Talk:Robert W. Malone

The article currently says "Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA technology" but the sources only say he has been introduced in videos as "the inventor of mRNA technology" and seem to stop short of asserting he's self-credited, unless I'm missing something. (Now, of course, IRL we know Malone claims to the father of mRNA since he has that slapped across his Google Scholar profile, but I don't think we have RS that say so.) Should this be corrected so it's true to source? Simply saying "some have claimed" doesn't really legitimize the claim since, in the same sentence, we acknowledge there are superior claims to the Malone claim ("more often given to later advancements by ..."). Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

He goes quite a bit further in his own bio and we can use his personal claims about himself all day long (per WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS). He has been covered in some smaller sources where he has provided other definitions of his own achievements.

His own bio: "Dr. Malone is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and the inventor of mRNA vaccines"

His statement: "Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the "vaccine technology platform."

His twitter: "Inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA as a drug"

Several other sources continue with other assertions[1][2][3]

Total health: "The original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology"

Washington Examiner: "The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines"

European Medical Writers Association: "His research contributions include being the original inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccination technologies"

The only question is under WP:BLPSELFPUB would this all count as unduly self serving (per item 1) and a variety of other issues with regards to promotion of crank theories etc from a relatively niche scientist. Koncorde (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Source #1 (the official bio) seems good; thanks for finding it, Koncorde. If there are no objections, I'll add it. The last three sources, however, now raise the issue if this should be modified to "Malone and others claim" but, for now, I'm satisfied. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally think someone from one of the main science of medical admin boards on wikipedia should be oversighting this article because of how narrow the sourcing is for any claims (i.e. it is either him and supporters, or debunker rather than actual sources discussing his real achievements in context). Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I know, it's too complicated for me at the moment to weigh in. Though I'm following all the discussions. I think that we will have better sources soon one way or another. Sgerbic (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Malone's claims regarding invention of mRNA vaccine technology are not supported by any indepenedent, objective evidence. It's about time this was put to bed. Malone has no patents or publications that support his claim, and it would be best just to say that whatever claim he has made is not supported by any evidence. Vectronn

The problem being ANY claim or disproof of such claim should be based on reliable secondary sources, for which there is an absolute dearth. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that he is not, by any reasonable measure of the term, the inventor of mRNA technology. That said, however, there is no body that determines who is the inventor of X or Y. To say it is "not supported by any evidence" would require a RS that said this, not our independent evaluation. This is one of those situations where there is just enough ambiguity on a point that it can slip under the door; for instance, he is one of the credited authors on a paper that Nature called "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA" [4]. Does that make him the "inventor" of mRNA technology? Doubtfully. But, any more definitive statement by us will either require WP:OR or a solid RS that clearly states this. Those we have merely dance around the subject. I agree with Sgerbic that, if we wait long enough, sources will eventually emerge that make the definitive statement he is not the inventor, which we can then add. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If you agree, as I do, that he's not the inventor even if we acknolodge that the term is squishy for some multi-layered technologies like mNRA vaccines, surely we should protect the readers of Wikipedia who not have such a nuanced understanding, no? I would not want a less educated person to over weight his claims because of a mostly false belief that that person invented the very technology under question. zachaysan (parley) 07:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's complicated, and ambiguous, and the truth lies probably somewhere in a grey zone (or depends on how you look at it). It's clear that he was involved in some early (pioneering?) mRNA transfer technology (chiefly Malone et al. 1989 and Wolff et al 1990, as well as some earlier research in 1989) that led to modern RNA vaccines. I don't think he's ever claimed to have invented the COVID-19 vaccine, which the Visão "fact-check" conflates in its conclusion. Malone's CV lists several patents dating to the 1980s. As excerpted from Wikipedia's RNA vaccine: The first successful transfection of mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle into a cell was published in 1989. "Naked" (or unprotected) mRNA was injected a year later into the muscle of mice. These studies were the first evidence that in vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver the genetic information to produce proteins within living cell tissue

