Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022 (2)

REMOVE

In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said. Danieltate (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Why are we allowing his page to be defaced by the claim that anti-vaxxers used his videos? This is defamtory, and he cannot control who uses his videos. And he didn't even say whatever misinformation was being touted. The presence of this verbage is slanderous, politica, and should not be on his page which should be biographical in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieltate (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

He can however choose what to cover in his videos, and might be better off avoiding the promotion of unproven drugs. FDW777 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to any of his videos in which he says "Ivermectin works, I recommend my viewers use it"? There's a difference between discourse and promotion. Particularly with an "unproven drug" that is in active clinical trials; I guess it was a bad idea for anyone to have opened their mouth about the covid vaccines before the FDA gave emergency approval for their use - they were "unproven drugs" before that. By your reasoning, discussing _failed_ clinical trials of Ivermectin constitutes "promotion". You don't like people discussing Ivermectin. Good for you. I was chastised for my non-policy-based comments. What policy does your last comment fall under? Still waiting for sourced evidence of your claim that Campbell "history of making misleading self-serving claims". Not your opinion - a reliable source, because that's what we base articles upon, n'est ce pas? Anastrophe (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

--

Editors can easily see the claim made about Campbell that "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin" is simply incorrect, by actually viewing the video in question (which takes only 8.5 minutes at double speed) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g

At no point in the video does Campbell make any conclusive claims at all about ivermectin. He only presents it as one of several *possible* explanations for low case rates in Japan, and says that high rates of vaccination and mask wearing are also possible explanations, and likely co-factors in the low case rate. So that section of the introduction (if not removed) should be edited to more accurately highlight *reactions* to the video which assume that Campbell somehow declared ivermectin a treatment, when he didn't. Brookse32 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

How can it be a "possible" cause if it wasn't being used? Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent question. The answer is that Campbell, at no point in the video, even claims that ivermectin is being used broadly in Japan. He only puts forward his hypothesis that since a high level public official told both people and health care practitioners that they were *allowed* to use it, it is possible that an increase in ivermectin use might be a factor in Japan's low infection rate. He only lays out the theory along with many other theories in the same video. Brookse32 (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is the problem, he puts forward a hypothesis that he is not in fact qualified to make, based on dubious evidence (well in fact none) which had been roundly dismissed by some who is qualified to make a judgment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2022

Please remove the phrase "Campbell made false claims", as there is no cited evidence to support this; rather, he made legitimate speculations (“two potential reasons”, to quote the source) about a remarkable decline in Japanese Covid cases which requires explanation. He did not endorse any course of action.

Dr Campbell’s video “Ivermectin in Japan – YouTube” went out on Nov 23, 2021. In it he calls the rise in Ivermectin use in Japan and the matching decline in Covid in that country “a remarkable coincidence”.

I suggest that the contentious phrase "Campbell made false claims" be changed to "Campbell was accused of making false claims" and allow the reader to decide, on the basis of the sources supplied, whether they think he did or didn’t do so. As yet there seems to be no convincing evidence that he did. Faltero (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep,. I can see this as fair. it has not got a lot of coverage, so may lets ere on the side of caution.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the false claim that ivermectin was enjoying sudden widespread use in Japan? That's that the sources say. I don't think we should be framing this as "legitimate speculation" to "allow the reader to decide", especially when the only actual scientist to comment on (Kall) it has said of the ivermectin speculation, that it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation"". Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure he said the. The source just says its use might be a possible reason for Japan's fall in cases. It is a false claim, but the source does not say he said it was the reason, just a possible reason. In a sense (and this is the problem, what I am about to say is wp:or) this is a classic dog whistle of "just posing a question". But we need an RS saying that if we are too. So I am not sure he actually made any claims at all, rather than just (as with his other covid misinformation) made unqualified musings. maybe we need to change it to what the source says and say "Campbell drew false conclusions about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment", which seems to be close to what the quoted expert says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There's the dog-whistle (showing a graph with a fall and a big arrow saying "ivermectin allowed here"), and there's the false information: that ivermectin was (ridiculous thought) suddenly switched on throughout the population following some maverick doctor's press conference. So as well as the reasoning being wrong, the premise is wrong. For Wikipedia to present this as "legitimate speculation" would be very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hence why I suggest we change it to "drew false conclusions".Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My take on this is that it is biased against the subject (Dr. John Campbell) to even note this reaction to his work in the introduction, especially when using a reference that has such a clearly strong and even aggressive ideological bias against Campbell. Subjective critiques like this belong in the 'Misinformation' section, not in the article intro. Brookse32 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it belongs in the lead, Per MOS:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I'm curious as to what you mean by a reference that has such a clearly strong and even aggressive ideological bias against Campbell? Fact checkers have no ideological bias whatsoever, their only "ideology" would be telling the truth. FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone go for this? "In November 2021 Campbell drew criticism for his poor analysis of the "Japanese Miracle" as possibly due to ivermectin use; epidemiologist Megan Hall, head epidemiologist at the UK Health Security Agency, calling it a classic case of confusing correlation with causation." Faltero (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No as I am unsure it was even analysis, after all he is a nurse, not an MD. It was at best a claim made by someone not qualified to make such claims.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect, he’s not a nurse. He’s a senior lecturer and nurse educator of 25 years standing. In America a similar position would bear the title of assistant, if not full, professor. He is also a published physician. What is more he is more qualified than Megan Hall who does not hold a PhD, as Campbell does. Between Hall and Campbell, Campbell is very likely the more qualified epidemiologist. Faltero (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He is still not an MD, nor a clinical researcher for an epidemiologist (unlike the person who said he did not know what he was talking about). Nor can he be a published physician as he is not a published physician (as I said he hold not an MD).Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Faltero (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Faltero (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So? He holds a PHD in nursing, which is not relevant to clinical diagnosis. He is not a qualified epidemiologist. By the way she has a doctorate (in the relevant field) and seems to be very well regarded [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No he is not a physician here is what being a physician means [[2]] "A physician is a medical doctor who usually focuses on the non-surgical treatment of patients’ conditions. " he was a nurse, not an MD. Unless you are an MD you are not a physican.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And this is why I have no issue with this suggested change or wording, it is clear he (and what he says) is being misrepresented in various places. Now I have no idea to what degree he is responsible, or if he is wholly innocent. But it means I think we do need to take care in how we describe him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. However, the latest video about deaths has had so much impact it's lkely we're going to get more sources soon. I see CapX has just run a piece.[3] Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"So much impact"? What is your metric? So far, a beloved 'fact check' is the only source for yet another entire paragraph in the section, which now looms towards half the biography's content. The mention of the comedian's stuff is entirely WP:UNDUE. The Jimmy Dore video hasn't even cracked 200,000 views. You're going to have to find better evidence of "so much impact". Again, the best that can be scraped together are three cites for the entire section. I've made clear previously the severe shortcomings of the first one, which was primarily click-bait and dodgily-written. These "fact checks" are too often this bizarre virtue-signaling that has taken over social media, yet has very little to do with Campbell himself - the ostensible subject of the article, but apparently an unknown comedian merits mention in it. I haven't watched campbell's video yet. What's described in the article sounds like just more guilt-by-association crap - Campbell says something, some ass-hat runs with it in an uninformed fashion. That is not Campbell's responsibility, no matter how hard editors want to claim it's necessary to counter misinformation, that's not what a BLP exists for. Sell the misinformation incantations elsewhere. What a disappointment. The section merits little more than a single paragraph, and wrapped into his 'career' section. These fact checks do not define Campbell. Too bad these weak 'fact check' pages don't show their page views. Then we might have an actual ideal of the 'impact'. Anastrophe (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like what the sources say or the reality they report on. Unfortunately for you, as this channel becomes more and more a locus of misinformation it is inevitable that will be reflected in decent sources, especially if that information gets picked up by high-profile figures in the UK like David Davis. Did you even read the CapX source? Or perhaps you could find more sources? Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please avoid suggesting that I don't like "the reality they report on". I'm not the bogeyman/Republican/White supremacist/fill-in-the-blank you may presume, I support none of the anti-vaccine nonsense, not ivermectin, or anything else. They don't report on 'reality', they "report" in order to maintain what I've suggested before, a cultural cudgel now used to try to shame and marginalize anyone who doesn't toe the line of political indignity. I did see the CapX source. I read it. For some reason, you chose only to cite the "fact check" within the article. What is harmful now are these absurd 'fact checks'. I do not dispute the meaningful parts of "fact checks", but they devolve into primarily virtue signaling and exaggeration. The line between journalism and political advocacy has never been more blurred.

