1560: 1272: 24: 1326:

must be up with these two strains, even though reliable sources say otherwise.

1161:) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as " 464: 440: 2468:"Did Chinese Virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Say COVID-19 Was Made in a Wuhan Lab?" 2207: 2024:" that other sources cite in describing her views as conspiracy theories. Re: 1911:"Did Chinese Virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Say COVID-19 Was Made in a Wuhan Lab?" 1058:

The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (

880: 798: 585: 470: 1801: 1794: 1556:- you mean like the US govt has here : confirming some of what she has said 1262: 1216: 1031: 2043:

conspiracy theories? That is what's necessary in this situation to have us

1989:

article says online papers can be "hijacked" to fuel conspiracy theories.

1582:

These publications have been widely criticised by the scientific community

2698:

the articles cited to refute Li-Meng Yan have been shown to be propaganda

2095: 903: 248: 1532:, I don't think there's anything concrete that needs to be done, here. 1387:

Misinformation about Li-Meng Yan- which are unsourced or poorly sourced

786: 221: 2338:

the lab leak is not a conspiracy, so Yan is not a conspiracy theorist.

2193:

meaning a total BS, someone's wild imagination, something on par with

1510:

Do you have any specific concerns about material that you believe is

315: 2640:

Updating Article in Light of Recent Unclassified intelligence report

2273:

she was labeled such merely for supporting the lab leak hypothesis?

2709: 2690: 2663: 2633: 2598: 2444: 2421: 2394: 2375: 2305: 2282: 2263: 2246: 2219: 2182: 2140: 2112: 2056: 2003: 1627: 1597: 1568: 1545: 1523: 1505: 1485: 1452: 1429: 1401: 1381: 1364: 1335: 1319: 1270:

Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZXC21, complete genome.

1256: 500:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 2194: 1277:

Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate bat-SL-CoVZC45, complete genome.

608: 906:-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to 2189:

I guess this boils down to the question if the "lab leak" is a

1468:

See also, the ethics claim below, also a non-MEDRS source (per

1288:

more information abut the strains (according to Yan Limeng) is

403: 384:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

361: 333: 282: 231: 223: 15: 1392:

preferably one that meets strong criteria MEDRS and others.--

1351:

vaccine, cross-reactive antibodies and cellular immunology."

1416:

claim since neither of the two citations in Yan's paper are

525: 286: 2484:

Yan's account of the origins of the virus is no different.

1247:

included. This is a deficiency that should be addressed.

258:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

2319:

gain of function bioweapon created intentionally in a lab

2294:

and summarized in lead" as "she is a conspiracy theorist"

2753:

Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles

1705:

read research on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic

1588:. This is far cry from an outright conspiracy theorist. 247:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

1205: 2197:, etc. Sure, one can find some RS claiming just that. 2031: 1815: 160: 2073:

When describing someone as conspiracy theorist in a

1777:

West, Jevin D.; Bergstrom, Carl T. (13 April 2021).

785:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 696:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 607:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2748:B-Class biography (science and academia) articles 902:, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all 2778:B-Class China-related articles of Low-importance 1195:process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. ( 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2344:beliefs, and the conspiratorial nature of them. 1783:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1280:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MG772933.1 1307:https://zenodo.org/record/4448499#.YGc_nOT3aEc 1303:https://zenodo.org/record/4283480#.YGc_ceT3aEc 1299:https://zenodo.org/record/4650821#.YGc-7-T3aEe 1295:https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.YGc-d-T3aEc 1291:https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.YGc-meT3aEc 1014:. However, information that already fits into 2161:an onus to achieve consensus when seeking to 1273:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MG772934 980: 174: 8: 2410:ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf (house.gov) 2020:article, it does describe the exact same " 1634: 1558:ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf (house.gov) 987: 973: 848: 747: 658: 553: 435: 1895:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1263:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30209269/ 1152:The scientific consensus (and the Frutos 314:may be able to locate suitable images on 2793:Low-importance Women scientists articles 2758:Science and academia work group articles 1242:Deficiency in current version of article 1163:based in part on Shi 's emailed answers. 2459: 1651: 1342:MD (Medicine Docotor) or Master Degree? 970: 850: 749: 660: 555: 437: 407: 2697: 2318: 2233: 2229: 2206:from a lab is just an accident, not a 2086: 2036: 2029: 2021: 1885: 1875: 1834: 1833: 1822: 1615: 1611: 1473: 1465: 1409: 1162: 996:Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus 710:Knowledge:WikiProject Women scientists 2798:WikiProject Women scientists articles 2773:Low-importance China-related articles 1779:"Misinformation in and about science" 713:Template:WikiProject Women scientists 7: 2671:The following discussion is closed. 1035:"Problems & Paradigms" series. ( 896:This article is within the scope of 779:This article is within the scope of 690:This article is within the scope of 601:This article is within the scope of 486:This article is within the scope of 251:, broadly construed, which has been 2738:Biography articles of living people 2612:No reliable source given; and also 1983:headlines are not a reliable source 537:the science and academia work group 426:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2808:Low-importance Skepticism articles 1086:(frequently cited in discussions)) 14: 2788:B-Class Women scientists articles 2650:do not back up these assertions. 2101:not generally reliable post–2013. 2823:Low-importance COVID-19 articles 2715:The discussion above is closed. 2604: 1939:Ward, Alex (18 September 2020). 883: 873: 852: 811:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 772: 751: 683: 662: 588: 578: 557: 473: 463: 439: 408: 367:This article must adhere to the 337: 235: 205: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2813:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2733:Knowledge requested photographs 2203:that it did not leak from a lab 940:This article has been rated as 831:This article has been rated as 814:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 730:This article has been rated as 641:This article has been rated as 510:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 348:on 12 July 2020. The result of 344:This article was nominated for 2768:B-Class China-related articles 2763:WikiProject Biography articles 2380:Yes, I checked these sources. 1206:Which pages use this template? 920:Knowledge:WikiProject COVID-19 513:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2828:WikiProject COVID-19 articles 923:Template:WikiProject COVID-19 805:and see a list of open tasks. 704:and see a list of open tasks. 615:and see a list of open tasks. 534:This article is supported by 370:biographies of living persons 272:contentious topics procedures 42:Put new text under old text. 693:WikiProject Women scientists 498:contribute to the discussion 2803:B-Class Skepticism articles 1382:03:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC) 1336:22:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) 1320:22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC) 621:Knowledge:WikiProject China 382:must be removed immediately 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2844: 2783:WikiProject China articles 2743:B-Class biography articles 2634:04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC) 2599:03:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) 2445:14:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) 2422:11:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC) 1569:12:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC) 1439:(p. 6-7) for more detail. 