Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Nurse?

Is he still a practicing nurse, because if he is not we should not have his page name as John Campbell (nurse), it should be John Campbell (Youtuber).Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

He's retired.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So the page name needs to change, he is not a nurse.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is still a registered nurse, with a registration that expires on '31/07/2022'.5.186.118.6 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sed fugit interea, fugit irreparabile tempus! Or to put it another way, in the absence of any real info on Campbell, you guys are merely quibbling over details. You need to flesh this article, put some meat on its bones, give it some substance, to give it any credibility. Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

General feel of article.

The article gives a strong impression of being bias with an emphasis being put upon the wrong information about Ivermectin. 194.75.18.91 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

His career section is longer. But feel free to expand the article in other directions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have more reliable sources with more information about his career you are also welcome to suggest them to help other editors improve the article. —PaleoNeonate – 17:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that there is very little information to be found regarding Dr Campbell on the internet, which is why the author(s) of this Wikipedia page are struggling to get it up to par.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Influencer" in the lede

Everyone knows Wikipedia is a lost cause as far as neutrality towards those who deviate from official orthodoxies is concerned, but I did just want to note the nonsensicality of describing Campbell as an "influencer." As per Wikipedia's own definition, an "influencer" is someone engaged in "Influencer Marketing" which is "a form of social media marketing involving endorsements and product placement from influencers, people and organizations who have a purported expert level of knowledge or social influence in their field."

What exactly is John Campbell marketing and in what sense is his expertise as a retired academic "purported"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.138.173 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That word "purported". Where are you quoting it from? Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Internet celebrities often function as lifestyle gurus who promote a particular lifestyle or attitude. In this role", that seems to fit him. But maybe change it to "John L. Campbell is a British YouTube personalty".Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone knows Wikipedia is a lost cause as far as neutrality towards those who deviate from official orthodoxies is concerned thanks for confirming that WP policy has been applied. —PaleoNeonate – 17:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

The introductory paragraph to Dr John Campbell states he has "made false claims about the use antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a covid-19 treatment". I believe this is unfair. What little research has been done on the topic shows the drug's anti-viral properties can help against Covid-19. I also think its not a very flattering way to introduce someone who has produced a lot of factual informative information about the virus which helps a large community to say he basically gives false information. Below is a link to a journal which shows findings that ivermectin can help treat covid 19:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx 82.30.236.248 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This reads like real hatchet job

This entry in Wikipedia seems terribly unbalanced and reads like a hatchet job. You need to examine all the factual information relating to the career of Dr John Campbell and include at least some of this in the entry, not just cherry-pick the odd mistake he may have made in the past and build the whole piece around it. Very disappointed to see this low standard of writing on Wikipedia - it doesn't do anything for Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6513:BD00:3C13:4481:5F69:A25F (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You provide the RS to cover this and we might. But you might try and not wp:soapbox if you want to win people over.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I can do a literature search on Dr Campbell for you, however, first can I suggest you make a couple of amendments to this biased article. First, in the "COVID-19 misinformation" section where you state, "Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan". Suggesting a plausible hypothesis is not misinformation, it's how science works - researchers are always coming up with incorrect or incomplete hypothesis and testing them then rejecting or accepting them. Second, where you state, "Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems". Although the journal had not gone through peer review at the time, blood clotting and myocardial inflammation are now widely accepted to be side effects of the vaccine, and evidence is still being gathered to assess how serious a problem this is: from CDC website: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html and https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/vaccines/2021/11/myocarditis-pericarditis-mrna-vaccines.pdf?sc_lang=en and from Medical News Today: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/study-investigates-covid-19-vaccines-and-myocarditis

Again, putting forward hypothesis based on best available data at the time is not conspiracy, as this Wikipedia entry appears to be implying - Dr Campbell is simply giving his expert opinion here. For this reason I request that the section "COVID-19 misinformation" be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, source(s). The sources say ivermectin isn't used in Japan, so that means the "hypothesis" isn't "plausible". Gobshite more like. Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, can I suggest you alter the entry title from "John Campbell (YouTuber)" to Dr John Campbell, as he's a qualified medical doctor with many years of experience in the field -he's simply using 'YouTube' to communicate medical information. After all if he was utilising 'Twitter' or 'Snapchat' to communicate, you wouldn't describe him as John Campbell (Twtterer) or John Campbell (Snapchatter)? In short, I don't consider YouTube his defining characteristic, do you? You might also want to add a complete list of his qualifications and work experience in an attempt to improve the quality of this Wikipedia entry a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

