Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Covid 19 "misinformation"

The section does not meet the sourcing requirements necessary for inclusion. A single source, of questionable quality, supports the first paragraph (NewsHub appears to be little more than a tabloid). A single source, of indeterminate quality, just barely supports the second paragraph. At barest minimum, based upon how the section is written, neither of the sources support the use of the word "misinformation" in the title of the section. It states clearly that he has _speculated_ about the efficacy of a drug, and _speculated_ about reports of increased heart attacks, and expressed scepticism in both instances. That dumb-asses take his words and use them to spread nonsense is not his responsibility; nor is it Wikipedia's place to employ guilt by association in a BLP.

I note that it's been suggested elsewhere on this page that Campbell 'dog whistles', which is quite amusing; he's about as far from a dog whistler as exists, that's patent with only minimal review of his content. He's fully vaccinated, and has promoted getting vaccinated relentlessy. He's provided an incredible service in information for millions of people during the panic early on and in our response to the pandemic overall He has not suggested, recommended, alluded, wink-wink nudge-nudged or anything else that anyone should take Ivermectin; on that basis alone, the claim that he's spreading misinformation is patently false. Ivermectin science is _not_ settled; there are clinical trials taking place right now.

Two sources are not enough to support inclusion of an entire section, that's also basic to BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem fine. One contains the only relevant proper scientist response to his output (Meaghan Kall), so is most apt. I suppose displaying a big graph with a label (wrongly) saying "ivermectin allowed as a treatment ..." before a big case drop might be dog-whistling; it's not for us to say, but Kall's response puts it in rational context. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You say 'sources seem fine' then only support one of the sources. Neither support the notion that he was 'spreading misinformation'. Speculating, incorrectly, is not spreading misinformation. We have a single source for one claim, and a single source for another. This is a BLP. That's not sufficient to support claims that suggest he's just another covid quack. 99% of his material has been extremely informative on all aspects of viruses, pandemic, prevention, prophylaxis, etc. That he was wrong about something doesn't negate the vast majority that is right and does not make him a 'covid misinformer'. And again, he has from the beginning supported and strongly and relentlessly encouraged all methods that have been endorsed globally to slow the spread of the disease and aid in prevention - social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, getting vaccinated, getting boosters, etc etc etc. Covid has been a 'moving target' from the start. Countless experts have been wrong countless times. That doesn't make them charlatans. BLP's don't engage in guilt-by-association.Anastrophe (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That phrase you quote 'spreading misinformation' - where are you quoting it from? What the article is saying is that his output has been leveraged for misinformation. That's right isn't it, per the sources? What counts here is the reaction from relevant experts in RS, not Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"His output has been leveraged for misinformation". Bill Gates's 'output' has also been leveraged for misinformation, when he mentioned 'digital certificates' and nutjobs ran with it as meaning implantable nanoparticles in covid vaccines. A BLP subject's words being 'leveraged for misinformation' is distinctly non-BLP conformant; The BLP subject is not responsible for what third parties may or may not do with the information. As it stands, the sources only reference a single use of his video by an anti-vaxxer, that person just being a rando on twitter. Conflating a single instance like this isn't tenable, not by BLP standards. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources seem OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I oppose the misinformation label for reasons I have already given. We do not have an explicit criticism of him for fact check #2. His video being used by fools does not make him responsible for misinformation (using The Lancet example above). For fact check #1, it appears the only thing he asserted as fact was ivermectin use in Japan. This has been "fact checked" as Kall said it "appears" this was based on anecdata, without saying it was definitely not used in Japan. I don't think people imagines this is the "fact checked" when they hear "ivermectin misinformation". The problem with "dog whistles" is it relies on things not said and is completely subjective. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

But we do do 1, and by someone more qualified than he is to make that judgment.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The objections basically seem to be "I don't like the sources" and want to have any potentially "negative" material removed from the article. That's problematic from a NPOV perspective. Let's just relay what reliable sources say without trying to twist things to editors' preferences. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My objections are what I have said they are. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Impugning another editor's motives here by implying that my argument is merely that "I don't like the sources", "want to have any potentially 'negative' material removed', 'trying to twist things to editor's preferences', when I have clearly stated my policy-based reasoning pretty much defines WP:NPA. Please desist.

WP:BLPBALANCE is very clear that this sort of 'guilt by association' is not acceptable in BLP's. The "Newshub" article, immediately following its mention of Campbell, begins "In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead. The claim was picked up on social media and spread like, well, Delta - many noting the decline in cases began two weeks after a top Japanese doctor recommended the use of ivermectin.". We're using an article that deep-dives into guilt by association, even though there's no evidence of any assocation at all. I challenge Newshub because it has all the markings of a tabloid. The article is poorly written and short - then the page turns into an endless scroll of clickbait. That is not a high quality source as required by BLP standards.

It's also worth pointing out that neither article used as reference actually gives any evidence that his "misinformation" has had any actual effect. It's easy to just hysterically scream "misinformation!!1!", but the impact clearly matters in terms of the relevance of the material added to the encyclopedia. That others (and so far, only a single instance of it) have used his words to spread misinformation (which I'd then call 'disinformation') is not the BLP subject's responsibility.

