Jump to content

Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 15 July 2021 (→Controversial maybe false not: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unclear how the sources cited show Bhakdi to be wrong

There appear to be two sources cited as proof Bhakdi's statements are wrong: one from Spiegel, one from a Turkish fact checking site called Teyit, ultimately. The Teyit site is what is linked from the USA Today article as proof of Bhakdi being wrong, while the USA Today article is the immediate reference in the Wikipedia article.

In the Spiegel article it says that people like Bhakdi lend credibility to conspiracy theorists, while he himself is not one, so even the source cited seems to largely contradict the conclusion of the Wikipedia article.

In the Teyit article it states that the efficacy of a vaccine is measured by the "disease rate". It is unclear how it shows Bhakdi to be wrong. Bhakdi appears to claim that the vaccine is likely to be comparably dangerous. He bases this on his understanding of its function and the shortened testing process to have the vaccine approved, which seems factual. A vaccine can have a high efficacy while also being dangerous. For example, jumping from a tall building is probably very effective at preventing covid. But to argue that the "disease rate" is a refutation of someone saying that it's a dangerous activity seems very silly.

Also, why does the article choose this focus? It seems to be very selective. Bhakdi, as the article itself states, is a microbiologist with several decades of experience. It seems almost like the only reason this article was created was political, to discredit someone with an opposing view point, for political reasons, not to present information on a person as one would expect from an encyclopedia. Wikipedia appears to contain a growing number of articles that are created purely to argue a certain current political topics, not for being an encyclopedia, which people might expect presents information from a neutral point of view.