"it is inevitable that will be reflected in decent sources [...]" - this certainly sounds like a tacit admission that the existing sources are _not_ decent sources, with which I agree. Campbell posts a video. Someone (Kall) points out what's wrong with it on twitter. A reporter inclined towards shaming those who are in error chooses to make it a "fact check". "We" here, in service to shaming as well, exaggerate the influence of the BLP subject, and exaggerate the impact of whatever misinformation _others_ may spread using him as the basis - which really has nothing to do with the BLP subject, absent actual, meaningful evidence that it amounts to more than a hill of beans - as in, simultaneous coverage in WAPO, WSJ, NYT, and actual serious sources with journalistic integrity - or at least a semblance of same.

Okay - I'm all out of rant. Have fun with continuing to massively exaggerate the impact of Campbell's digressions. Anastrophe (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So long as we are reflecting good sources like the Poynter Institute, all will be well. In reality only a fraction of this channel's misinformation has so far attracted commentary in RS. But as I say, this may change if things continue in the direction they seem to be going in. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So we are to leave the article with a grossly exaggerated impression of the impact of these matters, compared to the rest of his life and career, just waiting for better reliable sources to eventually appear, in the vain hope that perhaps, just maybe, the future will support the current version? Is that how BLP's are supposed to reflect their subject? Or are they supposed to reflect the actual relevance of given matters within the context of a BLP's life and the world at large, as the sources actually reflect, now? No, this is an untenable rationalization. Anastrophe (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The impact of Campbell's videos runs to many millions of people. It's his legacy. That's why there are sources. Without the videos the guy would fail WP:NBIO. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why wp:gng generally discourage articles on people notable for one thing, as it maybe it does not reflect on their whole life and work. Without this controversy, it's unlikely Campbell would be notable (but might be, it depends on how widely his academic work is cited). But we must refpelct what RS consider notable about a person, if we deem them to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

vague quote

Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]

This is a vague and confusing quote. Misinformation from whom? What does the pronoun "this" in "this appears" stand for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltero (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation is from social media. "This" is the claim ivermectin was being widely used in Japan. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Campbell’s tentative claim of wide ivermectin use in Japan was based on his misunderstanding Dr. Haruo Ozaki’s endorsement of it on the 13th of August and the coincidental drop in Covid cases in 6 days later. He was indeed confusing causation and correlation, and made a very poor analysis, but this was not based on anecdata on social media. That anecdata on social media is driving wildly damaging misinformation is plausible, but it’s the social media doing the driving, not Campbell. I would suggest that that particular quote is unnecessary and possibly misleading. Faltero (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's key: if ivermectin wasn't being used in Japan, it's misinformation to say it was. Implying that this then caused a spontaneous case drop compounded the problem. Campbell shouldn't be regurgitating crap from social media as fact, is the point of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got it the wrong way round. Campbell saw the case drop and tried to identify the cause. One possible cause among others was the promotion of ivermectin.Faltero (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is identifying the cause the job or field of expertise of a retired nurse educator? FDW777 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hardly the place to criticise analysis by people with no apparant expertise.11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Faltero (talk)

Well it is if RS do (they do).Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Point taken.Faltero (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

John Campell is a retired senior lecturer with a PhD and 27 years teaching experience with the NHS. As such he is hugely in favour of conventional public health measures. He is hardly likely to promote the use of unproven drugs. In America he would definitely hold the title of full professor. Such people can usually identify regurgitated crap in social media and tend not to use it.

