Jump to content

Talk:Stella Immanuel

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


Houston Chronicle Article

[edit]

Hello all, I'm still a bit of a newbie here and given the contentious nature of this article I didn't want to edit it for fear of upsetting the consensus. I was hoping one of you fine individuals could assist in incorporating this article dated 3 August in the Houston Chronicle that I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is relevant. Link: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Medical-board-warns-Dr-Immanuel-others-touting-15455333.php and see also http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/dl/838FA479-6E96-B2B6-BD93-2BE72FA900D9 SiJoHaAl (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the article also says "Immanuel is not the only Houston doctor to use the drug. Dr. Robin Armstrong, medical director of a Texas City nursing home and a state GOP officer, provided the drug to 35 residents who had tested positive but not yet shown symptoms after an outbreak there. And the drug is part of a cocktail that Dr. Joseph Varon, chief of staff at United Memorial Medical Center, has touted as working “like a charm” there." - This might tend to promote misinformation, since you'd have to source it. People could get the wrong idea. Drsruli (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

[edit]

I have requested semi-protection for this page at WP:RFP given the edit-warring. Bondegezou (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and ... especially thank you for leaving the page exactly the way it was.
Although this is shocking, it needs to be. 170.75.140.124 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obviously biased article, starting with the line: "She has spread false and dangerous medical advice and cures about COVID-19.[1] Social media platforms have taken down her videos for promoting false coronavirus cures." Describing Dr. Immanuel's medical advice as "false and dangerous" implies it is a FACT when that is only an opinion. This sentence and subsequent sentences using such biased language should be changed to indicate that these are charges and not established fact. To hide such misleading content behing a semi-protective shield is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidensbrainless (talk • contribs)

I agree. I read it the same way. Drsruli (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


No. Her claims are widely described as such in reliable sources. GMGtalk 17:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I saw this wiki the day after the conference in DC, and it was terrible and defamatory. I am glad it has calmed a bit, but the bias mentioned above is still clear. Also, it is presumptive for anyone to label any COVID-19 medical treatments as "False Information or misinformation" when entire countries used the methods mentioned as a primary treatment for the pandemic. I was also noting how breitbart as a source is labeled as "far-right" but breitbart is rated by news guard just as well as other mainstream sources. Why do we never label CNN or MSNBC "far-left" news sources in the same light? Smimattca 23:26, 02 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Countries are not reliable sources. Breitbart is not mainstream. We do not label them that because they are not far-left, except for people who are so extremely far right that they think Breitbart is mainstream. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with everything Hob just said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No actually, by Breitbart's own admission, NewsGuard rates them as fake news and flags their articles with warnings that they "fail to gather and present information responsibly." Breitbart is in fact so universally unreliable as a source that I can't even link you to the article I'm referencing because the entire site has been blacklisted on all of the English Wikipedia. GMGtalk 11:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reliable sources that echo her claims. Drsruli (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the article reads as a biased one, I didn't know anything about Stella Immanuel and in coming here to do further research I felt like I was definitely reading a tabloid rather than an Encyclopedia, keep the parts that have been sourced (including both sides as long as there is due weight) but do so in Wikipedia's voice.MaximusEditor (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsruli, really, what "reliable" sources might those be? Please present them here for us to review. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270792/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

https://thevillagereporter.com/professor-hydroxychloroquine-could-save-100000-lives-being-stifled-by-a-propaganda-war/

https://aapsonline.org/?s=Hydroxychloroquine

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/technology/doctor-zelenko-coronavirus-drugs.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ywj-PZTt4g

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newly-published-outpatient-study-finds-that-early-use-of-zinc-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-is-associated-with-less-hospitalizations-and-death-301094237.html

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/3/peer-reviewed-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-effec/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520300615

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths

https://icjournal.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3947/ic.2020.52.e43

https://www.dawn.com/news/1570211/study-claims-hydroxychloroquine-is-safe-effective-to-cure-covid-19

https://healthwise.punchng.com/nigerian-researchers-find-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-effective-for-covid-19-prevention/

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/08/countries-that-use-hydroxychloroquine-may-have-80-lower-covid-death-rates/

https://hcqtrial.com/

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa152/5873640

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/open-letter-to-dr-anthony-fauci-regarding-the-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-for-treating-covid-19/article_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

