Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

"COVID-19 controversies" section addition

I have removed an addition made recently. The negative slant was not present in the reference, and the last thing this article needs is people adding unrefernced controversies. FDW777 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777 I reedited the content and added it without the new section heading. StrayBolt (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Politifact versus BBC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm struggling to find any mention of the claimed quotes that prove the BBC article is wrong. In fact the only mention of Politifact I can find on the page is Elsewhere I referenced the Politifact story that presents the video in question in a completely different light. I leave the link here because this Talk page has become so convoluted it's hard to follow all the discussions. No, death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated. So, no, I'm NOT wrong about the BBC article being misleading. It simply repaints the whole context of Dr. Campbell's content in the worst-possible light. I doubt the reporter actually watched the video. So perhaps we could have the sentences from Politifact and the BBC that are contradictory? FDW777 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. The sources are excellent. It's simply not our job to re-legislate good sources; rather, we reflect them. The idea that the BBC is deliberately setting out to misrepresent the news is just tinfoilery. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also not our job to watch Campbell's videos to determine what he actually means when we have excellent references. FDW777 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Especially for a Youtube channel which engages in dog-whistling, a degree of reading sophistication is required to understand what is being communicated as a whole - which is why our excellent sources are so, so valuable, providing the understanding that Wikipedians cannot bring. If, however, there's any lingering doubt about the meaning of these videos, a quick look at their comments section (an absolute zoo), or shares on social media (e.g.[1]), confirms they are courting, enthusing, and amplifying the crankery in the crank audience. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we let the other side respond please, and make their case? Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777 You can view the diff for the video quote here. I collapsed this branch of the discussion after someone suggested it could be closed (because of the original request being denied/resolved).

NOTE: I tried to use a YouTube shortlink, but Wikipedia wouldn't allow it - I should have linked directly to the full video URL. The Politifact article defends Dr. Campbell's video by citing the exact same data he read to rebut the Jimmy Dore video - its score of "Pants on Fire" is for the Jimmmy Dore video, not the Campbell video.

Slightly reformatted (no text changed), I wrote :

• Here's the paragraph in question from the BBC article: "Then on 20 January, Dr John Campbell, a retired nurse educator who has amassed a huge following on YouTube, released a video describing the figures as a 'huge story' and suggested Covid deaths were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating'. In the video (Cf. 9UHvwWWcjYw - which Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to link to), starting around 4 minutes he goes through the data under "Death registrations for 2020 and 2021" noting that the numbers are "surprisingly low". He then cites the numbers and their classifications. At about 6 minutes 4 seconds he summarizes by saying: "so, where Covid-19 is the only attributable cause of death, we see that the rate of death is actually remarkably low. Now, they're still deaths but it's much lower than we've been thinking, and it's much lower than mainstream media seems to be intimating." He's clearly only commenting on the attributions of deaths. He goes on in the video to talk about excess deaths that were probably caused by the pandemic (lack of treatment, co-moribidities, etc.) The BBC article doesn't mention any of that. It just plucks one partial statement out of the video and makes a false assertion.

• You guys keep asking for sources that dispute these articles. That isn't the point. These accusations are such fringe material (not picked up by any other reporting sources) as to be questionable for their isolation. A search of Google News for Dr. John Campbell and Covid deaths pulls up a story from Politifact, published several days prior to the BBC article, that mentions the Campbell video without making this misleading assertion. No, death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated. If you want to use THIS article to mention Dr. Campbell's video, then you'll have to revise what you're saying because he's clearly NOT being accused of spreading misinformation by Politifact.

If I were to change that first point, I would rather say near the end: "He's clearly only commenting on the attributions of deaths in the government data - he does NOT assert that Covid deaths were surprisingly low." It appears to me that people are confusing his commentary about the data he was reading with some imaginary claim wrongly attributed to him by Jimmy Dore. Politifact was careful to sort that out. The BBC article (which only mentioned this in passing) did not. The Politifact article is clearly the better reference for what he was talking about, but neither article provides a full, continuous quote from the video.

I promised @Slatersteven that if the article survives AFD I would propose some edits for discussion. Frankly, this is the paragraph with which I have some issues. I think it can be rewritten with less detail without sacrificing the point that his video was misused by others. We don't have to trash the BBC in the process.