He's not a "qualified medical doctor". Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at his Linkedin profile. You do regard that as reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, thinking about, this entry is so biased and lacking in substance, I suggest that it's either rewritten substantially or removed.

You might want to take a look at his Linkedin profile. You do regard that as reliable source? No, we don't. He's not, and has never been, a medical doctor, simple as that. FDW777 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Too bad. Then tell me, if a doctorate in teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education, a masters health science, dozens of publications in nursing journals and a lifetime's work in the medical profession don't count for much, then what will it take for you to write a fair and balanced encyclopaedia entry about Dr Campbell, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources, sources and more sources. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well then, given the lack of credible sources relating to Dr Campbell's life and achievements, can I suggest Wikipedia simply remove the page. Because you chaps seem to have lost sight of the purpose of an encyclopedia - "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title" (a definition from Wikipedia). The key word here being "factual", not the smattering of "factoids" in this entry for Campbell, which has more than a strong whiff of confirmation bias about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources, sources, and sources. Wikipedia reflects sources. If you think he's not notable, then nominate the article for deletion. Alexbrn (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a sterling idea - I was attempting to give the author the piece an opportunity to improve upon the content, however you're right the article should be nominated for deletion. Further, to reiterate, Wikipedia really should keep in mind that the ultimate goal of an encyclopedia should be to inform and educate, not misrepresent, or be used maliciously against an individual. This kind poor content, referencing and writing style only reflects badly on Wikipedia, not on the person they're attempting the hatchet job on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically sounds like you just "don't like" what the sources say, even though they're reliable and relay expert reaction and analysis. If you think something is "misrepresented" then that should be easy to demonstrate. But instead you are making assertions without evidence. Wikipedia is not an "educational" resource, merely a summary of accepted knowledge on topics. Currently this article does do an excellent job of informing readers, who might otherwise be ignorant of the fact, about misinformation in some Youtube videos. There's more stuff out there on John Campbell (e.g.[2]), but it does not meet the threshold of reliability/weight for use on Wikipedia, so cannot be used. Finally, your imputations of motive are daft - one might as well say you have some personal reason to boost John Campbell and have come here with the express purpose of doing that. Alexbrn (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Finally, your imputations of motive are daft - one might as well say you have some personal reason to boost John Campbell and have come here with the express purpose of doing that." Wow, you deduced that based on the fact that I'm suggesting how to improve the quality of this Wikipedia entry - I think you've just made my point for me, better than I ever could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You miss my point. Anybody can say anything about motive but it's silly as you can't know another's mind. So far, you have made no proposals to "improve the quality" of this article. Instead you seem to want to suppress certain items of knowledge and delete the article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't don't how you've managed to jump to that conclusion - I et al. have simply been requesting that the quality of the content of the page to be improved, specifically make it a more balanced and comprehensive description of Dr Campbell. Currently it reads like a bitter attempt to undermine him - I don't think that's a healthy thing for Wikipedia's content writers to be indulging in, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation is constructed at the point of reading. From what I have seen the channel was regarded as sensible to start with, but increasingly has veered into ivermectin promotion, conspiracy theories and flirtation with antivax tropes - so that expert reaction to it is now pretty horrified. Wikipedia simply reports the reality as found in sources. I think your disappointment may be with reality, not with Wikipedia and, while that's understandable, it's not our problem to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I had to read that twice - at first I thought you were referring to this Wikipedia page, not Dr Campbell's YouTube channel. Okay, have it your way - if Wikipedia wants to spend its time attempting to undermine the credibility of people, rather than be a fact-based repository of knowledge, so be it - but I think I now understand why many academics frown upon students citing Wikipedia in their dissertations and research work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "attempt to undermine" anybody. It disinterestedly reports what's in appropriate sources and the cards fall as they will. What you seem to be suggesting is that certain sources should be ignored so as to hide the fact that this channel is spreading misinformation. Now, that actually would be against Wikipedia's core requirement for WP:NPOV, as well as morally reprehensible. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the second one, about Gundry's paper, is likely undue and should be removed from the lead and the Covid misinformation section. The factcheck (link) we include does not directly implicate him in spreading misinformation; it says he talked about the paper, said the findings might be significant, and this was used by conspiracy theorists to conclude the vaccine was causing heart attacks. It did not criticise him in express terms. I am not sure about the first one about Japan and ivermectin as I cannot access the factcheck from the UK, but I think we need to be cautious in adding information to a WP:BLP and I don't feel it is met with the Gundry paper one. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Goodness, you really don't get this do you. If one is setting about writing an article, book, thesis, and even a Wikipedia page they need to undertake a literature search first - that is examine all, I'll say it again, all available references, not just cherry-pick a few factoids to confirm a preconceived bias or belief about that individual. Why not take a look at the man's body of work over his entire life, his teaching, publications in journals, his books, etc instead of attempting to build a narrative, that Campbell is a conspiracy theorist who's against vaccination, from carefully selected material gathered in only recent weeks? Given that he's spent a lifetime working as a nurse and been administering vaccinations since he was 18 years old, this article is laughable. It's obvious to me, and others, that its author hasn't even bothered to do their research on the man or his publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has had 32 editors. I have searched the literature and added all the appropriate sources that turned up. If there are more sources, what are they? (as you have been repeatedly asked). The article nowhere says "Campbell is a conspiracy theorist who's against vaccination", so you're straw-manning in saying that. I expect more sources will be published soon. Who are these "others" you refer to? Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play ball and do your homework for you AlexBrn. Here's a little bedtime reading for you: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Campbells-Physiology-Notes-John-Campbell/dp/0955379725 I recommend you read this text thoroughly and check the quality of the references. Once you've done this you should be in a better position to write with more authority on Campbell's abilities as a medical expert. I suggest adding a link to this publication to his Wikipedia page (I note his book has an excellent rating) and anyone visiting his page on Wikipedia will surely want to know more about the man, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources with respect to their subject. So that source is useless for our purposes. We want sources about Campbell (or his work), not sources by Campbell. If there are reliably-published reviews of that book, on the other hand, they may be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ, a reference Campbell's publications would surely help build a fuller picture of the man - that's what you're attempting to do in writing this article, yes? Here's the link to the book with reviews: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Campbells-Physiology-Notes-John-Campbell/dp/0955379725 You really should include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not suitable: WP:RSPAMAZON. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not point using arguments that seem to say "well I disagree with policy".Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Rules, regulations are specifications are a wonderful thing, until they become a means unto themselves, however quality should be the ultimate goal in any endeavour. That aside, I can see you've begum to make a few nice amendments to this page, but it still has a way to go yet. Can I further suggest you correct the sentence, " misinformation that vaccines cause heart attacks" as one of the documented side effects of the vaccine is myocardial inflammation https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-information-for-healthcare-professionals/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-following-covid-19-vaccination and blood clots [3] if accidentally injected into the blood stream. This article still needs a great deal of work to give it credibility - but keep at, I know you can do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is not a heart attack.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're making my case for me. These physiological problems can lead to heart attacks - you could have checked that before posting. With all due respect, the problem here is that the folk editing this article simply don't possess the expertise or experience to do a good job on it.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Can, not do always. But you are right we do not have the expertise to make medical claims, so we rely on those made by RS. I also note that the claim is not "they cause heart attacks" but that they "‘Dramatically Increase’ Heart Attack Risk". Which is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's play semantics: If a patient suffers from an underlying cardiovascular condition, then taking a vaccine that induces myocardial inflammation will drastically increase their heart attack risk. From our dialogue so far, it seems to me a pretty convincing case can be made that Dr Campbell's words are either being taken out of context or misunderstood. This could be intentional (aka slander) or unintentional (because the author lacks the background expertise/knowledge to evaluate the source material they are referencing).Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And that is wp:or. We have no reason to think his words are anything other than accurately reported. Now if his words were talk out of context, he could have had a rebuttal published, has he?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You fail to grasp the fundamental problems with this piece of 'literature'. The original author really ought to consider asking themselves two questions: One, does this bio honestly and accurately represent the the person's life it's supposed to be describing Two, What were the author's motivations for writing a piece that seems more biased to towards conjecture regarding conspiracy theories regarding COVID-19, than Dr Campbell the man? My guess is that the author was unable to find supporting reference material so has simply dipped into current newsfeeds and tabloids, instead of, say, for example doing the footwork and contacting Dr Campbell to ask for external University and NHS references. That would be my starting point.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No we do not, policy is clear. It does not matter what the motivations of editors are unless there is a clear wp:coi. You may well be right, but wp:n is clear, we right articles based upon what RS say, not what the subject )or those with a COI) say. Now if you have better information no one is stopping you from adding it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Philip needs to grasp what an encylopedia is. Our task is not to produce "literature" that "honestly and accurately represent the the person's life". That is the job of a biographer, writing a secondary source. Our task is to skim and summarize what such secondary sources have said, at a remove (WP is a tertiary source). As you'd expect for a run-of-the-mill academic, there is scant sourcing on John Campbell before he shot to fame as a Youtuber. If you think there's a rich vein of sourcing on this guy, then produce the sources; my library searches have produced not a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

