Talk:Bret Weinstein

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 is not defined

One might say he has shared information that differs from what so and so says or different from what some institution believes, but for any Wikipedia editor to be determining what information is "misinformation" on the topic of covid seems quite a biased, subjective option of that editor. To state who disagrees with him could be a very helpful signal as it would help others who also mistrust those sources find other information from people like Eric. Mckennagene (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mckennagen. Why does Wikipedia get to define what misinformation is without an explanation? It is shallowness used to paint someone in a bad light. Since when did Wikipedia look to some captured government agency to figure out what not misinformation is? Some people say, in recent years, everyone has shredded their credibility. Does Wikipedia have many credible editors left? Nanabozho (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Classic WP:GEVAL fallacy. We don't say "Maybe the moon landings happened, maybe they didn't: here are some differing views". We describe the accepted mainstream position and characterize the conspiracy theories as what they are. From our sources we know there is no good evidence Ivermectin is beneficial for COVID-19, yet Weinstein has said it is. From our sources we know the vaccines are safe, yet Weinstein has aired the view they are dangerously cytotoxic. There is no evidence "Big Pharma" is suppressing anything and committing what Weinstein calls (good grief) the "crime of the century". Talk of "some captured government agency" is just daft. This is meant to be a respectable encylopedia, not reddit. Please take conspiracy theory nonsense elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are not enough peer-reviewed studies showing something works, “unproven” is more accurate than “misinformation.” Even the linked Vice article says “clinical study is ongoing.” No matter one’s view on the treatment, “unproven treatments” is more accurate, or “Treatments unsupported by many public health officials.” Orn two (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Unproven treatments are unproven treatments. The misinformation comes when they are touted as effective. Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's dangerous misinformation when people pretend that an unproven treatment works a lot better than the evidence would suggest. especially when that treatment has dangerous side effects when not used properly like liver failure and encephalopathy. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

... and when it's encouraged as an "alternative" to something that actually is effective (in this case, vaccination). Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In understanding a brand new situation like the current pandemic it is too early to talk about consensuses. It takes time for knowledge to solidify, and institutions are there to aid this, but only in the long term. Until then, the relevant fields should be free to propose and discuss solutions. Humanity, including Wikipedia editors, may have got used to 99+% of issues being old enough for us to rely on scientific consensuses, but Covid requires something else: cost-benefit analyses based on incomplete information, without guarantees of success. The emergency use authorization of vaccines is one example. Another one is the work of renowned critical care physicians introducing Ivermectin in their treatment protocol. The long term safety of the Covid vaccines (while being effective) is as much disputable as the efficiency of Ivermectin (while being safe). Yet, it would be a bad deal for humanity to discount these approaches with a label like "misinformation" or "irresponsibility". For patients, it is nice to be in a country where even hopeful(ly safe) treatments are available, and doctors can autonomously act without waiting for bureaucracy to catch up. Also, Wikipedia should not handle Covid with the same rigor as long established historical facts or scientific theories. Providus (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you open the gates for all sorts of "information". Drinking bleach? Great, try it! Masks are dangerous? By all means, leave them off! The virus does not exist? Phew, what a relief, let's party! Fuck rigor, everything is true if I want it to be!

We, generally, need to separate good from bad information. More to the point, Wikipedia needs to do that because it is its job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you sound like strawmanning my argument. As I said, there are long established pieces of knowledge, like drinking bleach is deadly, preventing any possible beneficial effects... Repurposing a safe drug or betting on the success of vaccine campaigns around a novel coronavirus is grey area. Controversies are an important part of reality, so it is the job of Wikipedia to portray them. It is not its job to know better.

It is interesting that you mention mask wearing. You should know that, when CDC and WHO claimed mask wearing was pointless, Bret Weinstein was one of the first people who called bullshit. --Providus (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

My point is that you are trying to be the arbiter, claiming it is too early to talk about consensuses. That is not how Wikipedia works. We look at what reliable sources say. If editors decide things like "there cannot be a consensus yet", then what I said will happen. No strawman involved here, just reductio ad absurdum.