If you want to move on from all the arguing, I suggest we discuss how to improve this paragraph:

• A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported.[6] In January 2022, Campbell posted a YouTube video in which he cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggesting they showed deaths from COVID-19 were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating" and concentrated on a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death. Within a few days the video had been viewed over 1.5 million times.[20] It was shared by British Conservative politician David Davis who called it "excellent" and said that it was "disentangling the statistics", and American comedian Jimmy Dore used it to claim that COVID-19 deaths had been overreported and that it proved the public had been the victim of a "scaremongering campaign".[21][6] The ONS responded by debunking the claims as spurious and wrong.[22] An ONS spokesman said "to suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading".[21] The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000, in 140,000 of those cases the underlying cause of death was listed as COVID-19.[6][23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Martinez (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think you've understood Campbell or the BBC piece. Everybody knows what Campbell was suggesting, and for good measure he even spelled it out in his follow up video. Wikipedia should rely on the comprehension skills of the BBC specialist, not some weird spin from a Wikipedia editor. WP:NOR. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Everybody knows what Campbell was suggesting..." That's an opinion, YOUR opinion, and it's clearly disputed by the many commenters on these Talk pages who disagree with you.

  So, editing by assumption isn't the Wikipedia way. And you're once again making accusations ("some weird spin from a Wikipedia editor") rather than verifying the source article's unsourced claims. That also isn't the Wikipedia way.

  I suggest you stop casting aspersions on me and others and stay focused on working to improve the article, the quality of which has CLEARLY been called into question by MANY people. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've not seen any legitimate objections to the article taken in the main. The basis of your attack on it, is the conspiracy theory that the BBC is setting out with the intent to deceive. That's WP:PROFRINGE. You can't wave away reliable sources on the say so of Wikipedia editors promoting fringe notions. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  "I've not seen any legitimate objections to the article taken in the main." Of course you haven't. You've batted away every attempt to discuss the article's problems, been rude to people, misquoted Wikipedia policies (mostly if not completely without actually citing anything from those policies to show you've read them, understand them, and want others to understand what you're talking about), falsely accusing me of "conspiracy theories", and generally have obstructed constructive discussion at every point. The BBC article is misrepresenting the content of the video - whether intentionally or by sloppy journalism doesn't matter. What matters is that's inaccurate and Wikipedia policy says it shouldn't be used.

  I think you need to stand down for a while and ask yourself why you are so biased against improving this article. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I believe in following the sources, and I do not believe in conspiracy theories about the BBC (you still haven't explained what your evidence is for your claim they are deliberately setting out to deceive). We could maybe improve the article by using something from the CapX source currently in Further Reading? Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  "I do not believe in conspiracy theories about the BBC"

  I don't believe in disparaging other people as a means of engaging in constructive conversation. Please stop falsely accusing me of spreading conspiracy theories. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  So when you wrote the BBC "misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said", what did you mean? What is this "design" the BBC ("clearly") has? Because this certainly looks like a rootin' tootin' conspiracy theory ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  "So when you wrote the BBC 'misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said', what did you mean?"

  Well, a good journalist would not have taken what he said out of context. A good journalist would have viewed the video and tried to explain to his or her readers that Campbell said something different from what other people attributed to him. That's what Politifact did. Apparently, she felt that wasn't necessary. When she was questioned about that paragraph on Twitter she said people were getting the wrong idea from it (that would include you) and that she wanted to talk to Dr. Campbell to get clarification. She claimed she couldn't reach him. He claimed he was in contact with other people from the BBC and didn't understand why she couldn't reach him. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What does Poltifact say that contradicts the BBC? Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm improvising a little on the formatting. From the Politifact article:

[Stating the problem]

"Dore shares his interpretation of another YouTube video from a Britain named John Campbell, whose bio describes him as a 'a retired Nurse Teacher' and emergency nurse with a Ph.D focused on nurse education. He has more than 2 million subscribers to his channel, where he often discusses his views on the COVID-19 pandemic.

[ - embedded Dore video - ]

"'John Campbell's gonna tell you what the real death rate is in the U.K., and the answer is going to surprise you,' Dore tells his viewers near the start of the video."

[Clarifying what Campbell actually said]

"Campbell then shares information released recently by the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics that he says shows that COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic attributed solely to the virus 'may be way lower than anyone had thought.' He then said that such data would likely also apply to the U.S. and the rest of the world.

"According to the data Campbell shows in his Jan. 20 video, in 2020 and the first three quarters of 2021, there were 17,371 deaths in England and Wales where the sole cause of death listed on death certificates was COVID-19. Since his video was published, fourth quarter numbers were released, showing a total of 18,907 deaths from COVID-19 alone."

[ - another Dore quote - ]

"No, that's not what the numbers mean.