If “based on anecdata” means “based anecdotal evidence” (evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them) this is patently false.

“Driving wildly damaging misinformation.” That’s comment is pretty strong too; Peddling information he knows to be false and recklessly promoting ivermectin? Nothing much less would warrant it. Faltero (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, but it's irrelevant here. Wikipedia follows reliable sources and by them while he may have been sensible a couple of years ago, sources are now identifying these videos as a major vector of misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My comment is largely about the quality of the quote. If you have other sources now identifying these videos as a major vector of misinformation, I suggest you take from one of them an alternative quote that is more intelligible and credible than that of Ms.Kall.

Also personal denigration of Dr. Campbell as a purveyor of undigested social media crap is, in my opinion, likely to unfairly prejudice the views of other contributors to this article, don’t you agree? Faltero (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Dunno. It's not our job to try and steer people into, or away from, prejudices - rather just to relay what's known from reliable sources. As to ivermectin - yes, there has been an awful lot of crap on social media as described in the linked article (Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic). Campbell's postings have been part of this,[4] but his efforts have not been discussed in sufficiently reliable sources so Wikipedia stays silent on how bad it was. All we can do is follow the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, that’s acceptable. I think it’s a pity Campbell’s Japan video was one of his most badly presented ones. His knowledge of virology can really be very impressive, to the lay man at least. Maybe he is losing his touch. Fascinating to see the rigour and passion you guys put in. I will follow the development of the article with great interest, but probably only as a reader. Thanks.Faltero (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Covid 19 "misinformation"

The section does not meet the sourcing requirements necessary for inclusion. A single source, of questionable quality, supports the first paragraph (NewsHub appears to be little more than a tabloid). A single source, of indeterminate quality, just barely supports the second paragraph. At barest minimum, based upon how the section is written, neither of the sources support the use of the word "misinformation" in the title of the section. It states clearly that he has _speculated_ about the efficacy of a drug, and _speculated_ about reports of increased heart attacks, and expressed scepticism in both instances. That dumb-asses take his words and use them to spread nonsense is not his responsibility; nor is it Wikipedia's place to employ guilt by association in a BLP.

I note that it's been suggested elsewhere on this page that Campbell 'dog whistles', which is quite amusing; he's about as far from a dog whistler as exists, that's patent with only minimal review of his content. He's fully vaccinated, and has promoted getting vaccinated relentlessy. He's provided an incredible service in information for millions of people during the panic early on and in our response to the pandemic overall He has not suggested, recommended, alluded, wink-wink nudge-nudged or anything else that anyone should take Ivermectin; on that basis alone, the claim that he's spreading misinformation is patently false. Ivermectin science is _not_ settled; there are clinical trials taking place right now.

Two sources are not enough to support inclusion of an entire section, that's also basic to BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem fine. One contains the only relevant proper scientist response to his output (Meaghan Kall), so is most apt. I suppose displaying a big graph with a label (wrongly) saying "ivermectin allowed as a treatment ..." before a big case drop might be dog-whistling; it's not for us to say, but Kall's response puts it in rational context. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You say 'sources seem fine' then only support one of the sources. Neither support the notion that he was 'spreading misinformation'. Speculating, incorrectly, is not spreading misinformation. We have a single source for one claim, and a single source for another. This is a BLP. That's not sufficient to support claims that suggest he's just another covid quack. 99% of his material has been extremely informative on all aspects of viruses, pandemic, prevention, prophylaxis, etc. That he was wrong about something doesn't negate the vast majority that is right and does not make him a 'covid misinformer'. And again, he has from the beginning supported and strongly and relentlessly encouraged all methods that have been endorsed globally to slow the spread of the disease and aid in prevention - social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, getting vaccinated, getting boosters, etc etc etc. Covid has been a 'moving target' from the start. Countless experts have been wrong countless times. That doesn't make them charlatans. BLP's don't engage in guilt-by-association.Anastrophe (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That phrase you quote 'spreading misinformation' - where are you quoting it from? What the article is saying is that his output has been leveraged for misinformation. That's right isn't it, per the sources? What counts here is the reaction from relevant experts in RS, not Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"His output has been leveraged for misinformation". Bill Gates's 'output' has also been leveraged for misinformation, when he mentioned 'digital certificates' and nutjobs ran with it as meaning implantable nanoparticles in covid vaccines. A BLP subject's words being 'leveraged for misinformation' is distinctly non-BLP conformant; The BLP subject is not responsible for what third parties may or may not do with the information. As it stands, the sources only reference a single use of his video by an anti-vaxxer, that person just being a rando on twitter. Conflating a single instance like this isn't tenable, not by BLP standards. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources seem OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I oppose the misinformation label for reasons I have already given. We do not have an explicit criticism of him for fact check #2. His video being used by fools does not make him responsible for misinformation (using The Lancet example above). For fact check #1, it appears the only thing he asserted as fact was ivermectin use in Japan. This has been "fact checked" as Kall said it "appears" this was based on anecdata, without saying it was definitely not used in Japan. I don't think people imagines this is the "fact checked" when they hear "ivermectin misinformation". The problem with "dog whistles" is it relies on things not said and is completely subjective. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

But we do do 1, and by someone more qualified than he is to make that judgment.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The objections basically seem to be "I don't like the sources" and want to have any potentially "negative" material removed from the article. That's problematic from a NPOV perspective. Let's just relay what reliable sources say without trying to twist things to editors' preferences. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My objections are what I have said they are. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Impugning another editor's motives here by implying that my argument is merely that "I don't like the sources", "want to have any potentially 'negative' material removed', 'trying to twist things to editor's preferences', when I have clearly stated my policy-based reasoning pretty much defines WP:NPA. Please desist.