Drsruli (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. fda.gov
  • Data from Solidarity (including the French Discovery trial data) and the recently announced results from the UK's Recovery trial both showed that hydroxychloroquine does not result in the reduction of mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, when compared with standard of care. who.int
We are not overriding the official recommendations of large national and international medical organizations. That's pretty much the end of the discussion. It doesn't really matter all that much what you post here. Go talk to the FDA and the WHO. GMGtalk 12:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHO has resumed their HCQ trial, you know. Drsruli (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for them? GMGtalk 12:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, their trial. No one's said investigation shouldn't continue. The subject's insane (and impossible) claim is that she, personally, has treated and cured 350 (!) Covid patients in her strip-mall office. Let's see... how did she even determine that they had Covid in the first place? I know! She's developed her own test! I mean, if Jesus Christ had, in fact, destroyed Facebook's servers like she predicted I might have more faith in her. EEng 12:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a bit tired of following a boldface link from my watchlist to this page, just to find it's Drsruli posting yet another link showing that he or she doesn't know how to read and interpret medical information. Random example: despite the headlines, the Henry Ford study is retrospective and observational [1]; cemeteries are full of people whose doctors prescribed dangerous therapies based on such faulty studies, Diethylstilbestrol being a classic example [2]. Let's see... Ah yes: a Nigerian study [3] "has recorded some level of success" with HCQ after undergoing "hypothesis testing" on 123 people including "a few self-medicating members of the public"; according to the spokesman, "quinine crosses the blood-brain barrier into the alveoli", which makes quinine a most remarkable substance, to say the very least. Please, stop embarrassing yourself by posting such nonsense. EEng 12:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drsruli, in all seriousness, if you don't stop posting this stuff I'm going to consider asking for you to be topic-banned for WP:CIR reasons. The latest item you posted ([4], leading to [5]) was written by statistical morons, for statistical morons (such as "JoNova, A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host"). Here's a tidbit:
    Entire countries made different decisions regarding treatment with HCQ, essentially assigning themself to the treatment or control group. For the purposes of this study, selection into the treatment or control group was based on the same information and is essentially random.
(Themself. Nice touch.) This is utterly meaningless nonsense. No, really. Aside from the fact that countries don't get Covid and then survive or die, there is nothing "essentially random" about how governments make decisions. The entire "paper", despite its impressive-sounding talk of correlation coefficients and odds ratios and Bonferroni adjustment, is a mass of rambling baloney (though whether this is intentional or unintentional I cannot be sure). Words fail. It's painful. EEng 01:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on intro page

[edit]

@Veritas97: Please stop repeatedly making the same edits. This is edit-warring and will get you banned. You should come to Talk page to discuss your concerns with the page. Bondegezou (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my concerns in the edits section. The information I deleted lacks adequate LEGITIMATE references (not just fake news articles). Veritas97 (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are given lower down in the article. Which ones do you consider illegitimate? Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are rock-solid. I've looked at the edits made by Veritas97, and it is not credible to assert that they are based on questions of sourcing. Furthermore, the fact that citations including The Washington Post, BBC and Politifact are dismissed as "fake news articles" by Veritas97 strongly suggests that the edit war this user is engaging in is purely politically based. If anything, this article is erring on the side of caution in not explicitly labeling Dr. Immanuel a pseudo-scientist and/or witch doctor, considering the fact that many of the (sourced) assertions she has made, including succubi/incubi, 'spirit husband' and 'reptilians' are well-established as non-factual on wikipedia. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?

[edit]

@TJMSmith: Any thoughts about putting this up for DYK or ITN? GMGtalk 12:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo:, IMO, I don't think it would garner enough support for ITN (most COVID-related controversies are covered by the COVID box). The article probably could be a good candidate for DYK. In the past, I've found the DYK nomination process somewhat confusing. If you'd like to nominate it, you have my support! TJMSmith (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip Cross: Thoughts? GMGtalk 12:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly

[edit]

Allegedly, is a word that should be used, as to her speading misinformation. The WHO and CDC as well as NIH have all been back pedaling the use of MASKS, SOCIAL DISTANCE, as well as MECHANICAL INHALATION. We may find out that this wonderful immagrant was right in some of her claims. We also can't punish her for her freedom of expression. Imurmomsfavrit (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, just as allegedly there are no alien cadavers in Area 51. EEng 00:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But she's right that reptilians and aliens are running the government, at least until this coming January. EEng 02:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter

[edit]

Is it really necessary to devote a section to her daughter, who's currently a pre-med? This seems unnecessary and possibly harmful to her daughter's future reputation as a BLP issue.--Pharos (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please get rid of it. Fram (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Irish Melkite (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - particularly given that one of the two links was to a full page news release (with photo) that detailed her daughter's educational career to date, her honors, accomplishments, and future plans - making only a passing reference to her mother. The section added nothing to the article about Dr Immanuel and certainly had potential to cause the daughter unmerited ridicule. Irish Melkite (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really need to be careful about not violating any BLP rules with the daughter, better to just remove it and discuss any addition here on the talk page.MaximusEditor (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