From a 2021 review: mRNA vaccine is a newly developed technology with a combination of molecular biology and immunology. The technology is closely related to gene therapy. The foreign mRNAs encoding antigens are introduced into somatic cells to synthesize antigens by the expression system [6]. The synthetic antigens can induce the immune response [7]. As early as the year 1990, scientists used mRNA expression vectors to inject mRNAs into mouse somatic cells in vivo to express luciferase, beta-galactosidase and chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (Wolff et al. 1990)

Jon A. Wolff himself wrote in 1999: After the demonstration that cationic lipids can mediate the efficient transfer of genes into cells in culture (Feigner et al. 1987), I initiated a collaboration with Phillip Feigner to evaluate the ability of cationic lipids to mediate direct gene transfer into animals. Phillip Williams, a technician in my laboratory (University of Wisconsin-Madison), injected intraparenchymally several tissues with in-vitro-transcribed mRNA (prepared by Robert Malone, who initially suggested its use) either complexed with cationic lipids or naked as a control (Wolff et al. 1990).

A decent encyclopedia article would note these contributions, and for the purpose of a WP:BLP it may not even yet be worth mentioning any self-claims or denials of inventions until the issue is more resolved, or until after the reactionary and myopic media gives way to more informed --Animalparty! (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I literally quoted his biography at the top where he does specifically claim to have invented mRNA vaccines - and was doing so until relatively recently more broadly in videos and interviews (and being promoted as such by those interviewing him). This is made super obvious when you see criticism of him has been specifically about his claims of invention.

He has since made his claims slightly more nuanced since then, describing himself as the inventor of the "vaccine technology platform" or similar uncorroborated claims. Koncorde (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Then we need to change the source to one where he does say it, and re-write it to reflect this "new" position.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Already has been done. Chetsford (I think) added his bio as source for the claim and I amended the language to match his actual claim a day or so ago. Koncorde (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved then.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between claims of inventing RNA vaccines or technology, which Malone still does, and claims of inventing something like the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, which to my knowledge Malone has not explicitly made. This is why the Visão fact-check is misleading, checking claims apparently never made ("Malone did not invent the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine") and using a narrower definition of: "The discovery of RNA transfer without it causing inflammatory reactions... in humans" to attribute achievements by Karikó, Weissman, and Rossi. The inventor of the iPhone doesn't affect the status of Alexander Graham Bell or the inventor of rechargeable batteries. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Except he is claiming to be the "father" of all mRNA vaccines. There's no nuance in his claim. It is also what his claims have been extrapolated to mean because that is how he has been repeatedly presented as a result of his claims. Koncorde (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A 2021 issue of the journal Nature Medicine [5] describes the 1990 paper on which Jon A. Wolff was corresponding author (and Malone was a listed author) as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA". I guess I wouldn't object to including something along the line of what you're discussing but that's a huge leap to go from a co-author of a paper that was "the first step towards" and being "the inventor" (singular) of something. That said, I fear even this is getting close to WP:SYNTH because the Nature article doesn't mention Malone by name, even if he's heavily inferred. The passage from the book by Wolff would probably be more appropriate to include generally, though - there again - Wolff doesn't really credit Malone as the inventor of anything. But as a general point - separate from the question of invention - I don't object to including it; seems fine. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If the source does not say he claimed it neither can we, so rather we should say the person who made the video claims it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Update

Trying to avoid forum talk, but as the Logically.AI source is mentioned above would like to know it known Malone appears to be engaging in some kind of dispute with the source as a result of him being suspended from Linkedin (since reinstated). Unclear what is going on. Koncorde (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Spike Cytotoxicity Claims

Hey I'm not a frequent Wiki user so forgive me if I'm posting in the wrong place. I found it hard to believe that Dr Malone would make "unsupported claims" of spike cytotoxicity. I did see there were multiple media sources that "fact checked" against the claim, but no evidence of where the claim came from, if it is unsupported. I found Dr Malone's Twitter post that said "The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic. That is a fact. Who says so? Multiple peer reviewed references. The Salk Institute. It is the responsibility of the vaccine developers to demonstrate that their expressed version is not toxic. Show us."

