Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Misinformation should not be there

User made absolutely no argument other then this person said no so I believe then instead. Onlyfacts77 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is absurd I represent a veteran research community with medical doctors and other related professionals. It is urgent continuously with overwhelming data that this is complete defamation an absolute misinformation on behalf of those who seek to eliminate the credible reputation of Dr PhD John Campbell. There’s absolutely no justification for any of the misleading comments such as this information false claims or any other related defamation currently posted on this very prestigious webpage. It is evidently false and rather insulting to anyone who knows the truth and anyone who doesn’t being misled. The editor of this sea of lies is the miss information corporate not Dr. John Campbell Usmc medical (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, you are not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The wording of this article clearly violates the Neutral Point of View guidelines. It is obvious that the "point of view" is that everything on Dr. Campbell's podcasts is misinformation; that his goal is to spread misinformation. That is how the wording comes across. A more judicious use of words would be more in keeping with NPV, such as:

John L. Campbell is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube videos containing controversial commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic on his Dr. John Campbell channel. By January 2022, his videos had been viewed more than 429 million times.

Campbell has repeatedly made controversial claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, questioned vaccine safety, and claimed that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted.

Similar types of edits could be made in the "Misleading Information" section. One might say something such as: Dr Campbell suggests that ivermectin might be an effective treatment for COVID-19, but current research does not support this claim [site source already in place]." Let us remember that the science is continually changing as are recommendations for preventive measures and treatments. Using neutral wording is a hedge against our writing itself becoming misinformation. 2601:901:203:3900:7D78:9281:FBE2:A757 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being bought into disrepute

My edits on this page have been reverted :

Campbell has made repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and allegedly[3] spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety, though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid[4]. It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death.[5].[6][7][8]

Both additions are cited.