[edit]
That's quite enough. We are not determining on Wikipedia the merits of a treatment for a disease. If you have issues, please contact the medical associations who make these determinations. GMGtalk 20:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the false information about this doctor that states, "She has spread false and dangerous medical advice and cures about COVID-19." The yahoo Men's Health fact check is false. Here is an article reporting on the results of an independent study from 7/3/2020 that contradicts the Men's Health article: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/july/new-hydroxychloroquine-study-proves-trump-right-says-it-significantly-cuts-death-rate? Please also remove the section titled, "COVID-19 misinformation". 47.186.77.118 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The preponderance of evidence is against the use of this drug to treat this condition. That is why the WHO as well as the CDC recommend against its use. GMGtalk 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot of studies saying that it helps. And it shouldn't be HARMING anybody. (The drug has a better track record for safety than aspirin.)

https://aapsonline.org/hcq-90-percent-chance/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270792/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

https://thevillagereporter.com/professor-hydroxychloroquine-could-save-100000-lives-being-stifled-by-a-propaganda-war/


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/technology/doctor-zelenko-coronavirus-drugs.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ywj-PZTt4g

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newly-published-outpatient-study-finds-that-early-use-of-zinc-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-is-associated-with-less-hospitalizations-and-death-301094237.html

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/3/peer-reviewed-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-effec/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520300615

Whether or not the articles and studies are correct, labeling a doctor for expressing opinions that are ALSO expressed by these publications is unwarranted.