To cut to the simple stuff: Wikipedia reports what the independent media say about someone, not what they say about themselves, which means that YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, and the subject's own interviews and publications, as well as what their employers' sites say about them, are all not usable. This is often a problem for YouTubers; they move in a medium where written newspaper reports are irrelevant. I've had a good look too, and surprisingly little has been written by independent journalists about John Campbell, so it's really hard to write a good article. I'd agree that the FactCheck reference [4] is not well-used. It's a bit cherry-picked. The actual FactCheck makes it very clear that Campbell didn't endorse this interpretation of his video, and in fact expressed grave doubts about the work (commenting that the doctor who published it apparently runs a grocery shop, not something that he, Campbell, had encountered in any other cardiologists with whom he'd worked!) as well as drawing attention to unprofessional typos in the article's abstract. This doesn't come across in the current version of the article. On the other subject: he is an academic and retired nurse, not a medical doctor. All the reliable sources that I've found have actually taken the trouble to make this clear, choosing to describe him as a medical educator, or in similar terms. In his case, because of his PhD, he is entitled to refer to himself as "doctor", but it would be wrong of WP to permit this to be misunderstood as a medical doctorate. Elemimele (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"Our task is not to produce "literature" that "honestly and accurately represent the the person's life"." Well, if this is genuinely the case, then I have nothing further constructive to add here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No our task is to reflect what others say. It is the job of off Wiki biographers to write about them, then we can.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

I respectfully request that this Wikipedia page be deleted as it does not give a balanced representation of the individual described. More specifically, the few sources cited focus excessively on Campbell's medical advice on COVID-19 during the last 6 months and any errors he may have made. Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Others won't do this; you need to do it yourself by following the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. However, you will need to argue convincingly that the article subject fails WP:N / WP:NBIO and, given the sourcing available, that is unlikely to be possible. Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I tend to agree with you. From our dialogue, it's my perception that Wikipedia lacks the detailed background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the quality of the content in this particular entry. But I've already made a case—as have several other of Wikipedia's peers—and there seems to be little motivation to take on board these constructive criticisms to improve the quality of the content on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just an enyclopedia. It merely summarizes the accepted knowledge found in reliable sources. That's it. As other have said, sources are all. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So tabloids are "reliable sources", but LinkedIn isn't - correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Philip Taylor what tabloid source is included? Thanks in advance. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Some tabloids are, some aren't: see WP:RSPSOURCES for a list. A person writing about themselves on LinkedIn can be used as a source so long as the statements being made there aren't "self-serving nor an exceptional claim", nor about third parties: see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. An article from "The Guardian" is referenced when discussing the popularity of Campbell's YouTube channel - "Between February and March 2020, his channel increased from an average of 500,000 views per month to 9.6 million, the plurality of which originated from the United States". Not really sure why this is of particular interest compared to say, his academic achievements, publications or teaching of health workers in India and Cambodia. As a reader, I certainly would have like to have known more about that - it sounds fascinating and would surely help build a better picture of the man's character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So what does it say you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, if there's going to be a paragraph on COVID-19 misinformation, which represents less than a fraction of percent of Campbell's work, then perhaps, for sake of balance, add paragraphs on his other work which he's been more heavily involved in over a longer period of time. Again, some references to his academic papers, books and other textual materials would improve the quality of the article, for example, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015612517 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