I am very saddened by this, it is the very worst of Wikipedia. Saying one cannot use the actual comment from the subject of the article, but only use a comment from some other site quoting the subject of the article is utterly ludicrous and basically certain editors are using esoteric Wikipedia rules to promote their own agenda. Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated (fact 1), and he recommends vaccinations to all those at significant risk of Covid (fact 2). The article, and certainly the introduction, is implying Campbell is somehow anti-vax and is therefore inaccurate. I will accept alteration of my edits provided that the form of words used still makes clear Campbell is in favour of vaccination. --JustinSmith (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if both edits were cited, they need to be cited to wp:rs, one of your sources does not even mention (so violated either wp:or or wp:synthesis, and maybe both). Edits must obey our policies (as must talk page comments). Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And in fact Campbell said he now didn't think the vaccine was safe in one of his recent videos. Basically, it's all about courting loonies for money and his repeatedly grift has been document by reliable sources which Wikipedia faithfully mirrors, per core policy. The OP must not insert daft personal musings into Wikipedia and should be aware repeated disruption like that will get them banned, as it's that kind of damage which actually "brings Wikipedia into disrepute". Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, using terms like "courting loonies" proves you are indeed pushing your own agenda by using obscure rules to delete provable facts that disagree with the narrative you want to push. Banning me, after 16 years editing Wikipedia, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated. JustinSmith (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You need a source saying he is not anti-vax, how you interpret a source is not good enough, and after 16 years of editing Wikipedia you should be aware of that. Nor do we (In fact) say he is Anti-vax, so it is hard to see which of our content you think this disputes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia policies are "obscure rules", I suggest reading all of them first. FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think anything here is citable, but for the "facts" from the primary source, this twitter thread usefully captures the main vax/anti-vax aspects. Wikipedia does not say Campbell is antivax, mind you. That may change as sourcing grows. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why are you reading, or citing, a critical Twitter thread rather than actually hearing the man say he is triple vaccinated with his own mouth ? This sums up how biased this page has become. JustinSmith (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• What does him being triple jabbed have to do with anything? It doesn't in any way negate the misinformation about vaccines he's peddled to other people. FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Because we go by what wp:rs say, not wp:primary, and what Twitter thread do we cite in the article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:TWITTER, self-published sources may be used to support claims about the subject itself. If someone with a Wikipedia article claims they got a shot and self-published the claim, the source can be used to support the statement "Subject claims to have received a shot". This is all supported by policy and a statement is undeniably relevant to this article. While I do not support Justin Smith's edit warring behavior, we are forgetting that one of the edits he's trying to make is valid, just executed in a biased way. The added blurb should be more like "Campbell claims to be triple-vaccinated against COVID-19", rather than a statement of absolute fact. I am inclined to add this to the article. MarshallKe (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  To those who think his vaccination status is irrelevant, what is it irrelevant to? John Campbell, or the impression we might want a reader to leave with? MarshallKe (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Juxtaposing the statements like that is still a WP:SYN problem, it suggests a connection that isn't drawn from a source. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  MarshallKe is right that we could include his claim about vaccination status if attributed per WP:ABOUTSELF. MrOllie is right that doing so might lead to implications that aren't present in any secondary RS. It's abundantly clear that JustinSmith's intention was to create such an implication. I am weakly against including an attributed self-claim somewhere away from the misinfo section, maybe in Personal life. I'm opposed to putting it in the lead or anywhere it might lead to an implied OR claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the two statements together, as originally suggested, is not good, and I never suggested otherwise. I also am fine with putting his jab status in the personal life section. MarshallKe (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem (As I see it) was the justification for its addition is that it balances out our claim he is Anti-Vax, the problem is we do not claim he is. So if we do include this it can't be anywhere that might be seen as implying something about his covid misinformation not being misinforation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's cherry-picked trivia with implications. We might as well cherry pick that he's "not a happy man" about vaccine safety these days. Leave it out and stick to secondary, reliable sources is the best way. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to ask a question inspired by wp:not, what does this tell us about him? how is it not just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE peice of trivia. I mean (yes I agree this is a whataboutism argument) do we do this for anyone else? Why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. That policy would argue against, for example, including an exhaustive list of Campbell's YouTube video titles in the article, but using it to argue that his covid-19 vaccine decision shouldn't be included in an article mostly about someone spreading covid-19 misinformation is a huge, disingenuous stretch. Wikilawyering. MarshallKe (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We really need it to be contextualized, though, because otherwise it looks like the article is making the man out to be a hypocrite. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I would imagine pretty much any reader who sees that someone is publishing information against a vaccination that they themselves elected to receive is going to think of that person as a hypocrite. Why do you care whether someone leaves the article with that conclusion? MarshallKe (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that not the whole basis of the recent dispute, trying to make this page less negative? How is making him looks hypocrite achieving that? Surely what wew needed to find and add is positive assemtns of his work, and not random factoids about his vaccination status? Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how NPOV works. We are not concerned one bit with how negative or positive an article looks for its subject. Correcting bias in the context of Wikipedia editing means to read the sources and edit the text to be more faithful to the sources, and possibly look for more sources. MarshallKe (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to include anything from Campbell's YT channel without engaging in editorial decision-making to the point where it violates multiple policies. Quite apart from anything else, nobody here is familiar with the entirety of his output to the extent they'd know what was representative or due. Let's stick to independent, reliable, secondary sources and keep safe - as we should do on a BLP of course. Alexbrn (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

At least some of the sources cited in the article are unreliable. For example, the HealthFeedBack.Org article (citation no. 4) doesn't acknowledge retractions Dr. Campbell has made. Specifically, for the Pfizer "adverse events" video, he released a later video in which he acknowledged that he and a number of (unnamed) medical doctors whom he consulted about the document didn't understand that Pfizer was asking doctors to report any such adverse events when giving the vaccines, rather than warning that they were known adverse effects. The HealthFeedback blog has a consistent pattern of not acknowledging when Dr. Campbell retracts or clarifies his earlier videos, so their articles are clearly poorly researched hit pieces.

As for the ivermectin videos, he's on thin ice, although he repeatedly points out that Merck refused to support any clinical studies for potential use of ivermectin as an antiviral treatment. That seems to be the crux of his argument: that without clinical studies, we're left with only anecdotal studies. However, the Newshub article (citation no. 3) doesn't actually link to or quote any of Dr. Campbell's videos - it instead summarizes points it attributes to him but quotes Tweets or other sources that purport to dispute Dr. Campbell's claims. That's hardly a fair and unbiased method of reporting. It would be absurd for anyone to defend it as such.

