Jump to content

Talk:Robert W. Malone

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheJazzFan (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 1 February 2022 (→‎Nothing False About It). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Nothing False About It

A professional in the field of virology and an inventer of vaccines but he is the one producing fallacies ? Come on now he is the only one speaking the TRUTH about all this and it is pissing the right people off. The ones that are making money off the deaths of humans. 50.27.242.246 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS disagree, about almost all of what you said.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, RS means "reliable sources"; see WP:RS. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not the truth. Ideally they are one and the same, but that's outide the purview of this encyclopedia. WP:NOTTRUTH. I would say he is definitely an mRNA pioneer/discoverer of transfection of mRNA turned outspoken Boomer, who has been pilloried by the mainstream press seemingly for both ordinary and sinister reasons, which is why I've advocated for more robust sourcing for his pre covid scientific bio info to avoid WP:RECENTISM. 2600:1012:B044:B442:5DBA:8C89:E9F1:3EF1 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even of the assumptions you made were true, helping to invent a microbiological technique and judging the effectiveness of a medical intervention are totally different things and require totally different skills. Whether the medical intervention is based on the technique is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I may have a soft spot for eccentrics and may find it easier to look past his recent statements. What I see in his past was the prototypical proof-of-concept that could win him a Nobel. Transfection of unstable mRNA, to immediately produce protein for therapeutic effect, is really a novel idea that required quite a bit of imagination. And the more scientific RS (Nature) seemingly agree that his contributions were seminal, while less scientific RS (NYT) completely wrote him out of their history. Kariko herself said she "only" helped mRNA get past our body's defenses...and Feng Zhang "only" made CRISPR possible in eukaryotes. Who would we say invented CRISPR? It's neither here nor there--they all contributed enormously. We shouldn't judge people's present selves by their past selves nor their past selves by their present selves. Malone was an "underappreciated pioneer" and prior to becoming outspoken as a fringe figure was relatively unknown...his life deserves proper and fair scrutiny, as does every bio on here. Yes we saw George Floyd had a past, where his actions were completely dispicable, but he did his time, and that past should have no bearing on how he should be judged in his most known moments, not in a courtroom, and not on here. Everyone already knew Bobby Fischer was the greatest at chess and it was widely covered, so his descent into wacky antisemitic ideas later in life never led anyone to challenge his chess legacy, as it was undisputed. Malone never got widespread coverage in his heyday because science can be esoteric and proceed slowly or all at once. The RS who rightly categorize some of his views as fringe shouldn't be given carte blanche authority to simultaneously judge his scientific achievements as weak. The agenda to undermine his early contributions is all too obvious. 2600:1012:B044:B442:8D55:606C:C6AF:B1CB (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't make up his early history based on no sources. The RS, of which there are many, have detailed his claims of significance as being entirely valid - but not his claims of having invented the vaccines (which he has since revised his biography about several times, long with his CV). It's not an agenda to refute Malones agenda. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an agenda in the mainstream nonscientific media, not necessarily on here. Seeing as I am an editor on here, it would be absurd for me to claim there is a cabal with an agenda on Wikipedia, unless I was delusional and unwittingly part of it...hmmmm. 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is an agenda to discredit him, rather an agenda not to platform disinformation. As a result most of what Malone has said has garnered little attention other than to specifically debunk particular disinfo claims. They just happen to have been about inflating his early career and his significant importance. Similarly his recent foray into PopPsych drew little attention until it was clear it was achieving disinfo proportions across various venues. Koncorde (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling - what's your expertise that would lend credibility to your saying "helping to invent a microbiological technique and judging the effectiveness of a medical intervention are totally different things and require totally different skills"? Nothing specified on your user page. Do you assert you know more about the medical effectiveness than Malone? It doesn't make much sense that someone can invent a technology with no awareness of its efficacy. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's called general education. Judging the effectiveness of a medical intervention requires an understanding of medical statistics, and developing microbiological techniques does not. How can one not know that?
But my "expertise" is neither here nor there. The point is that we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions, about the qualifications of scientists or about anything else. Allowing it would be a very bad idea, for several reasons, including the fact that some Wikipedia editors seem to lack the general education to do it correctly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling - So the answer is you have no professional medical credentials. "we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions, about the qualifications of scientists or about anything else" - Yet there you are doing so, and claiming insight into what is or isn't involved in what Malone did or does. I just wanted to clarify that if put in his place your "general education" would leave you without the vaguest idea where to even begin, and you have no idea what he knows and doesn't know. TheJazzFan (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add, Malone is mentioned more than any other scientist in the Nature history article. In the NYT one he is not mentioned at all. Do ctrl+find+malone and see. 174.193.139.150 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"So the answer is you have no professional medical credentials" maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant. Please see WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NOTFORUM, WP:RS, WP:CITE. —PaleoNeonate – 02:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's relevant to his acting in contradiction to his own assertion - he's passing judgement on the scope of a credentialed professional's knowledge in the same breath as saying one isn't supposed to do that - "we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions, about the qualifications of scientists". But curiously you don't chastise him for soapboxing. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Malone has published close to 100 peer reviewed papers which have been cited more than 12,000 times. Seems pretty authoritative. Mirddes (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is definitely more authoritative than some of his nastiest critics that have sought to marginialize him. I'm not going to name names, but many of his critics have far fewer citations and aren't medical doctors let alone immunologists, and due to their blue check they have carte blanche ability to "discredit" him? Of course he's authoritative, at least to anyone that matters; that's why some people consider him so dangerous. I don't think many editors here on Wikipedia are disputing that he is a legit scientist, though. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:2C85:EB9B:8074:12F (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scientists sitting around a table and slamming publications down, and the one with the most publications wins and gets to say what is true, is not how science works.
Arguing on Talk pages about who has the bigger publication penis is not how Wikipedia works either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, some will claim it's how one uses their scientific prowess, and Malone rubbed one too many people the wrong way; however, in the scientific universe, anyone will testify that citation count and h-indices do matter, despite what some will tell themselves to feel better about their unimpressive citation/publication count. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:B5D7:CCF8:5A35:6BA2 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linus Pauling had two Nobels, but that didn't make him right about vitamin megadosing. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Reads Pauling's Wikipedia page)...died in Big Sur, checks out. Pauling got his recognition prior to his smelly pee advocacy; Malone's "RNA as a drug" idea was dormant until recently. I must say I am very glad we are acknowledging he is a pioneer in the lede now and think the only thing the article needs is better coverage of his pre covid days. 174.193.197.145 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring facts only because you disagree, is still censorship