Once more, without feeling: BLP inadequate sourcing; BLP guilt-by-association. Policies. Anastrophe (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Writing arguments with stuff like "He's provided an incredible service in information for millions of people during the panic" is not policy-based argument, it's airing your (evidently strong) POV. Irrelevant. We stick to RS, not the POV of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And where did I suggest inclusion of that info into the article? Hint: I didn't. Your personal feelings that I just want to scrub the article are not policy-based arguments either; they seem to suggest an unwillingness to actually address the policy-based arguments that I've brought up; they may be intended to divert attention from those arguments. I'm merely speculating. See how easy it is to drive the discussion away from the policies that are at play by engaging in personal attacks? Once more, without feeling: BLP inadequate sourcing; BLP guilt-by-association. Policies. Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CPUSH is a thing, as are the discretionary sanctions for this topic area. Writing long screeds about how Campbell is "about as far from a dog whistler as exists" is not policy-based argument; it's purely your POV. No amount of personal POV, or even meta-discussions about your POV are relevant. What is relevant is what on-point sources say. We shall relay their content faithfully. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Long screeds"? Interesting. That I'm by nature a bloviator is not relevant. I wouldn't characterize them as screeds, but that's just little old me. You've expressed your personal POV as well, meta-discussing my motives. Others brought up (inappropriately under the same rationale) that he's a dog-whistler; curiously you did not choose to challenge their non-policy-based commentary. You continue to very pointedly not address the policies I've brought up, instead focusing exclusively on the non-policy commentary I've made. Newshub is an exceptionally weak source. The good doctor who challenged Campbell's statements is very much on point - Campbell's reflections on the ivermectin aspect in Japan were incorrect and Dr. Kall handily explained that. But we have only a weak source quoting her, a tabloid loaded with clickbait. BLP is quite firm on this matter; under different circumstances, the material would have been immediately removed. Lets be clear here: I brought policy-based arguments here to talk. I have not (never have) edited the article. Not being as perfect as some other editors, I've included some non-policy-based commentary (not unlike "suggestions" that I want "all negative material removed"). So, yet again, once more, without feeling: BLP inadequate sourcing; BLP guilt-by-association. Policies. Anastrophe (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

More meta-discussion. Yeah, you've twice said that Newshub was a tabloid. Peppering your POV essays with false statements does not a sound argument make. As to "guilt" - as above why are you insisting Campbell is "guilty" of something? That's further than the sources go. Stick to the sources, and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That Newshub has a WP article -- about their television show -- doesn't establish the reliability of the content of their website, nor does it somehow contradict that the linked content is about 1% article and 99% endless clickbait -- tabloid. I have not "insisted Campbell is 'guilty' of something" - I fear you don't understand what the term Guilt by association means. The article employs a source implying a link between Campbell and a white supremacist. That's guilt by association. Using that source is contraindicated by WP:BLPBALANCE ("Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.") The impact of Cambpell's erroneous claims appears overstated, since only two sources can apparently be found that suggest any impact at all. BLP=higher sourcing threshold.Anastrophe (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Newshub Wikipedia article is not about "their television show". And who is this "white supremacist"? There seems to be problem here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Virtually the entire newshub article is about their television news. As for the white supremacist, here's a novel idea: read the source in question that you are supporting. There does, indeed, seem to be a problem here. Anastrophe (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How is a white supremacist relevant to Campbell or this article? We don't mention white supremacists. Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't use sources that engage in guilt by association.

WP:BLPBALANCE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. (emphasis added)

I've already discussed how the source juxtaposes the two. How much clearer does it need to be made? Bottom line: it's a weak source. The content within the source quoting Dr. Kall is dandy - but it's a single, weak source that violates BLP requirements. Hell, the source isn't even written by a journalist. How on earth this can be defended as a good source is boggling.Anastrophe (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources do not "juxtapose" Campbell and white supremacists (which we do not mention in any case). The sources are fine, reliable, secondary, mainstream news sources - suitable for use here. We properly and carefully represent them. Job done. Until there are more sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The source does indeed juxtapose:

A popular UK health YouTuber John Campbell dubbed it the "Miracle in Japan", citing two potential reasons. The first is that the virus mutated itself into a state where it couldn't reproduce effectively - a new theory put forward by a top Japanese genetic researcher earlier this week; the second, that old staple of conspiracy theorists and fake news peddlers - the anti-parasitic medicine ivermectin, which is has yet to be shown to be effective against COVID-19 in any reputable medical trial.

Misinformation websites also picked up on the claims Both theories have significant problems however.

Ivermectin In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead.

Never mind that the latter came before Campbell's video was made, let's just imply that it was picked up by the white supremacist. That sort of dodgy "journalism" is generally not used as sourcing in a BLP.

Newshub: endless clickbait. Article not written by an actual journalist. You claim that Newshub's website article is a "fine, reliable, secondary, mainstream news source". We don't go by an editor's opinion of a news source's reliability - there are metrics for this. Newshub is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - I'd hardly call them mainstream absent presence on that list, acknowledging that the list is not comprehensive. They're certainly not a go-to source, and if their claims (or Dr. Kall's twitter commentary) were noteworthy, they'd be cited in more than this single source. They are not, to my knowledge and investigation. That is quintessential poor sourcing for a BLP. I would happily support inclusion of Dr. Kall's commentary, if it were in something less dodgy than Newshub, and noteworthy enough that more than this single source existed.Anastrophe (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Article not written by an actual journalist" more false statements, and a BLP violation against Mr Satherley. WP:RSP has no policy or guidelines force and is only a index of sources which have been in dispute in any case. To call a secondary, mainstream news source "quintessential poor sourcing for a BLP" indicates you are not arguing in good faith. I shall therefore disengage. Do not take my lack of further response for agreement. Alexbrn (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going by the tag on the article - "Dan is a senior digital producer for Newshub based in Auckland." I'm guilty of not checking his credentials adequately. I retract the claim. I stand by my argument that the source engages in guilt by association - there is literally no connection between the white-supremacist's rantings and Dr. Campbell, yet the article suggests one. BLP policy forbids that sort of sourcing.

Dr. Kall, however, has impeccable credentials, and if her comments were cited in more than a single source, noteworthiness of the matter might be better established. A single documented instance of an anti-vaxxer using campbell's video doesn't establish noteworthy impact of his statements.