1437:Conspiracy Theory Handbook 946:project's importance scale 837:project's importance scale 736:project's importance scale 647:project's importance scale 624:Template:WikiProject China 2818:B-Class COVID-19 articles 2710:20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC) 2691:20:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC) 2664:21:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) 2395:22:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2376:22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2366:would likely disagree..-- 2306:22:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2283:21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2264:20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2247:20:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2220:19:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC) 2199:But we do not know for a 2183:02:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC) 2141:10:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 2113:05:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 2057:03:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 2004:02:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 1628:00:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC) 1610:which describe Yan as a " 1598:00:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC) 1546:17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 1524:02:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 1506:02:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 1486:19:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC) 1453:19:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC) 1430:14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC) 1402:06:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC) 939: 868: 830: 767: 729: 716:Women scientists articles 678: 640: 573: 533: 458: 434: 274:before editing this page. 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2717:Please do not modify it. 2696:It is not the case that 2673:Please do not modify it. 2501:South China Morning Post 2321:" idea. Not simply the " 1664:South China Morning Post 1365:11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC) 1257:09:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC) 1189:COVID-19 lab leak theory 1174:COVID-19 lab leak theory 268:normal editorial process 1795:10.1073/pnas.1912444117 1191:may not go through the 295:It is requested that a 255:as a contentious topic. 2340:" We must address her 2336:We cannot simply say " 1346:"Dr. Yan received her 1219:) on 15 March 2024 by 1016:biomedical information 910:and to participate in 782:WikiProject Skepticism 627:China-related articles 530: 416:This article is rated 291: 264:standards of behaviour 75:avoid personal attacks 2317:she supports is the " 2093:clear consensus that 2089:close, because there 2085:says: "This is not a 2028:, it goes on to say " 1091:March 2021 WHO report 529: 489:WikiProject Biography 290: 199:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 2361:, There is also the 2313:, the very specific 899:WikiProject COVID-19 452:Science and Academia 318:and other web sites. 260:purpose of Knowledge 105:No original research 2532:. 18 September 2020 2530:National Geographic 2387:My very best wishes 2359:National Geographic 2311:My very best wishes 2298:My very best wishes 2256:My very best wishes 2212:My very best wishes 2032:https://zenodo.org/ 1987:The Washington Post 1816:https://zenodo.org/ 1754:. 18 September 2020 1752:National Geographic 1616:conspiracy theories 1614:" or as promoting " 1612:conspiracy theorist 1590:My very best wishes 1530:some unhelpful heat 1355:what you think ? -- 1265:(Free PMC article) 912:project discussions 817:Skepticism articles 312:WordPress Openverse 305:improve its quality 303:in this article to 2674: 2503:. 15 February 2021 2083:closure to the RfC 1888:has generic name ( 1666:. 15 February 2021 1167:RfC, December 2021 1005:RfC, February 2021 531: 516:biography articles 422:content assessment 310:The external tool 292: 245:contentious topics 86:dispute resolution 47: 2672: 2584:To add to article 2562:. 15 October 2020 2315:conspiracy theory 2290:conspiracy theory 2191:conspiracy theory 1970: 1969: 1832:External link in 1724:. 