Jump to content

Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.170.5.169 (talk) at 23:12, 14 June 2022 (→‎This article contains misinformation: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




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)

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

This article contains misinformation

Whoever wrote this article has a clear vendetta against Dr John Campbell. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, a full review of this page needs to occur. 88.8.188.92 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See all the threads above, and all the threads in the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Amcluesent (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Dsouzams (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You two just agreeing with Slatersteven without adding any reasoning is useless, since Wikipedia discussions are not about headcounts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article by itself contains misinformation about a medical practicioner who is doing his best to show the scietific evidence in transparent way. Therefore, accusations that Dr Campbell is spreading misinformation is not legit and should be deleted from the page. 2001:16A2:C552:3300:8DE:AA9D:6418:4C00 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr John Campbell and his views can clearly be a controversial topics. Is it not possible for this Wikipedia article to describe situation(s) rather than taking a position in the controversy? It seems from the above Talk discussion that the editors/contributors are more interested in defending the "position" taken in the article rather than simply representing all of available information on the topic of Dr John Campbell. Very disappointing so far! 128.250.0.142 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. If the reliable sources take a position, so too will Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself is not accepted as reliable sources because of such unbalanced propaganda-article. Looks more like weapon in hybrid warfare. 2003:E5:3F15:9C5E:2F71:D213:EC25:3602 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is for its own policies, which this is a link to. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So according to these "reliable sources", Wikipedia is not reliable:
It's interesting how the WP:FALSEBALANCE section states: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against". Yet, this article has indeed taken a position. 131.170.5.169 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A full review by whom? Not Wikipedia, they are the ones maintaining their own misinformation. 140.141.182.236 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what RS say, so it would have to be a review by an RS, again. If people want to alter what we say find RS that contest the claims we report. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be taken down and reviewed. Odonanmarg (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We had an AFD, the result was keep. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation about Dr Cambell

In the article about John Cambell there are some serious mistakes that need looking into. It states that he has presented false information. This is untrue. His information is legitimate and sometimes people misunderstand what he is saying or draw a conclusion. In any event if he has stated misleading information then it needs to sourced to the episode it was stated in to be addressed. There was a misleading article in the BBC for example that he clarifies in a follow up show. The guy is not politically motivated and followed the statistics. 97.120.164.160 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you wont have much difficulty finding reliable sources to back up your claim before we put it into the article. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the link to the videos of Dr. Campbell where he is supposed to present the false information? And have those who made the statement watched the full videos? Have they made sure there were no follow-up videos which clarified any errors in previous videos? Bluelobe (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for such a link. Wikipedia prefers secondary reliable sources to primary ones. If you have a beef with the sources, take it up with them, not with us. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I Ph.D. scientist, I appreciate the technical credibility that Dr. Campbell brings to his discussions. The Wikipedia characterization that he is misleading is itself so misleading that it undermines the credibility of the Wikipedia model of disseminating information. 2601:196:180:F590:3D1E:7A3A:2658:8FD1 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MAybe, but you are not an RS, if you want us to reflect your views you need to contact RS point out all you have just said and get them to publish it. We go with what RS say, RS say it was misinformation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need 15 threads making the same point. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrestrained freedom vs chaos - hmm. Odonanmarg (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This entry violates Wikipedia biographies of living persons

This section is a duplicate of an open discussion at WP:BLPN. Further discussion can happen there or in one of the above sections on identical subjects. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This entry violates Wikipedia biographies of living persons: "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period."

Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell. The Wikipedia entry:

"John Lorimer Campbell[3] is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell. Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. "

Wikipedia was asked repeatedly to remove the statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation" but refuses to do so. The statement is defamatory of Dr. Campbell's character and can affect negatively his reputation, career and financial well-being. And yet, the statement has no place in a Wikipedia entry. Keeping that statement would mean, every Wikipedia entry about someone who has posted videos would most probably require that same statement. Wikipedia entries on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, etc., as these companies, at one time or another, whether on purpose or inadvertently, have posted videos which contain misinformation. And yet we do not have that statement on their entries.

Second, the so-called rationale for saying his videos contain misinformation, i.e., "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" -- may not be "misinformation" as the full picture/complete data on those matters have not been gathered. It's very possible that some or all of those are proven true. For example, for the first statement "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted", hospitals in the Philippines, during the pandemic, would be able to charge more, i.e., earn more profits from health insurance companies or government health care reimbursement, if they claim the patient had COVID-19 rather than another ailment like pneumonia or lung cancer, etc., and so, many of them erroneously list death is by COVID-19, thus upping the death-by-COVID-19 count.

