Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Claims of Misinformation are Overdone

The Wikipedia article as a whole has a distinct feeling of bias against Dr John Campbell.

Dr Campbell provides mostly reliable and useful information. He always provides sources where the viewer can do additional research.

The article claims that Campbell has misreported deaths. Although this may have been true in the past, it is certainly not true right now.

Here, in a very recent article, Campbell gives the most accurate deaths using the most accurate statistical method (e.g. excess deaths).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFu8UjySH28&t=801s

Regarding Ivermectin, Campbell has been generally very favorable towards it. This is because the data was favorable. ONLY VERY RECENTLY has definitive information emerged.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220222/ivermectin-ineffective-against-covid

Campbell should not be penalized for the fact the double blind studies had not previously been done. He was clear in his prior articles that the definitive study had not yet been done. You can only go with the data that you have at the time that have it.

The Wikipedia article is overly critical and does not give a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffy5555 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem well-reflected. In fact it seems nearly every video Campbell produces now gets reaction from reliable sources as the antivax furrow gets ploughed,[1] yet Wikipedia is omitting it to avoid repetition. The Ivermectin "miracle" has been a known scam since 2020 and Campbell's misinformation is well documented. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As I explained above, the sources are not reliable. I explained how several omit any direct citation of his videos or mention of his self-corrections. This Talk page is very hard to follow as the conversations are so vast. The article cannot be trusted as it is, since it misrepresents a number of important points.Michael Martinez (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We can only go woth what RS consider notable. Note Mr Capblell is not an RS, and wp:synthesis and wp:v means a source must talk about him, not just be used to claim it supports his views.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While Campbell is certainly biased, cherry picks, makes a lot of mistakes, and seldomly corrects them, the part here is biased as well and is an example of cherry picking (it only includes what supports the claims). Isn't there something about a neutral point of view? --Mortense (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Campbell's misinformation isn't presented as being equal to the mainstream. FDW777 (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Postive information

OK rather than trying to whitewash this page with the removal of RS saying he has spread Covid misinformation can I ask for one (or both) of two things.

1. RS praising his work to help balance it out 2. RS saying that what he said was not misinformation.

This is how we make the page more balanced, by going by what RS considers noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Believe me I've looked (pretty thoroughly) and added what I found: the UNICEF thing from 2020 and the book review from way back. One source we're not using is this, but it's not exactly positive. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for people to stop demanding the removal of well sourced content and rather try to provide some RS putting him in a positive light, I have tried too. Its now down to those who are concerned we are being unfair to show it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we consider this reliable (see above). Talpedia (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As we already use it, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem here is as noted in the AFD discussion. What put him on the radar is the ivermectin content. While I disagree with some of the other points made in the article, I'm willing to live with the consensus (which can always change over time as new sources publish content about him). He seems to be bemused by the Wikipedia article and doesn't seem to care what it says. Michael Martinez (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Shocking misinformed article- keep it but change all info in it

Dr Campbell is an extraordinary voice currently, reaching millions worldwide with his incredibly easy to understand breakdown of all of the complicated covid data that comes out each day. He should be celebrated and definitely have a page up on Wikipedia BUT not as it currently stands. It is astounding that Wikipedia can stand for such false information to publicly be spread about somebody. How can I ever trust Wikipedia again now if this article remains as it is? Who on Earth wrote this page on him? It is completely removed from reality. The Wikipedia page should list all of Dr Campbell’s wonderful accomplishments and what an incredible relief he has been to millions during the pandemic. We have been inundated with data, reports, different strains, different situations in each country and Dr Campbell has been an incredible help in being able to really tell us what this data means, how to make informations decisions and predictions based on that and how to better understand what is happening at any given moment during the pandemic. How did this article become about him saying covid deaths were underreported or that he supports ivermectin? This is truly shocking. Every single day John Campbell goes over all of the covid stats worldwide - as reported by ONS, CDC, Our World in Data, etc. they reports on the official national statics from worldwide government bodies on covid case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths. He made one video where another official government health agency stated that covid deaths may have been miscalculated - he was not giving his opinion on this, he simply said ‘this is what has been reported, is it right ? Is it wrong? Let’s see why they’re saying this’. Everytime a major report comes out about covid he comments on it totally objectively. It’s such a shame that you only mentioned 2 things (that he hardly ever mentioned again and only did because it was big news in the medical world). Very very disappointed with Wikipedia on this spreading of misinformation. It is making us all think that you’re being controlled by a political party 2600:1700:4DB4:2800:34F2:1EBD:CC1A:FAED (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