There is nothing to suggest that Robert Malone MD is “spreading misinformation about Covid 19”, when he shared countless reasons and facts about his claims. His list of accomplishments alone should make people listen to him. He is a VIROLOGIST. You are censoring freedom of information by listing this as a troll page, and your opinion doesn’t change the facts. Kmarie628 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing whether he has spread misinformation or not is not up to Wikipedians. Instead we simply compile/summarize what reputable sources report on Malone and if some of those assess that Malone has spread misinformation, we include that here as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I linked pages in the reversion for you to read so you can learn about how wikipedia works in my edit summary, but if you missed it, ill link it here: WP:TRUTH, WP:RS, WP:OR. Please read those and if you have issues with how we include our sourced material, feel free to voice your concerns then. 2600:1012:B006:C552:397E:8891:5EFD:50E1 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We see this censorship claim a lot but also relevant is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If the claim is about the article itself, what is missing exactly? Please provide specific suggestions and cite sources. Talk pages are not discussion forums (WP:NOTFORUM). I had rightly reverted the original post that seemed redundant and non-actionable, but some editors insisted to reply. —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We see this censorship claim a lot…" Well maybe if certain editors didn’t indulge in it so much, you wouldn’t see the statement that it is taking place. The quote, even a trimmed version, of Robert Malone’s words describing Mass Formation Psychosis, which thousands of Wikipedia users turned to the site to find out about, had certain editors enraged. Oh no, we can’t state what he said and what 11 million tuned in to Joe Rohan’s podcast to find out about. Oh no, that’s not allowed. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT didn’t apply, apparently, although it was fairly obvious that for certain editors, it did. So if this ridiculous censorship came to an end, so would the statements of others stating that it happens. Easy. Boscaswell talk 07:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Fringe theories application isn't IDONTLIKEIT. The shortest way to describe it is one sentence of independent analysis avoiding a quote. A longer one could perhaps include the attributed quote but would still need to put it in proper context. Good sources about it exist for plenty of criticism. Would a whole other paragraph of criticism not be undue versus a sentence? —PaleoNeonate – 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide an RS saying he is not speadgin misinforation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Malone