Of course, Weinstein's understanding of masks is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am definitely arguing against the policy of using ONLY reliable sources. Reliability of each source can be questioned (and is questioned in the current, polarized scene) and, as I suggested, the novelty of a topic will prevent any source to be reliable enough, at least to the extent that you exclude opposing sources. This is the place where we get farther using classic journalistic principles by platforming all sides (thereby avoiding being the arbiter). Yes, it takes more work, but that's where a crowdsourced encyclopedia can thrive. I must say I am perplexed to see Wikipedia folks nowadays apparently dismissing such practice in favour of "trusted" sources. I could also say, let's let the editorial guidelines remain guidelines. We don't want them to become rigid rules. Let's notice that some heterodox thinkers know what they are speaking. Your reductio ad absurdum (or Slippery slope) is a double edged sword. Stepping in one direction will not always get us to the extreme...

Let me repeat: disputes are part of the world, thus a good encyclopedia will not hide them.

Re: masks, I looked up their podcast at Youtube from March 2020 for you (/ym-WGOq96G0?t=1297). In fact, let's consider enriching the article by saying something like "During the pandemic, Weinstein and Heying several times arrived at conclusions before mainstream thought did, even against official positions of the time. Notable examples are about the usefulness of wearing masks, and the possibility of a lab leak as the origin of the virus." (I wonder, how podcasts can be properly cited, though. There are notorious difficulties with this on Wikipedia...) --Providus (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am definitely arguing against the policy of using ONLY reliable sources. OK. The way to change the policy is there. Until you succeed in your quest to allow unreliable sources, we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Phrenology, geocentric universe, miasmatic theory of disease, immovable continents...these were the accepted scientic positions for a long time before they were proven to be wrong. Even the Lancet at one time tried to discredit Joseph Lister and the New York Times published an editorial attacking Robert Goddard's work in rocketry. If we only accept mainstream or reliable sources, we don't advance. Sometimes, ideas from the outside prove correct.24.131.129.60 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)CoachE

Ah, inevitably, the Galileo Gambit. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

True enough. Had Wikipedia existed in the fourth century BCE, it would have reported the then-prevailing view that the Earth is flat as a self-evident fact, without qualification. It would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's actual shape and calculated its circumference in 240 BCE) as a fringe view. Similarly, in Galileo's time it would have documented the prevailing view that the Sun (and everything else) orbits the Earth as fact; Galileo's solar system model would have been rejected as "original research".

If there were, today, a popularly held or notable minority opinion, supported by reliable sources, that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia would report it — but not as a fact. It would describe the minority view (clearly labeled as such), its history, and its notable or prominent adherents, and it would cite the sources. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought; which — for the purposes of this particular project — is a good thing. (For additional examples and a more substantial discussion, see WP:FLAT.) DoctorJoeE ^Stalk/_Talk 15:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've edited Wikipedia. We have established reliable sources that express criticism of Weinstein's ivermectin position and his anti-vaccine messaging, and it's clearly notable given his influence on discourse surrounding this response to the global pandemic. That's all the reason we need to include the sentence pointing out said criticism regarding what is seen as misinformation. What we as editors feel about the issue isn't relevant. The prevailing consensus among credible authorities on the subject is that his messaging is harmful and carries misinformation. IbrahimSapien (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn excuse me, how does the Galileo Gambit have anything to do with this discussion? What is said in previous messages is that if something thought to be completely true by scientists then has been proved completely wrong in History, now something thought to be completely true (without actual any evidence with the scientific method) COULD be proved wrong in the future. That "could" changes everything. I cannot see any conspiracy theory in just saying that since many famous virologists claimed something inconsistent and contradicting each other, we are not able to be completely sure to state whether something is proved true or not about this topic, and we should be more generic. Datafiller (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Please read the template at the top of this talk page. Thanks.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also we go with what RS says, we do not analyze it. Of course, it could be proved wrong in the future and when it is we change the article, after all nay fact could turn out to be wrong. Hell Mr Weistien could turn out to be an ellaberte piece of theater by Steve Googan. So should we also say that? We can't base article on what might turn out to be true in the future as none of us are Time lords.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read the template, I know my reply is not fully linked to the discussion, so as the twisting phrases often used in this discussion everytime someone disputes this article, and even their meaning has nothing to do with the discussion, so at least I tried to point out that they are usually nice except if they are not linked to what it's being talked about. I have really got your point, pretty sure we don't need to go far with this, thank you. -Datafiller (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The science around COVID19 has evolved with new developments since 2019. Giving an old quote without dating it, and out of context, is not responsible. Wikipedia seems to accept click-bait journalists as qualified references. For example, JEF ROUNER, is by his own admission, "a contributing writer who covers politics, pop culture, social justice, video games, and online behavior." This is not the best source for information on COVID19, and should not be in the lead paragraph of a Wikipedia page. Source: 2601:200:10D:4285:E568:CA3D:BCAF:B739 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein

That's why it's so great that we cite multiple sources on that sentence. It isn't just Jeff Rouner making that claim. It's several different people, some of whom have specific expertise in the area of health misinformation. When we examine the overall landscape of opinions and responses about Bret Weinstein's statements, it's clear that the prevailing view is that he spreads misinformation. Hence we report it in wiki-voice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Science is not a democracy. Mr. Gonzales writes that "When he's not gaming or consuming the latest geek shows, he's helping produce podcasts, strategizing about social media and stating how great the state of Texas is." Of all the cited examples of criticism, only Science-based Medicine has some real medical expertise, however, the editor is a neurologist, not a biologist and it offers no avenue for feedback. This still does not excuse all three articles for quoting, out of context, a legitimate Phd in biology who is currently (as of Oct. 2021) a visiting fellow at Princeton University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:10A:C0C9:D4E5:AD8F:994F:E362 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain why a biologist who worked on telomeres in mice would be a better expert on viruses and pandemics than a medical doctor who has done medical research? Last time I checked, those were medical subjects.

It's the same as always: someone who is an expert for one thing (Weinstein, genetics in mice) contradicts the experts on another thing (all virologists in the world, COVID-19 pandemic) regarding that other thing. Theoretically, if you look just at this situation and not at the actual reasoning, it could be that he is right, because sometimes, very, very rarely, an outsider revolutionizes a field. So his fans ignore the expertise thing. When someone who has experience with people talking nonsense about medicine (Science-Based Medicine website, science-based medicine) says what is wrong with what the mouse guy said, suddenly expertise becomes important... but not Weinstein's non-expertise.

You don't have a leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it says a lot about Wikipedians always believing powers of authority vs. this one guy on the internet who has a podcast. It so easy to take down and criticize someone who is small time, but you Wikipedians don't have the balls to question your sources of Authority from time and again when they have been wrong in their own information for decades. So please forgive me when I say that you wikipedians have a lot of gall thinking you all speak the truth. People are not infallible. 74.124.162.10 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That is well and good, but the talks I've seen the past half decade or more doesn't reflect the principles and rules in some articles that have become highly politicized, and has left me somewhat concerned the health of this site in general. What we have going on at this moment is a break down of trust that has been growing in the USA and various other countries (of rather similar or different reasons) and even within the Scientific Community ever since COVID happened as there has been contradictory information and infighting within said Scientific Communities based on anecdotal accounts that seem to be growing and when words like Misinformation and Disinformation is being thrown around that its starting to cause even more trust issues and tainting the well of its usage (such as Social Media abusing it into oblivion). For the record I'm not backing up Weinstein here, but I've become concerned we're trending on territory where information itself has become chaotic no matter who the source is in this very stressful time. Though I was very blunt in my first post, but its a response to a problem I feel its being largely ignored. 74.124.162.10 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Advertising Pseudomedicine

@Animalparty: My edit has been reverted under the complaint that it is WP:PRIMARY. Here is the edit:

Weinstein and Heying personally approve and lend their professional endorsement to the products they advertise on their podcast. They have advertised several pseudomedicine items such as the herbal medicine foursigmatic, MUD/WTR and the acupuncture device ReliefBand.

Deleting this text is a misapplication of the policy. SEE:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

The fact that they are advertising pseudomedicine and saying they endorse it under their credentials is both WP:SKYBLUE (there are plenty more direct quotes of both of them saying this) AND allowable under WP:SPS There is no interpretation happening here. Further cherry picking is totally fine if the text says "there is at least one cherry". Bret and Heather are presenting cherries and we don't need secondary sources to say they are doing that. The unreliability of a source should not be used as a shield to prevent their statements from being presented the way we do here on Wikipedia when it comes to WP:MEDRS claims. A more credible challenge to the edit would be under WP:DUE, which I addressed in my edit comments but I'll include that here as well.