He has multiple videos removed from facebook and otherwise flagged and tagged as misinformation. In his very follow up video about the 17,000 he literally repeated the idea that it was a "huge story", rather than blatantly misconstrued by his own misunderstand and POV push. Which is why he said things like "still, much much lower than the mainstream media seems to be intimating" and then used uncorroborated numbers from Prof Karol Sikora to suggest that 50,000 extra cancer deaths happened, calls the within 28 days the of a positive test the "official figure" (it isn't, the ONS that he lauds elsewhere publishes the official record based on death certificates) and then goes on to extrapolate that the hypothetical 50,000 will lose more "quality years" of life among a variety of other significant issues.

You don't get picked out for rebuttal just for airing figures. Koncorde (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, that is all there is to it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

People who are new to Wikipedia should take all the Reliable Sources chatter with a grain of salt. It's NOT "that simple". Reliable sources are NOT infallible sources, and Wikipedia's policies caution editors against the kind of hard-line interpretations that some contributors to this article have made on this Talk page. Many things need to be considered when editing an article like this:

• "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." - At least one of the news articles used as a source for this article falls into the "gossip" category.
• "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." - Every news article cited by this article should have been reviewed that way, and it's obvious they weren't.
• Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine) - This is where a lot of the misunderstandings among new commenters come from. Because this article falls into the medical category, you have to check against multiple policies, and to their credit the contributors to this article have done that. Not to mention ...
• Biographies of Living Persons - This is another set of policies that apply. Again, the contributors to this article have been careful to mind the basic principle behind BLP.

But there is more to it than just these policies. And Wikipedia contributors are expected to mind the SPIRIT of the policies and not just follow the LETTER. That's not always as simple as one might expect, because there must be consensus. And it can take a long time for any kind of necessary consensus to emerge. Not every BLP article is as controversial as this one.

The bottom line is that any article's editing is subject to the consensus of the active contributors. They are not supposed to gang up on new people, or belittle them, or be rude to them, or engage in all the cryptic policy citing that you see on this Talk page and its archives. But that happens and you take the time to study the policies and learn how Wikipedia works. In fact, because this article has been nominated for deletion [2], some thoughtful discussion of the Notability requirements has occurred over there.

I understand that the occasional influx of new people seeking to defend Dr. Campbell can make contributors come across as defensive of their work. But anyone who wants to seriously participate in Wikipedia needs to learn the rules, even if they are not evenly applied or interpreted the same way by the people already active on Wikipedia. Not everything needs to be decided in a day. And consensus eventually shifts away from early contributions as articles evolve and new contributors with less emotional attachment to the work join the process.Michael Martinez (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Despite all the handwaving above, "We go with what RS say, that is all there is to it." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't "go with what RS say, that is all there is to it." We go with the consensus, and no one editor or 3 or 4 editors own the consensus.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

And consensus must be policy-based, and RS is a policy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To be strictly accurate WP:RS is a guidelines that WP:V uses. But yes, this article needs to reflect good sources. It does. The BBC source is a golden source by an on-point expert; we're not going to overturn it because a Wikipedia editor believes the BBC is setting out with a plan to deceive its readers. That is a conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You're again confusing the BBC with an individual article on the BBC Website. Wikipedia doesn't arbitrarily define a Reliable Source as an infallible source. And you shouldn't be arguing with people on the basis of what the source of publication is. The policy clearly states that we're to evaluate these sources on their merits. The BBC article in question is just repeating gossip, which means that by Wikipedia policy and standards it's NOT a good source.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you are claiming it does, others disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but as I've cited from the Reliable Sources article more than once, the policy disagrees with you guys. The policy does not mandate that if a reliable source publishes something questionable that it can still be used as a source or that its use as a source is unchallengable. Quite the opposite - the policy says don't do that, and take into consideration that none of these reliable sources are perfect. You're using a non-existent standard as a shield to protect a bad contribution.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you would benefit by reading WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So you want me to escalate your misbehavior to other parts of Wikipedia? Be careful what you ask for. You might want to review the Clique article before you start ganging up on people. 2, 3, 4 people are not "many" - and any quick review of these discussions shows that many people disagree with you on this article. I advise you not to go there.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I very much want this. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least we know what you want. Good luck with that. It's not the Wikipedia way, of course.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, you do not get to decide what is and is not questionable. That is what discussion is for, and the consensus is they are not questionable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Note it does don't matter how any votes you have, consensus is based on the strength of the policy-based arguments. 1 "this violates policy, here is why" beats 100 "I like it". Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's the theory. But when people don't agree on the interpretations of the policy - which happens often across Wikipedia - you need to build consensus. Otherwise, people fall to bickering and sometimes that ends up in an admin's hands. Which none of us want. It's kind of good that so many new people are checking out Wikipedia because of this article. But we need to ensure we help them see there are policies that everyone is expected to learn and strive to adhere to. But also we need to acknowledge these policies allow for exceptions and ask editors to use good judgment.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no exception to NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about Neutral Point of View, although technically this article violates Neutral Point of View. And that is a valid point of discussion for this Talk page.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This list is from the NPOV page and new visitors should be aware of it.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