WP:BLPBALANCE is very clear that this sort of 'guilt by association' is not acceptable in BLP's. The "Newshub" article, immediately following its mention of Campbell, begins "In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead. The claim was picked up on social media and spread like, well, Delta - many noting the decline in cases began two weeks after a top Japanese doctor recommended the use of ivermectin.". We're using an article that deep-dives into guilt by association, even though there's no evidence of any assocation at all. I challenge Newshub because it has all the markings of a tabloid. The article is poorly written and short - then the page turns into an endless scroll of clickbait. That is not a high quality source as required by BLP standards.

It's also worth pointing out that neither article used as reference actually gives any evidence that his "misinformation" has had any actual effect. It's easy to just hysterically scream "misinformation!!1!", but the impact clearly matters in terms of the relevance of the material added to the encyclopedia. That others (and so far, only a single instance of it) have used his words to spread misinformation (which I'd then call 'disinformation') is not the BLP subject's responsibility.

Once more, without feeling: BLP inadequate sourcing; BLP guilt-by-association. Policies. Anastrophe (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Writing arguments with stuff like "He's provided an incredible service in information for millions of people during the panic" is not policy-based argument, it's airing your (evidently strong) POV. Irrelevant. We stick to RS, not the POV of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And where did I suggest inclusion of that info into the article? Hint: I didn't. Your personal feelings that I just want to scrub the article are not policy-based arguments either; they seem to suggest an unwillingness to actually address the policy-based arguments that I've brought up; they may be intended to divert attention from those arguments. I'm merely speculating. See how easy it is to drive the discussion away from the policies that are at play by engaging in personal attacks? Once more, without feeling: BLP inadequate sourcing; BLP guilt-by-association. Policies. Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CPUSH is a thing, as are the discretionary sanctions for this topic area. Writing long screeds about how Campbell is "about as far from a dog whistler as exists" is not policy-based argument; it's purely your POV. No amount of personal POV, or even meta-discussions about your POV are relevant. What is relevant is what on-point sources say. We shall relay their content faithfully. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Long screeds"? Interesting. That I'm by nature a bloviator is not relevant. I wouldn't characterize them as screeds, but that's just little old me. You've expressed your personal POV as well, meta-discussing my motives. Others brought up (inappropriately under the same rationale) that he's a dog-whistler; curiously you did not choose to challenge their non-policy-based commentary. You continue to very pointedly not address the policies I've brought up, instead focusing exclusively on the non-policy commentary I've made. Newshub is an exceptionally weak source. The good doctor who challenged Campbell's statements is very much on point - Campbell's reflections on the ivermectin aspect in Japan were incorrect and Dr. Kall handily explained that. But we have only a weak source quoting her, a tabloid loaded with clickbait. BLP is quite firm on this matter; under different circumstances, the material would have been immediately removed. Lets be clear here: I brought policy-based arguments here to talk. I have not (never have) edited the article. Not being as perfect as some other editors, I've included some non-policy-based commentary (not unlike "suggestions" that I want "all negative material removed"). So, yet again, once more, without feeling: BLP inadequate sourcing; BLP guilt-by-association. Policies. Anastrophe (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

More meta-discussion. Yeah, you've twice said that Newshub was a tabloid. Peppering your POV essays with false statements does not a sound argument make. As to "guilt" - as above why are you insisting Campbell is "guilty" of something? That's further than the sources go. Stick to the sources, and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That Newshub has a WP article -- about their television show -- doesn't establish the reliability of the content of their website, nor does it somehow contradict that the linked content is about 1% article and 99% endless clickbait -- tabloid. I have not "insisted Campbell is 'guilty' of something" - I fear you don't understand what the term Guilt by association means. The article employs a source implying a link between Campbell and a white supremacist. That's guilt by association. Using that source is contraindicated by WP:BLPBALANCE ("Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.") The impact of Cambpell's erroneous claims appears overstated, since only two sources can apparently be found that suggest any impact at all. BLP=higher sourcing threshold.Anastrophe (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Newshub Wikipedia article is not about "their television show". And who is this "white supremacist"? There seems to be problem here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Virtually the entire newshub article is about their television news. As for the white supremacist, here's a novel idea: read the source in question that you are supporting. There does, indeed, seem to be a problem here. Anastrophe (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How is a white supremacist relevant to Campbell or this article? We don't mention white supremacists. Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't use sources that engage in guilt by association.

WP:BLPBALANCE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. (emphasis added)

I've already discussed how the source juxtaposes the two. How much clearer does it need to be made? Bottom line: it's a weak source. The content within the source quoting Dr. Kall is dandy - but it's a single, weak source that violates BLP requirements. Hell, the source isn't even written by a journalist. How on earth this can be defended as a good source is boggling.Anastrophe (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources do not "juxtapose" Campbell and white supremacists (which we do not mention in any case). The sources are fine, reliable, secondary, mainstream news sources - suitable for use here. We properly and carefully represent them. Job done. Until there are more sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The source does indeed juxtapose:

A popular UK health YouTuber John Campbell dubbed it the "Miracle in Japan", citing two potential reasons. The first is that the virus mutated itself into a state where it couldn't reproduce effectively - a new theory put forward by a top Japanese genetic researcher earlier this week; 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.

Misinformation websites also picked up on the claims Both theories have significant problems however.

Ivermectin In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead.

Never mind that the latter came before Campbell's video was made, let's just imply that it was picked up by the white supremacist. That sort of dodgy "journalism" is generally not used as sourcing in a BLP.

