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)

Use of language in opening

I object to the use of unhelpful and frankly provocative language in the opening of the article; I recently made an edit which was quite reasonable but which was reverted. The current wording of the page does not include other viewpoints. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not a news source nor the arbitrator of the truth. The views of John Campbell are not pseudoscience as defined in Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS, but is at worst questionable science, described on the same page.

Of course I am not asking for an endorsement of the view, or even a change to the information present in the paragraph, it seems pretty sound to me, the wording, though, is not appropriate when there are in fact prominent fringe theories, true or false, going against what almost all scientists say. I understand that the purpose of the article is to present the scientific consensus, but it should be done in an objective manner. The current language implies that the fringe theories are false where in reality there is no complete consensus on the issues, for example even in this talk page the official consensus is that "Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive" . The article should also include a brief summary of the opposing views, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. Timeless99 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

As has been asked many many times, please provide wp:RS that support "other viewpoints". And no WP:FALSEBALANCE means we can't give Fringe theories the same weight as scientific consensus. So we need RS to contest the claims he did not promote "COVID-19 misinformation". Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources that support other viewpoints found on one of his videos that support a 'lab leak' incident: from the US senate: [1] from the Telegraph [2] Timeless99 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Which as far as I now we do not mention in the article, let alone the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course if you wish to add this we need to see some RS that actually discusses his views. So we can write about it in a way that does not rely on wp:OR or WP:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your involvement in this, I suppose that's the problem Wikipedia has with research, it follows only the main line. Timeless99 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MAINSTREAM sources govern content so on Wikipedia, the Holocaust happened, the earth is not flat, prayer doesn't cure cancer and ... ivermectin is useless for COVID-19. This is a feature not a bug. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• There is consensus on ivermectin: there is no good evidence it's of any benefit for COVID and has been pushed by quacks, frauds, grifters and fools. We have an entire article on that: Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the lede I think "descended" could be changed to "veered" as original written. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the fact that Campbell often teaches in African countries. 204.11.186.190 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tone of article

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.

---

The majority of this biographical article has a very predisposed and opinionated tone. This is unfortunate, for both the subject of the article, and the Wikipedia community as a whole. --Zamdrist (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to second this opinion. Presenting papers from the scientific community should not be considered spreading of misinformation. His selection of papers may be biased and debatable, but at least he tries to be a reference point for research results, that are usually neglected by other media sources and thus wouldn't make it into any discussion. 158.181.68.158 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reputable reliable sources. By them, this Youtube guy is a "total COVID crank" spreading misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's assume for a second that the accusations in this article against Mr. Campbell are correct. Then still all his other hundreds of videos are considered a source of information, not misinformation. So can we consider Mr. Campbell a spreader of information then as well? Or is there an official wikipedia threshold, above which one might consider anyone a source of misinformation and which would allow tagging other people's entries in a similar fashion? 158.181.68.158 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of what's published in reliable sources. That's all. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I would like to know that reliable source, that quotes Mr. Campbell to have "veered into misinformation." I don't see a citation for that, rendering this phrase to be an interpretation of a wikipedia author. 158.181.68.158 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, but see the WP:SBM source which refers to:

John Campbell, someone who seemed semi-reasonable early on in the pandemic but long ago turned into a total COVID-19 crank

Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

So because a single member of the scientific community is speaking out about Campbell in a despicable manner, it justifies including this assessment in the summary? I would have expected a little more subtlety, to say the least. 158.181.70.14 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact many scientists have "spoken out", and no reliable source has supported the BS coming from this channel. WP:SBM is a generally reliable source, especially for fringe medicine, medical misinformation, grift and quackery. So most apt here. If you want the article to change you need to produce new, high-quality sources. (But you almost certainly won't because believe me the 100+ editors of this article have looked very hard). Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We do mention that at one point he received "praise early in the pandemic", but we must also reflect what he is NOw known for. As has been said many many times, if you want to add information about praise for him, find RS praising him. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 December 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.

Career -> Covid 19 Pandemic -> Misinformation -> Vaccines

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.

---

The third paragraph currently states: "In July 2022, Campbell gave an error-filled account of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and falsely claimed that it showed the risk to children from COVID-19 vaccination was much greater than the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself. The video received over 700,000 views. The article actually showed that COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of children getting seriously ill from COVID-19.[21]"

Cite 21 suggests that the study gives "hospitalizations" and "serious adverse events" as direct comparison. It goes on to claim that Dr. Campbell's use of only children hospitalized with oxygen rather than the full gamut of adverse events is misinformation. It then admits that, quote: "... the study itself does not say that the other 283 admissions were non-serious or “precautionary” cases."

