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)

Why does it only mention covid related, John was quite popular before covid.

Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important. This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of. I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief. He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We do, its just that he became more notable afterward. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Its "own belief" is to reflect the scholarly consensus, not to repeat cherry-picked opinions. Topologyrob (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias

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 am watching Jimmy Wales conversation with Lex Fridman. Facinating. Then I refer to the first paragraph of this wikipedia page and John Campbell's character is roundly assassinated in a few words. That's not right. I have followed him for several years and, while I may not agree with everything he says, I do not agree with wikipedia consigning him to the rubbish tip. You claim to use only good sources and yet these can be the very sources John Campbell is calling to account and in great explained detail. Remote criticsm and judgement seems to be the way of the internet, but it is not what I expect from Wikipedia. Disagree by all means, discuss by all means, but expound negative judgement without any due process? No. So what I see is groupthink bias in action. This is my first input ever. RRSDBSA (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article follows how the subject is covered in reliable sources. That's all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I disagree. RRSDBSA (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

here is one reason why, sources being Oxford University and similar. My opinion is the wiki article sources are selective and driven by vested interests, taking advantage of wikipedia's desire to be fair and so subverting this objective. So from the man himself I find youtube is blacklisted. As such I refer to his recording dated "8 months ago" (so that must be November 2022) "Ivermectin Clarification". Incidentally I have no view about that drug, except that debate should not be stifled by the status quo. RRSDBSA (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on following sources, that is its core policy. We're not going to change that or ignore it for this one article. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 29 June 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.

"The video was referenced by American comedian Jimmy Dore"

This article oddly references "American comedian" and podcaster 4 times as having referenced a Campbell video to make unfounded claims. Aren't these issues better suited to an article about Jimmy Dore? If, as this article claims, Dore is making false claims, why does it belong here? Flat Earthers have used Flight Aware images to bolster their claims but Wikipedia doesn't include that in the FlightAware article.

If the Campbell videos are misleading, then address them directly, not through a podcaster. The obsession with Jimmy Dore, whoever he(?) might be is bizarre. Jane Digby (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant to mention here, as reliable sources noted that Campbell was a source of covid misinformation that other well-known people spread further than Campbell would have been able to do on his own. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, relevant here. Could also be relevant to the Dore page? Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this relevant, is mr Dore a qualified doctor? Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Because Dore was the vector through which the misinformation reached a larger mass audience (or to give a narrower Wiki-answer, because RS focuses on this). Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure we need to single him out here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you propose how to unmention him without introducing other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon courage (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not have to unmention him, just mention him once, we do not need to give his views undue prominence. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added a framing sentence to the 3rd paragraph of the Covid section. I've also added the following - "Others have expressed concern that Campbell's videos have been used by podcaster Jimmy Dore and others to support false claims against the Covid-19 vaccines." This captures the Jimmy Dore concerns while removing the repeated mentions of him. I don't see the need to exaggerate Dore's importance by giving him prominence in an article about someone who has probably never met him. Jane Digby (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Newer sources

More misinformation from Campbell[1]. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

PhD thesis

Neither the current link https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.845689 works, nor does manually searching for the paper in any online scientific publications give any results, only results of papers citing the paper.

Should a new link not be discovered, this should be updated to [citation needed] as if the paper doesn't exist anymore, it then doesn't exist. Lafi90 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We have the Wayback Machine for a reason. Link works just fine here. Silverseren^C 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Link works fine. Thesis is inaccessible though. Lafi90 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I also checked their new website at https://iro.bl.uk/, and the thesis is nowhere to be found. Lafi90 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

And a further ask, shouldn't your link be the one published, as opposed to the one to a website that no longer exists? Lafi90 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• One doesn't need to have links to sources, all that is required for Wikipedia is that they should be WP:PUBLISHED. Anybody can go to Bolton University library (where the thesis will be deposited) if they want. It is unlikely to to available in digital form, only hard copy. We don't even need to cite the thesis, because it is not being used to support anything in the article. Bon courage (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would then contest, and nominate this link, https://prism.librarymanagementcloud.co.uk/bolton-ac/items/172598, to be the one used in relation to Campbell's thesis (Replacing the one referring to the old link at EthOS) as it appears to be the only way of obtaining a copy. Any other ways indicating such are for lack of a better word, bullshit, because even the portal through which Silverseren provided a link won't work because to read the thesis from there requires a user logs in through a server that no longer exists, so any such attempts are completely fruitless.

  I would say and hold the fact Campbell's thesis be accessible at all is a major point. If it were to disappear from public access, one could reasonably attain it'd been retracted, or otherwise purged for reasons unknown. Lafi90 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  When you do a PhD thesis, you deposit a bound hard copy with your university library. That is how it works. So far as I am aware this item in Bolton is the only copy of the thesis that exists. If you go there, the librarian will fetch it from storage and you are allowed to read in in the library for two hours at a time, as this library record indicates. Adding the link to the library record to this article does no harm, but is not necessary. Bon courage (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like i'm headbutting a wall here.

  The problem is the link known as citation 8 in the article is dead. It's not coming back.

  I posted a link to the thesis via somewhere that's actually up, via a library when one can allegedly read the thesis, albeit only in person, but it's better than linking people into a black hole. Lafi90 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  To repeat: "Adding the link to the library record to this article does no harm, but is not necessary". So add it if you want. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point. I should've checked for I didn't think I had enough recent activity to edit the article of a living person on the English Wiki.

  I apologize for my tone earlier. I can't tell (properly) if I came off as rude or mildly unhinged, but it feels that way.

  Anyway. I'm adding it. Lafi90 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Death Count

This assertion is poorly sourced: "A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been over-reported." One post by Poltifact is not definitive proof that this is a "misconception" - especially one published two years ago.

Alleged overcounting has been a source of debate and below are two mainstream US publications asserting that deaths were overcounted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/covid-pandemic-deaths-hospitalizations-overcounting/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/briefing/covid.html

I suggest that the opening line be deleted. The rest of the sub-section provides a counter to what Campbell said. Jane Digby (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Politifact/Poynter Institute is fine for this. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to appear contentious on this, but I fear we are ignoring a real debate - whether or not deaths were overcounted - in favor of a definitive assertion that, in the past 12 months has been openly debated on sites I believe most would consider mainstream. Jane Digby (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

RE the NY times link, see this from Politico. For the Post, see the New Yorker, where Wen is called a "quintessential minimizer". You're always going to find a couple of people in the opinion section disagreeing with the mainstream, even in major newspapers. But that doesn't mean there is some kind of debate within the mainstream. MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't have proof, RS do, as they claimed it, ask them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Shocking description of a man who has dedicated his life to people's health and continues to examine scientific fact. There is no misinformation on his YouTube only critical examination. 92.26.93.203 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)