Dr. Campbell has disputed the BBC article (citation no. 18) which misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said (he was reading from official documents that were released under a Freedom of Information Act). Nor did the article link to the video. And the BBC never issued any kind of clarification on their misrepresentation, despite a rebuttal video from Dr. Campbell posted on January 29. Now, I'm sure many people would extend some credibility to the BBC (although the article author said on Twitter that she was being misunderstood by people who read her article - hard to see how that's possible) - but HealthFeedback is just publishing sensational hit pieces. None of these articles are well-researched or resourced, they're clearly designed to rabble rouse, and Wikipedia should not be using them as sources for Dr. Campbell's biography. At the very least, his rebuttals and actual statements should be included in the article as they are easily sourced from his own videos - which can be used as sources according to Wikipedia policy Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. Dr. Campbell just reads stuff from official documents or published research, so he's a secondary source (supplementing the content with his own opinions and anecdotes from his experiences, just as the sources being used to assassinate his character here on Wikipedia offer their opinions).

The article should either be redacted to remove the obviously biased and controversial assertions or it should be amended to include his rebuttals. Otherwise, it's just another hit piece that repeats really bad research from biased sources. And that's not in keeping with Wikipedia's intentions.Michael Martinez (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

Dr John Campbell does not spread misinformation or make false claims. He simply informs. He always makes his source information available to viewers so that they can check the information for themselves. Whoever has written this Wikipedia entry is libelling this well respected Doctor. 2A00:23C4:9DD1:7401:C5B:F94A:D80C:2300 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is an unactionable rant. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's more rational and unbiased than much of what is on this page, and the article. Can I remind you, the official definition of a Covid death (re the 175,000 figure) was reverted by someone claiming it is "Ignorant and irrelevant". Unbelievable, but, unfortunately, true. JustinSmith (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Covid deaths

As Campbell has claimed they have been inflated we can not imply this may be the case, unless RS explicitly say it is the case. So I think we need to take care how we word it to not give the impression Campbell's claim is supported by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, mis-using death certificate to imply wrong things about COVID deaths is precisely the misinformation at hand. The last thing Wikipedia should be doing is joining in. Add: Oh I see this misrepresentation has now been added back.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically it's not actually misinformation, but its inclusion does not (to my mind (and per wp:brd should not have been added back once revered) adds anything. As (to my mind) it is unclear what its inclusion tells us about Campbell or his claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What's been added is misinformation. The source does not say things on death certificates are other "causes" of death. This is the nub of the whole death-with-not-from-COVID trope that has run throughout the pandemic. It's another in a pattern of attacks on medical content this editor has been making. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Weekly deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date registered" says "Weekly number of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes", so yes it does support the text. Whether the text is undue as it is not really about the topic is another matter. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note that those arguing for inclusion, are still to make a case here as to why this is relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think because this is so open to misinterpretation about "causes" we would need a WP:MEDRS explainer. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see any problem with the content. If anything, the clarification only serves to make Campbell's 17,000 claim look even more wrong, since it's emphasising that the 170,000 (and counting) figure is death certificates with COVID as a cause of death. FDW777 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the text is a problem since it says "defined by numbers of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes". The problem is this implies something else helped cause the death, so "it wasn't really COVID". The issue is that the concept of "cause" has a precise meaning on death certificates which is different from its general lay use. We would need to explain that although (say) respiratory failure might be the ultimate cause of death in the causal chain, the death was as a result of getting infected with COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That is the issue for me, why add this as " The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000" says the same thing, and does not need that caveat to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This "...other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything." is telling, this is exactly what we cannot imply, that RS may be wrong about this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the "with-COVID" myth, and the locus of the complain about Campbell's video in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to edit based on what you want the reader to leave with, rather than reflecting the facts as accurately as possible, as they are in the RS. It doesn't matter that you think the article will imply something you don't like. You can't twist the facts. One number has only covid on the death certificate, the other number can have other things. We can use the sources to explain why this doesn't support conspiratorial thinking, but we cannot lie about the facts. MarshallKe (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you don't get to publish *disinformation* in order to combat *misinformation* MarshallKe (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We also don't get to pick facts from unrelated sources to try to make some sort of point, as that is WP:SYN. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's from the official government stats source. Take your own advice, and refrain from leaving out crucial facts to try to make some sort of point. MarshallKe (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• So, it seems to me that the existing wording "COVID-19-related deaths" may sufficiently reflect the fact that these are listed as covid and possibly something else on the death certificate. Would any of the do-gooder, WP:Right great wrongs editors like to remove the "-related"? MarshallKe (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The point is, it's not a "crucial fact" that people who die from COVID have "other things" on their death certificate, that is the locus of the disinformation from the COVID deniers. It is MarshallKe's (and Campbell's) fringe contention that this is "crucial". As the ONS had to explain, in most cases where "other things" appear, COVID is nevertheless the underlying cause and the death is due to COVID (specifically in 140,000 of the 175,000 cases, not 17,000 of them). I would not object to adding that 140,000 figure to our article if it helps scotch this confusion. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    Maybe you're right, and it's not crucial. But it is a fact, and you are proposing omitting a well-sourced, neutrally worded, factual edit in furtherance of a point of view. This is pure POV pushing, on your part. MarshallKe (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    It's RS that says it's not "crucial", not me. Cherry picking a "fact" and presenting it devoid of necessary context is exactly what the antivaxers and deniers have done, and you are seeming to approve. Wikipedia policy advises care when using primary sources (if they are to be used at all) and this kind of enthusiasm for picking out a bit of primary source in a misleading way is the opposite of careful. Alexbrn (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So how about "The official figure for deaths in which Covid was listed as a cause of death in the UK for the period was over 175,000, with Covid listed as the underlying cause of death and in 140,000 deaths" ? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That would at least be accurate, and put to bed this "crucial fact" claim. I'd be okay with it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No objection to this. MarshallKe (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I will wait 24 hours before making the change, but so far we have a consensus, with a slight alteration to remove the extra and at the end. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now made the change, with a slight rewording to make it flow better. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