TNYT itself, published an article just two weeks ago regarding Dr. Zelenko, that was positive. (Zelenko, unfortunately, is ill. Or else he would have been at the summit, and HE would have a Wikipedia article...)Drsruli (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit mentioned right over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#COVID-19 and even if most of the evidence currently does not support, there's more than enough publications in support of the use of the drug and associated protocol to exonerate Dr Immanuel decision on this one issue.Drsruli (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reprised: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/07/28/facebook_and_youtube_ban_video_of_doctors_talking_covid_silenced_doctors_hold_press_conference.html Drsruli (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before any of us starts slogging through that list, could you first identify the items that aren't opinion pieces, personality profiles, and more than three months old? EEng 14:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:MEDRS. We do not make determinations on medical claims based on primary studies and news sources, when those claims run counter to the determinations made by major national and international medical organizations. GMGtalk 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? The point is that it was a relevant opinion, for a while, and that the opinion was also espoused by reputable journals. It doesn't need to be the bottom line (which hasn't actually been written yet, on this matter). If newsweek thought that it was good enough to appear a few weeks ago, then they aren't crackpots for having the same opinion. If TNYT had an article promoting the treatment, just two weeks ago, then a doctor shouldn't be censured for agreeing with it. Drsruli (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem, that there is sufficient supporting opinion and research available in the wikipedia HCQ page, to validate her opinion. (Even if it is debatable.) Drsruli (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least, in the interest of completeness, it could be also mentioned, the other sources that the doctor based her opinion on, or rather that support these doctors' findings. Do you object to mentioning these other reports? Drsruli (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, from what do we know on what she based her opinions? EEng 03:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is why I said "or rather that support these doctors' findings." Most likely, it's convergent. However, other credible sources support her findings, and they were deemed acceptable enough to appear in publications like Newsweek and TNYT. How can a doctor be vilified for espousing an opinion that is also mentioned in these publications, that is also given ample space in wikipedia own HCQ page on the subject, even if it is a minority opinion? (She didn't keep using the drug while patient after patient died; it seemed to work, nobody is disputing her record with the drug, and she reported her experience at a press conference.) It just so happens, that several other doctors have reported similar experiences. Drsruli (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no, there are no credible sources that support her findings. That's nonsense. This "doctor" is simply spreading harmful misinformation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied a list of credible sources above, some of which are also included on the Wikipedia HCQ page. Drsruli (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty much every source that discusses the subject in the context of the TPP video is quick to point out that this is not recommended as an effective treatment by major medical and governmental organizations. We do not synthesize information from sources not related to the subject of this article in order to produce original commentary. If we wish to include broader context on the basis of her claims, then we need sources that discuss the basis of her claims in relation to her, and not merely in the abstract. GMGtalk 11:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a judgement. (As it is, the article seems to give the impression that she isn't even an MD, as TylerDurden8823 above felt that quotation marks were appropriate.) Drsruli (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "And it shouldn't be HARMING anybody." OK, can we get a few things clear in terms of why the information on misinformation should stay. This is not a simple question of the freedom of expression of say a lay person. Dr Immanuel is a member of a profession (the medical profession. With that enhanced social prestige also comes the responsibility to operate within established standards, ethical boundaries etc. Professionals when giving what could be regarded as advice in their field are held to a higher standard than ordinary individuals as it is more likely that their advice will be acted upon. Despite the early hopes of HDC, the overwhelming medical consensus we are now told the drug is not efficacious. This is the consensus of the Drs peers. I presume when the Dr made her comments regarding HDC as a cure, she was aware of this evolved medical consensus. She chose not to reflect that consensus. Further, she seems to have shown contempt for any of the more recent studies noting that "All these double blinded studies sponsored by big Phama is fake science" and that "There’s always studies that come out and knock it down. It’s fake science". It seems reasonable to characterise her comments about HDC as a cure and "all double blinded studies sponsored by Big Pharma is fake science" as misinformation. Next comes your point that HDC shouldn't be hurting anyone. Two points. First, HDC can have significant side effects, that much has been well known well before Covid came along. (Don't get me wrong it is a very important medication for those with lupus and other conditions). Second, we don't take medication because they do no harm, we take medication because it serves a therapeutic objective, as established by evidence.SiJoHaAl (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a press conference. Those kinds of comments would be out of place in a scientific journal, or even a presentation at a scientific forum. But this was a press conference, with obvious script and hype, almost a rally. What she said was in-tune with every other aspect of the entire presentation. (Nothing about alien-DNA, demon-semen, or witches was said; she reigned all that in.) In the amounts that these doctors are promoting, HCQ is known to have very few side effects, fewer than aspirin. This is one reason why the drug is considered so important in general, and prescribed rather widely for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Doctors and dentists, presumably well-aware of any risk from the drug, self-medicated en masse, back in March and April, on the basis that it might possibly help and would do no harm. (A couple pills/week of HCQ, I don't know if it ever hurt anybody in the history of the drug. This was an important clarification that the doctors were making at the entire event: that drugs that are "harmless" when used properly, can have toxic side effects when overdosed.) The epidemiological reports, based on global use of the drug and death rates, over time, are startling. Drsruli (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter it was still a medical professional giving a medical opinion. She had nothing to support that and she hasn't since proffered anything to support that. It's not right of you to cite the Emergency Authorization as you well know that was revoked prior to her comments. It's also misleading of you to say that it "would do no harm". It does have side effects. This is established. And it's wrong of you to suggest that's why it's used for malaria, SLE, and RA. It's used for malaria, SLE and RA as it's efficacy has been established and this is weighed against the side effects and for sufferers of those conditions it is often the best therapeutic choice. Efficacy has not been established for Covid 19. It was not my "judgment" that she disregarded any trial results that did not support the use of it, she said it was "fake science". You continue to make the same argument on this talk page again and again ad nauseam. Let me enumerate for you:
  1. She is a medical professional with the ethical obligations and duties of care that stem from that, like any professional;
  2. She made a claim in support of the use of a drug after Emergency Authorisation had been withdrawn and following recent studies and medical consensus not in favour of using the drug for Covid 19;
  3. She made assertions that it was a cure for Covid 19 citing her experience with 350 patients in her case;
  4. She has stated that any studies that do not favour the use of the drug are "fake science";
  5. Both her claim as to a cure, and has labelled any studies inconsistent with her claim that it is a "cure" as "fake science".
  6. That alone is misinformation as those studies contrary to her claims are not viewed by her profession as "fake science"
  7. This article uses the heading misinformation because her claims have been called into question by her profession and her peers.
  8. You continue to {{BLUDGEON}} every other contributor on this talk page who does not agree with you with the very same argument. You are not respecting the need for a consensus. SiJoHaAl (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't take medication because they do no harm, we take medication because it serves a therapeutic objective, as established by evidence." - Apparently, the FDA takes a looser view on this than you do, as when they granted temporary emergency authorization for the drug's use against this disease. Drsruli (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.whio.com/home/coronavirus-whats-next-ohio-ohio-bans-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/CDOQOBAWWVF6PG2LGTHXHMPRXI/ (Ohio pharmacy board subsequently reverses rule banning off-label prescription of HCQ.) Drsruli (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first few comments on this matter (see above) indicated that the status of the perception of the drug was indeed at issue. Drsruli (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, both are an issue. First, you seem to be on a one-man campaign for this drug, against the recommendation of major medical organizations. Second, the place to have that discussion is not here. And just because you've been largely booted from the main article does not mean we have this discussion on a biography. GMGtalk 12:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And just because you've been largely booted from the main article" ? What is this referring to? (Also, I didn't even open this talk:heading.) Drsruli (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the multiple warnings on your talk page for repeatedly adding misinformation related to COVID. GMGtalk 12:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they don't retract those, even when you eventually explain the point to their satisfaction. (Meanwhile, the actual language of THIS article has been changed to a more neutral tone. Thank you for that.) (The definition of misinformation on this topic seems to be changing, slightly, even just during this discussion.) Drsruli (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Drsruli (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the quote marks were appropriate given what Ms. Immanuel has been saying in public. She has been spreading extremely harmful misinformation and issuing downright nonsensical statements that are so far-removed from reality that it makes one's head want to spin. She's talking about witchcraft and spiritual spouses! The sources you put up don't show what you were trying to say and your statements are incorrect. It's as simple as that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I put up show that it's a medical opinion that is taken seriously by a broad section of the professional and general population, and that it's not a fad, but has been a persistent idea for over six months. The sources include articles from respected news sources as well as scientific journals. I'm not making the point here that the view is the correct one, merely that it has scientific legitimacy. Considering the crisis, the language that was previously used in this article (see above talk:sections) was partial, obviously biased and judgmental. That language has since been changed. Cooler minds have prevailed. Drsruli (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not done by counting people having opinions, not even by counting people with academic titles having opinions. It is done by making studies, by analyzing the results professionally, by scrutizining those analyses, by publishing the results in peer-reviewed journals, by others reproducing the results, and by professionals commenting on the evidence as a whole.
It simply does not matter how many loudmouths, quacks, frauds, and loons have shouted about it, or for how long the have done that. You need real, reliable, solid scientific sources, and you do not have those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said repeatedly here that this article is not an evaluation of HCQ. There's a lot of discussion about this drug, and some of the positive reports do come from reputable sources, and credible physicians and scientists. The drug is taken seriously enough that it enjoyed temporary emergency authorization here for its use in this disease. This doctor announced at a press conference that she had administered the drug to many patients, and that the positive outcomes were significant, and that other physicians had reported similar experiences. As stated above, the appearance of this article last week, used phrasing and expression strongly reminiscent of tabloid publications. The current state of the article is more representative of appropriate encyclopedia voice. (And I presented citations above, in response to request for those, here.) Drsruli (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "[I have] administered the drug to many patients, and that the positive outcomes were significant" and "other physicians had reported similar experiences" are examples of good scientific reasoning, you should think something else. That is the way quackery is usually justified. For evidence-based medicine, you need more than such handwaving. Repeating it does not make it better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I couldn't find anything beyond her assertion, no indication of any documentation of her efforts, number of cases, outcomes, no suggestion of her own trial. Just her saying to the effect of, I have 1-2 articles supporting me and the rest are all "fake science" her words not mine. Her dismissal of anything that might not support her position as "fake science" made me wonder if she even bothered to read them. SiJoHaAl (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but those are judgements. This is an encyclopedia. That's what she said. You can draw your own conclusions. (I haven't seen anybody seriously contest the facts of what she said yet, either: saying that some of the patients died, that she didn't give them the medicine, or that she didn't have that many patients at all.) (Would seem to be a matter of medical record.) Many people do disagree with her conclusions, but she felt a responsibility to report them, apparently; they seemed to be significant. This article is about a person, prompted by a particular event that she participated in. (The forum was a press conference, and wouldn't expect much technical data there; perhaps a more detailed technical report will be forthcoming. She had the center stage in that show for about three minutes, less than any other participant, and the other doctors were presenting some similar reports.) (You believe that she should have kept that kind of observation to herself.) (Also consider that scientists do prefer double-blind studies, etc, but most non-scientists, when asked, would say that proof "in the field" is better, and would feel more reassured knowing that drug had been used in "real-life", thousands of cases. Not the best science. But most aren't scientists.) (Epidemiologists, however, do use such informally collected data to draw scientifically valid conclusions.) (The emergency authorization by the FDA should be a major mitigating factor that what she says that she did, wasn't irresponsible of her as a physician.) Not the drug itself. The current state of the article better reflects that reality, than it did last week. Drsruli (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting situation