"To call a secondary, mainstream news source "quintessential poor sourcing for a BLP" indicates you are not arguing in good faith. Good, because that is not what I wrote, which, shockingly, is still only a few inches up on the page for anyone to confirm. Once again, misrepresenting what I clearly wrote. I would welcome input from other editors who won't relentlessy twist my words. Anastrophe (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IRT WP:BALANCE: this is far from an attack page and the text you quoted seems to be about avoiding editorial guilt by association (vs WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, WP:FRIND, WP:PARITY, WP:MEDRS, that are about source selection). If RS explicitly mention associations it's not an editorial to reflect it. But it seems to not even be an issue in this article. —PaleoNeonate – 04:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be an 'attack page', but it is certainly an attempt at conflating a _single_ source's 'fact check' into a matter so serious that it warrants an entire section in the article(WP:UNDUE. Campbell used a very poor choice of words in describing something that appeared to be one thing but in fact was another, and Meaghan Kall herself fact-checked it on twitter. Then the fellow at "Newshub" decided to write an article about the actual fact check.

The matter remains unresolved. I challenge the legitimacy of this single source as warrantable within a BLP. Did Campbell say what he said? Yes. Did Kall fact-check him on twitter? Yes. Does a single reporter on "Newshub" taking that existent material and shaping it into his own "Fact check" - with some sketchy rhetorical devices spiced into it - constitute a significantly notable event in Dr. Campbell's life, so newsworthy that it deserves its own section? Noperoni. Not by BLP standards, by my reading. This was not a significant event in Mr. Campbell's life, which is what a BLP exists to describe. Giving it its own section? Nonsense. That's undue weight.

WP:BLPBALANCE may seem to be about avoiding such material editorially within the article; I believe it is broadly enough written to be inclusive of sources that employ dodgy rhetorical tactics to present a guilt-by-association. Those aren't sources we want to use in BLP's, I'd say. And, as I've said many times, this matter appears in precisely ONE news source. That does not confer adequate enough notability, not for a BLP. Hell, regardless of whatever I think of Newshub as a news source, if it was notable, it would have been picked up by the agencies/syndicates. All I'm able to drum up are Kall's self-published words on twitter, DailyKOS (not a reliable source), and a handful of blogs (ibid).

Thus far it's been suggested that I just want to scrub the article of anything/everything bad. Attempts at impugning my motive have been plentiful. They are excellect distractors from the policy matters I've hammered on. At minimum, bare minimum, if for some reason this single-sourced content must remain in the article for some reason, it should at least be trimmed appropriately, and moving it into the main body, rather than its own section, would be more appropriate. This avoids giving it undue weight. Anastrophe (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This section is not right. I watched the video there are no claims made. Please remove section Peacheyreader (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the writing in this section is weird. Comes across like a cheap tabloid. It is too biased. Should not be in Wikipedia. Peacheyreader (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not this section meets citation requirements, it most definitely, most obviously, opens Wikipedia to a libel suit. Consider yourself warned. Altairah (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

whose pov?

Alexbrn, please explain your reversion. Whose POV is being 'skewed'? I provided the basis for the changes. The presentation that you restored is not neutral, it vastly overstates the impact of these two 'events'. This is a BLP. I get a sense of ownership taking place here. You've yet to respond to the majority of the policy-based problems I've brought up. Eventualism isn't acceptable in a BLP. Please explain how my edit "skews" the pov, and what that pov is. Anastrophe (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The POV of the article. As discussed above. You arguments are not policy based but riddled with opinion and falsity. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting my statements and pretending not to see the policies I've used in making the changes. BLP is very clear. The BLP engages in recentism. My changes did not remove the challenges, they brought them into neutral proportion for a BLP. We are to use a neutral tone. The article in its current condition vastly overstates the impact of two criticized videos. Giving an entire separate section is obviously overstating the matter, particularly when only one source is used for each, and the 'event' wasn't even picked up by the agencies/syndicates. Articles are to be neutral in their presentation of the material, so, in fact, the version you restored skews the POV by knocking it into vast overstatement.

As it seems some have forgotten these crucial policies, here you go:

• "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
• "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events."
• "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints"
• "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.

These are policies, yet you claim they are not. That's a fairly remarkable claim. The demand that the article give disproprionate space to these minor events is untenable by BLP standards; discretionary sanctions are indeed in place. You are forcing an imbalanced presentation of the subject matter.Anastrophe (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"yet you claim they are not" ← Another false statement. We are fully in line with BLP in all the respects you mention, and more. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a false statement. You wrote You arguments are not policy based - even though I've presented those actual policies; therefore, you are denying they are policies. The article overstates the impact of these events. It gives disproportionate space to the matter - nearly a third of the article space is devoted to it. It engages in recentism. The presentation is grossly imbalanced. It's nice to dismiss my policy-based arguments by saying they aren't policy-based, but it holds no water. The stick is, apparently, held by you - insisting on an imbalanced, overstated presentation about a living person.Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:TINFOILHAT (which is a section of WP:NPOV) applies. The views Campbell promotes, unwittingly or otherwise, should not be presented as being equal to the mainstream consensus. FDW777 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And they are not presented as equal to mainstream consensus. Please review the version I posted before Alexbrn's reversion.Anastrophe (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest caution in tossing out the tinfoilhat policy; This is a BLP.Anastrophe (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, that part of the policy WP:NPOV must be modified as applying only to the opinions of long-dead people, because every tinfoil hatter of this and the last century is a BLP in the wider sense. Go to the policy talk page and get the policy changed according to your wishes before applying the policies you wish we had. Until then, we apply the existing ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is incomprehensible and appears to be circular. We're not supposed to impugn the subjects of BLP in articles or in talk. 'tinfoil hat' is pejorative, even when applied appropriately - it's a pejorative term, unless you have some examples of when it's a compliment. I'd suggest you reread the policy, both 'tinfoil hat' and blp - your 'guidance' is way off the mark per the policies themselves. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to contribute to the quality of content on Wikipedia. This page has been vandalized and some editors are clearly biased. I don't see any YouTube videos referenced, only articles that discuss supposed video content. I am surprised to see a 'misinformation' section because I have watched every video. The covid misinformation section wrong. Peacheyreader (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not reference any videos as wp:or forbids us from drawing conclusions. We go by what wp:rs say. This is not vandalism, it is obeying our policies on content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Suggest we REMOVE this prominent paragraph: In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said.[4]