"According to the report cited in the video, there were 131,641 COVID-19 deaths overall in England and Wales at the time it was published and 140,776 in the most recent report. The numbers Campbell cites are those whose sole cause of death was listed as COVID-19. But that does not mean the other deaths attributed to the virus aren’t also legitimate — they simply show people whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19 and other conditions at the same time." Michael Martinez (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

How does that contradict the BBC's claim he "suggested Covid deaths were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Are they saying his figures were not lower? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

From the BBC article:

TITLE: Posts claiming only 17,000 died of virus 'factually incorrect'

"Then on 20 January, Dr John Campbell, a retired nurse educator who has amassed a huge following on YouTube, released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating'."

As Politifact explained, Campbell didn't make that claim. She lumped him in with an Islamist and a British politician, so it appears that she feels he is guilty by association - at least not innocent enough to actually fully quote what Campbell said. Taking things out of context is not considered good journalism.

So I've established above that he did NOT suggest that Covid deaths were much lower than mainstream media "intimated". Michael Martinez (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Err he said "deaths during the pandemic attributed solely to the virus 'may be way lower than anyone had thought'" how is that not saying they may be lower than reported (he even sued the word lower)? Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You do understand that Politifact reports the same numbers - which come from the British government, right?

You're in essence accusing the British government of spreading misinformation. Do you realize how absurd your arguments look? Michael Martinez (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked for a straightforward BBC versus Politifact explanation as to what the contradiction is. If the BBC are wrong and Politifact prove it, then it should be a relatively straightforward task to provide text from the BBC saying aaa aaa aaaaaa aaa aa and Politifact saying bbb bbb bbbbbb bb bbb bbbb. Instead we get long transcripts from John Campbell's video and explanations as to what he really meant. Not interested. You were called out on your contradiction claim, and you've failed miserably to provide any evidence to support it. So either you can now to go WP:RSN like you've been repeatedly told, or the BBC article remains reliable per WP:RSP. FDW777 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Instead we get long transcripts from John Campbell's video and explanations as to what he really meant."

Because you guys repeatedly refuse to verify what the BBC says. You know, that IS what the Reliable Sources policy asks all of us to do. If you're unwilling to verify sources as being accurate, you shouldn't use them. You really shouldn't bother making edits.

You're engaging in these circular arguments over and over again. That's not good Wikipedia etiquette. The only way to show you're not making any effort to read these 2 articles is to cite them. At least that way, when other editors come along and question what this article is doing, they'll see the obvious obfuscation that is going on.

I really suggest you help rewrite that 1 troublesome paragraph. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

But the BBC is correct. Campbell was trying to show that by some calculations the UK is over-counting deaths by a factor of seven, eight or nine. That was his schtick. People like Jimmy Dore picked it up. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"But the BBC is correct"

No, the BBC is NOT correct, since the article doesn't represent the content of Campbell's video correctly.

"Campbell was trying to show that by some calculations the UK is over-counting deaths by a factor of seven, eight or nine."

Nope. That was not what he was doing. As Politifact explained (several days before the BBC published its inaccurate article). Michael Martinez (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Nope. That was not what he was doing." ← wrong. In his next video he even admitted it. Quote: "I do hope you got a chance to look at that video which shows that by some calculations we're over-counting deaths by a factor of seven, eight or nine". Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And you provide only a partial quote because [don't say that's all anyone needs to know] ???

You know, MarshallKe called you on this on March 16 (I don't have time to dig for the diffs right now):

"You're trying to edit based on what you want the reader to leave with, rather than reflecting the facts as accurately as possible, as they are in the RS. It doesn't matter that you think the article will imply something you don't like. You can't twist the facts. One number has only covid on the death certificate, the other number can have other things. We can use the sources to explain why this doesn't support conspiratorial thinking, but we cannot lie about the facts. MarshallKe (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"In other words, you don't get to publish *disinformation* in order to combat *misinformation* MarshallKe (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)"

Not a drive-by IP. That account has some history. I agree - you're twisting the facts to suit your agenda. You need to stop. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Three (experienced, not drive by IP's) users have said you are wrong, two users have said take it to RSN. It is not time to WP:JUSTDROPIT, or take it to RSN as you have been asked to Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Three (experienced, not drive by IP's) users have said you are wrong,"

Yes. I can count too. Thank you.

And I did ask you guys to stop engaging in these circular arguments. You can drop it any time you wish.