Newshub: endless clickbait. Article not written by an actual journalist. You claim that Newshub's website article is a "fine, reliable, secondary, mainstream news source". We don't go by an editor's opinion of a news source's reliability - there are metrics for this. Newshub is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources - I'd hardly call them mainstream absent presence on that list, acknowledging that the list is not comprehensive. They're certainly not a go-to source, and if their claims (or Dr. Kall's twitter commentary) were noteworthy, they'd be cited in more than this single source. They are not, to my knowledge and investigation. That is quintessential poor sourcing for a BLP. I would happily support inclusion of Dr. Kall's commentary, if it were in something less dodgy than Newshub, and noteworthy enough that more than this single source existed.Anastrophe (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Article not written by an actual journalist" more false statements, and a BLP violation against Mr Satherley. WP:RSP has no policy or guidelines force and is only a index of sources which have been in dispute in any case. To call a secondary, mainstream news source "quintessential poor sourcing for a BLP" indicates you are not arguing in good faith. I shall therefore disengage. Do not take my lack of further response for agreement. Alexbrn (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going by the tag on the article - "Dan is a senior digital producer for Newshub based in Auckland." I'm guilty of not checking his credentials adequately. I retract the claim. I stand by my argument that the source engages in guilt by association - there is literally no connection between the white-supremacist's rantings and Dr. Campbell, yet the article suggests one. BLP policy forbids that sort of sourcing.

Dr. Kall, however, has impeccable credentials, and if her comments were cited in more than a single source, noteworthiness of the matter might be better established. A single documented instance of an anti-vaxxer using campbell's video doesn't establish noteworthy impact of his statements.

"To call a secondary, mainstream news source "quintessential poor sourcing for a BLP" indicates you are not arguing in good faith. Good, because that is not what I wrote, which, shockingly, is still only a few inches up on the page for anyone to confirm. Once again, misrepresenting what I clearly wrote. I would welcome input from other editors who won't relentlessy twist my words. Anastrophe (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IRT WP:BALANCE: this is far from an attack page and the text you quoted seems to be about avoiding editorial guilt by association (vs WP:RS, WP:BLPRS, WP:FRIND, WP:PARITY, WP:MEDRS, that are about source selection). If RS explicitly mention associations it's not an editorial to reflect it. But it seems to not even be an issue in this article. —PaleoNeonate – 04:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be an 'attack page', but it is certainly an attempt at conflating a _single_ source's 'fact check' into a matter so serious that it warrants an entire section in the article(WP:UNDUE. Campbell used a very poor choice of words in describing something that appeared to be one thing but in fact was another, and Meaghan Kall herself fact-checked it on twitter. Then the fellow at "Newshub" decided to write an article about the actual fact check.

The matter remains unresolved. I challenge the legitimacy of this single source as warrantable within a BLP. Did Campbell say what he said? Yes. Did Kall fact-check him on twitter? Yes. Does a single reporter on "Newshub" taking that existent material and shaping it into his own "Fact check" - with some sketchy rhetorical devices spiced into it - constitute a significantly notable event in Dr. Campbell's life, so newsworthy that it deserves its own section? Noperoni. Not by BLP standards, by my reading. This was not a significant event in Mr. Campbell's life, which is what a BLP exists to describe. Giving it its own section? Nonsense. That's undue weight.

WP:BLPBALANCE may seem to be about avoiding such material editorially within the article; I believe it is broadly enough written to be inclusive of sources that employ dodgy rhetorical tactics to present a guilt-by-association. Those aren't sources we want to use in BLP's, I'd say. And, as I've said many times, this matter appears in precisely ONE news source. That does not confer adequate enough notability, not for a BLP. Hell, regardless of whatever I think of Newshub as a news source, if it was notable, it would have been picked up by the agencies/syndicates. All I'm able to drum up are Kall's self-published words on twitter, DailyKOS (not a reliable source), and a handful of blogs (ibid).

Thus far it's been suggested that I just want to scrub the article of anything/everything bad. Attempts at impugning my motive have been plentiful. They are excellect distractors from the policy matters I've hammered on. At minimum, bare minimum, if for some reason this single-sourced content must remain in the article for some reason, it should at least be trimmed appropriately, and moving it into the main body, rather than its own section, would be more appropriate. This avoids giving it undue weight. Anastrophe (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This section is not right. I watched the video there are no claims made. Please remove section Peacheyreader (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the writing in this section is weird. Comes across like a cheap tabloid. It is too biased. Should not be in Wikipedia. Peacheyreader (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not this section meets citation requirements, it most definitely, most obviously, opens Wikipedia to a libel suit. Consider yourself warned. Altairah (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Contesting Revert by Alexbrn on 2022-01-29

I would like to contest the revert by @Alexbrn 2022-01-29 at 15:49. I've never dealt with this situation previously, so I hope that this is the right forum. The edit that was reverted contained three deletions, and will be addressed individually.

1. Ivermectin

Removed: ", and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment"

Ivermectin is highly controversial as a treatment for COVID-19, and thus has its own page about misinformation related to it (which is linked in the article). Additionally, there is a lot of junk "science" related to it with non-RCT studies. However, there are some decent RCT studies that indicate it has benefits in specific use cases (e.g. in populations where parasites are endemic and weaken people's immune systems; thus while not a direct treatment for COVID-19, it does have an established benefit in helping the fight against COVID-19)." Thus from a scientific perspective, to state that "it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment", would require every study conducted on Ivermectin to have been false, which is rather implausible.

Proposed alternatives:

• ", and is not supported by the western medical establishment"
• ", and is not supported by the CDC, NHS, "...
• Do nothing: I highly doubt I am going to win this one...

2. Use of misquoting by anti-vaccination activists as criticism of Dr. Campbell

Removed: " and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks"

There is no citation of this quote, and it gives undo weight to viewers as opposed to Dr. Campbell himself. Dr. Campbell was highly critical of the article. From the cited article,

"In the video, Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in nursing education but is not a physician, reads the abstract and says that if the findings are correct, it would be “incredibly significant.” But are they? He’s not so sure.

Even though Campbell doesn’t mention the expression of concern, he says he’s surprised by the abstract typos, lack of clear data and methodology, and even by the fact that Gundry sells groceries on his website. “I must have worked with about 20 or 30 cardiologists over my career, and I can’t remember any having a grocery facility,” he says 20 minutes into the video."