[edit]

Tucker Carlson Defends Doctor Who Says Demons Steal Semen From People While They Sleep

Fox News host Tucker Carlson lashed out at tech companies and reporters Tuesday night, insisting that a pro-Trump group called “America’s Frontlines Doctors” was being censored and improperly ridiculed for their beliefs. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/07/tucker-carlson-defends-doctor-who-says-demons-steal-semen-from-people-while-they-sleep/

Dr. Stella Immanuel: gynaecological issues are the result of having sex with witches and demons ... the American Government is run by "half-human" people with a "reptilian spirit" ... the group claims that Americans don't need to wear masks: directly contradicts advice from Trump's medical experts https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-29/donald-trump-touts-hydroxychloroquine-again-after-viral-video/12501634 Peter K Burian (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prager U successful evading of YouTube removal of Breitbart video

[edit]

An editor removed the following: "However, Prager U has successfully posted the video of her statements at the event on its YouTube channel for nearly 24 hours.[1]" In the comments section the editor said that it was non-notable. I am not touting the right wing Prager U page. However, it is notable for evading the removal by YouTube. Note the title that Prager U gave the video. This time, with its claim that "We Don't Need to Die," was more modest than quoting Dr. Immanuel and repeating the debunked claim that the treatment is a cure.Dogru144 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the passage because it is not cited to a third-party source about Prager University or the video, technically it is primary. To make assertions you need to cite a reliable source; what an editor writes needs to be demonstrably based on one or more of them. An interpretation, as you attempted, is considered original research, and editors are instructed to avoid such a practice in the policy documents. Philip Cross (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're missing the point. I was was never citing Prager U as reputable. What language did I use to give the impression that they are reputable? I do not consider them reputable. It is indisputable that whatever wone thinks of Prager or Breitbart, they have influence and large followings. For that reason, this is notable. What is the alternative to primary sources? Are we to reject newspapers or appearances on television? Historians classify those as primary sources. They use primary sources to indicate errors in secondary sources. This is one reason why historians place value on writings using primary sources. The matter of Stella Immanuel is a current event. Are we to not speak on this because there are no secondary sources yet?

What I was aiming to cite was not Prager but the evident fact that it appeared on YouTube. Nevertheless, this is moot at this point. YouTube has removed the Prager U video of her. Perhaps this was a result of Prager U's evasion being exposed here on Wikipedia.Dogru144 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Prager U YouTube channel, 'Dr. Stella Immanuel: We Don't Need to Die. There Are Treatments for COVID.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYkIK6-TNok as of 1 pm EST

Trimming/merging citations

[edit]

This article should trim/merge some citations as more reliable and in depth coverage has come out. If possible, The Daily Beast, Heavy.com, and Media Matters for America sources should be removed per WP:RSP if statements can be attributed to more reputable and unbiased sources. TJMSmith (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sued for malpractice according to Houston Chronicle

[edit]

Is this article about her being sued for malpractice relevant? 90.255.73.86 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. The whole article is biased. The CREATION of this article is biased. Drsruli (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very relevant. Will include. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Somebody already has - have edited a bit. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a malpractice lawsuit against her is very relevant and absolutely should be included. I agree with Bondegezou. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other Information

[edit]

She played herself in the short film Boneshaker. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2458756/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8100:FA80:29A5:76CE:FD25:9057 (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMDB is user generated and cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. If appropriate, this information would need to be vetted and published by a secondary source. GMGtalk 11:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a secondary source, but here's the film and she's one of the main characters (although I'm not sure you're a "character" if you're playing yourself). https://vimeo.com/183085974 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8100:FA80:30FA:C937:5AA:71A1 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this one discusses the Dr. Stella Immanuel and her casting and role in the film. https://www.filmlinc.org/daily/discover-frances-bodomo-boneshaker-quvenzhane-wallis-african-film-festival/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8100:FA80:30FA:C937:5AA:71A1 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Stella Immanuel had a featured role in the 2013 short film, Boneshaker . In the film she played herself.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Discover: Frances Bodomo Crosses Cultures with "Boneshaker"". Film at Lincoln Center. 2013-04-04. Retrieved 2020-07-31.

I'm moving this here for the moment, because it was kindof just stuck at the end of the article. Not totally sure where it may fit in. The Vimeo link does appear to be posted by the creator. Not totally decided on whether this gets into WP:TRIVIA territory. Thoughts? GMGtalk 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Charismatic"

[edit]

"Founder of a charismatic religious organization" Is there a better way to phrase this? I did a double take when I read it, because it seems to imply that we think the organisation is charismatic, until you click on the link. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's...slightly less odd to me because I'm familiar with Pentecostalism. I admit, it's a little odd if you don't recognize that it's a reference to charismata, and not charisma. GMGtalk 15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard theological term. It's linked to for confused readers. I'd keep it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

[edit]

change

===COVID-19 misinformation===

to

===COVID-19===

Reason: No source cited. Wasmum (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Cites 14 and 16 (and others). - MrX 🖋 21:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Wasmum: I can’t tell if this is trolling or not, but such an edit request is clearly unacceptable. Firstly, no reliable sources seriously dispute that this was misinformation. Secondly, we don’t put citations in the section titles. The sources characterizing this as misinformation are clearly cited in the body of the article. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasmum, I agree with Auxiliarus, we will absolutely not make this proposed change. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of the front of the Supreme Court building?