You are to give facts not opine . Dr Malone has factual data concerning all aspects of Covid. 108.233.129.6 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccine mandate rally

Hi, my edit that changed the phrase anti-vaccine and anti-vaccine mandate rally to anti-vaccine mandate rally was recently reverted by Orangemike, with the claim that the information I "added" was incorrect (despite the fact that I did not add any new information). The stated goal of the rally was to "defeat the mandates"[1], not to generally protest vaccines themselves, which is what the current iteration disingenuously implies. For example, from this[2] Forbes article:

On Sunday, protester assembled for the “Defeat the Mandate” rally in Washington, D.C., right in the middle of a Winter Covid-19 surge. But instead of rallying against the virus, they protested Covid-19 vaccination and face mask requirements. [emphasis mine]

as well as this[3] one:

Protestors marched from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on Sunday in objection to the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, drawing an array of sometimes controversial speakers and groups.

Even the article that is currently cited[4] agrees:

Thousands of protesters from across the country — including some of the biggest names in the anti-vaccination movement — descended on the nation’s capital Sunday for a rally against vaccine mandates.

Seeing as how this meets the WP:RS requirement, I see no reason why it should be reverted. To conflate opposition to mandates and opposition to vaccination in general is intellectually dishonest. Nsophiay (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The post writes: 'The marchers carried posters and flags that included false statements such as “Vaccines are mass kill bio weapons”'. I'm not going to lose any sleep over characterizing it as an antivax rally. - MrOllie (talk)

Regardless of how it's characterized, it is quite poor writing to just state "on this date he spoke/appeared at a rally" and leave it as such. Like what is the context and significance? Is Wikipedia a daily newspaper telling Malone fans (or foes) what he did today and yesterday? I'm not saying it should be removed (as many would surely scream "white-washing!"), but without context it's about as meaningful as "in December 2020, Malone ate a pastrami sandwich". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Post does have a specific quote: 'Malone stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and falsely told thousands of cheering spectators that “the science is settled. They’re not working.”' We could add that. MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would that make sense in 5 years? Or is it WP:RECENTISM? There is an entire WAPO profile on Malone that can provide context. Disregarding your own views of Malone or vaccines, ask: "how might a decent encyclopedia incorporate this info? How would American National Biography or Encyclopedia Britannica cover this event?" I can guarantee it would not be a mere quote or an isolated "on day X he did Y". --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So make a suggestion, then. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest anyone who edits Wikipedia should demonstrate proof of passing a high school level introductory writing class that covers paragraph form, composition, sentence structure, grammar, flow, style, and so forth in the past 50 years. Alternatively, Wikimedia Foundation could use all those $3 donations to mail everyone a copy of Strunk & White. Lastly, Wikipedia:Writing better articles could be consulted. Unfortunately, "try make article good" is neither policy nor guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think that it serves one of WP's goal, public education, to mention this activism, so that mislead people who fall victim to personality cults have the opporunity to read about it if they ever visit the article? Just recently a friend was telling me how he's a fan of a particular French personality and follows all his reports, how they're the best ones, how he knows his stuff, etc. I won't mention the name but WP has an article about that person that many mislead fans lookup to. Fortunately it at least mentions that it's misinformation. That friend will not get vaccinated and is vulnerable for severe desease or mortality at his age. Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me, especially when RS also mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 06:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, but rather than gratuitously insulting whoever it was that initially made that addition, perhaps we should try to focus on making the article better. MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Defeat the Mandates".
  2. ^ Lee, Bruce Y. (2022-01-23). "'Defeat The Mandates' Rally Against Covid-19 Precautions Held During Omicron Surge". Forbes.
  3. ^ Bissada, Mason (2022-01-23). "Anti-Vaccine Mandate Protest: RFK Jr., Proud Boys And Holocaust Imagery". Forbes.
  4. ^ "Anti-vaccine activists march in D.C. — a city that mandates coronavirus vaccination — to protest mandates". The Washington Post. 2022-01-23. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-01-25.