As many people have noted in the discussions here over the past few months, there are serious issues with the article. And those objections have been shouted down. That means the article is controversial and that means people should step back and stop being so defensive about their own points of view.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to cut and paste our favorite parts of WP:NPOV, I like this one: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"If we're going to cut and paste our favorite parts of WP:NPOV, I like this one..." WE are not doing that. You may be. I'm merely pointing out the parts of the policies that are being violated (including your deliberate use of cherry-picking, which is called out in the Wikilawyering article). Policy citations are not to be used to win arguments. They're to be used to explain WHY you advocate a certain point of view. Nor are policy citations to be used to browbeat people into silence.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who started cutting and pasting things of unclear relevance onto the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Because you guys obviously aren't reading the policy pages you're citing at new visitors to Wikipedia. You should stop now because you're just disrupting discussion about this article with these constant asides that verge on personal attacks.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, my friend. MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Lets stop commenting on users, and making threats. The place for that is their talk page, or report them to wp:ani. It is wp:disruptive and in violation of wp:talk. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If Michael Martinez wants a change I think they should now propose it, with any relevant source(s). Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven You need to stop misrepresenting what other people say. You did that on the AFD page, here, and on my Talk page. And people's Talk pages are no place for threats or false warnings any more than these article Talk pages are.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"If Michael Martinez wants a change I think they should now propose it, with any relevant source(s)."

Again, proposed changes include removal of inappropriate edits. And - again - as this article is under proposal for deletion, I suggest we wait to see what the decision is.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"COVID-19 controversies" section addition

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

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

Politifact versus BBC

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

---

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

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

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

Agree. Especially for a Youtube channel which engages in dog-whistling, a degree of reading sophistication is required to understand what is being communicated as a whole - which is why our excellent sources are so, so valuable, providing the understanding that Wikipedians cannot bring. If, however, there's any lingering doubt about the meaning of these videos, a quick look at their comments section (an absolute zoo), or shares on social media (e.g.[3]), confirms they are courting, enthusing, and amplifying the crankery in the crank audience. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Slightly reformatted (no text changed), I wrote :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stating the problem]

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

[ - embedded Dore video - ]

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

[Clarifying what Campbell actually said]

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

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

[ - another Dore quote - ]

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

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

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

From the BBC article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"But the BBC is correct"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. I can count too. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Discussions as of 6 April 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading information