2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the source says, Bhakdi's claims are "not accurate". It's not necessary to produce sources showing that the vaccine are not, as Bhakdi claims, "deadly", but hardly necessary as we assume at least some basic intelligence in Wikipedia's readership. Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article very clearly calls Bhakdi an "exponent of false ideas" and then references those sources. The article does not simply call him inaccurate.
When Bhakdi says that the vaccine is "deadly" it is clear that he is talking about the relative risk of the vaccine, not that anyone who takes the vaccine drops dead. That there are always some adverse events with any vaccine is clear. That is not what he means when he says the vaccine "is deadly" and he explains it in his video and in his open letter. With some basic intelligence, that should be clear from the context that this microbiologist with several decades of experience provides.
2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He says that "I believe they are killing people with this vaccination", that the vaccines will "decimate world population" and that the medics responsible should be criminally prosecuted. This is loony antivax bullshit. Wikipedia has a duty to call out pseudoscience and fringe ideas such as this per core WP:NPOV policy. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care what you consider fringe and probably neither does Wikipedia. If the vaccine is dangerous, they are and will be killing people with this vaccine. That is objectively true for any vaccine with a high rate of severe adverse events. His statement to that fact can be plainly stated in the article. Your or Wikpedia's judgment of it being true is not necessary. All that this article does is call him wrong and then cite sources that also call him wrong. You can state that other people, including some Turkish fact checking site, call him wrong -- that is fine. And for him to use the phrase "decimate the world population" seems to be a phrase he used offhand in one interview in which he seems to struggle with English, as German seems to be the language he is most comfortable with. That is one phrase taken out of a body of work that this article seems in no way representative of. What this article seems to be doing is taking snipes at singular phrases, not refuting anyone, if that should even be the goal of an article. This article seems to present Bhakdi's arguments in a completely false light. It seems to do more to misinform for selective kill shots than inform. 2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He spreads antivax bullshit as identified by reliable sources which called him out for it. Wikipedia merely reflects that, to be neutral. Your problem seems to be with that reality, and is not something Wikipedia can fix. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with what you or Wikipedia define as "antivax bullshit". I am getting the sense that this is most of anything that is critical of the vaccines. There is plenty to be critical of and the blood clotting issue, for example, is one issue that Bhakdi has correctly predicted. But those were not the main arguments of my point. My primary points with this issue is that one of the sources cited uses guilt by association and doesn't even say that his claims are wrong. The other source is a USA Today article that seems to rely primarily on a Turkish fact checking site and uses a few particularly colorful quotes from one of his few English interviews. His German interviews seem very different in tone. This article seems very selective in what it presents about Bhakdi and what it lead with. He is a microbiologist with several decades of experience and awards, which the article lists, but it chooses to lead with just those points that touch on current political events. That does not feel like an encyclopedia but someone who abuses what purports itself to be an encyclopedia for political attacks. Emotionally charged phrases like "antivax bullshit" and condescending phrases like "we assume at least some basic intelligence" strengthen that impression - that you're not objectively writing encyclopedia articles, you're on a mission. 2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for the antivax bullshit he'd likely by just another long-forgotten academic without a Wikipedia article - nearly all coverage about him is wrt COVID disinformation. Anyway, is there a specific proposal for a change to the article? Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Remove statements that you cannot support properly with sources and re-write the introduction with a neutral point of view. If the article can be edited, I will try to improve it. Also, it's "nearly all CURRENT coverage about him", which is no surprise for anyone who receives media attention for a current political debate. But that is due to when people chose to write this article. That is on the authors of this article. If the only times articles are written for people when positive or negative media attention is on them, then it is very easy to manipulate the impression and tone of an article. Also, your comments about his academic legacy seem again tinged by personal judgments. I do not understand why people who seems so obviously biased are tasked with writing encyclopedia articles that are meant to be neutral. I do not want to become to personal, but I do not see what motivates you to even make such a personally tinged judgment because none of the output on your blog seems to be of lasting value, especially not compared to a respectable microbiologist. That seems very arrogant to me. If Wikipedia has input on whom it deems fit to edit articles, I do not think such people should write articles that they seem so obviously biased about.2001:638:708:30DA:313C:9411:275F:8D09 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can only be written when they get some coverage, its called notability (see wp:n).Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IP: I don't know what you're imagining about his "legacy", or a "blog", but fact is all (not just current) coverage about him, if assessed, shows that the COVID misinformation is by far the most discussed topic. Hence, precisely to be neutral, the article mirrors that - and then core policy requires that WP:FRINGE views be properly contextualized as such. The only bias here is in favour of Wikipedia's policies. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for the promotion of flawed generalizations about vaccines or depopulation conspiracy theories. If you check vaccine related articles medically reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) are expected for biomedical claims. It's different when sources criticize such views and reflect the mainstream (WP:PARITY). I see arguments that this article is biased because of specific editors or that WP has no business in selecting sources. On the other hand, WP:RS is policy, so is WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, etc. The bias of reality-based reliable sources must be reflected and cannot be weighted against Bhakdi's own opinions, unreliable sources making extraordinary claims must also be avoided. WP:FIXBIAS and WP:CRYBLP may also be useful: the above presented no reliable sources that would contradict the conclusion of the others, but are necessary to balance legitimate criticism. —PaleoNeonate – 04:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that is precisely what you seem to be focusing on. You take a notable, current issue - such as Corona - and then you write articles in light of those currently popular issues, to further a certain view on a topic, not to write an article informing your readers well on a certain person. The broader aim of communicating a certain view on a currently hot topic seems to be more important to you. It's the reverse of the process you should be following if you want to write articles about a person that are informative for a reader. Another example: when Trump is a current issue, every article seems to be written with light of what a person feels about Trump. When BLM is a current hot topic, a disproportionate number of articles might be written in light of what stance a person has on BLM. That results in really bad articles, because of course the currently hot topic is going to be the most talked about at any point in time. But that doesn't mean that it's the most defining topic for a person's life, and what is most defining for a person's life is what a reader arguably wants to get out of an encyclopedia article. The approach for highlighting certain information about a person seems more fitting for a blog on politics, not an encyclopedia. Your aim is very clearly to communicate a certain stance on Corona. And you are also arrogant enough that you think yourself an authoritative source to be able to judge the veracity of claims made by a person, instead of simply reporting what their views are. We do not need your editorializing of current events. Write an encyclopedia or be clear that you are writing a political blog.
Also, the same news source you have cited in support of painting Bhakdi, USA Today, as some sort of conspiracy theorist is now also reporting that in Australia blood clots from vaccines might have killed more people than Covid. That's precisely an issue Bhakdi has predicted, for which he has been painted as some sort of loon. But that should all be besides the point, because it shouldn't be the point of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia to take a certain stance on the dangers of any vaccine. The point of an encyclopedia should be to be neutral and report facts, not assess the veracity of claims for or against vaccines. A lot of the responses I am getting here very strongly suggest that, though.
Decide if you want to be an encyclopedia or a political blog. If you want to be an encyclopedia, keep your politics to yourself. 2001:638:708:30DA:F43A:3758:96F4:DC3 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a respectable encyclopedia reflecting accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources, and likes in particular to make plain when fringe ideas are just that. The accepted knowledge for Bhakdi's various COVID pronouncements is that they are nonsense on toast. That is the reality here, and Wikipedia can't change reality. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WE have decided, on the side of science.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Claiming Bhakdi is making false claims is unscientific. First the source given doesnt provide proof he said corona is a hoax or similar, nor has the pouplation decimation hypothesis been proven false, as is remains to be seen. As outrageous and unlikely as it may seem, it is not 'false'. Batdegroot67 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done For NPOV Wikipedia needs to make plain when false views are false. Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent editorializing and non-neutrality in article