15 October 2020 1606:Here are several 1235: 1233: 1209: 1182:RFC, October 2023 960: 959: 956: 955: 952: 951: 926:COVID-19 articles 847: 846: 843: 842: 746: 745: 742: 741: 657: 656: 653: 652: 604:WikiProject China 552: 551: 548: 547: 402: 401: 360: 359: 332: 331: 319: 279: 278: 230: 229: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2835: 2661: 2658: 2648:Reliable sources 2608: 2607: 2576: 2575: 2569: 2567: 2552: 2546: 2545: 2539: 2537: 2522: 2516: 2515: 2510: 2508: 2493: 2487: 2486: 2480: 2478: 2464: 2373: 2370: 2339: 2324: 2138: 2135: 2054: 2051: 1960: 1959: 1953: 1951: 1936: 1930: 1929: 1923: 1921: 1907: 1901: 1900: 1893: 1887: 1883: 1881: 1873: 1867: 1865: 1850: 1844: 1843: 1837: 1836: 1830: 1828: 1820: 1810: 1808: 1774: 1768: 1767: 1761: 1759: 1744: 1738: 1737: 1731: 1729: 1714: 1708: 1707: 1701: 1699: 1685: 1679: 1678: 1673: 1671: 1656: 1635: 1625: 1622: 1521: 1518: 1494:literally Hitler 1492:She sounds like 1463: 1357:Empiricus-sextus 1223: 1213: 1203: 1176:, because it is 989: 982: 975: 928: 927: 924: 921: 918: 893: 888: 887: 877: 870: 869: 864: 856: 849: 819: 818: 815: 812: 809: 776: 769: 768: 763: 755: 748: 718: 717: 714: 711: 708: 707:Women scientists 698:Women in science 687: 680: 679: 674: 670:Women scientists 666: 659: 629: 628: 625: 622: 619: 598: 593: 592: 591: 582: 575: 574: 569: 561: 554: 518: 517: 514: 511: 508: 494:join the project 483: 481:Biography portal 478: 477: 476: 467: 460: 459: 454: 443: 436: 419: 413: 412: 404: 390:this noticeboard 362: 341: 334: 328: 326: 309: 289: 283: 239: 232: 224: 210: 209: 200: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2677: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2659: 2656: 2642: 2605: 2586: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2565: 2563: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2535: 2533: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2506: 2504: 2495: 2494: 2490: 2476: 2474: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2371: 2368: 2173:comment again. 2136: 2133: 2052: 2049: 2014:this discussion 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1949: 1947: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1919: 1917: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1894: 1884: 1874: 1863: 1861: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1831: 1821: 1806: 1804: 1776: 1775: 1771: 1757: 1755: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1727: 1725: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1697: 1695: 1693:Washington Post 1687: 1686: 1682: 1669: 1667: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1640: 1623: 1620: 1519: 1516: 1457: 1389: 1371:Master's degree 1344: 1286: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1236: 1210: 1193:requested moves 998: 993: 925: 922: 919: 916: 915: 891:COVID-19 portal 889: 882: 862: 816: 813: 810: 807: 806: 761: 715: 712: 709: 706: 705: 672: 626: 623: 620: 617: 616: 594: 589: 587: 567: 515: 512: 509: 506: 505: 479: 474: 472: 449: 420:on Knowledge's 417: 324: 322: 287: 262:, any expected 226: 225: 220: 197: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2841: 2839: 2831: 2830: 2825: 2820: 2815: 2810: 2805: 2800: 2795: 2790: 2785: 2780: 2775: 2770: 2765: 2760: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2740: 2735: 2725: 2724: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2683:97.120.181.231 2678: 2669: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2641: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2622:RandomCanadian 2618:Kate Middleton 2591:173.88.246.138 2585: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2547: 2517: 2488: 2458: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2433:RandomCanadian 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2347: 2345: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2326: 2292:she supports) 2223: 2222: 2186: 2185: 2170: 2166: 2151: 2148:cherry-picking 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2079: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1961: 1931: 1902: 1845: 1769: 1739: 1709: 1680: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1601: 1600: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1534:RandomCanadian 1498:--Animalparty! 