It is biased, unobjective, not encyclopaedic, and arguably libellous; an attempt to slur a non 'mainstream media' contributor who appears to use data objectively, who does not use fearmongering in the way reputable news organisations have done (albeit with good intent... eg to encourage uptake of vaccines). It should be understood that Campbell is not an anti-vaxxer or covid denier either - he consistently encourages and supports the use of vaccines and boosters in his videos, and praises countries on their vaccine uptake (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vYslhtMbDw and many others), and consistently draws on reputable authorities for the data he analyses. Your contributor's hang up seems partly to do with ivermectin - often asssociated with right wing anit-vaxxers. The jury is out on ivermectin, there is not enough proof either way, but just because it is used to medicate horses, does not mean it cannot be used in different doses in humans, remember Viagra was supposed to be a heart medication! Campbell upset some anti-right wing journalists by including a prominent Japanese medic's comments on trying ivermectin as one of several possible influences on the sudden and dramatic downturn in cases in Japan, which may or may not have been coincidental rather than causal.

These are all valid topics for discussion in chats but not for the encyclopaedic "definition" of a person. Somebody is abusing Wikipedia by including this as biographical material and exacerbating it by positioning it so prominently, with the words 'false claims' highlighted.

The "evidence" cited in footnote [3] is even more un-journalistic and unobjective, using slurs and guilt by association "In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead." ... The second claim is pointless and again should not be included in this profile: "another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said." a) it says he had not said it... so why is this a prominent detail in his biographical summary? b) anti-vax activists (of which he is clearly not one) used his video to make some or other claim. The Trump campaign used Neil Young's and Bruce Springsteen's music... that does not justify tarring Young or Springsteen as Trumpers does it!

May I recommend that you remove both these paragraphs - this is a supposed to be an objective biography section not a character assassination section written by someone with a grudge or political agenda. Thank you. My "qualifications" for this... Masters in Biological Sciences, 10 years reporting and objective documentary making for a major broadcaster, pro-vaxxer, pro-health, and yes I have watched several of Campbell's videos but have no connection with him. I have also followed much of the reporting on CNN, MSNBC, BBC and CBC. Fact and balance please, this is not the place for political or personal sniping, from either side! Thanks for reviewing! DiRoio (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DiRoio (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:ER, consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. FDW777 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that there is neither consensus for inclusion nor consensus for removal. If I'm not mistaken, typically material that has been challenged does _not_ remain in a BLP until consensus has been reached. But, as I mentioned - I may be mistaken on that point - wikilawyering is not something I have any skill in, so other editors can certainly clarify. Having read all of my bloviations, and others commentary, I am not in favor of excluding the material from the article. However, I do believe that my single edit of the article brought the material into proper balance by BLP standards; giving a third of the article space to the two matters that were fact-checked is just silly, and obviously gives undue weight to them, in the totality of Campbell's life. But we need consensus, not ownership and blockading. I believe my edit was a fair compromise. Anastrophe (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Please remove the following:

In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially authorised for such use in the country—its use was merely promoted by the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] Meaghan Kall, the lead epidemiologist for COVID-19 at the UK Health Security Agency, said that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]

In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality, but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology, and a lack of clear data.[4] Danieltate (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This section should be removed as it violates Wikiepdia's BLP policy as it seeks to defame and/or degrade John Campbell's credibility. In a rapidly evolving pandemic, it is not unreasonable to occasionally misinterpret studies. The above seeks to protray John Campbell as some some sort of anti-vax role model, when in fact he is an accredited doctor. The above paragraph is political in nature, and should be removed. It also violates Wikipedia's BLP policy rv. contentious material and does does not meet BLP policy standards

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not the job of retired nurses (he is not an "accredited doctor") to interpet studies in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a laughable fallacy you've just engaged in, you realize that, right? What a ridiculous comment, and offensive to the nursing profession. He's an academic, and senior lecturer, whose books are widely aclaimed in the nursing field. Tell me, how is it that when journalists with no medical background interpret studies for our revered 'fact check' articles, that that meets your criteria? Who, exactly, is it who should be 'allowed' to interpret studies? Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (2)

REMOVE

In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said. Danieltate (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Why are we allowing his page to be defaced by the claim that anti-vaxxers used his videos? This is defamtory, and he cannot control who uses his videos. And he didn't even say whatever misinformation was being touted. The presence of this verbage is slanderous, politica, and should not be on his page which should be biographical in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieltate (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

He can however choose what to cover in his videos, and might be better off avoiding the promotion of unproven drugs. FDW777 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to any of his videos in which he says "Ivermectin works, I recommend my viewers use it"? There's a difference between discourse and promotion. Particularly with an "unproven drug" that is in active clinical trials; I guess it was a bad idea for anyone to have opened their mouth about the covid vaccines before the FDA gave emergency approval for their use - they were "unproven drugs" before that. By your reasoning, discussing _failed_ clinical trials of Ivermectin constitutes "promotion". You don't like people discussing Ivermectin. Good for you. I was chastised for my non-policy-based comments. What policy does your last comment fall under? Still waiting for sourced evidence of your claim that Campbell "history of making misleading self-serving claims". Not your opinion - a reliable source, because that's what we base articles upon, n'est ce pas? Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

--

Editors can easily see the claim made about Campbell that "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin" is simply incorrect, by actually viewing the video in question (which takes only 8.5 minutes at double speed) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g