That Tweet links to an article entitled, "SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2".

It seems like what he is saying is that the viral spike is cytotoxic, and that the presumption should be that the synthetic vaccine version would be too, until proven otherwise.

I don't think it's fair to say he has made "unsupported claims" about the spike protein in vaccines. I think it's fair to say he has claimed that viral spike proteins are cytotoxic, and questioned whether synthetic spike proteins would be also. Cdnshipsnote (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter if you believe it or not, or if you think it is fair. If reliable sources say it, that's what Wikipedia says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the point Cdnshipsnote is trying to make is that Malone's claim in question is supported. His claim is that "The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic."(backed by the above-referenced article.), not that the vaccine itself is cytotoxic. He then goes on to express his opinion that the developers should demonstrate that there is no toxicity. Therefore, he never claimed that the vaccine itself is toxic. Therefore, saying that he made unsupported claims that the vaccine is toxic is incorrect. --Vixerunt69 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Still, the study quoted is WP:PRIMARY, not WP:MEDRS, and useless as a Wikipedia source. Sources we can use say it is "unsupported", so, as I said, that's what Wikipedia says. See WP:NOTTRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. --Vixerunt69 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How does someone who makes later advancements to an invention get credit for the invention they advanced? Nobody would claim Elon Musk invented the automobile because he made advancements to Carl Benz’s original invention. Below is an article by the Atlantic. Below that are links to two articles that seem to at least back up Robert Malone’s claims that he invented mRNA vaccines. 1.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ 2.https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf 3.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1690918 WhowinsIwins (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In much the same way that Johann Philipp Reis invented part of a telephone, inventing a necessary component of a thing is not the same as inventing the whole thing. - MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above sources he is the inventor of mRNA transfection by liposomes. This is the mechanism the major vaccines use. He is the mechanism's inventor, but not the vaccine's. He pointed to research showing cytotoxic properties of the virus' S-protein. As the vaccines are based on the S-protein, it has to be sufficiently altered to avoid the original's cytotxicity. No peer-reviewed studies show that this has been accomplished. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Dr. MALONE

I am very concerned about, Wikipedia, putting, misinformation , concerning, Dr.Malone, and do not, I repeat , do not state , sources or the author of this article/Bio/ on the Doctor! This is total propaganda , on behalf of WIKIPEDIA!! 50.35.17.3 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. What misinformation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And why do you think it is misinformation? Are you competent enough to tell the difference? Or did you have two sources contradicting each other, then throw a coin or something to decide which one was wrong, and it turned out to be Wikipedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Dr Malone actually got blocked on Twitter pretty recently, can't say if today or yesterday, presumably for the very same disinformation he was spreading on Twitter (I found no credible English outlet reporting on it, unfortunately), I find this comment unintentionally humorous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Twitter suspended him that's how you know he's wrong" Imbecilic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:8F40:E53B:6A76:C3A1:5CF3 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do we say that? And read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase second sentence of Overview section.

The public would greatly benefit from rephrasing the following sentence, which is confusing at best and grammatically incorrect.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, he is vaccinated, and he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines

A suggestion:

During the CoVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticised for promoting misinformation about the safety and efficacy of CoVID-19 vaccines, despite being vaccinated himself. Vixerunt69 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He specifically says that if you’ve had COVID and recovered, you have natural immunity that makes you 20-30x less likely to be hospitalized and if you take the vaccine post recovery, you have 3-7x increase chance of negative side effects from taking the vaccine. Basically, if you’ve been infected and recovered, you don’t need to take the vaccine. Saddario25 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

He had also said that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse. He has questioned their safety. No he has done far more than just said that natural immunity is better than a vaccine.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

but surely this man is qualified to make these statements?

Sources

Particularly source #30. It isn't a source. It's a biased opinion piece. 68.206.5.153 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it is still a source, but it may not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

So a random blog post claiming to have received an email from Twitter, but not actually providing evidence, is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? Darenwelsh (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable Counterpoints Not Represented

TRUE 'he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines' He is also advocating not to take the vaccine which indicates that he has a personal bias. But, he is also asking for statistical study to find fact. He is saying that he does not know, and we don't know the statistical reality.

"Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals? We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should- no must- be made available to the public promptly".

"my concern is that I know that there are risks. But we don't have access to the data and the data haven't been captured rigorously enough so that we can accurately assess those risks – And therefore … we don't really have the information that we need to make a reasonable decision."

What he is consistently saying is the stock argument for taking a vaccine! You would take a polio vaccine because the downside of getting polio vastly outweighs the risks of the polio vaccine itself. Some known amount of people that take the polio vaccine have serious side effects. The risk benefit of the Covid vaccine is not yet quantified.

"there is no substantive risk-benefit analysis being applied to the vaccines;" he later opines that younger people may be placed at unnecessary risk to obtain an unknown-unquantified benefit.

Personally, having two base shots I was reticent to get an additional booster because I did not know the risk reward. I got the third booster anyway. There are questions to efficacy regarding the latest variant; and there is lots of opinion but very little fact.

That is the nature of the unknown, that it is unknown and uncertain. This was the case with Covid as it is/was an unknown; logically you would gather more information and adjust. Factually, and unlike the Polio vaccine, the Covid vaccine has unknowns. He is very political and biased because he is basically saying that (due to conspiracy and lack of political acumen and grey matter) our nation will be incapable of adjusting.

MY point is that it would be reasonable to represent the reasonable counterpoints he makes in this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs)

We have to say what RS say, so unless you have some RS saying his views are reasonable we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

those are numerous sources which speak to the aforenoted main point including the articles most critical of him "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with ..the system for tracking adverse reactions. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/mrna-inventor-says-young-adults-shouldnt-have-to-get-covid-vaccine/ar-AALnhq5 This includes the Atlantic article which is a screed. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ There is no commitment to be fair and neutral on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Remove the comments about promoting covid misinformation. This is not factually true and is a political point not a scientific one. 2A00:23C6:4199:C100:68E5:737F:EBE0:8D49 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RS say it is true, we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources linked for Roberts education are not proper sources and do not prove his education.

Recently Robert appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience claiming to be a DR and virologist who created MRNA vaccines and generally as a person who is throughly educated around COVID and virology in general. He might be those things BUT there is no proof of this available as a source on this Wiki page which claims "Robert Malone graduated from the University of California, Davis, and received his MD from Northwestern University.[5] He also completed a fellowship at Harvard Medical School as a global clinical research scholar.[6]"

Sources 5 and 6 do not prove any part of this statement to be true. Source 5 goes to a dead link and source 6 goes to some unrelated article which does not prove his education. As per Wikipedias rules below this section of the article should be removed until proper proof of education can be found.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]

Realmouthfull (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Source 5 is now fixed (the URL was missing a www prefix). The website doesn't have static webpages that point to each doctor, but searching Malone and the License Number present in the webpage title readily returns the information in the citation. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, I also added dates and majors to the section, and the institutional information from citation 5 agrees with the information it presents.

Concerning the failed verification, the article quotes states in the third paragraph: Robert Malone "spent a year in postdoctoral studies at Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training program." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is not the same as a "post-doctoral fellowship", and it does not say he completed any "Clinical Scholars Research Training program.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching for "Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training" yielded the link below. If that is the program mentioned in the Tennessee Star source and bearing in mind the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration of the program and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed, then we can infer a few things with the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed.

Searching Google for "Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training" (taken verbatim from the Tennessee Star article) yielded this link. If that is the program mentioned in the Tennessee Star source and bearing in mind the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration of the program and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed, then we can infer a few things:

1) The program lasts one year, and Dr. Malone spent a year in the program. Maybe he completed it, maybe he just left.

2) Under "Who Should Apply," it states that "candidates holding and MD, PhD, MBBS, DMD, DDS, PharmD, DNP, or an equivalent degree should apply." Given that in 2014, Robert Malone had completed his MD from Northwestern, this would constitute postdoctoral work.

