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)

Misinformation should not be there

User made absolutely no argument other then this person said no so I believe then instead. Onlyfacts77 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is absurd I represent a veteran research community with medical doctors and other related professionals. It is urgent continuously with overwhelming data that this is complete defamation an absolute misinformation on behalf of those who seek to eliminate the credible reputation of Dr PhD John Campbell. There’s absolutely no justification for any of the misleading comments such as this information false claims or any other related defamation currently posted on this very prestigious webpage. It is evidently false and rather insulting to anyone who knows the truth and anyone who doesn’t being misled. The editor of this sea of lies is the miss information corporate not Dr. John Campbell Usmc medical (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, you are not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022 (2)

Please remove the following:

"In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment."

This is put in the top summary section as if a single video on a single treatment should define a long career including multiple years of creating youtube educational content. The significance of a single video in his larger body of work is miniscule and should not be promoted as his defining characteristic.96.64.153.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The reference is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It states "false claims" as if this were established facts and it uses the phrase "anti-parasitic drug ivermectin" implying that use of ivermectin in non-"anti-parasite" usages is somehow odd or unusual. For reference, Ivermectin has been studied as an anti-viral since at least 2012 . Clearly it is its use as an antiviral that is relevant, but the statement would be seen by most readers as mocking the idea of using ivermectin on viruses.

The source provided is an unreliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for more information. From this page, for medical references, "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.". The source provided is a non-verified blog that contradicts a variety of medical references and should be considered a self-sourced work (Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE). The source makes the claim "the second, that old staple of conspiracy theorists and fake news peddlers - the anti-parasitic medicine ivermectin, which is has yet to be shown to be effective against COVID-19 in any reputable medical trial." with a reference supposedly supporting the "yet to be shown..." but links to a reference that does not seem to address this directly. This claim contradicts multiple medical papers, eg , , . Sensational self-contradictory self-publishing references should not be considered references for claims made by actual medical journal research papers even if they are loosely associated with organizations that have in other forums provided fact-checked and peer-reviewed works, especially when they are written with sensationalist and uncritical language.96.64.153.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Per WP:ER, they are not for controversial changes that require consensus. See also #Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus regarding the snake oil you refer to. FDW777 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Please remove the following: "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment." Change to "Campbell was accused of making false claims" It contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in that “false” implies that he made claims knowing them to be untrue, which is opinionated an unproven. The source is opinionated and inadequately sourced; by a tweet which doesn’t validate it. Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE There does seem to be a consensus growing on this.Faltero (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for an edit before using this template. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Claim of misinformation needs citation

The claim made of Dr. John Campbell being guilty of wrongthink needs substantial corroborating evidence. 2603:6011:4F43:5900:4DAA:52C7:75F4:4F9F (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the best referenced part of the article. FDW777 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically they are correct, none of our sources say he is "guilty of wrongthink". But we have cites for his claims being misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with due diligence, entirely agree Usmc medical (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

With what, there is more than one person here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources Please read American Journal of Theraupeutics 28, e434-460 (2021).

Please read American Journal of Theraupeutics 28, e434-460 (2021)

This needs to be considered when examining this page. Wysiwygil (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See #Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus regarding the snake oil. FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

In particular see Talk:Ivermectin/Archive 3#Bryant, Lawrie, et al returns. FDW777 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Or, even more pertinently, see here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Time for a FAQ? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being bought into disrepute

My edits on this page have been reverted :

Campbell has made repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and allegedly[3] spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety, though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid[4]. It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death.[5].[6][7][8]

Both additions are cited.

I am very saddened by this, it is the very worst of Wikipedia. Saying one cannot use the actual comment from the subject of the article, but only use a comment from some other site quoting the subject of the article is utterly ludicrous and basically certain editors are using esoteric Wikipedia rules to promote their own agenda. Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated (fact 1), and he recommends vaccinations to all those at significant risk of Covid (fact 2). The article, and certainly the introduction, is implying Campbell is somehow anti-vax and is therefore inaccurate. I will accept alteration of my edits provided that the form of words used still makes clear Campbell is in favour of vaccination. --JustinSmith (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if both edits were cited, they need to be cited to wp:rs, one of your sources does not even mention (so violated either wp:or or wp:synthesis, and maybe both). Edits must obey our policies (as must talk page comments). Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And in fact Campbell said he now didn't think the vaccine was safe in one of his recent videos. Basically, it's all about courting loonies for money and his repeatedly grift has been document by reliable sources which Wikipedia faithfully mirrors, per core policy. The OP must not insert daft personal musings into Wikipedia and should be aware repeated disruption like that will get them banned, as it's that kind of damage which actually "brings Wikipedia into disrepute". Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, using terms like "courting loonies" proves you are indeed pushing your own agenda by using obscure rules to delete provable facts that disagree with the narrative you want to push. Banning me, after 16 years editing Wikipedia, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated. JustinSmith (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)