Facebook quite clearly said they refused to deplatform the organization of the rally because it was explicitly anti-mandate, not anti-vaccine, and I agree with that characterization and think we should emulate it. We could clarify it though. While it was "officially" an anti-mandate rally, it is true that there was plenty of trash-talking of the vaccine by speakers there. If you want to parrot the RS and say it was an "antivax" rally because Malone said the vaccines don't work as they claimed they would in the face of Omnicom (prevent spread and lead to herd immunity) and that he has bioethical concerns about young men and myocarditis, go ahead. Rather than platforming the correct information, Wikipedia will probably end up making people identify as "antivax" who wouldn't have otherwise with such clumsy use of the label...The country of Sweden recently declined to recommend vaccines for kids, so the idea is absolutely not fringe and the label not appropriate: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/ Theyre not only not mandating it, theyre not recommending it. Also, I noticed some RS called Malone a "vaccine skeptic", not "anti vaccine"--I'm therefore not sure if it would be appropriate to use that label on Malone's page, "Skeptic" seems more appropriate. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:2C85:EB9B:8074:12F (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your comment is WP:SOAPBOXING. I considered collapsing but decided to just leave it be, but if you keep at it, expect your comments to be hidden or removed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed some of the soap-y material. 174.193.130.251 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

In the first section of the Robert W. Malone biographical page, the last sentence of the paragraph should be edited to read that Dr. Malone "has been accused...of spreading misinformation..." The Wikipedia entry states unequivocally that Dr. Malone has misled the public, though that assertion is currently under debate and unclear given how much data and literature is available to argue both sides of the case. There is no reason for Wikipedia to take an unsettled stand in either direction; the entry should highlight that his credibility is in question, but should not also serve as arbiter of that dispute. ALChittur (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This will be a contentious change. Please seek consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source for the unequivocal assertion that Malone has "spread misinformation." Including that sentence, unaltered, rather than the qualified assertion that he has been "accused of spreading misinformation" is what is contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.160.187 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article. The blue links are citations. —PaleoNeonate – 02:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 (2)

The statement: "a member of the scientific advisory board of EpiVax", in the 2nd paragraph of the careers section is false and should be removed completely. Epivaxwiki (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Slatersteven, can't really source a negative. There's also no sourcing specifically saying I'm not the Lord High Marshal of the British Marines, but that doesn't make it true. I did some looking and didn't find any secondary sources, just some primary stuff, like this, which says he's no longer on the board. Consulting services for EpiVax, 2005-2018 (member, Scientific Advisory Board), 2020. - Epivax, Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of, but you could (for examp[le) point to the companies own list of staff and say "he is not on it". So what you have found would be enough (for me) to say an unsourced claim should be rmeoved.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, —PaleoNeonate – 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

In the first paragraph for the overview, a source is cited to show that Dr. Malone pedals misinformation. The source is source [1] from the Atlantic. This article is simply gossip and centers around people close to Dr. Malone, or people who do not know him very well at all (some only worked with him on a project or so). This source from the Atlantic does not cite or reference the studies and journals cited by Dr. Malone, and therefore, does not debunk any information shared by Dr. Malone. Please consider removing this source. 100.37.228.159 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The source does address the claim and seems reliable to me, however let's see what other editors who watch this article have to say. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, regarding your revert of Malone's Substack as an external link, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Substack is not linked from Malone's official page, so it meets the second criterion. And regarding the first criterion, the Substack appears to be updated through the present (updates within the last few days), unlike the blog on Malone's official website which has not been updated since last November, and appears to be the source of his current claims which have been discussed in reliable sources.[1][2] So I think this is also significant unique content, and worth including as an external link. What do you think? Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Milmo, Dan (27 January 2022). "Anti-vaxxers making 'at least $2.5m' a year from publishing on Substack". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 January 2022.
  2. ^ Love, Shayla (20 January 2022). "Protecting Yourself From COVID Isn't a Sign of Mental Illness". Vice. Retrieved 30 January 2022.