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

---

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

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

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

Rs say the claim is false, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@ WP:IP users: Campbell is very good about listing sources. Wikipedia also is. That helps people verify statements. When you say "this is a fact", it would help support your statement if you included a WP:RS, or even better WP:MEDRS. Have you read the sources in the article? If you look at the current version, second paragraph[4], it says Dore's statement was misleading. FYI, "Myocarditis occurs when the heart muscle (myocardium) becomes inflamed. Inflammation occurs when your body’s immune system responds to infections, for example."[5] Campbell has often talked about aspiration.[6] These are the last lines on the factchecking website, "There is a lack of data on frequency and effects of IV injection in humans. Most likely, two approaches are needed to further validate the data: large animal studies and studies comparing incidence of vaccine-associated thrombosis/thrombocytopenia/myocarditis in countries with mandated syringe aspiration to countries that don’t mandate this practice."[7] Perhaps there are more recent studies than Oct 2021, but at the time it still wasn't known. StrayBolt (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It is highly unethical to do a study of intravenous injection of the vaccine. We already know what it does in the animal study Campbell discussed (he always reviews studies). Surely it is required to take the safe approach rather than say there is lack of data, so take the unsafe approach. And Wikipedia's subjective preference of more reliable sources just so happens to align with politically biased left wing sources and others are "misinformation" because they may contradict or question. Thus readers be aware that Wikipedia is a propaganda arm. Campbell is the most reliable source I've seen. 140.141.182.236 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on authoritative expert sources, not the random thoughts of drive-by editors. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article would be more credible by removing the controversial statement that John Campbell produces misinformation. When the WHO said at the start of the pandemic that Covid-19 was not human-to-human transmissible, that people didn't need to use face masks, that travelers from Wuhan posed no danger and should be allowed in, these turned out to be misinformation, so shouldn't the WHO entry then state, like in the John Campbell article, that "Some of the early pronouncements of the W.H.O. regarding the Covid-19 pandemic contained misinformation such as...(what was mentioned)"? This is the slippery slope Wikipedia has chosen to take by insisting on including this statement that gaslights John Campbell who has shown to contradict the propaganda of the powerful Pharma company lobby and their ubiquitous disinformation campaign against anyone who suggests cheaper alternative treatments and prophylaxis to their super-expensive, high-profit products. W.H.O. failings at start of pandemic: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-who-china-canada-pandemic-1.5549836. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57085505 Bluelobe (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This article would be more credible by removing the controversial statement that John Campbell produces misinformation ← it's not controversial. No sane source disagrees. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It's controversial because it is not true. The statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety." is false. There are no "claims" in his videos. He is reporting facts presented by research studies. The statement makes it appear Dr. Campbell is making a "claim" when is actually reporting the results of studies. Thus keeping this not-only-controversial but false statement when it is actually incendiary and does not contribute confirmed facts misleads and has no place in an encyclopedia. It is more appropriately placed in an opinion-misrepresented-as-news site like Fox News. Bluelobe (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Has Who changed its opinion? Has Mr Campbell changed his opinion? Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

These are not John Campbell's opinions, thus he has nothing to change. Have you actually watched his videos? He shows studies, he shows reports, he goes through their data and conclusions item by item, citing the main points of the study or report. So where's the misinformation? Just because he reviews studies that are not popular among paid and sponsored purveyors of expensive drugs and treatments, doesn't mean he doesn't provide a valid and useful service of seeing the alternative data available. So Wikipedia claiming John Campbell is sticking to his 'opinion' regarding "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" rather than reporting on studies is false and misleading and should be stricken from the article. Bluelobe (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, based on the action in this article, Wikipedia has been shown to be compromised by sponsors' commercial concerns thus making Wikipedia no longer a reliable source of information. It has chosen to gaslight and blacken a person's reputation not based on facts but opinion and bias. It defends its actions by citing compromised sources, it applies policies on the Dr. Campbell article that it does not apply to a majority of other articles, clearly showing its bias. It promotes propaganda that any person who was taught critical thinking would recognize immediately. The purveyors of this article are ethically challenged and seem to have no hesitancy at all in being a tool of spreading lies and misinformation. It would be the equivalent of the arm of the tobacco lobby saying any scientist or doctor who says cigarettes does harm is nuts and spreading misinformation. Equivalent to the oil lobby saying any scientist who says fossil fuels is the main contributor to global warming is wrong and should not be trusted. There is no other explanation to the insistence of Wikipedia to retain the Dr. Campbell "misinformation" statement despite it being wrong, non-factual, easily debunked by actually watching Dr. Campbell's videos which clearly shows, he is not stating opinion but showing the results and arguments of studies and reports. Case in point, this video on Ivermectin that Dr. Campbell does not espouse but just discussing the well-researched, well-studied evidence by a reputable source and expert who is also not espousing Ivermectin but just happened to study it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ju5v4TAaQ&t=27s Bluelobe (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything in this article is and backed by good sources, as discussed multiple times at multiple venues. That is the reality. Your problem is with that reality, and Wikipedia cannot fix it for you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