PER WP:MEDRS these products are pseudomedicine despite being "FDA cleared" This is WP:DUE because their notability and content hinge on their biology degrees and therefore these are not merely pro forma advertising copy but WP:MEDRS claims. Just like ivermectin, we should report both their claims (even if implicit) and the status of those claim amongst the mainstream medical community.

DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: We need secondary sources to tell us what cherries are worth picking. My main concern is that using primary sources alone cannot determine due weight, and thus relevance. One could pick and choose from any possible video, and any quotes within those videos, to arbitrarily and potentially disproportionately emphasize facts they believe are important. Like, one could factually state: "Weinstein has discussed crocodile love and evolutionary dentistry", but without secondary sources, the reader is left with a big "so what?" (and perhaps the impression some Wikipedian has an inordinate fondness for crocodiles and dentistry, and thinks Weinstein's views on them need to be shared with the world and/or condemned). If there are secondary sources that contextualize the discussion of ReliefBands, herbal medicine, or whatever, then we should use those. If reliable sources have given little or no comment on it, then Wikipedia should follow suit. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Yes, I agree that WP:DUE is the issue at hand. However, the "so what" in my edit is actually at the core of Weinstein's notability. These are not minutiae. He's being criticized in WP:SECONDARY for WP:FRINGE ideas, and claiming to be good at evaluating the medical literature while endorsing, adaptogens and accupressure. Under WP:MEDRS we don't leave it in the hands of the mainstream press to tell us which cherries to pick. We go with the scientific consensus. In other words, the default position for us on wikipedia is different when it comes to pseudomedicine and WP:MEDRS claims. If he weren't already being criticized for false claims about spike proteins and ivermectin, I would probably agree with your default setting. If the adverts were being read by someone other than Weinstein or Heying, I would also agree with you. However, I can find you multiple verbatim quotes where he and Heying say "we personally endorse these products." It is our job to help the general reader understand the quality of these claims, and we don't leave that in the hands of the popular press. We are not only allowed but required "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."WP:PRIMARY. If you haven't yet, check out this MEDRS FAQ. Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: since this article is a biography of a living person (BLP) we aren't at liberty to do what you suggest. Please read the notice at the top of this page regarding biographies of living persons (BLP) and also the article WP:BLP. Pakbelang (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with BLP. Under WP:BLPSPS you will find that we can in fact use primary sources and self published sources when they are by and about the subject of the article. There can be no factual doubt that Bret personally endorses pseudomedicine on his podcast. We are not only at liberty to publish this information, we are required to, because he is being much discussed in secondary sources for making false medical claims. Again, the unreliability of a person should not protect them for being associated with the things they themselves undeniably say. The "Your honor, my client is a liar so his statements should be inadmissible" defense doesn't work here on wikipedia. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: Yes, self-published sources can be used when they are about the subject of the article WP:BLPSELFPUB. Your points about reliability are valid but the approach you suggest here is effectively WP:OR and thus not appropriate. --Pakbelang (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit request 26 August 2021: remove "falsely" from the Spike protein claim