3) I agree, this program is not accurately described by the word fellowship. Certificate seems more appropriate as it is used on its own webpage. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And source five only supports "NORTHWESTERN UNIV MED SCH Graduation Year: 1991" the rest do not seem to be listed (though some post graduate courses are, but no qualifications).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE lists five criteria that need to be met to use a self-published source. Let me propose this source for supporting the claim of Dr. Malone's BSc, MSc, and MD. Of most interest is the fourth point concerning "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We would need to confirm this is his CV, how?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• While a primary source, his 1991 MD award and previous education is printed in the 1991 Northwestern University commencement program. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

His CV is partially described in the first few paragraphs of a NATURE article that investigated who invented the idea of the mRNA vaccine...if we can't find a source that says he graduated from college, do we have to assume he is inflating his credentials/lying and delete it? Lmao, literally headlines a Nature article about who invented one of the most important medical developments of the century...and here is Wikipedia, ready to delete his claim that he graduated from college, because we can't find third party proof... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep State Patriot (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is evidence of higher education, the reader can conclude the existence of a college graduation just as well as you can, so it is not needed in the article. No big deal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, impostors exist. They succeed for a while because of people with your attitude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If he has an MD from a US medical school, he has a college degree from somewhere, likely in the US. Nature says he was a graduate researcher at the Salk Institute. Since someone pulled up proof of his medical graduation, the only thing that is missing is proof of his degrees from the two UC schools. I'm not sure if you're calling me stupid or what with the statement about my "attitude", but I was merely pointing out how absurd it would be to inflate such trivial components of one's background (relative to the mRNA contributions, which seem to be akin to Doudna and Charpentier's contributions to the Crispr idea, prior to Zhang's improvements). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep State Patriot (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

here is Wikipedia, ready to delete his claim that he graduated from college, because we can't find third party proof and it is the right thing to do, because... I already explained why: the reader can conclude. Omitting it is not "inflating" anything, it is just omitting it. As I said: No big deal. No reason to kneel on the stage, throw the head back, open your mouth in horror, tear at your hair, and emit a loud wail. There is no problem with demanding independent confirmation, but there is a problem with not demanding it: as I said, impostors exist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The guy seems to be more of a Bobby "The real deal but bad at PR" Fischer character than an Al "No, I really invented the internet, people" Gore one. I agree though--the reader can infer--but what if we said "according to Malone's public CV"? Are self published sources allowed at all on wikipedia? I just want to be sure this is being applied consistently... Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A CV (by it's ver nature) is promotional. So it can be used for information that is not unduly self-serving only. I would argue that means things like date of birth, not information that a person may exaggerate for the purposes of employment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Would a guy like Malone really want to lie about going to...UC Davis? (Great school, by the way...) If personal sources aren't expressly forbidden, then what's the big deal? Given the scrutiny this guy is getting, I'm sure any of these institutions would've already flagged any false claims, and they haven't... Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

This claim is unsupported by the document given. Every restriction described by Malone in the excerpt of the Bannon interview is congruent with what's described on the FDA press release 8 days prior (August 23rd 2021)... The vaccine was issued on an emergency use authorisation and was restricted for use on anyone under 16.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

"Malone has also been criticized for falsely claiming that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021.[33]"

The word "falsely" should be supported by citation. If the claim is simply "Malone was criticised for saying X", citation works... but as to the criticisms basis in fact... we would need an article with evidence to that effect. EmptyAtoms (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Or we could use this as well and change it to misleadingly [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe expand it to also include the false claim it lacked liability protection [[7]]..

