Talk:World Council for Health

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 Start‑class Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

ResearchGate is more reliable than Vice.

"As of May 2022 the group was led by Tess Lawrie, an obstetrician." ==> possible integration: As of May 2022^[update] the group was led by Tess Lawrie (MBBCh, DFSRH, PhD), an obstetrician,^[1] director of E-BMC Ltd, ^[2] whose peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 4000 citations^[3]. In their Coalition Partners they list over 170 associations worldwide.^[4]

I dont' understand why remove info and the link to their LTD site and to Research Gate. It is more relevant that she is an obstetrician or that she is a researcher with tens of peer reviewed publications and >4000 citations ? It is not possible to work this way. You could amend the sentence, not remove anything and roll back. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hume 2022
^ "The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd". Retrieved October 24, 2022.
^ "Theresa A Lawrie MBBCh, PhD". Retrieved October 24, 2022.
^ "World Council for Health Coalition Partners". Retrieved October 24, 2022.

This is not an article about Lawrie. If it were, we'd need reliable independent secondary sources and be to pretty clear about Lawrie's position in the misinformation nexus. For example, this one which calls her a conspiracy theorist who projects herself as a 'respectable' researcher. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But she and the WCH don't work only on ivermectin. To put on emphasis only some aspects sounds as a bias. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is this article is about WCH. Sources should be about WCH. We're not going into the weeds with individual people unless those sources explicitly link them with WCH. See WP:COATRACK. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source mentions Aseem Malhotra attending the 27 September 2022 press conference hosted by the World Council for Health [1], the healthfeedback website looks like a reliable source but not sure if it can be used if it is primary or not. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a researcher having more than 6000 citations [2] is supposed to be "respectable". that's more than the 4000 citations count by the author [3] of the article you link [4], as well as for publications and reading numbers. Scientometry (with all its limits) would give more credit to Lawrie at this stage.

So tell why, on which basis, a less solid and prolific researcher can call another one a "conspiracy theorist" ?!?

I am really curious to know which are the parameters you use, to prefer one on another ?

Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher.

Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method. 37.101.126.212 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Obvious conspiracy theorists as described by reliable sources are called that by Wikipedia too. Bon courage (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So VICE is RS ?!? OOOOOOOOOKKK :))) 150.145.142.8 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Vice is a middling source, fine for unexceptional claims. Bon courage (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me if a scientific article like this is reputed a RS? I am forming my opinion... tx "Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics", https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4 150.145.142.8 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bias voice

I see the voice continues to grow and that's good. However the main refs here seem to be Vice. Not really a medicine RS. On another note, form description it seems they only promote ivermectin and discredited treatments: it isn't so. Many of those treatments are now recognized; they just proposed them in anticipation to other groups. 150.145.142.9 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a "medicine" topic, it's about a group spreading misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes I know, my point is that Vice could be spreading misinformation as well about this organization and other medicine associations. 37.101.126.212 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... like that covid 19 vaccines are needed, safe and effective ?!?!? 150.145.142.9 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not misinformation. Can you please stop this? You will not succeed in turning Wikipedia into a antivax quackery outlet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:CATW#9. Bon courage (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In their Coalition Partners they list over 170 associations worldwide.

There should be mention to their Coalition Partners which extends well beyond Kennedy. Is there any RS that can confirm what they claim on their website? Or could the sentence be added saying theat they list/claim such a network ? 150.145.142.9 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need good independent sources. Are there any commenting on this? Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancillary associations

It should be linked also these entries, https://www.truthforhealth.org/ and https://feds4medfreedom.org/ Are there already voices on the wikipedia about these two organizations? 94.35.33.36 (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are anti-vax organizations, thus they are fringe and contrary to mainstream medical opinion. Wikipedia avoids giving undue weight to fringe organizations such as these. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why the current voice "World Council for Health" is here ? your answer is nonsense 150.145.142.8 (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG. This topic meets that threshold. Is that true for these other orgs? Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their mission statement

Their mission statement is:

The World Council for Health is a non-profit initiative for the people, that is informed and funded by the people. Our global coalition of health-focused initiatives and civil society groups seeks to broaden public health knowledge and sense-making through science and shared wisdom. We are dedicated to safeguarding human rights and free will while empowering people to take control of their health and wellbeing. 147.147.194.41 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like self-serving BS. Would need some secondary coverage to lend weight etc. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be rewritten

This article relies too much on opinion articles. Opinion are not facts. This clearly is not up to the Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Vice is hardly a reliable source. lacking reliable sources this page should be removed. Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hume 2022

[2] "The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd". Retrieved October 24, 2022.

[3] "Theresa A Lawrie MBBCh, PhD". Retrieved October 24, 2022.

[4] "World Council for Health Coalition Partners". Retrieved October 24, 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]