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 no evidence of toxicity of Spike protein, and there is no evidence that it's not toxic, so the sentence "Weinstein has falsely claimed that the spike protein produced by or contained within COVID-19 vaccines is "very dangerous" and "cytotoxic" is completely wrong. Since it's a controversial topic, I actually didn't need to prove why on Wikipedia you don't write "This is false, this is true" if there's no evidence, but I will keep doing that if needed. You could easily write the same sentence without the word "falsely". I don't see how could you write "This is a controversial topic" everywhere and then put the word "falsely" straight in a sentence. Datafiller (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that back this up?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Both citations for that sentence prove you wrong, the Reuters source going into particular detail about why you're wrong. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Reuters goes into particular detail". After 2 years in which every scientist has a different opinion about everything, there is just need for an article which only says "There is no proof of spike's toxicity" to prove there is not, under a controversial article? I can't see where Reuters goes into particular detail since it's not. Stating that this topic is controversial and putting the word "falsely" in a sentence is a huge contradiction. Datafiller (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? something can be controversial because it is wrong. We need TS backing your contentionSlatersteven (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've stated my case as fully as I care to. If other editors are more convinced by your arguments and (lack of) sources than my arguments and sources, then I am happy to bow to consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, The evidence that it's not toxic lies in the clinical trials which show little to no ill effects in vaccinated individuals. Full stop. That is why so many MEDRSes support the mRNA vaccines as safe and effective. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Producing controversy means producing controversy. If someone falsely claims that the Earth is flat, there is no controversy, it's just a false statement: what could be controversial is that the person who made this statement could have an important role in a country, like being a politician. What makes this topic controversial, if you can say that someone made a false claim, even if there is no evidence that it's false? We could just write "Weinstein claimed this, and produced a controversy since there is no proof", much difference from saying that it's false. Datafiller (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope you see the difference. I am asking you to avoid use the word "falsely" since there is no evidence; we are on Wikipedia and it is better to be generic, also because you can see everywhere "controversial topic, controversial, controversial", but then you don't treat this topic as controversial. Datafiller (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Provide RS saying it is not false, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see people keep saying "I am right, full stop, end of the story". If a topic is controversial, you treat it as controversial. Saying in few words "There is no proof Spike is toxic" is not a fully explanation after 2 years of contradictions about scientists' statements. Datafiller (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We are not we are saying provide RS to back your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2021 (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.

Edit request 28 August 2021: remove "falsely" from the Spike protein claim

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.

---

At this point there is enough evidence to ask you again to delete the word "falsely" about Spike protein from the Bret Weinstein page. I have this two cases to prove my sentence. At first, on the Reuters article you can clearly understand that even if so far there is no proof of Spike toxicity in vaccines, we could actually find out in the future that there is (Yes it is not clearly written, but easy to get, otherwise they would say "It's false, full stop"). Then, I have been told "We report what the majority view is" on Wikipedia: actually Science does not work by majority, but if you prove something, everyone should and must "believe" in that, which means you can only think what has been carefully proved.

You could say "Yes you are right, but Wikipedia works by consensus", however under a controversial topic the reason to say that something is clearly true or false, cannot be "Our majority legitimate thinks something while the minority, not recognized as legitimate, thinks something wrong", since I have also been told that Spike is not toxic in and of itself while there are studies about it .

Yes Wikipedia works by consensus, but controversial does not mean "You can write everything as soon as you agree with us", it means there is need to care much about what is written in an article. Why saying "Be careful of writing about this topic" and then easily call something false while there is no evidence? You should be careful of saying it. As previously said, very legitimate virologists said sentence in contradiction with each other, or statements with no proof . Last discussion was closed because I was accused of saying that I am right and every scientist is wrong. I am just asking you to modify a sentence in an article to have quite the same meaning but more appropriate form.

In conclusion, in this article we are leaving a sentence that could be proved wrong in the future, just because "A majority of scientists" (far from being more than 50%) said it is false, while we could just say that Weinstein claimed something controversial and "the majority of scientists says it is false", like in sports you write "He is called the best player in history by the majority of experts". The sentences "He has falsely claimed" and "He has claimed this, which is controversial and considered wrong by the majority" have a completely different impact. Datafiller (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

No idea what you are trying to say, so I expect us to keep on correctly saying that Weinstein falsely etc., per sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You can say someone falsely claimed the Earth is flat, because it's not. Instead there is no reason to write "falsely" here, since the same source that has been mentioned does not say "Spike protein in vaccines is not toxic", but it says "There is no evidence so far"; so it would be much more correct to write "Weinstein has said this, but it is not verified / it is thought to be false by most of scientists".Datafiller (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition, I just said "The source you used does not says "It is not toxic" but "There is no evidence so far", and the reply is "We keep on saying things per sources". Like I claim it is sunny while looking at the sun and someone tells me "It is not sunny and we will keep saying that per sources". Datafiller (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Firmly disagree. To wikipedia, "he has falsely claimed X" is an accurate summary of "He has claimed X, which is controversial, and X is considered wrong by the majority.", especially when mostly fringe people who are not part of the mainstream scientific community believe X is true. See WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:RSUW. To give the fringe scientists who believe it is toxic any more weight in this article would be UNDUE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have already been told about Wikipedia consensus, and explained everything about it. I can read "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" in WP:DUE. So how can it be so difficult to prove that Spike protein is not toxic? There are studies about the toxicity of Spike (and I want to clarify that I know could be toxic for Sars_Covid2 but not for vaccines), and the only source I can see is a website who just claims "There is no evidence so far".