False information

How do you change false information on the page Veritas aequitas 20 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say what is false, provide RS saying it is false and then ask for a change to be made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2022

Robert W. Malone → Robert Malone – A previous discussion (permalink) established that Robert Malone (American football) is not the primary topic for Robert Malone, but didn't establish any consensus to whether the virologist is the primary topic. Given how many pageviews this gets vs the football player, I think it's quite clear that he's the virologist is the primary topic, and disambiguation would be best done with a hatnote on his page (and therefore the disambiguation page currently at Robert Malone would be deleted for the move to be carried out).

Also noting that Robert W. Malone is frequently referred to his name as just "Robert Malone", far more often than as "Robert W. Malone", so if it's determined that he isn't the primary topic here, the title should still be moved away from using his middle initial as the disambiguator and to something else (such as Robert Malone (virologist)). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the previous RM: @Roman Spinner, Crouch, Swale, Randy Kryn, Ortizesp, Yaksar, and 力:. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please change it. But please don’t add (virologist). All that’s needed is a distinguish hatnote for the sportsman. And one on the sportsman’s page for this Robert Malone. Boscaswell talk 07:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On his website (https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) he identifies himself as Robert W Malone MD. In the two scientific papers quoted in the Atlantic article (https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf and https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1690918) he is cited as ROBERT W. MALONE. GregKaye 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the ping. My concern expressed in the previous discussion was that the subject in question's page views have been influenced by him being in the news, but as the page was only created six months ago there isn't a great way to account for long term significance without potential recentism. That being said, we're only dealing with one other subject of the same name here, and from biography alone its not clear the athlete has any more relative longterm significance, so I don't think I would oppose this (although I'd also be fine waiting longer).--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He isn't a virologist, so that shouldn't be in contention as a qualifier. Neither is he an immunologist. He is a physician though. Perhaps Robert Malone (physician) ? Bob247 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant citation

The citation https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9EU9W7-1 infers wrongdoing in Malone's tweeting (on 'Jun 26') a scientific paper that was only submitted for a retraction on 1 July 2021 that was only published on 2 July 2021. The article only says that the tweet is no longer available which may just mean that Malone deleted the tweet. What is the relevance of this article? GregKaye 12:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says what it says, that is why it is relevant. Of course, it may no longer be available for many reasons, but we go with what RS say, not what we assume.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the authority

What "experts" does wiki use to be able to state this doctors in formation about corona virus vaccines, specifically mRNA inhibitors is not correct and thereby label it as misinformation. Show us "your" credible resources. 75.167.237.118 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do they are in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're linked in the article. Click on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article can use standard reliable sources and summarize what they have reported in relation to Malone, but for statistics about the safety and effectiveness of current vaccines I recommend looking at the official websites of major medical bodies like the CDC and the WHO, instead of what a particular person or scientist says. In relevant articles, Wikipedia usually relies on WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 16:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS means "MEDically Reliable Sources". -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the title is "questioning authority", maybe I should add that there are people who believe that those authoritative sources are biased and many people fear vaccination for a number of reasons. Wikipedia has articles about this, like Big Pharma conspiracy theory and Vaccine hesitancy. —PaleoNeonate – 18:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who believe in the flat Earth, in the moon landing hoax conspiracy, etc. But Wikipedia does not take into account their belief systems when writing topics on the Earth or Apollo 11. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

He mentioned we attended Santa Barbara City college while on the Joe Rogan podcast. 2600:1700:BB80:2910:D0C:C3F6:BCE1:40D8 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAybe, but in what capacity?Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_W._Malone&oldid=1069214430"