At no point in the video does Campbell make any conclusive claims at all about ivermectin. He only presents it as one of several *possible* explanations for low case rates in Japan, and says that high rates of vaccination and mask wearing are also possible explanations, and likely co-factors in the low case rate. So that section of the introduction (if not removed) should be edited to more accurately highlight *reactions* to the video which assume that Campbell somehow declared ivermectin a treatment, when he didn't. Brookse32 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

How can it be a "possible" cause if it wasn't being used? Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent question. The answer is that Campbell, at no point in the video, even claims that ivermectin is being used broadly in Japan. He only puts forward his hypothesis that since a high level public official told both people and health care practitioners that they were *allowed* to use it, it is possible that an increase in ivermectin use might be a factor in Japan's low infection rate. He only lays out the theory along with many other theories in the same video. Brookse32 (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is the problem, he puts forward a hypothesis that he is not in fact qualified to make, based on dubious evidence (well in fact none) which had been roundly dismissed by some who is qualified to make a judgment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

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

---

While attempting to make the following edit, the protected edit status refused to allow the link to a video immediately predating the video referenced by a claimant whose claims were not substantiated in the video. Confusing? Yes, which is why the following edit sets things in their proper perspective: On October 9, 2021, in response to the BBC's ivermectin-opposition article entitled, "Reality Check," Dr. Campbell stated, "Now, what is the fact that many people are anti-vaccine activists? Is that true? They give no evidence for that. Let's take me, for example, and a lot of other people I've been talking to. We are very pro-vaccination because we want to prevent human pain, suffering and death via disease. We are also very pro-treatment, if treatments are available, we want that treatment. I'm greedy. I want both. I want to help as many people as much as I can. That's what you go into healthcare for." In November 2021, Dr. Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was taken out of context and used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks.. The blocked link was the zy7c_FHiEac YouTube video. How Dr. Campbell's videos ended up on the blacklist is another matter, one that's of grave concern to many scientists, as Dr. Campbell has approached matters using strict scientific methodology, namely question everything, beginning with one's own hypotheses. Science is all about discovery. It is NOT about protecting agendas. In that respect, Dr. Campbell is an excellent scientist and a very good educator. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and WP:YOUTUBE is hardly ever acceptable, especially for biomedical topics. Please get consensus before requesting an edit. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

Peacheyreader (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No request. Alexbrn (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

—

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

Please remove the phrase "Campbell made false claims", as there is no cited evidence to support this; rather, he made legitimate speculations (“two potential reasons”, to quote the source) about a remarkable decline in Japanese Covid cases which requires explanation. He did not endorse any course of action.

Dr Campbell’s video “Ivermectin in Japan – YouTube” went out on Nov 23, 2021. In it he calls the rise in Ivermectin use in Japan and the matching decline in Covid in that country “a remarkable coincidence”.

I suggest that the contentious phrase "Campbell made false claims" be changed to "Campbell was accused of making false claims" and allow the reader to decide, on the basis of the sources supplied, whether they think he did or didn’t do so. As yet there seems to be no convincing evidence that he did. Faltero (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep,. I can see this as fair. it has not got a lot of coverage, so may lets ere on the side of caution.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the false claim that ivermectin was enjoying sudden widespread use in Japan? That's that the sources say. I don't think we should be framing this as "legitimate speculation" to "allow the reader to decide", especially when the only actual scientist to comment on (Kall) it has said of the ivermectin speculation, that it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation"". Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure he said the. The source just says its use might be a possible reason for Japan's fall in cases. It is a false claim, but the source does not say he said it was the reason, just a possible reason. In a sense (and this is the problem, what I am about to say is wp:or) this is a classic dog whistle of "just posing a question". But we need an RS saying that if we are too. So I am not sure he actually made any claims at all, rather than just (as with his other covid misinformation) made unqualified musings. maybe we need to change it to what the source says and say "Campbell drew false conclusions about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment", which seems to be close to what the quoted expert says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There's the dog-whistle (showing a graph with a fall and a big arrow saying "ivermectin allowed here"), and there's the false information: that ivermectin was (ridiculous thought) suddenly switched on throughout the population following some maverick doctor's press conference. So as well as the reasoning being wrong, the premise is wrong. For Wikipedia to present this as "legitimate speculation" would be very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hence why I suggest we change it to "drew false conclusions".Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My take on this is that it is biased against the subject (Dr. John Campbell) to even note this reaction to his work in the introduction, especially when using a reference that has such a clearly strong and even aggressive ideological bias against Campbell. Subjective critiques like this belong in the 'Misinformation' section, not in the article intro. Brookse32 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it belongs in the lead, Per MOS:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I'm curious as to what you mean by a reference that has such a clearly strong and even aggressive ideological bias against Campbell? Fact checkers have no ideological bias whatsoever, their only "ideology" would be telling the truth. FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone go for this? "In November 2021 Campbell drew criticism for his poor analysis of the "Japanese Miracle" as possibly due to ivermectin use; epidemiologist Megan Hall, head epidemiologist at the UK Health Security Agency, calling it a classic case of confusing correlation with causation." Faltero (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No as I am unsure it was even analysis, after all he is a nurse, not an MD. It was at best a claim made by someone not qualified to make such claims.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect, he’s not a nurse. He’s a senior lecturer and nurse educator of 25 years standing. In America a similar position would bear the title of assistant, if not full, professor. He is also a published physician. What is more he is more qualified than Megan Hall who does not hold a PhD, as Campbell does. Between Hall and Campbell, Campbell is very likely the more qualified epidemiologist. Faltero (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He is still not an MD, nor a clinical researcher for an epidemiologist (unlike the person who said he did not know what he was talking about). Nor can he be a published physician as he is not a published physician (as I said he hold not an MD).Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Faltero (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Faltero (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So? He holds a PHD in nursing, which is not relevant to clinical diagnosis. He is not a qualified epidemiologist. By the way she has a doctorate (in the relevant field) and seems to be very well regarded [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No he is not a physician here is what being a physician means [[2]] "A physician is a medical doctor who usually focuses on the non-surgical treatment of patients’ conditions. " he was a nurse, not an MD. Unless you are an MD you are not a physican.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And this is why I have no issue with this suggested change or wording, it is clear he (and what he says) is being misrepresented in various places. Now I have no idea to what degree he is responsible, or if he is wholly innocent. But it means I think we do need to take care in how we describe him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. However, the latest video about deaths has had so much impact it's lkely we're going to get more sources soon. I see CapX has just run a piece.[3] Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"So much impact"? What is your metric? So far, a beloved 'fact check' is the only source for yet another entire paragraph in the section, which now looms towards half the biography's content. The mention of the comedian's stuff is entirely WP:UNDUE. The Jimmy Dore video hasn't even cracked 200,000 views. You're going to have to find better evidence of "so much impact". Again, the best that can be scraped together are three cites for the entire section. I've made clear previously the severe shortcomings of the first one, which was primarily click-bait and dodgily-written. These "fact checks" are too often this bizarre virtue-signaling that has taken over social media, yet has very little to do with Campbell himself - the ostensible subject of the article, but apparently an unknown comedian merits mention in it. I haven't watched campbell's video yet. What's described in the article sounds like just more guilt-by-association crap - Campbell says something, some ass-hat runs with it in an uninformed fashion. That is not Campbell's responsibility, no matter how hard editors want to claim it's necessary to counter misinformation, that's not what a BLP exists for. Sell the misinformation incantations elsewhere. What a disappointment. The section merits little more than a single paragraph, and wrapped into his 'career' section. These fact checks do not define Campbell. Too bad these weak 'fact check' pages don't show their page views. Then we might have an actual ideal of the 'impact'. Anastrophe (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like what the sources say or the reality they report on. Unfortunately for you, as this channel becomes more and more a locus of misinformation it is inevitable that will be reflected in decent sources, especially if that information gets picked up by high-profile figures in the UK like David Davis. Did you even read the CapX source? Or perhaps you could find more sources? Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please avoid suggesting that I don't like "the reality they report on". I'm not the bogeyman/Republican/White supremacist/fill-in-the-blank you may presume, I support none of the anti-vaccine nonsense, not ivermectin, or anything else. They don't report on 'reality', they "report" in order to maintain what I've suggested before, a cultural cudgel now used to try to shame and marginalize anyone who doesn't toe the line of political indignity. I did see the CapX source. I read it. For some reason, you chose only to cite the "fact check" within the article. What is harmful now are these absurd 'fact checks'. I do not dispute the meaningful parts of "fact checks", but they devolve into primarily virtue signaling and exaggeration. The line between journalism and political advocacy has never been more blurred.