Fact-checking something means "We proved it wrong" not "We proved we don't know". As soon as we go further in the discussion, after I have mentioned some reference about legitimate virologist in Italy (one of the most important country when we talk about Medicine), I can only see that everyone who disagrees with you is called fringe or not legitimate. Still waiting for a "legitimate majority" of scientist and other sources to prove Weinstein wrong. A whole article called controversial and in which you can see everywhere "Be careful of writing here" and we easily call "false" something that could be true in the future. And just to clarify, I don't believe Spike is toxic and I don't believe it's not, just waiting for the studies about it. Datafiller (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Silence gives consent. Appreciated your dialectic, if only you replied to the single statements I have done instead of keeping what supported yours and ignoring what was in contrast. As far as I am concerned, going further on this discussion is no longer prolific, I know that to have something changed in this article, I need a majority of users somewhere who agrees with me. Datafiller (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

..... and reliable sources -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Silence is not consensus nor is it assent. Editors have litigated this discussion many other times on this talk page in the past and have come to the conclusion that this wording is valid. You have not provided anything novel which would overturn that consensus. Check the archives to see what I mean.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have both told you why a debunk page who says "There is no evidence so far" is not a source to prove your statement, and explained many other things beginning from the fact that there are studies on Spike toxicity, providing sources. I expected a reply to the many statements I did in the very first message of the discussion, since I have written it very carefully, instead I received only "Provide some reliable sources which are reliable as soon as they agree with us". Still waiting for a response to the fact that this article should be treated carefully as it is controversial, and clearly using that Reuters article is not the way you treat it. Datafiller (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Reuters is perhaps one of the most reliable news sources that exists. As an aside, I encourage you to read WP:SATISFY. Bludgeoning others who do not find your arguments compelling with repeated "expectations" won't get you very far.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Never said Reuters is not reliable. The Reuters article does not prove what is written in the Weinstein one. I am pretty sure Wikipedia does not require just "sources", but this source should actually prove what is written in an article. That is what I am saying. Writing "There is no evidence so far" is not a proof to state that someone's claim is false, because false means false, not "There is no evidence that it is true so far". I can say "The Earth is flat" is false, I cannot say "Spike protein in vaccine is toxic" is false, since in the future we could find out something else, but we cannot find out that the Earth is flat. Datafiller (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Datafiller: I skimmed over this, I think I can tell what you're asking for, but for clarification, please provide the exact text in the article currently, and the exact proposed text that you want to replace it with. ––FormalDude talk 21:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, Weinstein said there was evidence of spike protein toxicity. There was not evidence of toxicity. He was, therefore, wrong.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the exact conclusion I'm coming to as well, @Shibbolethink. No amount of twisting words is going to change that. ––FormalDude talk 21:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I also found a good MEDRS-adjacent source (Health-desk [1], which is run by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Meedan). It references many MEDRSes on this topic and says: False claims about the toxicity of spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccination often misinterpret studies, and fail to take into account how spike proteins from COVID-19 vaccination behave differently than the spike proteins from natural COVID-19 infection. To me, that's case closed. We report what our sources say, we don't do our own research.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: that is what I am saying from the very first message. There is no evidence of the toxicity, so we can easily write it, because it has a different meaning from "It is false that it is toxic".Datafiller (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see any message of yours arguing the fact that actually we could find out in the future that Spike protein in vaccine is toxic. Datafiller (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Datafiller, It doesn't matter what we find out in the future, if he claimed it at a time when there was no evidence.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: If he claims it at a time when there is no evidence, we write on his article that there is no evidence, not that it is false. Datafiller (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Datafiller: That's the same thing, it is a false claim not backed up by any evidence. Kindly give it a break. ––FormalDude talk 22:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am misusing Wikipedia tags, just learnt how to use them -Datafiller (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it an accurate clock the rest of the time. If Weinstein, by some massively unlikely stroke of fate, against all evidence to the contrary, ends up being right about this... It won't be because he was telling the truth at the time. It will be because he got lucky. At this point, we are approaching WP:IDHT territory. I'm going to close this discussion as we have three editors independently coming to the conclusion that our current text is correct, and one editor who is uninterested in that consensus. Datafiller, I would encourage you to read WP:1AM, and to think for a while about this conversation and how it went down. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:18, 28 August 2021 (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.