An unfortunate consequence of YouTube and the like is that widespread exposure, even viral sometimes, means that his publishing re COVID-19 can no longer be considered a small fraction of his entire body of work, at least in this important respect. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, with viewing figures rivalling the BBC and international news coverage it's the most notable thing about him. Alexbrn (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

So this is an article about either COVID-19 or YouTube fame, not Dr John Campbell. Given the article is so light on references and factual info relating to Campbell, perhaps it would be simply be best to delete it.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You're going round in circles. There is ample sourcing for a Wikipedia biography (for better or worse) so it would stand no chance of deletion. The article shall reflect what sources are saying about the subject and, given the prominence of the Youtube channel that is inevitably going to a lot about that (probably more so as more sources appear). Without the YT channel Campbell would not merit a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is just a reflection of the sources out there (as everybody is repeatedly trying to tell you). Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

BY all means add other information you think is lacking sourced to wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. So articles on Wikipedia are simply to be based a consensus of current opinion (aka fads), rather than historically or scientifically accurate knowledge? Your objective isn't to strive to write articles of the highest quality you possibly can?Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read our policies then you would know the answer, yes we go with what the consensus of expert opinion (see wp:medrs) say, which is what we srive to do, reflect what the bulk of people who know what they are talking about say). But I would suggest that vaccines are not a fad. Mr Campbell is a nurse, he is not an MD, so no he is not an RS for medical opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Another false implication: I very much enjoyed reading Wikipedia's section on its policies. Didn't you notice I've stopped using rhetoric? I'm now restricting myself to using only constructive criticism… and occasional light humour. Correct, vaccines are not a fad, but you get no points for that I'm afraid. But citing the latest news in the tabloids is pretty faddy, don't you think? Can I suggest that we'll make make much better headway on improving the content of this article if you weren't quite so defensive and, more importantly stay focused on our mission - the creation of fine quality literature .Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Then actually launch an wp:afd, and make good policy-based arguments there as to why it should be deleted. An article is not going to get deleted by discussion on this talk page, we have policies for deleting articles, and you need to follow those.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that - I will look into it.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

I don't know if this is the way to do it, but when saying that Dr Campbell spreads missinformation, please explain a bit why it is missinformation. Writing how his YouTube channel got an award and then a sentence later saying that in this case he is simple wrong, while completely ignoring his arguments isn't convincing people. 85.250.105.11 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You should read the two citations that support what we say in that sentence, cite numbers [3] and [4] at the moment. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The ridiculous nature of the singular criticism of his many well referenced arguments being highlighted and placed in the spotlight is from a completely biased person.

It was enough to motivate me to finally create a wiki editor account. Pam Mable S. (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and no we do not base it on one RS, but many.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin misinformation

I saw a video of Dr Campbell where he compares ivermectin and Pfizer's new drug paxlovid. I've got to say he makes a pretty compelling argument. I wanted to see who this guy is so I went on wikipedia. At the beginning it says how he way a nurse instructor and his YouTube channel even got a prize for the quality of it's content. I scrolled a bit more expecting to find more specific information about his COVID stance. Indeed there was a specific addressing, but it was very limited. He has videos where he makes very scientific arguments, and all it says on this page is that it is misinformation, without explaining why. With the Japan thing there was an explanation (although it was bad because giving a hypothesis that turns out to be wrong is not actively spreading misinformation, but at least you explain your claim). If you can't find sufficient information falsifying his ivermectin claims you can't simply shake it off as misinformation. Please provide an explanation for why you claim his ivermectin claims are wrong, or take that part off the page. 85.250.105.11 (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