As other editors have pointed out, and as I tried to point out last month, before editor Ivanvector placed a ban on my IP, the Wikipedia-POV claims in this article that Sucharit Bhakdi's ideas are "false" are in violation of a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:POVRAILROAD, and WP:NPOV.

The COVID-19 pandemic is constantly and sharply evolving, and we've seen several cases of theories/ideas that are at one point cast aside as "fringe" then return to center stage as recurrent global media headlines weeks later. Take, as an example, the "Wuhan lab leak" theory. And this is not an isolated case. There are still many unknowns here, as well as many unknown unknowns. The debate rages on on a multitude of fronts and stages. We are far from "unquestionable truths" on a number of Covid-19 related issues, and it is an inaccuracy to claim otherwise.

According to WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia should neither endorse a particular point of view, particularly in a live topic as hotly debated as this one. This is also a core tenet of WP:BLP.

Unfortunately, a couple of tenured and established editors--Alexbrn, Ivanvector, Slatersteven--have taken ownership of the article, as one can see in its history, and engage in WP:POVRAILROAD. Several newer editors (like myself) with significantly less Wikipedia political capital under our belt have attempted to correct it, but our arguments, which are valid and rest upon Wikipedia policies, have been swatted aside and ignored, often offensively and disparagingly.

I invite anybody reading this to read not just the article's Talk page but the history of my attempted edits in June 2021.

I request, one more time, that the language is edited; that it is not Wikipedia directly asserting that Sucharit Bhakdi's claims are false, but Wikipedia stating that X, Y, and Z sources have stated as much. I request, one more time, that we try to reach a consensus as an editing community. Because consensus, which is what Wikipedia states is supposed to be sought, is most definitely not what we're having here.

Gr33nshorts (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakdi's claims and publications about COVID-19 are false. If there was debate among reliable scientific literature about whether or not Bhakdi's claims are false, then we would balance all prominent viewpoints and attribute them to the sources. But there is not. There are only reliable scientific sources reviewing Bhakdi's claims and calling them false (or pseudoscientific, to reference a guideline); they are no less false than an astrophysicist publishing studies on the dairy content of the moon. Wikipedia describes things as they are, and Bhakdi's claims are false. Engaging in fringe arguments about Bhakdi's false claims is what violates WP:NPOV, and what is not Wikipedia's place. I don't know why you think I blocked your IP but if that's true then you're evading that block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, from what I could determine Gr33nshorts has never been blocked for their edits, but were previously caught up in an IP range block targeted at an unrelated sockpuppeter. It would be best if the editor stop making these unfounded victimisation claims. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“False”

Can we present this article with political unbias please?

Just because he has differing opinions doesn’t make him wrong. This is clear censorship. NascarJunk (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the welcome on your Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "political"? His false statements were about science. And, since you do not seem like the word "false": how can adding words be censorship? You seem very, very confused. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NO, but if the bulk of experts say he is wrong...we say it (see wp:fringe and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial maybe false not

Most of the "fact check" site seem to also rely on opinion. I feel it would reduce the apparent bias against Bhakdi by calling his ideas controversial rather than false. False implies he is deliberately lying.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sucharit_Bhakdi&oldid=1033757604"