John Campbell is not spreading misinformation about the Covid19 vaccination program he is trying to evaluate the risk benefit analysis of the emergency implementation of an experimental Vaccine that was in development for 20 years and only 2 years and 6 months into a three year human trail due to the high rate of fatality in the animals it was tested on in development.

Please refer to the Pfizor documents released under a court order at this Web location :-

https://phmpt.org/ Magic.Mike63 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this : evaluate the risk benefit, if not all of what you say. There is almost no benefit to jabbing kids, and not much in vaccinating healthy people under 40, so any risk, however small, from the vaccine becomes relatively speaking, more significant. JustinSmith (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please focus on editing the article and please take other editors advice about conduct. MarshallKe (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The article states Dr John spreads misinformation this is absolutely not true. He always explains that any research is not his personal opinion he only presents the facts and makes sense of complicated studies. If a mistake is made he puts it right immediately. Fialsibob (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not according to the evidence he doesn't. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

RS says he spreads it, and Spread and create do not mean the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware he makes no corrections (except once, and we even point it out in the article's effort to bend over backwards to be nice). Even then he says he wasn't to know the abstract he used was secretly withdrawn so it's really the publisher's fault not his. This is false - the abstract in question was never "withdrawn". Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately the only person responsible for what John Campbell says is John Campbell. Nobody forced him to cover Steven R. Gundry's abstract. He covered it despite the expression of concern, lack of clear data and methodology, and that Gundry has a sideline selling groceries. Nobody forced him to suggest the abstract could be "incredibly significant". FDW777 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Change “misinformation” to “information” 111.65.57.253 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Ha, no. ––FormalDude talk 04:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Claims of Misinformation are Overdone

The Wikipedia article as a whole has a distinct feeling of bias again Dr John Campbell.

Dr Campbell provides mostly reliable and useful information. He always provides sources where the viewer can do additional research.

The article claims that Campbell has misreported deaths. Although this may have been true in the past, it is certainly not true right now.

Here, in a very recent article, Campbell gives the most accurate deaths using the most accurate statistical method (e.g. excess deaths).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFu8UjySH28&t=801s

Regarding Ivermectin, Campbell has been generally very favorable towards it. This is because the data was favorable. ONLY VERY RECENTLY has definitive information emerged.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220222/ivermectin-ineffective-against-covid

Campbell should not be penalized for the fact the double blind studies had not previously been done. He was clear in his prior articles that the definitive study had not yet been done. You can only go with the data that you have at the time that have it.