"it is inevitable that will be reflected in decent sources [...]" - this certainly sounds like a tacit admission that the existing sources are _not_ decent sources, with which I agree. Campbell posts a video. Someone (Kall) points out what's wrong with it on twitter. A reporter inclined towards shaming those who are in error chooses to make it a "fact check". "We" here, in service to shaming as well, exaggerate the influence of the BLP subject, and exaggerate the impact of whatever misinformation _others_ may spread using him as the basis - which really has nothing to do with the BLP subject, absent actual, meaningful evidence that it amounts to more than a hill of beans - as in, simultaneous coverage in WAPO, WSJ, NYT, and actual serious sources with journalistic integrity - or at least a semblance of same.

Okay - I'm all out of rant. Have fun with continuing to massively exaggerate the impact of Campbell's digressions. Anastrophe (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So long as we are reflecting good sources like the Poynter Institute, all will be well. In reality only a fraction of this channel's misinformation has so far attracted commentary in RS. But as I say, this may change if things continue in the direction they seem to be going in. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So we are to leave the article with a grossly exaggerated impression of the impact of these matters, compared to the rest of his life and career, just waiting for better reliable sources to eventually appear, in the vain hope that perhaps, just maybe, the future will support the current version? Is that how BLP's are supposed to reflect their subject? Or are they supposed to reflect the actual relevance of given matters within the context of a BLP's life and the world at large, as the sources actually reflect, now? No, this is an untenable rationalization. Anastrophe (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The impact of Campbell's videos runs to many millions of people. It's his legacy. That's why there are sources. Without the videos the guy would fail WP:NBIO. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why wp:gng generally discourage articles on people notable for one thing, as it maybe it does not reflect on their whole life and work. Without this controversy, it's unlikely Campbell would be notable (but might be, it depends on how widely his academic work is cited). But we must refpelct what RS consider notable about a person, if we deem them to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

vague quote

Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]

This is a vague and confusing quote. Misinformation from whom? What does the pronoun "this" in "this appears" stand for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltero (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation is from social media. "This" is the claim ivermectin was being widely used in Japan. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Campbell’s tentative claim of wide ivermectin use in Japan was based on his misunderstanding Dr. Haruo Ozaki’s endorsement of it on the 13th of August and the coincidental drop in Covid cases in 6 days later. He was indeed confusing causation and correlation, and made a very poor analysis, but this was not based on anecdata on social media. That anecdata on social media is driving wildly damaging misinformation is plausible, but it’s the social media doing the driving, not Campbell. I would suggest that that particular quote is unnecessary and possibly misleading. Faltero (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's key: if ivermectin wasn't being used in Japan, it's misinformation to say it was. Implying that this then caused a spontaneous case drop compounded the problem. Campbell shouldn't be regurgitating crap from social media as fact, is the point of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way round. Campbell saw the case drop and tried to identify the cause. One possible cause among others was the promotion of ivermectin.Faltero (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is identifying the cause the job or field of expertise of a retired nurse educator? FDW777 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hardly the place to criticise analysis by people with no apparant expertise.11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Faltero (talk)

Well it is if RS do (they do).Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Point taken.Faltero (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

John Campell is a retired senior lecturer with a PhD and 27 years teaching experience with the NHS. As such he is hugely in favour of conventional public health measures. He is hardly likely to promote the use of unproven drugs. In America he would definitely hold the title of full professor. Such people can usually identify regurgitated crap in social media and tend not to use it.