See the Science-Based Medicine article linked in the further reading in the article, in which John Campbell makes a cameo appearance. This information is also covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Pfizer's drug development. Alexbrn (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

He is not an MD, nor is he a micro-biologist. We need qualified people supporting his findings.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the same here. I came to this page seeking information on Dr Campbell only to find gossip on Covid-19 conspiracies, YouTube rankings, and very little substance about the man himself. Not sure why Wikipedia would want to publish twaddle like this - it says more about them than it does Dr Campbell. --Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

As you have been told, because we can only repeat what RS have said. If you want to expand the article you can start to expand it, no one is stopping you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"So-called experts" who act outside their field of expertise really annoy me. To top that, Youtube is now suggesting that I view his videos. -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If you find your emotions are engaged, perhaps step away from editing this article. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, or chewing a brick? -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Can people please read wp:forum and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased article

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.

---

Collapse. Please abide by WP:TPG.

EDIT: people with an agenda keep removing parts of the article as well as the talk page. Pretty petty. In the last couple of years I started seeing these biased articles more and more often. I assume people with strong political beliefs come off Reddit or similar platform and use Wikipedia to try and paint their views as absolute. I can tell you that the result is Wikipedia becoming a less credible source of information. I would strongly suggest to change the content of this article from a smear attempt to an actual review of the person. Please follow the suggestions people made before me and change or delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.170.158 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2021 (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.

References. Number 3

The Fact check reference 3 seems to be unavailable in the uk. Satherley D (November 26, 2021). "Did mutations or ivermectin help stamp out Delta in Japan?". Newshub (Fact check).

I come in peace, but given that much of the criticism rides on that one reference is there any way to make it available please?

I also seem unable to edit the most if the article. DicksterWall (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Use a VPN or Tor, or maybe ask at WP:RX? Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added a webarchive for the source, which should get you around the geolocation issues. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's undue to associate him with misinformation relating to vaccines and heart attacks. If he didn't say it himself, we should omit it. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He said what he said, and it was picked up by reliable source(s). Much of what he has said has not (yet) been picked up - but we're lucky to have something to go on. Whitewashing away all "negative" material from the article would be pretty poor and against the requirement for WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact check says In the video, Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in nursing education but is not a physician, reads the abstract and says that if the findings are correct, it would be “incredibly significant.”[5] It then says he did not mention the expression of concern but did question the types and methodology. I don't see that he adopted any of the claims in the abstract, nor did he provide an uncritical viewpoint of it. The latter acknowledged in the fact check. Therefore, I do not see any claim he made that was refuted in the fact check. The key here seems to be that it was used by anti-vaxxers, not what he said. Compare with the other fact check which did attack what he said. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That what the source says yes: what he said was grist to the antivaxx mill. Alexbrn (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being too literal, but I would expect the fact check to refute a claim he specifically makes and adopts. This fact check goes from his video (without saying he was fault) and jumps to the anti-vaxxers using the video, with no description on how they might have inferred this video supported their point: i.e. by Campbell misleading them, missing key info. The lack of expression of concern is the closest we get, but even then the fact check notes his criticisms of the abstract (which, to my mind, largely reflect the expression of concern?). I would prefer we omit it, or at a push limit it to the expression of concern issue, unless we have another RS/fact check which is more explicit. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

They say (in effect) that he is not, in fact, qualified to make a clinical judgment. They say he "asks questions" that is he not qualified to ask, and that his "questioning" is then used by anti-vaxers. I w9ould say that is moderately important. IN fact (I would argue) that is kind of the point, he makes no specific claims, he dog whistles.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "in effect" is it relies on your personal inference. The fact check did not say he was not qualified to ask questions, nor even that he is not qualified. They note he was not a physician and that is it; you inferred that means they say he is not qualified, or it's what they're really getting at. But they do not explicitly say it. I am not sure if it's dog whistles or not, but we're not the ones to judge it. There might be fault in selecting prima facie unscientific studies and disseminating them to the public, but we'd need an RS saying that in explicit terms about this video. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they note he is not a physician, that is saying he is not an MD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"we're not the ones to judge it" ← exactly right. Let's continue to WP:STICKTOSOURCE and all shall be well. This content is due in the article. Whether it's due in the lede is debatable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