Despite the aspersions it casts, cite 21 plainly states that the HSA paper's comparison is no more scientifically rigorous than Dr. Campbell's own claim.

Cite 21 then continues, quote: “The same HSA document says: It is important to note that the [adverse events] reported do not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused these [adverse events]"

This is not a valid scientific claim. It is logically consistent with the following statement: "I may pay you somewhere between 0 dollars and 288 dollars."

Luckily for us, several studies have been conducted on VAERS accuracy. Every study I've reviewed has found that total adverse events are under-reported, sometimes dramatically. Here is one such study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20312548?via%3Dihub

Furthermore, the following study found that vaccine adverse events are far more likely to be reported if they are serious: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X13004283

This stands in stark contrast to reporting of disease-related hospitalizations. Positive cases are typically counted as a hospitalization regardless of whether that case is necessarily a causative factor. Additionally, severe cases are often only a small fraction of those admitted. Here is a study to scientifically corroborate my preceding claims: https://publications.aap.org/hospitalpediatrics/article/11/8/e151/179740/For-COVID-or-With-COVID-Classification-of-SARS-CoV?autologincheck=redirected

As such, cite 21's broad condemnations apparently arise from multiple corruptions of nonspecific claims within the HSA paper. Finally, the footer of cite 21 says, quote: "The risks to children, both from Covid and from Covid vaccines, are very low. They are also hard to estimate precisely." I think advocating for weighing risk and benefit is exactly what should be done when the evidence is so admittedly thin.

In short, while Dr. Campbell is not making claims having p=0.05 accuracy, it appears the science stands firmly on his side. Cite 21 thus seems to be either a biased misinterpretation of a flawed scientific paper or an attempted character assassination.

Are we okay with propagating such false and damaging accusations? Cite 21 is not merely harming Dr. Campbell's reputation; it's also espousing anti-science sentiment. I believe honesty and propriety behoove us to check scientific sources more rigorously. 24.61.163.167 (talk) 05:49, 31 December 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.

Misinformation and false claims

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.

---

Who are these users and what Phd do they have to throw opinions about what is misinformation in Dr. Campbell channel? Gigi.chelu (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Read the references backing those assertions. If most reliable sources say that Campbell spreads misinformation, then Wikipedia will summarize what those sources say. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Turning yourself into a judge and drowning conclusions about ongoing scientific debates, based on other professionals, more or less, opinions, is not what Wikipedia should be about. A professional opinion that is not agreed by all professionals today, is not misinformation. Tomorrow it may be proven true. Misinformation is spread by nonprofessionals like you, whom opinions based on biased sources judge others and tell others what should be the source of the truth. Gigi.chelu (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FLAT. Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives about this. But wp:crystal comes into it, yes it might none day be proven true, but then it might also be proven false. So we go with what the current scholarly consensus is, according to people qualified in the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 31 December 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.

The accusation of misinformation is misguided.

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.

---

The accusation of misinformation is misguided and should be removed or changed to: Dr John Campbell uncovers demonstrable acts of misinformation. 2A00:23A8:8F3:C401:6945:4DB:D6FC:3FD (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Read the references backing those assertions. If most reliable sources say that Campbell spreads misinformation, then Wikipedia will summarize what those sources say. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"If most reliable sources say that Campbell spreads misinformation"

So-called 'Factcheck.org' are not a "reliable source". They receive funding from the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation" (https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/). Robert Wood Johnson co-founded vaccine manufacturer Johnson & Johnson (https://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/our-founder.html), who are manufacturers of the SARS-CoV-2 shots of which John Campbell criticises.

What's particularly hypocritical about Wikipedia's criticism of John Campbell in declaring he "quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract", is they've quoted from a non-medical, non-expert media outlet that also isn't a peer-review journal, so by their own standards they themselves are spreading misinformation. The double-standards are overwhelmingly hypocritical.

In-fact, nothing the medically trained John Campbell has said is controversial, as Norway, Sweden and Finland have already suspended Moderna SARS-CoV-2 shots on the grounds they cause myocarditis and pericarditis ('heart problems'), something the peer-review medical journal the BMJ have covered:

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477

Further, there is an absolute landslide of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 shots do in-fact cause "heart problems", as Wikipedia vaguely allures to. For example, myocarditis and pericarditis, which is well documented, something Wikipedia oddly avoids.