Ivermectin has been shown to be helpful in treating Covid

Please refer to this review of the existing research, published in the July/August issue of The American Journal of Therapeutics: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

"Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

Given this, the text under the Covid-19 section should be updated substantially.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:148:200:3b70:31f9:6a81:f47f:b5b4 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of if buts and maybes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah....we've talked about this review paper quite a few times, and every time it has become more and more clear that it is not very reliable for the claims it makes. Please see the various discussions in this talk page's archives.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Did Sam Harris debunk Weinstein? Sources needed

@Roxy the dog: "debunk" is a loaded term that doesn't pay its own way. To "debunk advocacy" is a non sequitur. Further, the quotes provided are not a debunking, they are a condemnation. Debunk means to prove false. It would be OR to decide that Harris has successfully proven any specific statement false, unless you have a source that says that. Even worse, the text in question doesn't even specify a statement. Further, the copy is not grammatical and has an unspecified pronoun. Topol is linked to Harris in way that makes no sense to those who don't already know that 1 Harris has a podcast 2 Topol was on the podcast 3 they were discussing Weinstein together on that episode. If you have a better copy to propose, that'd be great, but as it stands, the copy fails on a whole bunch of levels (NPOV, OR, MOS). I'm no fan of Weinstein's increasingly Mercola-esque huksterism (see my comments above), but we have to stick to our standards. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I see Pakbelang has has removed "debunk" and fixed the copy again. Nice. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The book reached No. 4 on the New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover nonfiction on October 3, 2021

Either my understanding of how New York Times Best Seller rankings is wrong, or something's wrong here, since October 3, 2021 won't happen for another 6 days.giggle (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and we'd need some secondary sourcing to explain this because NYT gave the listing a † mark, meaning they suspect "strategic bulk purchases" may have been used to game the system. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the date the reference lists for it. The explanation is right there in the referenced source, I used nearly the NYT's precise wording. Did you look at the actual reference? I'm struggling to see how the statement as written is not fully supported by a first-class RS, even if primary, the NYT is generally usable as a source of its own best seller lists - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, I was assuming (maybe wrongly) we'd need a third-party source to explain how the dagger thing was significant. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's an archive of the reference (the paper keeps the same URL from week to week). At top-left is the date: October 3, 2021. The book is #4 on the chart, with a dagger. The dagger is explained: "A dagger indicates that some retailers report receiving bulk orders."

I noted it because NYT #4 is prima-facie notability for the book itself - but I felt we couldn't really just put that in without the dagger. I didn't want to go as far as saying "they bought their entry," keeping it to what the paper themselves say.

Any reason not to put this in? - David Gerard (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion. It's clearly notable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not quite sure what's going on now. but Pakbelang is now edit warring this in without any mention of the dagger that's right there in the citation used. I increasingly feel we need some secondary sourcing to make sense of this as just relaying "it's a bestseller!" is actively misleading without context. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've noted the dagger; it's clear from the archive. And, contrary to Pakbelang's edit summary, it is indeed at #4 with a dagger on the NYT page - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Alexbrn Apologies for the unwarranted edit war. I was looking at the current list of bestsellers on the live website, where the book is number 3 without any dagger. I failed to realise the reference was still to the archive.--Pakbelang (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
      • That's #3 in "Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction", which is not quite the same list, and doesn't seem to do daggers. We should probably note both to avoid confusion - how's what I just added? - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The "however" reads as an editorial (Wikipedia side) effort to detract from or qualify the appearance on the list, even though it is technically true (which is not the best kind of true, internet nerds be damned). It sticks out like a partisan sore thumb, and should probably be in a foot note, if anywhere, as in the New York Times page itself. Does any other Wikipedia article that mentions a book on the New York Times list with a dagger bend over backwards to explain to the reader what a dagger means? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"However" is because the dagger is the NYT itself - not us - telling you explicitly that this is a dodgy entry. If we just said "#3, #4!" that would be misleading. We are noting that NYT has explicitly marked this as a questionable entry. Hiving it off to a footnote would be misleading. It's not a bad slant from Wikipedia, it's a bad fact noted in the source RS - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of the term misinformation is factually wrong

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.

