Talk:SARS

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pthoman (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pthoman (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XXDG4015Xx, Amg448 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jason.DeLaCruz1313 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleted content sourced to Lambert Academic Publishing

Lambert Academic Publishing is a self-publishing service, not reviewed and not a reliable source. I deleted related content. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, authority control for the source exists:

Pachankis, Yang (2023). Questions of COVID-19 II: Clinical Studies on the Autoimmune Disease. London, U.K.: Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-6207457182.. OCLC 1477937255

For the OCLC. Quinhonk (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

They have published and translated the book into major European languages, and are legitimately registered publication house.

The deleted content is put here for reference and discussion:

The statistics reported to the WHO, however, have been questioned after the COVID-19 pandemic, for their lack of randomness from the epidemic origin of Guangzhou Province in mainland China, without a patient zero report.

--Quinhonk (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Registration or translation of works are not criteria used by Wikipedia in assessing reliability. The key is review by other people, through a combination of peer review process, citation of publications, and wide spread discussion in publications. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It is a collection of works that is reviewed and it is not verifiable in a way either if the publishing house ONLY publishes unreviewed books. Quinhonk (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to buy and read the book first to decide. Quinhonk (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Again I deleted this source. Please do not add it back without consensus. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Duly noted. It will take a lot of time to reach the consensus on the issue. I noticed a recent edit that have addressed the problem fairly, with a relatively holistic consideration. Quinhonk (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Distorted content with sources.

In a recent edit editor @Quinhonk added

• The prevelece of the neurological disorders after COVID-19 vaccination, however, supports a neuronal theory of etiology.

Citing

• Yang, Y.; Huang, L. (2023). "Neurological Disorders following COVID-19 Vaccination". Vaccines (Basel). 11 (6). doi:10.3390/vaccines11061114. PMID 37376503.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The source makes no analysis of the origin of SARS symptoms. Any connection between vaccination and etiology of any diseases would be extraordinary requiring significant review sources. This source makes no such connection. In fact the source makes no significant conclusion other than

• The incidence rate of severe neurological disorders is relatively low, most of which are reversible or treatable. Therefore, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of COVID-19 infection, especially among fragile populations.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The section is about etiology and not the vaccine safety. Also, in medical ethics, eugenics is not justified. Quinhonk (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess we're on the same page but have different opinions on the rigor. The citation from the previous sentence already established the etiological evidence. Quinhonk (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

In order to make it both brief and readable, I suggest to merge the citations at the end of the two sentences instead of sentence by sentence. Quinhonk (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The source would need to clearly and directly support the point being put in the article. The source clearly does not do that, so this appears to be a case of WP:OR. We should leave this out unless much stronger sourcing is presented. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

In fact, the whole section seems to be repeatedly treating SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 as if they were the same thing - they are not. Discussion of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and the etiology thereof is misplaced in this article. MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

They are indeed the same thing in itself, just like you can't deny Omicron to be SARS-CoV-2 too. But if you are referring to "gain of function experiments", then the topic will become total political events instead of the truth-finding process of medical research, and the causes and incentives of the public health professionals' works. SARS-CoV-2 is renamed for COVID-19 for the reason we can reasonably believe to be ill-intentioned, therefore, treating SARS-CoV-1 and -2 with the same footing is the ethical thing to do as I see it. Quinhonk (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

They are separate viruses. They do not share a recent common ancestor. You cannot use sources about COVID-19 to write about SARS, they are not interchangeable. This is a basic factual problem, not an 'ethical' consideration. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Or that the research gaps are in the way, and even SARS-CoV is not the right categorical name. But what can one do about that? It was already compared to MERS-CoV for too many years to be forgotten the common ancestry of S2 protein that is autoimmune disease. Quinhonk (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

And those records ought not to be erased from history just as how Nazis tried to erase the holocaust. Quinhonk (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be in disagreement with the cited medical literature on this. If you think that the medical literature is wrong, there is nothing one can do about that on Wikipedia, since this site will always follow the mainstream point of view. MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. It either falls into the crimes against humanity or complaints to the journal on the ethics of it. Quinhonk (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep... It will be at the end of the year... My ePoster at the 33rd European Congress of Psychiatry presented the indirect evidence from clinical research. To avoid a conflict of interest, however, I have not sourced to the preprint of my abstract. Quinhonk (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

We couldn't source this kind of information to a conference poster anyway, see WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I also have meta-analysis years earlier, only that published in not WoS or Scopus indexed journals for various reasons. These secondary sources are often discredited for the monopolies. Quinhonk (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Like this one, discerned by many "credible journals", and then years later, all the "credible journals" come to ask for publication in similar areas with high APC. And those are both WoS and Scopus indexed. Just a statement of facts. Quinhonk (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

We also can't source this sort of information to preprints or other self published documents. If mainstream publishing isn't interested, neither is Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

European Psychiatry is Cambridge Core, and indexed in WoS. Only that the more time it passes... well... Thanks for the humor on survivor's guilt then. Quinhonk (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)