If “based on anecdata” means “based anecdotal evidence” (evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them) this is patently false.

“Driving wildly damaging misinformation.” That’s comment is pretty strong too; Peddling information he knows to be false and recklessly promoting ivermectin? Nothing much less would warrant it. Faltero (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, but it's irrelevant here. Wikipedia follows reliable sources and by them while he may have been sensible a couple of years ago, sources are now identifying these videos as a major vector of misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My comment is largely about the quality of the quote. If you have other sources now identifying these videos as a major vector of misinformation, I suggest you take from one of them an alternative quote that is more intelligible and credible than that of Ms.Kall.

Also personal denigration of Dr. Campbell as a purveyor of undigested social media crap is, in my opinion, likely to unfairly prejudice the views of other contributors to this article, don’t you agree? Faltero (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Dunno. It's not our job to try and steer people into, or away from, prejudices - rather just to relay what's known from reliable sources. As to ivermectin - yes, there has been an awful lot of crap on social media as described in the linked article (Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic). Campbell's postings have been part of this,[4] but his efforts have not been discussed in sufficiently reliable sources so Wikipedia stays silent on how bad it was. All we can do is follow the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, that’s acceptable. I think it’s a pity Campbell’s Japan video was one of his most badly presented ones. His knowledge of virology can really be very impressive, to the lay man at least. Maybe he is losing his touch. Fascinating to see the rigour and passion you guys put in. I will follow the development of the article with great interest, but probably only as a reader. Thanks.Faltero (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Contesting Revert by Alexbrn on 2022-01-29

I would like to contest the revert by @Alexbrn 2022-01-29 at 15:49. I've never dealt with this situation previously, so I hope that this is the right forum. The edit that was reverted contained three deletions, and will be addressed individually.

1. Ivermectin

Removed: ", and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment"

Ivermectin is highly controversial as a treatment for COVID-19, and thus has its own page about misinformation related to it (which is linked in the article). Additionally, there is a lot of junk "science" related to it with non-RCT studies. However, there are some decent RCT studies that indicate it has benefits in specific use cases (e.g. in populations where parasites are endemic and weaken people's immune systems; thus while not a direct treatment for COVID-19, it does have an established benefit in helping the fight against COVID-19)." Thus from a scientific perspective, to state that "it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment", would require every study conducted on Ivermectin to have been false, which is rather implausible.

Proposed alternatives:

• ", and is not supported by the western medical establishment"
• ", and is not supported by the CDC, NHS, "...
• Do nothing: I highly doubt I am going to win this one...

2. Use of misquoting by anti-vaccination activists as criticism of Dr. Campbell

Removed: " and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks"

There is no citation of this quote, and it gives undo weight to viewers as opposed to Dr. Campbell himself. Dr. Campbell was highly critical of the article. From the cited article,

"In the video, Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in nursing education but is not a physician, reads the abstract and says that if the findings are correct, it would be “incredibly significant.” But are they? He’s not so sure.

Even though Campbell doesn’t mention the expression of concern, he says he’s surprised by the abstract typos, lack of clear data and methodology, and even by the fact that Gundry sells groceries on his website. “I must have worked with about 20 or 30 cardiologists over my career, and I can’t remember any having a grocery facility,” he says 20 minutes into the video."

I have watched the entire video in question [5] and agree with the above quote found in the fact check. He says that since the article has spread so far and that if the article were to be true it would be incredibly significant, there should be a government response. Calling for a government response to an article he is critical is not supporting the article. If a medical professional cannot discuss be highly critical of scientific research that they find in a peer reviewed journal, we have a major problem. The fact that some have erroneously stated that his review of this article indicates support for it should not be counted against him.

Proposed alternatives:

• Delete entire paragraph
• Focus the paragraph on his criticisms of the article, not on criticism of him for reviewing the article.

3. Overreported deaths

Removed: "A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported. "

This is an editorial statement with no citation. There are well respected scientists who disagree with official figures, stating that they are either too high or too low. This video merely examines on of these claims. To start the paragraph off with a claim that this is misinformation colors the rest of what is stated herein.

After further review of related videos and statement by Dr. Campbell:

The linked BBC and Politifact articles have basic factual errors related to the video. Dr. Campbell's review of the BBC article stated he never claimed that 17,000 is correct (he did agree that he claimed that this is a big story)[6]. Given that the sources make erroneous statements about what Dr. Campbell stated, and in his original video he stated that the "127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average ... is probably pretty good indicator" (start at ~1 minute [7]), it is obvious he does not agree with the 17,000 count as a good estimate of the true death toll. This entire paragraph should be deleted or be edited to express that he does not agree with these numbers.