They say "this person, who is not a doctor, says this. Whilst this person, who is a doctor, disagrees".Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, they do not explicitly say he could not ask questions because he lacks a medical degree. If they did, it would make little to no sense a nurses and other non-doctors take part in research (including Meaghan Kall). It seems to be background information, as they provided for Gundry, which is necessary to understand the "Dr. John Campbell" name, rather than a suggestion that he could not fathom scientific data because he's a lowly nurse. In any event, if that's the criticism, it is not clear enough to me.

@Alexbrn the debate is about what the sources say, so what I am proposing is we stick strictly to the sources. We are still searching for the source's explicit criticism of Campbell. If his being included in the fact check and his video being used by anti-vaxxers is sufficient criticism, I do not agree. If a fact check included data published in the The Lancet without explicitly criticising the publication, and this data was subsequently used by anti-vaxxers to fuel their spurious beliefs, would this be a criticism of The Lancet? Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Making Youtube videos is not "taking part in research". You might be "searching for the source's explicit criticism of Campbell", but it seems nobody else is, instead being merely content to reflect what it says. As should be done to satisfy WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I can only make the case. If no one else agrees, so be it. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, it is source number 4 now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin

In a paragraph that talks about misinformation relating to Ivermectin use in Japan I think we can assume a reader will know that any quote will be about Ivermectin use in Japan. We do not need to labour the point.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Dunno, it's used twice, in the first and last sentences. Seems reasonable to me. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin as human medicine is also successfully and officially introduced in Guatemala and other Latin-American countries included by self-medication-kits for early stages of covid-19-infections. So there were able to successfully treat people remotely by internet. [6][7][8][9][10]2003:E5:3F15:ED9D:A794:16CC:820E:4ACC (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It being possible does not mean it happened in a significant number. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

LinkedIn as a source for a quals

@FDW777: I see you reverted an edit which used info from his LinkedIn, saying his LinkedIn has been rejected on talk. The only rejection of the source was in relation to a user claiming he was a doctor, rather than the source per se. What is the reason you oppose the edit? As mentioned in my edit, WP:ABOUTSELF should apply: the info is not unduly self-serving nor is it exceptional, it's not about a third party, and its authenticity is not doubted as he links that LinkedIn profile on his YouTube about page (here). Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a self-serving claim, from someone with a history of making misleading self-serving claims (title of his Youtube channel). FDW777 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

He has a phd. He's therefore entitled to be referred to as Dr. John Campbell. It's no more 'misleading' to call himself Dr. John Campbell than it is for Jill Biden to call herself "Dr." Jill Biden. You suggest there's a 'history' of misleading claims. Can you elaborate? Anastrophe (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If anyone offering me medical advice said they were called "Dr John Campbell", I would not assume they were a nurse who was a doctor of philosophy. Hence misleading. FDW777 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

He's at fault for your inferences? Interesting. Campbell is an academic. It's not at all misleading to refer to him as Doctor. "Doctor" Jill Biden has encouraged people to be vaccinated (medical advice). Do you assume she's a medical doctor? Anastrophe (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lots of people in the healthcare/medical field are called doctors because they have PhDs. (Meaghan Kall being one, except she has not completed her PhD yet.) In any event, we are not discussing how he presents himself, nor how qualified he thinks he is in the medical field, nor how important he thinks he is, nor how pivotal a role he has played in educating the next generation of nurses: the future. We're saying he has some quals. We can trust the subject to tell us what ones he's done. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is basic biographical info and the qualis are not very remarkable (2:1 from the Open Uni, good for a PGCert). These relate to specific qualifications which would be expected in any CV, not any one-day course for CPD, and cannot be dressed up or exaggerated; we almost always include such info in biographies and I cannot think of a time we have not. Solipsism 101 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