I've pointed out which paragraph should be changed. Fixing that will end these useless arguments. And if the article is deleted (which I also asked you guys to wait for THAT decision, but you chose not to), then all your arguments are wasted anyway. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And, AGAIN, the Wikipedia way is NOT to get the BBC banned over 1 inaccurate article. So I suggest the three of you stop the nonsense about trying to do that. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I pulled some quotes from the subtitles: Around 3:10 in the video he says "there's been no mention of this whatsoever on mainstream media [...] so surprising, surprising that they haven't picked this up because it's a huge story" Then at around 6:20 he says "we see that the the rate of death is actually uh remarkably low now there's still deaths but it's much lower than we've been thinking and it's much lower than mainstream media seems to be intimating'. I omitted a few remarks in the first quote where he recites a list of specific media outlets. BBC summary seems fine to me. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that he's only talking about the government's data for deaths attributed solely to Covid, he isn't spreading misinformation. The misinformation comes from the people misusing his video. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading with statistics is a form of misinformation. MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So is misleading with partial quotations and false accusations. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Its time to ask for a formal close and maybe escalate. I am off now as I have other things to do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in second guessing the BBC. If the BBC says something, it is true. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, @StellarNerd. I suggest you start learning about Wikipedia's reliable sources here:

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

• "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
• "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."
• "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
• "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."

Michael Martinez (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old Discussions as of 6 April 2022

Now that the AFD question is settled, I suggest the old discussions here either be collapsed or archived so that future discussion is not influenced by the back-and-forth. I will still post some edit suggestions as I described above, but I'll wait a few days to make my recommendations. I'm in no rush to re-open old wounds and I hope other editors take my proposals in the spirit of open-mindedness. Please don't make any assumptions in advance.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Archiving will happen automatically once people stop commenting in the sections for long enough. MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

10 days. Which is fast. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, regardless of whether the discussions are archived, I'll wait about 12 days before I make any suggested edits. I hope that's a long enough cooling off period for everyone. I may ping confirmed users and above who have participated in the Talk page discussions here since January 1. I'll make that decision when I post my suggestions. This page is on my watchlist so I'll see what people come back so I'll have an idea of whether pings are necessary. And, yes, I know they need to be modest and unbiased pings. I'm not going to post notifications on user Talk pages.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Speaking for myself I'm "cool" enough already thanks. This is just another COVID/misinformation article among many, and the consensus is nice and firm. I do however hope any future postings are not going be WP:HORSEMEAT. Alexbrn (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No need to be coy, and I'd note that if you continue along your already established lines, you may well get the same responses. Good luck. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

looking at the trees not the forest

In almost every video John Campbell has stressed the importance of the vaccine and other non-medical safeguards such as mask wearing. Yes, he questions some data but overall, and many times over, he states that the deaths from Covid are underestimated. That is that there are more deaths from covid than governments make claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

All of which we have gone over more than once here (see the talk page above). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

When the errors haven’t been fixed, it doesn’t really matter that you went over it. It seems everyone can see how bad the article is, except for a few people who have the power to stop edits. DisCerno (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean experienced editors who understand our policies and how to apply them, as opposed to new users who do not, yes you are right. We reflect what RS say, if RS has it wrong there are mechanisms to address that. But until those RS are either contradicted by other RS, or retract their claims we must reflect what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@DisCerno The sources argument was settled in the AFD. The mandate coming out of that decision was to improve the article, not to remove anything based on disagreements about sources. I promised a couple of weeks ago to propose some edits here on the Talk page (I won't edit the article). I don't have much time right now and I wanted to look at the changes made by @Straybolt in detail before I try to suggest anything. Wikipedia doesn't promise to be 100% accurate about anything. It promises to back up what it says with sources that have been accepted as reliable. And until such time as consensus changes on any given article, the Wikipedia way is to live with what we have and keep working on improving things with minimal conflict. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Martinez: A reminder: Template:Reply_to You cannot directly type the "@" symbol to notify a user of your reply, you must use the template documented here or manually create a wikilink to their user page. The "@" symbol is used by this template for display purposes only.

Also, it is StrayBolt, with a capital "B". StrayBolt (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback but I'm still getting used to the reply interface/box which prompts you to pick a username when you type in the @ symbol. Perhaps it's a bug? Michael Martinez (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading information

The wiki entry on Campbell is very misleading, it makes it sound like he’s spreading misinformation. I’m very surprised to come here and find that instead of letting people correct the article, the page has been locked and a few mods are angrily insisting that the page should remain misleading. Is it normal that mods can do that on wikipedia? This is a huge strike against wikipedia’s credibility. 80.62.116.70 (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That is what RS have said, so we reflect that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes he is totally open with his sources of information. In fact blood contamination by mRNA vaccines can cause problems, this is a fact. The vaccine is an intramuscular vaccine not an intravenous vaccine. Its not intended to enter the blood supply in quantity. What is false about that. Show me the data showing the vaccine is blood safe. 142.184.189.13 (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)