I have watched the entire video in question [5] and agree with the above quote found in the fact check. He says that since the article has spread so far and that if the article were to be true it would be incredibly significant, there should be a government response. Calling for a government response to an article he is critical is not supporting the article. If a medical professional cannot discuss be highly critical of scientific research that they find in a peer reviewed journal, we have a major problem. The fact that some have erroneously stated that his review of this article indicates support for it should not be counted against him.

Proposed alternatives:

• Delete entire paragraph
• Focus the paragraph on his criticisms of the article, not on criticism of him for reviewing the article.

3. Overreported deaths

Removed: "A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported. "

This is an editorial statement with no citation. There are well respected scientists who disagree with official figures, stating that they are either too high or too low. This video merely examines on of these claims. To start the paragraph off with a claim that this is misinformation colors the rest of what is stated herein.

After further review of related videos and statement by Dr. Campbell:

The linked BBC and Politifact articles have basic factual errors related to the video. Dr. Campbell's review of the BBC article stated he never claimed that 17,000 is correct (he did agree that he claimed that this is a big story)[6]. Given that the sources make erroneous statements about what Dr. Campbell stated, and in his original video he stated that the "127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average ... is probably pretty good indicator" (start at ~1 minute [7]), it is obvious he does not agree with the 17,000 count as a good estimate of the true death toll. This entire paragraph should be deleted or be edited to express that he does not agree with these numbers.

Proposed alternatives:

• Delete entire paragraph
• Lead with the official figures from the NHS (currently in sentence 5) and state that Dr. Campbell

Jevandezande (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding point#2, there is a citation. At the end of the sentence after this article is cited, which says But opponents of the vaccine have used the video as confirmation that the mRNA vaccines are going to provoke “a massive unimaginable amount of extra heart attacks.” That you have apparently not even bothered to read this article means I won't waste time reading your post. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to say that, and as to the rest, we do not second guess RS. I see no reason thus to remove the material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jevandezande:

1. Saying ivermectin "has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment" is neutral and trivially true. The counter-proposals suffer from WP:GEVAL/WP:PROFRINGE problems.
2. See response from others above.
3. The cited source opens "Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, some critics of measures to control the virus have downplayed its seriousness, suggesting the real death toll is much lower than what is being reported." This is the context. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin is highly controversial as a treatment for COVID-19 not scientifically and WP should reflect the scientific consensus on the topic. Reliable sources are clear that it has not been demonstrated to be effective for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. GEVAL has been mentioned: WP should avoid presenting the topic as if it was legitimately controversial or to pretend that the best sources are just opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 05:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a biography

This article has serious flaws if it purports to be an objective biography.

The title itself disingenuously selective. Not Campbell, academic, Campbell retired NHS trainer, retired senior lecturer, Campbell teacher or Campbell broadcaster. But we get YouTuber, someone who makes money out of posting videos.

Next we get a brief bit of actual biographical detail. But all this is common knowledge; the writer includes no facts showing he (she) has the least bit on personal acquaintance with Campbell’s life or achievements. Why then were they were motivated to write it?

After this paragraph, which is fairly sympathetic, comes an abrupt change of tone. Out of the blue comes the phrase “he made false claims”. Campbell is now starting to look like an unreliable charlatan seeking to make money off the back of YouTube, even before any pertinent evidence has been presented.

It then descends from trivial biography into no biography at all. Simply a catalogue of accusations of misinformation using quotes from whatever dredged up sources of information the writers think they can get away with. At least one of which has only tangential relevance to Campbell, is only partially intelligible but sets the tone perfectly, “Based on anecdata driving wildly damaging misinformation.”

Most of the article consists of this prolonged trial in absentia and appears to stem from personal prejudice against Campbell. Views about him expressed on this page include: that he sends out coded messages to his readers in order gain followers, that he is a nurse, that they have an aversion to watching his videos for fear of giving him revenue and that he is a purveyor of “undigested crap from social media”

If people think Campbell is a fraud and want to take him down, that’s legitimate. But don’t set up a forum on Wikipedia disguised as a biography on which to do so. The whole article should be removed and, if written again, written by people who have an interest in the story of Campbell’s life.Faltero (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To avoid using this talk page as a forum (WP:NOTFORUM), do you have reliable sources to list that contest the ones currently used in the article to support that material? As others have pointed out, the article is not about the opinions of Wikipedia editors... —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This article is on Campbell (and his works) as covered by reliable sources. Some editors apparently just don't like what (some of) those sources say, but Wikipedia can't fix that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS consider notable. If people are not happy with that, well get onto the RS. One way this could be done is that Campbell could get an RS to publish a retraction or clarification by him as to why he was not spreading covid misinformation. Until this happens we have to go with what RS say (that is what our policies say (see wp:v and wp:rs).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Some editors apparently just don't like what (some of) those sources say, but Wikipedia can't fix that." What I, and many other contributors, take issue with is the inherent confirmation bias in the article. For instance, the statement (which, curiously, is mentioned twice for some reason), "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment". Many medical experts in the scientific community were discussing the efficacy of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 at the time. Campbell's educational video was discussing how anti-virials work in general and (he and many other medical experts) were exploring other possible treatments for COVID-19 and suggesting they be considered. See Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies. He did not make claims about ivermectin's efficacy, but discussed some of the accepted scientific thinking the time - I suggest this is not "COVID-19 misinformation". Further, the link to the source for this citation is broken. Again, I suggest at least two or three good quality references to support each key point.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:CLUELESS. Maybe you should learn about Wikipedia's WP:PAGs because pretty much everything you say is impertinent. If a Youtube video makes false statements and actual scientists comment on it in RS, then Wikipedia shall reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn Can I politely request that you: 1. Please refrain from making this discussion personal; 2. Repeatedly threatening me with Wikipedia's rules; 3. Stay focused on the subject matter. Thank you.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Time-wasting WP:SPAs will get removed for the good of the Project. It's up to you if you want to contribute usefully. So far, you haven't. Alexbrn (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn Please reread my previous comment.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a Biography - This is to discredit someone