Third, his videos are usually about Dr. Campbell reporting on studies or report. He does not actually create the studies or reports. If these studies or reports give results and conclusions contrary to what the Wikipedia reviewer would like to hear, they shouldn't be immediately marked as "misinformation." Dr. Campbell reviews them and explains the key points in an understandable way.

In conclusion, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. John Campbell must remove the unnecessary, defamatory, unproven, controversial statement. It does not add illumination to the entry, but merely gaslights and defames the subject without clear, unquestionable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelobe (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing all this above (but see wp:legal) and no more can be added than what you have already been told. Having another thread on the same topic will not make your case stonger. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of intro paragraph

"I'm not going to check this page any longer." per WatchfulRelic91. Zaathras (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The intro paragraph of this article currently reads 'Some of his videos contain misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.' After reviewing the videos, I have found that all of the sources and studies referenced are included in the description boxes with these videos. Although many of these studies may derive different results than the ones listed under 'Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus' in this talk page. This means that the information he is sharing from those studies that have been labelled 'false claims', are not necessarily false, but are simply study results that may not be completely in agreement with other reliable sources.

In order to continue to further scientific understanding, it is important to review various studies that may have different conclusions. In Dr. Campbell's videos, he is simply sharing the results of various scientific studies.

As a result, I suggest that this article should be modified to consider that various studies may be in opposition, and simply state the objective facts. For example, the statement could be rephrased to say: 'Some of his videos contain information from studies that differ from many other reliable sources {insert sources here}, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated {remove 'false'} claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and {remove 'misleading'} commentary about vaccine safety.' The validity of studies should be up to the readers to determine based on the merits, and Wikipedia should not claim as fact which studies are false or misinformation. Scientific knowledge is updated regularly based on the continual study and challenging previously held notions (i.e. masking was originally said to be ineffective to protect against COVID-19). As this page stands right now, it borders on commentary, instead of an encyclopedia.

In conclusion, I think it would be appropriate to remove the terms "misinformation", "false" and "misleading" from the article, as they are subjective and not reflective of the ongoing scientific studies and statistics that Dr. Campbell shares in his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and the reliable sources are pretty clear that he has spread misinformation. And they're right: presenting data and then giving a misleading interpretation of that data is in fact spreading misinformation. I don't think he's evil or anything, just prone to mistakes because he's giving his spin on things when he's not really an expert. As to how neutral this is, have a look at WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality doesn't mean pretending that every viewpoint has equal validity with any other. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was some confusion on my part, my mistake. I had confused one of the references with another, and thus thought that "misinformation", "false" and "misleading" were labels not derived from a RS, but an editor's opinion. Sorry. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However I would argue still that the wording used is quite harsh against Dr. Campbell, that make him sound like he's 'misleading' his viewers. And there's no mention of anything other than the potentially false information in his videos. Such as the fact that he would, nearly every day, talk about the most recent COVID trends and statistics around the world. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh. The wording makes it sound like he's 'misleading' his viewers. That is because he is misleading his viewers. That is the point made by reliable sources that we are reporting. All his fanbois complaining here need to correct him, not us, or the reliable sources that we report that point out his misinformation. Simples. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who are so many Wikipedia editors so unprofessional. 'fanbois'? Are you kidding me? I don't even watch the guy regularly. I knew I was wasting my time here, everyone seems so dense.
Don't bother replying to this, I'm not going to check this page any longer. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again we go with what RS say, if Mr Campbell is unhappy with what we say he needs to get RS to correct themselves. Now you may have a point about his mentioned videos (which in fact we do say with "who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell."), so suggest some text and we can see if it does not violate wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

Dr. John Campbell is NOT spreading mis infirmation ! Wikepedia is in this case! 83.81.130.118 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please read the umpteen threads above as to what we can't do this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

Egregious typos in the lede section:

  • posted YouTube video => posted YouTube videos
  • Whilst , initialy => Whilst, initially

Thanks. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but was conflicted. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 00:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're just typos, nothing "egregious", let's not hyperventilate too much about it. I trimmed the "whilst" as well, as we're not exactly Downton Abbey. Zaathras (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were in a pretty visible spot in the article; but, fair point, "egregious" may have been too strong of a word. Thanks for fixing them. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)&oldid=1093159370"