Proposed alternatives:

• Delete entire paragraph
• Lead with the official figures from the NHS (currently in sentence 5) and state that Dr. Campbell

Jevandezande (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding point#2, there is a citation. At the end of the sentence after this article is cited, which says But opponents of the vaccine have used the video as confirmation that the mRNA vaccines are going to provoke “a massive unimaginable amount of extra heart attacks.” That you have apparently not even bothered to read this article means I won't waste time reading your post. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to say that, and as to the rest, we do not second guess RS. I see no reason thus to remove the material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jevandezande:

1. Saying ivermectin "has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment" is neutral and trivially true. The counter-proposals suffer from WP:GEVAL/WP:PROFRINGE problems.
2. See response from others above.
3. The cited source opens "Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, some critics of measures to control the virus have downplayed its seriousness, suggesting the real death toll is much lower than what is being reported." This is the context. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin is highly controversial as a treatment for COVID-19 not scientifically and WP should reflect the scientific consensus on the topic. Reliable sources are clear that it has not been demonstrated to be effective for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. GEVAL has been mentioned: WP should avoid presenting the topic as if it was legitimately controversial or to pretend that the best sources are just opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 05:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible malicious juxtaposition

As others have stated above, the uncited point of view about the public mood, i.e. “A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported”, sets the tone for this para. The article thereunder states: "...Campbell ... cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics ... and ... a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was given as a cause of death. ... A spokesman from the ONS clarified that death certificates mentioning COVID-19 anywhere meant that COVID-19 was a causal factor in the death. ... The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000 ..." The implication is that Campbell had twisted or misquoted statistics, leaving the ONS with the need to clarify their own data. However, Campbell cited and explained the statistics exactly as published. He did so again on YouTube in his 29 Feb 2022 video. The sentence about the stats being "clarified" is therefore misleading and redundant, as it leaves the impression that clarification was required, where none was. Campbell was at pains to make clear that the 17,371 figure was what remained when deaths involving co-morbidities were excluded, but he has frequently also quoted the (mounting) overall deaths statistics, and explained at length in both relevant videos what the lower figure represented. I believe the mentioning of this apparent ‘clarification’ was at best mischievous, at worst malicious. This is an encyclopedia. A broadcaster, Campbell, quoted an official statistic and explained it unambiguously at least twice. In an area where many have axes to grind, this content needs to be redacted. Ad hominem content is not always a point-blank shot, and we must be alive to the art of juxtaposition, where contention is suggested that is, in reality, absent, to taint or discredit the original broadcaster. Given the propensity for reversion in many Covid-related articles, and the enormous time and prolix already devoted to these matters above, it is imperative IMHO that a more senior figure in the Wikipedia structure grasp the nettle here, and redact the unencyclopedic content. Humboles (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Per the cited source, Campbell suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Wikipedia follows sources, not the idea of drive-by editors. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no desire to inflate Campbell's viewing figures and bank balance by watching his video, so perhaps someone could explain why if the OP's assertions are correct then why do the BBC say Campbell released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"? FDW777 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, RS would have watched the video and (conspiracy theories aside) have no reason to misrepresent the situation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What if the cited source is incorrect? Accidental misquotes and typos happen all the time, but in this case it does not appear that the source watched the video by Dr. Campbell. What is the method for correcting this?

Dr. Campbell has released a video stating that the BBC got his statement wrong: he thinks that 17,000 is much too low (starts at 2:20 [8]). In fact, he praises the Office of National Statistics (starts at 3:53. "Full marks for the Office of National Statistics, absolutely wonderful and we have done nothing but sing their praises all the way through this pandemic. To be quite honest they have been absolutely brilliant, which of course is why we use them." [9]). If nothing else, the article should be edited to reflect that he has stated he thinks that 17,000 is much too low. Jevandezande (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest this article is removed in its entirety. It's currently a collection of opinions instead of unquestionable facts. Using so called "fact check"-websites as sources is highly questionable as many of these fact checks have been proved false just months later. The article is, however, currently used to frame John Campbell as a spreader of disinformation. Wikipedia should be neutral and stick to facts and it's clear this article doesn't. No article at all is better than an article with is falsely framing a youtuber. Martdj (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article is a badly written, badly cited mess. That's why it's getting so many drive-bys. No way is it an encyclopaedic biography. Scrap it. Faltero (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Then wp:afd it, but we need RS saying that anything he has said is correct, and no one has produced any yet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

But (be warned) an AFD based on "to many drive by's" won't swing it, it needs to be a policy-based argument.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a biography

This article has serious flaws if it purports to be an objective biography.

The title itself disingenuously selective. Not Campbell, academic, Campbell retired NHS trainer, retired senior lecturer, Campbell teacher or Campbell broadcaster. But we get YouTuber, someone who makes money out of posting videos.

Next we get a brief bit of actual biographical detail. But all this is common knowledge; the writer includes no facts showing he (she) has the least bit on personal acquaintance with Campbell’s life or achievements. Why then were they were motivated to write it?

After this paragraph, which is fairly sympathetic, comes an abrupt change of tone. Out of the blue comes the phrase “he made false claims”. Campbell is now starting to look like an unreliable charlatan seeking to make money off the back of YouTube, even before any pertinent evidence has been presented.

It then descends from trivial biography into no biography at all. Simply a catalogue of accusations of misinformation using quotes from whatever dredged up sources of information the writers think they can get away with. At least one of which has only tangential relevance to Campbell, is only partially intelligible but sets the tone perfectly, “Based on anecdata driving wildly damaging misinformation.”

Most of the article consists of this prolonged trial in absentia and appears to stem from personal prejudice against Campbell. Views about him expressed on this page include: that he sends out coded messages to his readers in order gain followers, that he is a nurse, that they have an aversion to watching his videos for fear of giving him revenue and that he is a purveyor of “undigested crap from social media”

If people think Campbell is a fraud and want to take him down, that’s legitimate. But don’t set up a forum on Wikipedia disguised as a biography on which to do so. The whole article should be removed and, if written again, written by people who have an interest in the story of Campbell’s life.Faltero (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To avoid using this talk page as a forum (WP:NOTFORUM), do you have reliable sources to list that contest the ones currently used in the article to support that material? As others have pointed out, the article is not about the opinions of Wikipedia editors... —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This article is on Campbell (and his works) as covered by reliable sources. Some editors apparently just don't like what (some of) those sources say, but Wikipedia can't fix that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS consider notable. If people are not happy with that, well get onto the RS. One way this could be done is that Campbell could get an RS to publish a retraction or clarification by him as to why he was not spreading covid misinformation. Until this happens we have to go with what RS say (that is what our policies say (see wp:v and wp:rs).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)