For convenience I will supply all the myocarditis related peer-reviewed studies because it is evident Wikipedia is not capable of doing basic research, and perhaps they can correct the record to show that what John Campbell is saying is not, actually, misinformation (the onus is on Wikipedia to do their own homework, not on John Campbell to spoonfed them evidence meeting arbitrarily imposed definitions they don't apply to themselves):

(talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which all say this Youtuber is spreading misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 12:39, 31 December 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 31 December 2022

The change I suggest is you get your facts right before maligning a person disgracefully like this, yes YOU Wikipedia 86.1.232.46 (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing done, -Roxy the dog 09:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Why "Nothing Done"? Afraid the truth might come out? Wikipedia, who I used to give money to every year, $50, no less. I stopped when the bias and total BS started showing up. This article needs a complete and accurate rewrite. I am happy to do it, but not if it is going to be a waste of time. If you will seriously update the page with the accurate, sourced and cited info I provide back, I will rewrite it and submit in total for review. There was recently a video put out on this article and its horrific portrayal of this wonderful and knowledgeable man. So best we fix this now. Thanks, Tiffany Harrison 2600:1010:B173:995:16:8ABC:CD4F:5B82 (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mis information

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.

---

There is deliberately biased mis information here about J. Campbell. Not correcting this will further degrade public confidence or trust in Wikipedia. Wiki should be about truth and not be used as a mouthpiece for vested interests. 2A01:CB19:8B3E:5A00:4DDC:3178:9A13:3B26 (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:VNT. Bon courage (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

See talk page archive. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have watched Dr Campbell for 2 years and his presentations are very much evidence based quoted directly from renowned resources, particularly research papers including clinical studies and peered reviewed papers. He also looks at data from governments around the world. At the start of the pandemic he only had government advice to go on and completely towed the official line on covid and vaccines. Slowly, as research papers and official data came to light that implied prior information about covid and the vaccines may not be wholly correct, Dr Campbell followed the science as it was presented in dozens of papers.

Science is about keeping an open mind and reviewing new data as it becomes available. Maintaining the same opinion based only on what was known in 2020 and 2021 and ignoring all new data and research published in subsequent years is not how science is done. Dr Campbell had religiously followed the science over the last few years and reports on what qualified researchers (doctors, professors and other academics) have studied and published. He has been completely open about his sources and gives references to each and every one.

When I first read this Wikipedia article about Dr Campbell it instantly came across as a blatant attempt to discredit him using unkind and questionable language that's uncharacteristic of Wikipedia. The tone is heavily biased against him and does not give any alternative views. It is an unbalanced article that initially reads more like an opinion piece from a newspaper column. For the first time in 20 years it makes me question the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole given how protective it has become of defending the tone and wording of this article.

One must decide how reliable Wikipedia can be on subjects that are closely associated with their leading donors. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are one of their donors whose business is vaccinations. It would be interesting to research the full list if anyone has the time. I have defended Wikipedia in the past from accusations of bias and inaccuracies but this article and talk has shattered my long standing confidence. Gazzaf (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And qualified researchers have said he is wrong, and as such so do we. When (and if) he is proven right then RS will say "and his videos did not contain misinformation", do they? Plrease p[roivde the RS that back your claim that RS have supported Him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In every video he quotes a reliable source and links to it. That's the basis of each video. There are 100's of his videos we could examine but let's take a recent one titled "Reanalysis of mRNA trial data". Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYR1wz-Cf_M

Dr Campbell refers heavily to a paper published in the National Library of Medicine here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/

The paper is written by highly qualified people with PhDs in the relevant field.

He also refers to a more informal article here https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/why-we-question-the-safety-of-covid written by two of the authors of the paper.

Dr Campbell is not presenting any ideas or conclusions that he made up by himself, he's reporting on a paper written by highly qualified professionals in the field of medicine, biology and statistics. As I said, this is just one example.

How can someone be labelled as a spreader of misinformation if they are quoting research from highly qualified experts? If Dr Campbell was relying on unqualified commentators such as Russel Brand or Tucker Carlson as his source then that's a different matter (I'm not saying that these men are wrong, just that they have no medical qualifications), but given that Dr Campbell always cites work from qualified experts he cannot be labelled as a spreader of misinformation. If you believe it is misinformation then it must be made clear that it is not Dr Campbell's misinformation, and it would be more credible in the article if it explained why all of the doctors and professors cited by Dr Campbell are fundamentally wrong in their research. Gazzaf (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (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 31 December 2022 (2)

This is an unfair and incorrect description of dr john Campbell he has always been really careful and gets all his information from the nih, and breaks it down so it is understood. This man has been a lifeline through all the misinformation that has been put out there. Don’t think it’s fair that USA are unjustly labelling people who help as people who distribute misinformation. 79.66.58.247 (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