Yes I think it needs expanding.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification and accuracy (without belaboring a point into pedantry) is always better than broad brush claims or weasel words, but keep in mind that not all verifiable criticism, or failed fact-checks necessarily must be included, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOTSUFF. I'm not saying anything needs to be omitted currently, but fact-checks by their nature tend to be very fleeting and myopically focused on a single tweet or sentence (as opposed to more long-form articles covering a career) and over-reliance on fact-checks can in theory distort the perception. Politifact has 7 false claims (including 1 Pants on Fire) by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, yet we need not include all such verifiable misinformation in her article (this is only an analogy: I realize the two have different reasons for notability and levels of press coverage) --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, in his eyes, "full approval" meant having safety follow-up studies years later, the ability to market, and other safety/teratogenicity/toxicity/etc. which is impossible of course, unless the virus and vaccines were being studied in a lab years prior to the pandemic...LOL JK ANYWAY...if there's a way to incorporate his more nuanced explanation that would be great. In his eyes, "full approval" might mean something different than "full approval under emergency use authorization" or whatever. He worked for a contract research organization prior to the pandemic and is well qualified to comment about the drug approval process and that the process was altered/rushed. If we're citing a blanket/blunt fact check that doesn't expand on what he actually said, I don't think it is fair. I am not sure if he is correct, as I'm not a drug approval expert, but it seems one-sided to just cite how the fact check characterized his claims, because it was more than just "there was no full approval". Sadly most of his rebuttals and claims, which are extremely cogent, are said on podcasts with hosts who aren't known for great histories in the "fact" universe, and likely won't be able to be cited here, right? Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why SPS should not be used for controversial or self-serving statements. Did he say at the time "according to how I interpret the rules" or was this only after his statements were fact-checked? Or did he say it as a fact?Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I will do a deep dive in the alternative and normie media universe, time permitting, and get back to you. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I an unsure that ALtrelantive media (or whatever Normie means) will pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

We must all ensure that disinformation is not allowed to be expressed here (no matter the source, and even a hint of it must not be tolerated, this is too important) - Many acceptable RS cited contain opinion and narrative, not fact. Since this is a biography of a living person primary source rebuttal needs to be part of the article. The subjects call for statistical study would provide balance and rebuttal. Reticence to provide counterbalance to a one sided analysis is misinformation! I don't know! or We don't know? that is what you would expect to be the correct answer about a new bio-technology or a new virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs)

We don't do false balance here. - MrOllie (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone saying there is not a finding of statistical fact is not false balance, Its simply a call for more fact finding. aka Neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

Change "misinfortmation" in the introduction to "fact-based information" 2602:47:D1E9:5F00:E95B:910A:80F0:54B2 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We follow what the sources say, and that is definitely not what they say. - MrOllie (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep "mis-information" btw I thought wikipedia was based on consensus building? Please pause and consider. Change - RWM is not the inventor or MRNA he is a contributor. The article should not include he said she said. Suggest that the article change to reflect the chronology. "The currently available mRNA vaccines are the results of contributions from multiple people in different locations over time." ForbesForbes Nature describes his work in 1987 as a landmark experiment and stepping stone.Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w The nature article has a chronology that pre-dates Malone and it also suggests that his work was far away from a vaccine.

Change - Add a reference to the fact that RWM is calling for statistical study as a rebuttal to the conclusion in the first sentence. There are numerous RS to that effect. eg "we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously"

Provide one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously. Again he asks, "Is there information or patterns that can be found quotation asking for more informaiton

On another note, I was able to find metrics from UK NHS on vaccine effectiveness https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf The report does not cover adverse reactions but it does cover pregnancy; From what I can tell pregnancy risk of a premature birth is about 1/2 a percent greater vaccinated vs unvaccinated. The UK's adverse reaction reporting system cites 137686 adverse reactions and 856 fatalities; immune system reactions in a single week 54870 (171 fatalities) with the denominator being 39,324,944 with two vaccinations and 21,339,420 with two shots and a booster. With three shots adverse reactions are a little less than 1%. In the data its is very clear that the vaccine prevents hospitalization. My guess is that 1% is a very high adverse reaction reporting rate. The data also suggests that the vaccine has a very short effective duration, very short duration. I mention this because there IS DATA TO BE FOUND that is organized and meaningful I was not able to find usable data in the US, but that might be a function of having a national health system vs a highly distributed system. I am not advocating that original research be presented; Several leading academic institutions and academics are calling for more data, and they are calling for a pause to vaccinations in favor of changing the vaccine to match the variants. There is also an indicator that the vaccine is shaping mutations. I am very convinced that Malone is promulgating opinions that are falsely interpreted in fact, I am also convinced that politics has supplanted pragmatism; there are unknowns from every direction.

Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting original research be used or presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Then what are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• OR is prohibited. Is there a source about Malone on the table? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.totalhealth.co.uk/blog/are-people-getting-full-facts-covid-vaccine-risks one of many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A blog post. Right. I think we can close this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Curious editors might want to know that that website appears to be drenched in Kool-Aid. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

But it's written by "leading doctors"! It's in fact very un-transparent about its provenance, saying only "© Copyright 2019 Synaptic Limited" at the foot of the page. This appears to be a management consultancy (with overdue accounts).[8] Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: delete "mass formation psychosis" paragraph

There's an issue where it's being conflated with mass psychogenic illness via google search despite being, as defined by Malone and the academic he quotes, about leaders taking advantage of widespread dysfunction (commonly known as "mass hypnosis"), essentially, with no components of psychogenic/psychosomatic illness (psychogenic/psychosomatic phenomena are best illustrated in the movie Airplane! when the fish allegedly was leading to illness). I think the confusion arises from how it's a pandemic and people do get sick, but the conflation is a big problem, because absolutely the ideas are completely different, and if Wikipedia is claiming Malone is saying people are imagining being sick, that's like...hugely defamatory. Apparently it's a term made up by an academic and used by Robert Malone--two people. But if it's such a rare term, I don't think it belongs on here. Either we define it and explain it with redirect pages etc., or we don't bring it up at all. Do we invoke the term and risk amplification/endorsement of a niche and incendiary term, or do we remove all traces of it, because it's so rare, and not risk amplifying it? The redirect page I created was deleted because it risked amplifying the term, but the editor who deleted it said to post here, so here I am...Deep State Patriot (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would say it is very relevant that he is trying to draw a parallel between the rise of Naxi Germany and Covid. That he is claiming that the leadership of the western world is trying to take advantage of a global pandemic in the same way the Nazis used fear to gain power. Yes that is very relevant to our understanding of his views.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So maybe it should just be "sequestered" to this page? I suppose when you search for "mass formation psychosis" on here it doesn't lead you to "mass psychogenic illness" but rather this page leads the results, so that's good. Google's problems are a different story and are likely unfixable, but at least perhaps it is fine on here? Does a redirect page really risk amplifying it though? If we make a redirect page would that fix the google results? Maybe we could fix Google's search issue by making a redirect page, since apparently their highly paid employees can't design a search engine that produces correct results. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If "mass formation psychosis" only exits in two places, it will not be a search term look for in isolaotion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you do a google search and tell me what you see. You do see proper explanations of its niche application. Then you see Wikipedia, completely useless, providing an irrelevant article in response--a complete non sequitur. I am wondering if we could do here what Google's $250,000 software engineers/censors could not. Apparently for some time after the Rogan podcast was released, Google had a notification saying "we are improving results", so they're onto it and aware of the issue. That they would eventually link the incorrect Wikipedia article is either malevolent mischaracterization or extreme incompetence. They pay their employees so much, and we're getting paid nothing...and they were completely useless and wrong on this. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Deep State Patriot questioned whether "we remove all traces of it, because it's so rare, and not risk amplifying it?" We’re not here to decide whether something we write risks amplifying it…if it’s notable. That’s called censorship. Wikipedians kind of should not do that. Ever. As in never ever. And as the interview has made headlines around the world, and a video of the interview had no fewer than 3,000,000 views according to an article on mainstream media outlet RealClearPolitics, and a Congressman saw fit to actually have a transcript of the whole interview entered into the Congressional record to avoid social media censorship, I think we can safely say and maybe even agree that it’s notable. However, Wikipedia has yet to catch up and produce an article about it. Googling Mattias Desmet, the Ghent University professor who first described the term is informative. Malone is no idiot, he’s a very highly regarded researcher. He mentions Desmet in his interview. Boscaswell talk 05:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph shouldn't be trying to confirm his definition as valid. Currently written presenting his views uncritically, as if it is factual. Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We present it as they RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