This articles purpose is to solely discredit the subject. It cherry picks data, twists it to their narrative and leaves out the massive amount of good work that has been done by him. Any edits that just adds relevant data to this for context gets removed. if it were truly an informative article why would other facts get removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.56.254 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at your changes. Regarding his Japan claims, it's strange that different publications/agencies such as the Daily Telegraph (UK), Reuters and the Washington Post all talk about the curious drop in Japan's cases. Strange how not one of them mention ivermectin at all isn't it? Strange how all of them basically say researchers don't know, yet John Campbell with his "research" has the answers. FDW777 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe its because he's a scientist and they are the media? A scientist looks at all possibilities, nowhere in his video did he say that it was definitely ivermectin, in fact he clearly states it was probably the high vaccination rate, high mask wearing and a gene the Japanese have. You are inferring a newspaper is more factual than a scientist! At the very least these points should be noted, otherwise this is a biased piece of rubbish. As for RS....the BBC is proven to be biased and politically based these days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.56.254 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

He said what he said. Reliable sources reported on it (and an actual scientist bothered to comment on it). Wikipedia reflects that. Job done. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Scientist look at all possible things everyday. So sad this world is turning on them. This article is anti Science.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.56.254 (talk) 18:20 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's pro-science, which is why it points out misinformation by nurse educators on Youtube. FDW777 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact you keep on about him being a Nurse educator proves you are biased and not factual based. He is a scientist first with degrees in Science, Biology and Heath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.56.254 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What expertise or qualifications does he have with coronaviruses or vaccines? FDW777 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean other than working in hospitals around the world? Having degrees in Health and Biology? If this page was unbiased it would list all the good work he has done, all the people he has helped through COVID. All the people like me that got vaccinated and boosted early because of his posts!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.56.254 (talk) 18:42 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is that some sort of joke? His degrees are an Open University BSc degree in "Biology and health" (1986-1991), Lancaster University Masters Degree in "Health Science" and University of Boltpon DPhil degree in "Teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education". The idea that makes him any kind of expert in coronaviruses and vaccines is frankly laughable. Also I suggest looking at his Linkedin profile, even he doesn't make the claims you are. He describes himself as a "Nurse Tutor then Senior Lecturer" from 1989 to 2016, "Staff Nurse, Accident and Emergncy [sic]" from April 2016 to present and also "Independent developer" from September 2016 to present (with a rather curious sub-role under that as a "Doctor" from September 2016 onwards). He's not a "scientist" because he has a few degrees. FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Then find some RS that lists these good works. Show that he has more "good works" than thousands of other nurses. And no he is not qualified, virology is a specific kind of scientific discipline that he has not studied.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"He's not a "scientist" because he has a few degrees". Um, I think a BSc in Biology, a Masters in Health science, a doctorate and working with scientists pretty much do make him a scientist. I suggest that you have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word "scientist"--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Scientist. Do you have any constructive suggestions (with references) for any changes you would like to make to the article? Or are you going to continue to be a time sink? FDW777 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, can I suggest removing all non-factual material that does not relate to the person this page is supposed to be an accurate representation of?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No. I see no such material in the article. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment". I suggest this is removed as it is not factually correct. Further, the link to the citation is broken. Finally, it's good practice to have least three (3) peer-reviewed references supporting each point. Quality of references is vitally important.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You're making stuff up now. We have a high-quality reference for an obvious point. You have produced nothing except waffle. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if I am "making stuff up" then where is the evidence to support, "Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment"?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In the citation at the end of said sentence, oddly enough. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And... where did that citation come from (aka the source)?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Further, to reiterate, key points should be supported by 2 or 3 references.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's correct I'm afraid.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Troll confirmed as troll. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Now you're just being plain silly.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The citation used (fn. 3) does not prove that Campbell made "false claims". It puts into question Campbell's claims by citing other opinions, and one of those opinions comes from Twitter, which is not known to be a scientific journal. But it does not provide evidence that Campbell's claims are plainly "false". Thus, the sentence has to be removed. (In addition, why should a blog from New Zealand - and a highly biased one - be a relevant source in any case?) Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE. The views of those promoting ivermectin are not presented as equal to reality. FDW777 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Also you fail to even understand the reference you are talking about. When you say one of those opinions comes from Twitter, which is not known to be a scientific journal that is precisely the point, as the reference is saying Campbell used that exact Tweet as evidence for his claims about ivermectin. FDW777 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"are not presented as equal to reality". Fascinating use of English language, but what does it mean? That the argument is false?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

I suggest reading the links in the template above, rather than listening to snake oil salesmen. FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777, we can go ahead and add this template to the top of the page if you want. Similar to how we have it at the top of Talk:Bret Weinstein and Talk:Pierre Kory. That way you can just say "please refer to the template at the top of this page."— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want, but no one's debating the efficacy of ivermectin.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This page goes from bad to worse.