See all talk page comments above and the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022 (3)

change "His videos received praise early in the pandemic, but later veered into misinformation" to "His videos received praise early in the pandemic, but later some people believe veered into misinformation" Robinjewsbury2 (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:ASSERT and WP:WEASEL. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

PP

Are we going to have to ask for talk page protection to stop the raft of wp:spa edit requests that cannot be actioned? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is semi'd so the potential for damage is limited. This uptick is because some other misinformation channel on YT has issued a call to arms. It'll blow over soon I should think. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:canvas. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously his fan club has had their collective bonnets infested with bees today, probably a new Tweet or youtube video dropped. I doubt semi-protection would be granted for a talk page, so IMO everything from "Tone of article" should be manually archived this once (since replies have been given), and subsequent ones from either IPs, newly-registered accounts or suddenly-active once-dormant accounts should just be reverted. Zaathras (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems a very reasonable plan of attack.

-- Looks like a nail?

-- No. it's a Tack. haha. - Roxy the dog 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Encouraging viewers to do their own research

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.

---

I believe this should be added to the intro. “To minimize his own biases, and fight the spread of misinformation, John Campbell displays the URL’s for the articles he sites, describes where they were published, and encourages viewers to “not take my word for it” but to read the article for themselves.”

John Campbell tries hard to remain unbiased, and site his sources. He usually states when something is his opinion when not citing a source. He also often states that this is how he interprets the data but that viewers should read the articles for themselves. I feel this Wiki page should reflect his efforts to remain unbiased and encourage further research by his viewers. 76.126.130.128 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say based on wikipedia policy and guidelines that will help us improve the page? Just writing what you believe, without some sort of evidence, will not help us. - Roxy the dog 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, as the author of the John Larimer Campbell (youtuber) has written what s/he believes with no proof. Well, unless you count the opinion of a pharmaceutical company invester or a TV comedian. Emm3773 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

100% agree Emm3773 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 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 31 December 2022 (4)

COVID-19 PANDEMIC section: - Delete unsubstantiated references to "misinformation." All Dr. Campbell's shows provide full information about the data, from sources such as the British Medical Journal, National Health, and Pfizer and Moderna's own published documentation. This Wiki entry, on the other hand, provides no proof as to why Dr. Campbell is accused of "misinformation." - Delete reference to David Gorski, or add information about his investment in pharmaceutical firms (Sanofi/Aventis) which may be why he is so intent on discrediting people who provide documented truth about severe and fatal vaccine side effects.

NEEDLE ASPIRATION section: - Provide further information on the benefits of needle aspiration, which was widely taught across the world until fairly recently. Particularly in relation to MRNA vaccines, which by their nature can do serious damage if introduced directly into the blood stream. - Eliminate references to comments in this section, and in the “MONKEY POX PARALLELS” section, made by comedian Jimmy Dore, which are (a) taken out of context and (b) have no place in a medical discussion and are completely irrelevant.

VACCINES section: - Correct reference to the Pfizer document which actually does list over 1,000 deaths associated with their vaccine during the trial period (the number is closer to 1,400). This is documented in the Pfizer's document entitled, "CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021" with associated document #BNT162b2.

GENERAL COMMENTS: I note that multiple edits have been made since this egregiously disingenuous entry was recently highlighted to the public on youtube. However all of the changes are quickly being reversed. Is this what Wiki is standing up for now? Please beware ... you posit yourself as "not for sale" in your ask for support, but you have allowed this incredibly dishonest and in fact libelous entry to be "protected" from the type of people who originally supported Wikipedia: truth seekers. I have, up until now, been a financial supporter of Wikipedia as I believed that it was a good source of truth. If this is not the case, and if you continue to protect articles such as these that dozens of people are trying to tell you is 100% wrong, then my financial support will end, and I will look elsewhere for information. Emm3773 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Everything is well-sourced as-is. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Threats to withhold donations have absolutely zero impact on article content. The Wikimedia Foundation, after all, has US$ 250 million on hand, and does not participate in article writing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

Change “misinformation” to “stating facts backed up by sources that are peer reviewed” You have called Dr. John Campbell a miss information spreader which is actually misinformation. You are the misinformation spreader! Amazing that this is allowed by any means. All his videos are backed up by scientific journals that are peer reviewed. He is not giving an opinion but merely stating facts and you call that misinformation because you have an agenda to protect mRNA vaccines intellectual properties!

1 in 800 adverse events and the vaccine is still being promoted! Please let real scientist describe who or what Dr. Campbell is!

I would like to write a Wikipedia page to describe how you are the miss information spreader! 213.213.202.118 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:ENC. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)