...that makes literally no sense, so I am very confused why you would even suggest that as an outcome. Right now we are presenting Malones POV as a clinical diagnosis equating the significant majority of the US with Nazi's. Putting "claimed" at the beginning and then presenting those same WP:FRINGE claims isn't how we do things, particularly when providing lengthy quotations. Koncorde (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact I am now assuming that you missed this change to the article which completely altered the tone, weight and attribution? Koncorde (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No we are not, we are staying he said it. We offer no judgment, nor do the RS, they just let the statement stand (or fall) on its own. Nor are we saying anything about it being a clinical diagnosis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we're full on WP:FRINGE and I am really surprised you don't seem to see that. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see it because we are just reporting he said it (which RS did). Yes it is fringe, it is misinformation. It is another example of his Covid misinformation., this is why it should be here. So people can see what he says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We can say what he says by quoting what other people say about it and him the way we would with any other subject matter. We are not reporting that he said it, we are duplicating it entirely, uncritically. We would not quote wholesale such inanity with such undue weight to a persons opinion on a FRINGE subject that they are neither an expert on (be it history, psychology or sociology) without equivalent peer coverage. WP:FRINGE policy is very clear on non-expert opining outside their lanes. Koncorde (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't dug too much into the literature but I think there is a reasonable amount of politics and sociology that are using the term psychosis quite liberally to mean "beliefs that are at odds with reality despite evidence", rather than "a state of the brain that causes it to generate such beliefs". The "psychosis" in this usage is maintained by social effects such as propaganda etc. I suspect that if you say, dict into the literature of cults or regimes you'll find a discussion of the effects that allow large number of people to believe lies. I think it would be useful to highlight how this is different from psychosis and make clear that this is not really a psychological term. The question is whether the literature is there. I still don't really know how wikipedia deals with a small and biased literature. Talpedia (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

May I recommend that anyone citing WP:FRINGE also take a look at WP:FRINGENOT, which has these words: "the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists." This does not apply to subjects such as the argument that a population has been manipulated. That article, WP:FRINGENOT, is well worth reading. I added the quote and put the two refs against it, and I imagine that there are many more RS’s available which have done the same. Note that both of the refs include all the words quoted, and little more. So why are they quoting that? Why are "we" quoting them? To explain to their readers. Because it’s notable. And that’s what we do. The interview video had 3,000,000 views in a couple of days before YT pulled it. This article had approaching 700,000 page views in December, and was trending high in the last few days of the month. People want to read about him and what he said. Not to be a source of information, or far, far worse, refusing to be a source of information, whether we agree with it or not, that’s called censorship. Boscaswell talk 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about a potential reference

Would somehow adding information from the Nature Reviews's article Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery to the context of Malone's part on the development of the mRNA vaccines be adequate here? I feel like it's verging on WP:OR since it doesn't mention Malone by name, only one of his papers. OTOH, it's an important part of the current controversy regarding his claims of being "the inventor", and on Nature. Opinions? VdSV9•♫ 02:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

Get rid of the "misinformation" in his description. 174.99.20.114 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Age

He was 62 at the time of the #1757 podcast he did with Joe Rogan in December 2021.Artaxerxes (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

His age is given as 61 in a June 17, 2021 RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland article (in German) and an August 12, 2021, Atlantic article. As of January 4, 2022, News.com.au still gives age as 61. Assuming the Joe Rogan Podcast is considered reliable (e.g. if Malone gave his own age as 62 which would probably be a permissible WP:SELFSOURCE), I think it would be acceptable to generalize DOB to ca. 1959 for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone find an open source picture of him? Could we use one of the Dos Equis "most interesting man" until we find one? 2600:1012:B017:656E:A9E1:A702:EA2D:4BD9 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

“Misinformation” is an opinion, not a fact. Remove the word, please. 108.54.82.152 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We say he was criticised for it, he was.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, we get that from reliable sources, and it is an important fact. It would be irresponsible to sweep it under the rug. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what I meant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)