[edit]

We don't have a photo of the Doctor herself, or a photo of the referenced press conference; photo of the BUILDING doesn't seem very relevant. Just saying. Drsruli (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but what value a photo of the front of the Supreme Court? Drsruli (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you're an English speaker from South Africa or New Zealand, do you really know what the US Supreme Court building looks like? GMGtalk 13:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter for this article or affect it at all? (Besides the SC is linked and the photo shows up as soon as anybody clicks.) It seems extraneous. That's my impression on seeing it as a reader, anyway. Drsruli (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Word "Cure"

[edit]

"no drug has been approved as a specific cure for COVID-19" - is any drug ever approved as a "cure"? The word that I always see used is "treatment". Could we change this? Drsruli (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cures exist, just not for COVID-19 at this point. The statement is fine as it is. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavirus-treatments-on-the-way/ "There are no approved coronavirus treatments at this time."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-drugs/faq-20485627 "No treatment is approved for COVID-19."

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2500116-overview "No drugs or biologics have been approved by the FDA for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417436/antiviral-drug-remdesivir-can-help-fight-coronavirus-can-patients-get-it "No drug is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for COVID-19"

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treat-covid-19 "Hydroxychloroquine is FDA-approved to prevent and treat malaria, as well as to treat the autoimmune diseases rheumatoid arthritis and lupus."

https://www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-malaria-drug-coronavirus-fda-1493293 "What Is Hydroxychloroquine? Donald Trump Asks FDA to Investigate Malaria Drug as Potential Coronavirus Treatment"

Drsruli (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either cures do exist, and therefore the statement is fine, or cures don't exist, which would only be more reason she shouldn't have called it a cure. At the end of the day, it's a response to her language. GMGtalk 13:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article perpetuates misuse of language because the quoted individual did? (Curing a person of a disease, is not the same as referring to a substance as a cure for the disease. We treat patients of COVID-19 (presumably with medications) so that they may (hopefully) be cured. The quote from her in this article doesn't actually refer to her calling her regimen a "cure".) 

Drsruli (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions "alien DNA" twice, both times referring to her use of the expression. However, this instance ("no drug etc..."), is not a quote or a direct reference. (If the FDA does approve HCQ or dexamethasone (for example) for COVID-19, then they won't approve it as a "cure"; they'll approve the drugs for treating the disease.) Drsruli (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then she shouldn't have said it was a cure. GMGtalk 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article doesn't actually say that she did. Drsruli (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this article she is quoted as saying it’s a cure: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53579773 Bridges2Information (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article very clearly says she claimed it was a cure. It is not necessary that every statement of fact be in quotation marks. In case there is any doubt, the word "cure" is currently in the title of three different sources currently used on the article.
I'm beginning to suspect that you should consider contributing to some topic area other than those dealing with hydroxychloroquine, because it is becoming difficult to take an argument as good faith, when you are claiming an article doesn't say something which it clearly says. To be clear, no, we are not watering down language regarding an unproven, and recommended-against treatment in the interest of a literal witch doctor, that is a doctor who claims to fight witches. GMGtalk 13:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but our article doesn't quote her as having said that. So there's nothing in the article to show that the weird phrasing is a reaction to something that she said. It just looks strange and wrong.