1490: 1489: 1488: 1460:RandomCanadian 1441:RandomCanadian 1388: 1385: 1368: 1367: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1310: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1283: 1278: 1271: 1269: 1260: 1259: 1249:173.88.246.138 1243: 1240: 1237: 1215:Last updated ( 1212: 1211: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1197:RM, March 2024 1185: 1170: 1150: 1099: 1096:RfC, June 2021 1087: 1056: 1023: 1008: 997: 994: 992: 991: 984: 977: 969: 968: 967: 965: 962: 958: 957: 954: 953: 950: 949: 942:Low-importance 938: 932: 931: 929: 895: 894: 878: 866: 865: 863:Low‑importance 857: 845: 844: 841: 840: 833:Low-importance 829: 823: 822: 820: 803:the discussion 777: 765: 764: 762:Low‑importance 756: 744: 743: 740: 739: 732:Low-importance 728: 722: 721: 719: 702:the discussion 688: 676: 675: 673:Low‑importance 667: 655: 654: 651: 650: 643:Low-importance 639: 633: 632: 630: 613:the discussion 600: 599: 583: 571: 570: 568:Low‑importance 562: 550: 549: 546: 545: 542:Low-importance 532: 522: 521: 519: 485: 484: 468: 456: 455: 444: 432: 431: 425: 414: 400: 399: 395:this help page 379:poorly sourced 365: 358: 357: 350:the discussion 342: 330: 329: 320: 308: 293: 277: 276: 240: 228: 227: 218: 216: 215: 212: 211: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2840: 2829: 2826: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2816: 2814: 2811: 2809: 2806: 2804: 2801: 2799: 2796: 2794: 2791: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2781: 2779: 2776: 2774: 2771: 2769: 2766: 2764: 2761: 2759: 2756: 2754: 2751: 2749: 2746: 2744: 2741: 2739: 2736: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2728: 2718: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2676: 2665: 2662: 2653: 2649: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2583: 2574: 2561: 2557: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2531: 2527: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2502: 2498: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2473: 2469: 2463: 2460: 2456: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2408: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2346: 2343: 2335: 2333: 2329: 2327: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2202: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2169:unacceptable. 2167: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2139: 2130: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2061:Firstly, per 2060: 2059: 2058: 2055: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037:utter garbage 2034: 2033: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1958: 1946: 1942: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1916: 1912: 1906: 1903: 1898: 1891: 1879: 1872: 1860: 1856: 1849: 1846: 1841: 1826: 1819: 1817: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1753: 1749: 1743: 1740: 1736: 1723: 1719: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1694: 1690: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1665: 1661: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1637: 1636: 1629: 1626: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1577: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1461: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1386: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1372: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1282: 1281: 1275: 1274: 1266: 1264: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1241: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1221:Novem Linguae 1218: 1208: 1207: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107:February 2021 1104: 1100: 1097: 1092: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1020:RfC, May 2021 1017: 1013: 1009: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 995: 990: 985: 983: 978: 976: 971: 966: 963: 947: 943: 937: 934: 933: 930: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 892: 886: 881: 879: 876: 872: 871: 867: 861: 858: 855: 851: 838: 834: 828: 825: 824: 821: 804: 800: 796: 795:pseudohistory 792: 791:pseudoscience 788: 784: 783: 778: 775: 771: 770: 766: 760: 757: 754: 750: 737: 733: 727: 724: 723: 720: 703: 699: 695: 694: 689: 686: 682: 681: 677: 671: 668: 665: 661: 648: 644: 638: 635: 634: 631: 614: 610: 606: 605: 597: 586: 584: 581: 577: 576: 572: 566: 563: 560: 556: 543: 540:(assessed as 539: 538: 528: 524: 523: 520: 503: 502:documentation 499: 495: 491: 490: 482: 471: 469: 466: 462: 461: 457: 453: 448: 445: 442: 438: 433: 429: 423: 415: 411: 406: 405: 397: 396: 391: 387: 383: 380: 376: 372: 371: 366: 364: 363: 355: 351: 347: 343: 340: 336: 335: 327: 321: 317: 313: 306: 302: 298: 294: 285: 284: 281: 275: 273: 269: 265: 261: 256: 254: 250: 246: 241: 238: 234: 233: 214: 213: 208: 204: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2716: 2702:Bakkster Man 2679: 2670: 2609: 2587: 2571: 2564:. Retrieved 2559: 2550: 2541: 2534:. Retrieved 2529: 2520: 2512: 2505:. Retrieved 2500: 2491: 2482: 2475:. Retrieved 2471: 2462: 2454: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2341: 2314: 2293: 2275:Bakkster Man 2270: 2251: 2239:Bakkster Man 2200: 2198: 2162: 2158: 2125: 2100: 2094: 2090: 2087:no consensus 2070: 2044: 2040: 2025: 2017: 2009: 1986: 1979:WP:RSOPINION 1955: 1948:. Retrieved 1944: 1934: 1925: 1918:. Retrieved 1914: 1905: 