The Wikipedia article is overly critical and does not give a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffy5555 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem well-reflected. In fact it seems nearly every video Campbell produces now gets reaction from reliable sources as the antivax furrow gets ploughed,[2] yet Wikipedia is omitting it to avoid repetition. The Ivermectin "miracle" has been a known scam since 2020 and Campbell's misinformation is well documented. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We can only go woth what RS consider notable. Note Mr Capblell is not an RS, and wp:synthesis and wp:v means a source must talk about him, not just be used to claim it supports his views.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While Campbell is certainly biased, cherry picks, makes a lot of mistakes, and seldomly corrects them, the part here is biased as well and is an example of cherry picking (it only includes what supports the claims). Isn't there something about a neutral point of view? --Mortense (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Your edit about Dr John Campbell spreading disinformation is visibly untrue. Please observe and correct. Dr John Campbell's video evidence on an incorrect BBC "fact check" Many Thanks. 2A00:23C5:E917:9301:D41B:924C:2BF3:3EE7 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Your vague request has no support from WP:RS reliable sources, therefore we cannot action it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about disinformation but misinformation, they are two different things. FDW777 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This Wiki Page is a personal attack

This page has been clearly been written as an attack on John Campbell and to discredit him. There is no balanced discussion here and this page should either be severely rewritten with a more balanced view or be just be deleted. 125.238.120.107 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There may be people who agree with you, but unless you use a Wikipedia account to participate in discussions, not everyone will take your point of view seriously. Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell may be his own worst enemy in this matter by calling attention to this article. He apparently doesn't understand that Wikipedia has problems with meat puppetry. I don't think it was his intention to engage in that - he only advised people to look at the craziness here. He didn't ask them to do anything. But now it may be even more difficult to get the biased information out of the article. Michael Martinez (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal For Page Deletion

Page has been written as a personal attack on John Campbell with a very biased and unbalanced viewpoint. I propose this page should be deleted as it is not constructive and does not meet the standard we expect from Wikipedia. 125.238.120.107 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is NO misinformation on his Channel!!!

I am absolutely disgusted and outraged that you dare label this man to be spreading misinformation. It is completely evident that you have never watched any of his videos. How dare you suggest he is spreading misinformation when you haven’t even seen what he speaks of! If you have then clearly you would see that this man shares HARD COLD facts on covid mostly by the Office of National Statistics, Tim Spectre’s ZOE covid study, the CDC, the FDA, the British Medical Journal, Our World in Data and the likes of these worldwide official government bodies. He is absolutely the best person in the world right now it seems who can interpret all of this covid data to the regular person who finds it hard to interpret data, scientific papers and medical statistics.

Have you seen the hundreds of videos he’s posted? So how many do you think he’s done on the ‘medicine that can not be named’ Ivermectin? By the sounds of what you wrote it sounds like you think he made many videos on that topic. Maybe you should go back and do some research and see the very very few times he mentions this topic. And Why exactly did he mention those topic on those videos? Because a major scientific paper came out each time on the subject and he looked at it. Makes you wonder does it? Why you imply that he’s giving his opinion when clearly he is not and never has given his opinion (other than he believes people should get vaccinated!!!) and instead focuses only on looking at all the up to date relevant covid data.

I am just speechless that your interpretation of misinformation is someone relating facts and stating data from the cdc.

Are you thank blind that you do not see that you are the one who is intact spreading not only Misinformation but lies about this man. It doesn’t make any sense. Why? Because he mentioned the ivermectin studies? What does that enrage you enough that you want to defame him? Especially when the studies had positive outcomes? Is that actually why you want to lie about this man?

I am disgusted in Wikipedia for orchestrating such a false description of this man and what he does. Also he is not a YouTuber !! He is a highly Sought out and respected medical professional. So are we going to start calling Boris Johnson a Tv personality rather than the prime minister, because he also happens to make announcements on the tv?

You should be throughly ashamed of yourself.

Get someone to write a REAL description of this wonderful man, his great work and complete objectivity when it comes to discussing data and covid. 2600:1700:4DB4:2800:3D37:D278:1498:352C (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)