For example, the other wikipedia article that deals with the same subject, skirted the phrasing, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Patriots#America's_Frontline_Doctors_video "without peer-reviewed evidence, the group of doctors claimed that hydroxychloroquine, Zithromax, and zinc could be used as a "cure" for COVID-19 (although there is currently no drug approved for this by the FDA or WHO)". That's a lot more precise. (A little clumsy with imprecise pronoun, still.) But you see what they did? Drsruli (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She claimed it's a cure. It's not. GMGtalk 20:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't say "it's not a cure". We say "it's not approved by the FDA as a cure", which it never would be. It's wrong to speak of a medication as a cure, when it's a disease of this sort. It detracts credibility from the author of the article, the reader picks up on the improper phrasing, and it doesn't seem deceptive, just ignorant. Like a trick question. But really, it's just the wrong word. (On her, it might be excused, as she wasn't raised in this country.) Why would you want to speak down to the reader? Isn't it even stronger, from your point of view, to say "the medicine isn't even approved as a treatment to the disease (much less a "cure")? Drsruli (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She claimed it's a cure. It's not. GMGtalk 20:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"She claimed she had cured COVID-19 in 350 patients at her clinic using a combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc (a claim not supported by any strong scientific research; no drug has been approved as a specific cure for COVID-19)" - It sounds dumb. It doesn't sound dumb to say that a doctor cured a patient using a drug. It sounds dumb to say that no drug has been approved as a cure for COVID-19. Drsruli (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with the sentence is that it says that she claimed to cure 350 patients using a combination of drugs, a statement of fact (we don't know how much the drugs contributed, but she claims that she had so many patients, she gave them the drugs, and they survived.) THAT DESCRIBED CLAIM is not subject to be proven or disproven by "scientific research"; one would have to prove that some of the patients actually died, or that she didn't give them the medicine, or that she didn't have that many patients at all. The sentence should read "She claimed that she had cured COVID-19 in 350 patients at her clinic using a combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc; she claimed that this combination of drugs is a cure for COVID-19. (However, this claim is not supported by any strong scientific research and no drug has yet been approved as a specific treatment for COVID-19, much less a cure.)" Or something like that. Drsruli (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[(And especially with the implication that this has relevance for her claim. On the contrary, if the medicine was already approved, then there would be no point for her to appear at a press conference, to attest to the use of a drug working for a known labeled condition. What would be the point of that? She's there saying, "This drug, which has not been approved, worked for me at a success rate that is significant, and I'm standing here with some other physicians who had similar results." That's explicitly and implicitly clear. (Otherwise it wouldn't be newsworthy at all.) (Anybody who knows how medicine works in this country, knows that a medicine approved for any use, may be prescribed off-label for any other use. No drug has been approved as a cure for COVID-10, nor ever will be. Any doctor who used any medicine to help a patient recover, could be subject to the same description. "The medicine couldn't possibly have helped, since no medicine is approved as a cure for COVID-19." Somehow, though, if she had claimed to cure them with the use of Dexamethasone, and that was all, then I don't think that we would be having this discussion.) Drsruli (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Ah, what the heck. Leave it the way it is. Drsruli (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Stella Immanuel says that space alien DNA is used in medical treatments, that reptilians run the United States government, and that she uses hydroxychloroquine to cure COVID-19? Source: 'Immanuel said in a 2015 sermon that alien DNA is used in medical treatments ... she said the government is run by “reptilians,” not humans.' [6] '"This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax," Immanuel said.' [7]

Created by TJMSmith (talk) and GreenMeansGo (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 02:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article looks good (although we probably should hold off on passing this until the merge discussion is closed). This is a good biographical summary of a (very!) fringe subject. Meets newness, length, and policy requirements; spot check of text and cites is good. The hook is fine — but I changed one bit in the hook to avoid an abbreviation and add a link. TJMSmith, GreenMeansGo, EEng, should we shorten the hook to focus on one or two claims, rather than three? Worried about length. Neutralitytalk 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rule of three (writing). As it stands now it's 182 chars. This item is potentially high-profile so the longer we hold this the more eyes will get on it and that's for the better. EEng 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We could probably apply Orwell's rules for writing and make it more concise.
ALT 1 ... that Stella Immanuel says alien DNA is used in medicine, reptilians run the government, and hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19?
GMGtalk 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that suggestion. Giving the for ALT 1. Neutralitytalk 02:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. I deliberately said space alien instead of alien because in any Trumpian context the latter has a second meaning – one which would be perfectly at home in the bizarro LSD trip that is the subject's mentation. And US government not just government because, well, there's more than one government and that's the one she was speaking of. But most importantly, hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19 misrepresents the subject's claim, which was This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. We need to be very careful here. EEng 04:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng: how about ALT 2: ... that Stella Immanuel says reptilians run the U.S. government? Neutralitytalk 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can see ALT0 is best.
On any random topic that would be as good a hook as any, but given the interest in Covid, omitting Covid will reduce clicks. And the real money's in linking Covid + space aliens + reptiles. ALT0's well under the length limit, and (not to pull rank on you, but ...) I am generally recognized as Wikipedia's greatest hooker, so please just bow down, show your fealty, and endorse ALT0. If you don't mind. Insect.[FBDB] EEng 21:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this also involve a feudal ceremony? ;) OK, giving the for ALT0. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More like futile. EEng 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's greatest hooker Oof. GMGtalk 16:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna good time? EEng 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FTR here's the discussion: [8]. EEng 04:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

It's been two weeks since the "White Coat Summit". I've been waiting and watching for somebody to come forth and say "Well, she treated my grandma, and she still died." Has anybody else had success with this? Drsruli (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New scientific consensus should be reflected in this article

[edit]

This article has several sections thar require rewrite. I hVe to confess I cannot state the Wikipedia principle that applies. What strikes me however is the scientific opinion among all scientists on the subject of hydroxychloroquine is much different now than it was at the time that most of this article was written Danallenhtn (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Danallenhtn. For verifiability (WP:V), we go by what reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) say about the subject, especially medical sources (WP:MEDRS). Also, if any reliable sources appear to contradict this article but do not mention the person in this article, it may cause a synthesis problem (WP:SYNTH) that should be discussed on the talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stella_Immanuel&oldid=1257342970"