---

Merriam-Webster defines disinformation as: "false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth"

When presenting information (in the article's case, this seems to be focused around the use of Ivermectin) Bret Weinstein, either on his podcast or on his appearances on other platforms, almost always:

1. Brings evidence in the form of scientific studies or on-the-ground data gathered by doctors on the field

2. Links his sources of data so that anyone can peruse them and judge for themselves.

3. Argues using logic and scientific method including Evolutionary Theory

4. Does not appeal to authority

5. Does not take any logical shortcuts

6. Seems to genuinely believe what he is touting (at least nothing seems to point to the contrary)

7. Has no conflict of interests (Ivermectin is off-patent anyways)

The use of "misinformation therefore seems unjustified because:

1. From the body of scientific data and evidence provided (easily accessible from his podcast notes), while still controversial because there is no consensus, his claims are in no way is "false information" (see definition of disinformation above). No consensus does not mean false.

2. The data he uses come from scientific studies, data gathered by practicing doctors on the ground and from peer-reviewed studies. The data seems to suggest the efficacy of Ivermectin as prophylactic treatment. He states his conclusion based on the date he reviews, which, again, can be reviewed online in his podcast notes.

3. When it comes to discussing Ivermectin, his guests have, more often than not, been MDs with experience treating COVID or people working for organizations such as the WHO who have access to a large amount of health data and are skilled at metadata analysis. Again, the credentials of the people and the data can be checked, No false information there.

Even though it is human nature, I think that it is important in this politicized and polarized world not to jump to conclusions or demonize people you see as being on the "other side". While it is true that they might be touting a treatment which has not received a scientific consensus, to call it "misinformation" (read: false information knowingly spread) when they have gone about it in an open, reasonable and scientific manner with no apparent conflict of interest or skin in the game is preposterous.

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral and strive for the truth (or at least admit when it does not know the truth)?

Maybe one day, years from now, we will have dozens of double-blind studies about the treatment of Ivermectin for COVID-19 and be able to say with any degree of certainty whether it is effective or not, but that day is not now. Saying one side or the other is false (implied by the term "misinformation") can not be justified with the amount of data we have.

That this edit has stayed for such a long time is disheartening; I expected better of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs)

We must be doing something right to elicit this unsigned comment. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry my first time peeking at the backside of Wikipedia. Still not sure how all this works. -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, RS say it is misinforation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Who is RS and where did he say Ivermectin is misinformation? -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS. BTW, I try not to use Wikipedia-specific abbreviations without the link now, it saves time in the long run.

The reliable sources referenced in the article after the sentences. In this case, Gorski and Effinger. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the word misinformation appears in this article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does as a wikei link to COVID-19 misinformation, which we need to do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be complaining about "misinformation", but have looked up the definition of disinformation. Misinformation does not necessarily imply the willful intent to deceive. The mention of "disinformation" in this article is in an attributed quote, which we shouldn't alter (see MOS:PMC). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I confounded MISinformation and DISinformation. I am sorry for the mistake. Both are present in the same section, and I believe both to be incorrect in this case. my point remains the same, though, since the definition for MISinformation is "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." so I believe the arguments are still valid. The studies and data collected by MDs on the field are not clearly "false" or "inaccurate", nor are the conclusions he draws from them. What is more, the term is loaded with an intent to decieve, which again is inaccurate and an attack on character at worst or unprovable at best. -Alex— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.12.233.57 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot know intent, but this is misinformation per the sources, so Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. The data and studies supporting ivermectin, as it turns out, have been false and inaccurate (if not downright fraudulent) too. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of the data and studies Bret references to in his podcast have not been invalidated as far as I know. I seem to recall 1-2 of them having been found to be inaccurate, and in those cases, they addressed the matter in later podcasts when that info came to light. This leaves all the other studies and data that were not invalidated or put into question. What do I need to do? Dig them all up and link them here...? -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.82.82.29 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in those podcasts is reliable. Weinstein spread misinformation about ivermectin[2] and as it turned out, the pro-ivermectin "research" was mostly/only dodgy. That's the reality, that's what sources say, and so that is what Wikipedia reflects. For this to change there would need to be a good source saying something else. Alexbrn (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2021 (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.