1869: 1862:. Retrieved 1858: 1848: 1825:cite journal 1812: 1805:. Retrieved 1786: 1782: 1772: 1763: 1756:. Retrieved 1751: 1742: 1733: 1726:. Retrieved 1721: 1712: 1703: 1696:. Retrieved 1692: 1683: 1675: 1668:. Retrieved 1663: 1654: 1647: 1585: 1581: 1478:Bakkster Man 1422:Bakkster Man 1390: 1345: 1328:Bakkster Man 1287: 1276: 1267: 1245: 1214: 1204: 1187:The article 1153: 1103:January 2021 1084:WP:NOLABLEAK 1060:January 2021 1030: 999: 964: 961: 941: 897: 832: 780: 731: 691: 642: 602: 596:China portal 535: 487: 428:WikiProjects 393: 381: 374: 368: 353: 296: 280: 257: 242: 202: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2614:WP:COATRACK 1554:Animalparty 1156:. sources ( 1147:August 2021 148:free images 31:not a forum 25:Li-Meng Yan 2727:Categories 2657:Shibboleth 2472:Snopes.com 2455:References 2369:Shibboleth 2208:conspiracy 2134:Shibboleth 2050:Shibboleth 2016:. Re: the 1915:Snopes.com 1621:Shibboleth 1517:Shibboleth 1414:WP:SELFPUB 1027:unreliable 808:Skepticism 799:skepticism 759:Skepticism 297:photograph 253:designated 2129:WP:CHERRY 2067:synthesis 1878:cite news 1802:0027-8424 1470:WP:PARITY 1394:Empiricus 1348:MD degree 1143:July 2021 1139:July 2021 1135:July 2021 1131:June 2021 1127:June 2021 1123:June 2021 1119:June 2021 1080:June 2021 1076:June 2021 1053:June 2021 1032:BioEssays 507:Biography 447:Biography 386:libellous 266:, or any 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2630:contribs 2610:Not done 2560:Newsweek 2441:contribs 2363:Newsweek 2342:specific 2323:lab leak 2288:exactly 2175:CowHouse 2105:CowHouse 2096:Newsweek 2010:Newsweek 1996:CowHouse 1722:Newsweek 1584:and she 1542:contribs 1512:WP:UNDUE 1449:contribs 1178:WP:UNDUE 1115:May 2021 1111:May 2021 1072:May 2021 1068:May 2021 1064:May 2021 1049:Feb 2021 1045:Jan 2021 1041:Jan 2021 1037:Jan 2021 1012:WP:MEDRS 917:COVID-19 904:COVID-19 860:COVID-19 346:deletion 301:included 249:COVID-19 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2652:WP:DFTT 2566:13 July 2536:13 July 2507:13 July 2477:13 July 2163:exclude 2155:WP:ONUS 2063:WP:ONUS 1950:13 July 1920:13 July 1886:|last1= 1864:13 July 1835:|quote= 1807:13 July 1758:13 July 1728:13 July 1698:13 July 1670:13 July 1639:Sources 1608:WP:RSes 1374:Eaberry 1312:Eaberry 944:on the 835:on the 787:science 734:on the 645:on the 418:B-class 203:90 days 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2429:WP:SPS 2414:Dawesi 2351:Snopes 2271:assume 2235:fact". 2075:WP:BLP 1991:WP:RSP 1789:(15). 1561:Dawesi 1475:fact". 1353:Source 1055:, ...) 424:scale. 325:Upload 316:Flickr 126:Google 2331:etc). 2195:Qanon 1418:WP:RS 1154:et al 618:China 609:China 565:China 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2706:talk 2687:talk 2654:. — 2626:talk 2595:talk 2568:2021 2538:2021 2509:2021 2479:2021 2437:talk 2418:talk 2391:talk 2382:That 2355:SCMP 2302:talk 2279:talk 2260:talk 2243:talk 2216:talk 2201:fact 2179:talk 2153:The 2109:talk 2026:PNAS 2018:WaPo 2000:talk 1981:and 1952:2021 1922:2021 1897:link 1890:help 1866:2021 1840:help 1809:2021 1799:ISSN 1760:2021 1730:2021 1700:2021 1672:2021 1594:talk 1565:talk 1538:talk 1502:talk 1482:talk 1445:talk 1426:talk 1398:talk 1378:talk 1361:talk 1332:talk 1316:talk 1253:talk 1217:diff 1089:The 908:join 797:and 496:and 354:keep 352:was 243:The 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2660:ink 2632:) 2620:). 2443:) 2372:ink 2159:not 2137:ink 2099:is 2053:ink 2045:not 2041:not 1945:Vox 1859:CNN 1791:doi 1787:118 1624:ink 1544:) 1520:ink 1472:): 1451:) 1180:. ( 1165:" ( 936:Low 827:Low 726:Low 637:Low 375:BLP 307:. 299:be 176:TWL 2729:: 2708:) 2700:. 2689:) 2628:/ 2597:) 2570:. 2558:. 2540:. 2528:. 2511:. 2499:. 2481:. 2470:. 2439:/ 2431:. 2420:) 2393:) 2357:, 2353:, 2304:) 2281:) 2262:) 2245:) 2218:) 2181:) 2111:) 2091:is 2069:: 2002:) 1985:. 1954:. 1943:. 1924:. 1913:. 1882:: 1880:}} 1876:{{ 1868:. 1857:. 1829:: 1827:}} 1823:{{ 1811:. 1797:. 1785:. 1781:. 1762:. 1750:. 1732:. 1720:. 1702:. 1691:. 1674:. 1662:. 1596:) 1567:) 1540:/ 1504:) 1484:) 1447:/ 1428:) 1420:. 1400:) 1380:) 1363:) 1334:) 1318:) 1255:) 1228:· 1145:, 1141:, 1137:, 1133:, 1129:, 1125:, 1121:, 1117:, 1113:, 1109:, 1105:, 1082:, 1078:, 1074:, 1070:, 1066:, 1062:, 1051:, 1047:, 1043:, 1039:, 793:, 789:, 544:). 450:: 201:: 193:, 156:) 54:; 2704:( 2685:( 2624:( 2593:( 2435:( 2416:( 2389:( 2300:( 2277:( 2258:( 2241:( 2214:( 2177:( 2107:( 1998:( 1899:) 1892:) 1842:) 1838:( 1793:: 1592:( 1563:( 1552:@ 1536:( 1500:( 1480:( 1462:: 1458:@ 1443:( 1424:( 1396:( 1376:( 1359:( 1330:( 1314:( 1251:( 1232:) 1230:c 1226:t 1224:( 1199:) 1184:) 1169:) 1149:) 1098:) 1094:( 1022:) 1007:) 988:e 981:t 974:v 948:. 914:. 839:. 738:. 649:. 504:. 430:: 398:. 373:( 356:. 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index