RS has said (Jn at least in some cases) that they are what he has said. Such as " Campbell posted a YouTube video in which he cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggesting they showed deaths from COVID-19 were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"", we need him saying he was wrong if we are to say he has now retracted that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"I don’t know who needs to hear this, but “misinformation” is not a synonym for “information I don’t like”." - Blaire White https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/1524798296283353088 Bluelobe (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No but it is for "information that is wrong or misused, and that is what RS have said Mr Campbell has done. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, Wikipedia doesn't have sponsors. The Wikimedia foundation does have donors, but most of us have no either who these are and don't care. Indeed there's often a lot of tension between the WMF and editing community, increased in the past few years for various reasons. However for all the disagreements people have with the WMF, the WMF still almost never get directly involved in article content issues and I'm fairly sure they have not done so here. So whatever alleged problems may exist, it's nonsensical to suggest Wikipedia was "compromised by sponsors' commercial concerns". BTW, since you bring up climate change and cigarettes, there are studies that show emissions arising from human activity are not responsible for climate change. There are even studies suggesting cigarettes do not cause significant harm. If someone starts a Youtube channel and hypes up these studies failing to adequately discuss their failings and methodological shortcomings while completely ignoring the very large number of other studies which contradict these studies, they'd rightfully be accused of spreading misinformation even though they're just "he shows studies, he shows reports, he goes through their data and conclusions item by item, citing the main points of the study or report". I'd note that some of the things sources have criticised Campbell for are not him going through studies anyway. E.g. the ivermectin in Japan thing seems to be when he randomly brought up ivermectin being available for prescription, which doesn't even seem to be true, and despite no evidence it was widely used and completely failing to differentiate between correlation and causation, he went on to strongly imply it might be a significant contributing factor to the decline in cases despite not even crappy studies being used to suggest this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If you actually look into all the evidence and counter-evidence to the WHO essential drug and Nobel Prize winning medicine, Ivermectin, it is without a doubt super safe (has been dispensed billions of times over 30+ years with a safety record better than ordinary over-the-counter meds) and yet, what do we hear from your so-called "reliable" sources? Gaslighting. Name-calling. Saying it's for animals only. Falsely saying some hospitals aren't able to take in patients because of all the people poisoned taking Ivermectin. Yet Wikipedia does not mention the gaslighting and trolling of this super-safe drug. If Merck still had Ivermectin on patent, i.e., they could still profit from it, they'd be the first to push it for Covid-19 use. As such, this drug that they touted as a life-saver and with glowing reviews, suddenly became the problem child because it'll take away billions from the new for-profit ones they developed. This is the best meta-analysis on Ivermectin which supersedes and is more reliable than any other source, will RS consider it even though "it's an inconvenient truth"?: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx Bluelobe (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about Ivermectin, so none of the above is relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Who locked this page

It's full of half-truths and libel without references. Jtjohnston (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh? There are more than two dozen references. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

... and it's not locked, just semi-protected. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The page was placed under a 1-year protection in February. And it was protected because people weren't even bothering to register accounts to make edits. It may be that future requests for protection will be made if Dr. Campbell's supporters keep trying to circumvent the Wikipedia process.

What you might want to do is point out here on the Talk page specific sentences you feel are incongruous with their attributed sources. About 50 people (last time I checked) have this page on their Watchlists. If you can point out a factual discrepancy in the article, someone will correct it. But that's a time-consuming process. And you might want to review the final decision in this discussion from last year before going too far down that rabbit-hole.

To others who haven't yet joined the Wikipedia community:

Some of the claims Dr. Campbell has made in his videos contradict information that the Wikipedia community deems to be authoritative. Ultimately, this article and others must reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community, not the views of people who don't participate in that community. That doesn't mean every Wikipedian agrees 100% with everything said in every article but over the years Wikipedia has adopted many policies and guidelines to help people understand what is and isn't acceptable content here.Michael Martinez (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the so-called "authoritative" information that contradict Dr. Campbell is sourced from the W.H.O. The same W.H.O. who at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic advised that there was no need to prevent travelers from Wuhan to enter countries, that face masks were not necessary, that Covid-19 was not human-to-human transmissible, that they were sure the pandemic did not originate from a lab in Wuhan. Meanwhile, noted meta-analyst Dr. Tess Lawrie, who has done work for the W.H.O., etc., did a thorough study of the efficacy of Ivermectin as a prophylactic or early treatment and objectively and scientifically found evidence of this, has been, just like Dr. Campbell, gaslighted by the well-financed arm of Big Pharma who stood to lose billions in profits should Ivermectin be perceived as an alternative to their high-profit, expensive drugs. This Wikipedia page, unfortunately, falls into this category of "gaslighting" and should be deleted if it can't be revised to reflect actual facts and the truth. Dr. Campbell himself mentions this Wikipedia page in this video at around 19:10 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve42PHy7O00&t=1213s. Discussion of Dr. Tess Lawrie's findings and meta-analysis can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ju5v4TAaQ&t=20s Bluelobe (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not an RS, a worldwide panel of medical experts is. And we had an wp:AFD discussion and the result was keep. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If Putin said on YouTube he was going to invade Ukraine and didn't say it anywhere else, he shouldn't be believed because it was on YouTube? Listen to Dr. Tess Lawrie explain in great detail her meta-analysis before you continue gaslighting Dr. Campbell. Bluelobe (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-YouTube evidence: 1) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/ 2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ 3) https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx Bluelobe (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

W.H.O. failings at start of pandemic: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-who-china-canada-pandemic-1.5549836. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57085505 Bluelobe (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And you need to read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, where do we source to WHO? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Where do we source to WHO? Read statement above that says: "Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19. 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)" Bluelobe (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read the 15 threads about this issue above, and comment on one of those. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In the article, where do we cite WHO . Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It has been said, it needs to be said again if you are unhappy with how we report what RS say about Mr Campbell, it is down to you to produce better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This article contains misinformation

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

See all the threads above, and all the threads in the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Amcluesent (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree Dsouzams (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You two just agreeing with Slatersteven without adding any reasoning is useless, since Wikipedia discussions are not about headcounts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article by itself contains misinformation about a medical practicioner who is doing his best to show the scietific evidence in transparent way. Therefore, accusations that Dr Campbell is spreading misinformation is not legit and should be deleted from the page. 2001:16A2:C552:3300:8DE:AA9D:6418:4C00 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr John Campbell and his views can clearly be a controversial topics. Is it not possible for this Wikipedia article to describe situation(s) rather than taking a position in the controversy? It seems from the above Talk discussion that the editors/contributors are more interested in defending the "position" taken in the article rather than simply representing all of available information on the topic of Dr John Campbell. Very disappointing so far! 128.250.0.142 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. If the reliable sources take a position, so too will Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not accepted as reliable sources because of such unbalanced propaganda-article. Looks more like weapon in hybrid warfare. 2003:E5:3F15:9C5E:2F71:D213:EC25:3602 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is for its own policies, which this is a link to. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

So according to these "reliable sources", Wikipedia is not reliable:

• • http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/communication/article00268.html
  • https://connorsstate.edu/disted/wikipedia/
  • https://guides.library.illinois.edu/peerreview/wikipedia

It's interesting how the WP:FALSEBALANCE section states: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against". Yet, this article has indeed taken a position. 131.170.5.169 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the position of the reliable sources, which is what we do. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A full review by whom? Not Wikipedia, they are the ones maintaining their own misinformation. 140.141.182.236 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, so it would have to be a review by an RS, again. If people want to alter what we say find RS that contest the claims we report. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

What is an AFD? Odonanmarg (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It is shorthand for "article for deletion," in other words a discussion was held about whether the article should be deleted. The result was "Keep" -Roxy the bad tempered dog 08:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation about Dr Cambell

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

Then you wont have much difficulty finding reliable sources to back up your claim before we put it into the article. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Where are the link to the videos of Dr. Campbell where he is supposed to present the false information? And have those who made the statement watched the full videos? Have they made sure there were no follow-up videos which clarified any errors in previous videos? Bluelobe (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for such a link. Wikipedia prefers secondary reliable sources to primary ones. If you have a beef with the sources, take it up with them, not with us. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

As I Ph.D. scientist, I appreciate the technical credibility that Dr. Campbell brings to his discussions. The Wikipedia characterization that he is misleading is itself so misleading that it undermines the credibility of the Wikipedia model of disseminating information. 2601:196:180:F590:3D1E:7A3A:2658:8FD1 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

MAybe, but you are not an RS, if you want us to reflect your views you need to contact RS point out all you have just said and get them to publish it. We go with what RS say, RS say it was misinformation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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