No changes with references suggested, in fact no references provided at all. Should you wish to change the name of the article please follow the steps listed at WP:RSPM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just thought I'd check to see if any improvements had been made to this page in line with my (and others) suggestions, however it seems to have degenerated even further. Can I suggest we at least begin with the title? Surely Dr Campbell would be better described as, well as a doctor, or nurse or a medical professional with a doctorate, than a "YouTuber" (which isn't even a proper word). He just happens to be using YouTube as social media outlet to voice his expert opinion. This alteration would be small step, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC) YouTuber. FDW777 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Further, the article might benefit from removing all the chat of conspiracy theories, YouTube rankings and other fluff and focus on factual information relating to Dr Campbell's career.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC) If you have any suggestions with reliable references you are welcome to post them. You have been previously told the same thing, so I'm not going to reply to any more of your generalised whining. FDW777 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Wow - such a lack of professionalism and courtesy. Guessing you're one of the main contributors to this article?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC) No, just someone who had the misfortune to read Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 1#This reads like real hatchet job. Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021 and Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 1#Ivermectin misinformation where you were repeatedly told the same thing. In particular in the last one you were told in no uncertain terms As you have been told, because we can only repeat what RS have said. If you want to expand the article you can start to expand it, no one is stopping you. Therefore for you to turn up again and carry on moaning while producing no references whatsoever will achieve nothing, other than to confirm you do not listen. FDW777 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC) @Dr Philip Taylor: A friend of mine brought John Campbell to my attention. Today I watched the new channel intro video he published 9 months ago. On this basis alone, I can agree with you. The passages in the article relating to Covid and particularly the section titled "Covid misinformation" (!) indeed look like a hatchet job. No effort whatsoever is made to describe his YT channel objectively or neutrally. Instead, the focus is on the "fluff", as you call it, i. e., the reception of his videos by others and the ensuing discussion or controversy. This can be seen already in the introduction, with its arbitrary mention of a "fact check" that is only indirectly related to Campbell himself. On the whole, the article lends support to the criticism that, when it comes to issues that are a matter of dispute, Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia. Niemandsbucht (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) You ignore that objective and neutral references state Campbell is a persistent spreader of misinformation. FDW777 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Also those videos are from 4 months ago, that is kind of the point. So you can't judge what was said 5 months ago by what was said 9 months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Indeed the sequence seems to be that the channel started off kind of safe, worthy and boring, mirroring official COVID guidance, but progressively went off the rails when it became apparent more clicks (= more £££) were to be made by wolf-whistling to the crazies. Ivermectin, vaccine "safety", Big Pharma conspiracy theories, overcounting deaths. Yeah, the usual. The viewing figures showed a huge jump with the ivermectin stuff, and while many sane people have abandoned the channel it has a huge following of covidiots who don't know how to judge medical content and so lap it up. While some unreliable sources have talked about this apparently tragic case of "audience capture" it hasn't been covered in RS suitable for Wikipedia. All we can do is mirror what the good sources do say, and hope that an overview gets published at some point. The CapX piece linked above does that, but I don't consider it an appropriate source myself. (Perhaps we should get Skeptical Inquirer to do a piece so we can cite it ). Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) capx.co   CapX is being used in some fairly high profile BLPs at present, apparently without any problems. Although it doesn't appear to have been discussed at WP:RSN, I think there's a reasonable chance of it being deemed reliable. FDW777 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Maybe, but because this particular piece is by the Editor, there might be a SPS issue. Alexbrn (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @FDW777 "carry on moaning" - that sounds like a great title for a British comedy film. But, mirth aside, it's disappointing that you seem incapable of debating this in a reasoned manner. My constructive criticisms of this article have merit. Let's go back to the article title: do you really think summarising a medical professional's career, a person who holds a doctorate with decades of experience as a "YouTuber" is an accurate representation of that person?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @FDW777 Try and think of writing as a subtractive process, rather than just being addittive, then we may be able to make some genuine progress with crafting this Wikipedia article.:)--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC) It's what he's known for, and will be his legacy. So yeah seems great. The Guardian goes with "YouTube blogger", for example.[8] The English Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not the pompous waffling of drive-by WP:SPAs. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC) That is his current career, and what he seems to be notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Alexbrn "Indeed the sequence seems to be that the channel started off kind of safe, worthy and boring, mirroring official COVID guidance, but progressively went off the rails when it became apparent more clicks (= more £££) were to be made by wolf-whistling to the crazies. Ivermectin, vaccine "safety", Big Pharma conspiracy theories, overcounting deaths." With all due respect you need to support your subjective opinions with hard evidence for them to carry any weight. As for a "Skeptical Inquirer": Do you understand what scientific scepticism is?--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Alexbrn "The English Wikipedia follows reliable sources". I beg to differ - tabloids, conjecture and your own subjective opinions are not reliable sources. FYI, a reliable source would be something like a peer reviewed scientific paper, such as the papers that Campbell frequently cites in his videos.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Passages related to Covid need to be rewritten

Troll factor exceeded, also adding Special:Diff/1069843080 for reference, —PaleoNeonate – 12:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The passages in the article relating to Covid, particularly the section titled "Covid misinformation" (!), look like a hatchet job. No effort whatsoever is made to describe his YT channel objectively or neutrally. The focus is on side issues, e. g., the reception of his videos by others and the ensuing discussion or controversy. And most sources provided are dubious. Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC) If you have any reliable references, please provide them. FDW777 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC) This does not mention him, what do you think it addresses?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Confirmation bias in the article. For instance, the statement, "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment". Many medical experts in the scientific community were discussing the efficacy of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 at the time. Campbell's educational video was discussing how anti-virials work in general and (he and many other medical experts) were exploring other possible treatments for COVID-19 and suggesting they be considered. He did not make claims about ivermectin's efficacy, but merely discussed some of the accepted scientific thinking the time. There needs to be more context in the article. BTW, the link to source [3] is broken.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC) wp:synthesis means we can't use source A to dispute claim b unless it mentions claim B, this source does not discuss Cambell or his claims. Campbells claim is about its use in Japan, your source does not talk about Japan.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Once again source [3] is not broken. You are either incompetent or dishonest to keep falsely claiming it is. FDW777 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Source 3 Appears to have a filter on it, it's not broken as such. It's just not accessible in all regions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC) It's not much of a reference then. I wonder why it's not accessible…--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Wrong again, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. FDW777 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Most likely it is due to data protection laws in the region you are from.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC) @FDW777 Repeatedly parroting the word "Wrong" doesn't make me wrong. :) --Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC) True, but if policy says you are (it does) you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Claiming your second amendment rights, eh--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC) What? NO I am telling you that our policies do not require you to have access to a source, as you would have seen had you bothered to read our policies. And what the hell do guns have anything to do with what I wrote anyway? At this state you need to read wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)