When they aren't properly referenced. FDW777 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And CV's are like statistics, they are only as honest as the person using them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it this page https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-john-campbell-5256223b~ which says he is a "Nurse currently working in A and E" (he is not).Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's in his Twitter bio, as well. He may be a part-time nurse currently or his LinkedIn info is out of date, but quals are past events and currency is not relevant. @FDW777: WP:ABOUTSELF policy expressly covers LinkedIn. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook. Not sure what other info could be from LinkedIn but quals/experience. Solipsism 101 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but no Stephen Hawking] even when they are as famous as this person we do not cal them Doctor. We usually do that for MD's.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does wikivoice call him "Doctor". That's an entirely different matter. Credentials are what are under discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Then why are you arguing above "He's therefore entitled to be referred to as Dr. John Campbell.".Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference between me saying "He's therefore entitled to be referred to as Dr. John Campbell" and "The article should refer to him as Dr. John Campbell", particularly in the context of this very discussion entitled 'LinkedIn as a source for a quals', n'est-ce pas? Anastrophe (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is about whether he has a history of misleading people; if he does, we cannot trust his LinkedIn, per FDW777. FDW said Campbell has called himself Dr John Campbell when he is not a medical doctor and this is misleading. Anastrophe's point is he is entitled to call himself Dr as he has a PhD (I would add from an accredited university) and therefore is entitled to call himself Dr John Campbell. Also the YT channel started with Capmpbell giving his nursing lectures on YT, so his using his academic title makes sense? An aside: in a med school setting, lot of PhDs in biochem call themselves "Dr" without having the crucial bachelor's in medicine. As long as they give sufficient info to clarify their title, which Campbell has done, it is not problematic/misleading. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

At least one editor has incorrectly assumed John Campbell is a qualified medical doctor with many years of experience in the field, based on his Linkedin profile. FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg recommended that Dr. Jill Biden be nominated for Surgeon General. Ignorance by others isn't a rationale for excluding facts from an article. Is there any objection to making clear in the article that he is a doctor, but not a medical doctor? This is factual, and would clarify to the neuronally-challenged that there's a difference.

I would still like to see either direct evidence of editor FDW777's strong claim that "Campbell has a history of misleading people" or a retraction of that claim. It's a shaky thing to suggest in BLP talk, without providing evidence. Anastrophe (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be very odd use of language to call an academic doctor "a doctor", and it is actively misleading in a medical context. The article says he has a Ph.D. in nursing education. Why is there a need to say anything else? Alexbrn (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The matter then is settled. The edit in question that promulgated this discussion didn't call him doctor. The article itself nowhere calls him doctor. Linkedin profiles are explicitly acceptable for sourcing qualifications within articles. FD777 has thus far not provided any sourcing or evidence that Campbell 'has a history of misleading people'. For those who may have missed it, the edit in question is this:

He has a certificate in tropical diseases from Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and a postgraduate certificate in pharmacology from the University of Lancaster.

I see no reasonable arguments against that edit. Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

References

You need a better source than Linkedin, mind. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've provided evidence, the name of his Youtube channel. It's misleading to use "Dr" in a medical context when he's not a medical doctor. As the evidence shows, it's wholly misled one editor to assume he was in fact a medical doctor. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest boning up on the term 'evidence'. You've presented your opinion that it's misleading. One rando editor's mistake doesn't constitute evidence, certainly not reliably sourced. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the portion of your claim that "he has a history of". A history would have reliable sourcing to back it up. Your opinion is not a reliable source. Thus my cautions about continuing to make this unfounded claim in BLP talk. Anastrophe (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What policy are you rejecting it under? What does the utterance "mind" mean? Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The word "mind" is a qualification to my previous comment. The relevant policy us WP:ABOUTSELF. Not only is the claim self-serving but it's about a third party (claiming the University of Bolton has awarded this degree). I've searched a bit and drawn a blank so if you're really keen for this material to appear I suggest you contact the University's library. They should be able to give a citation for his 2011-2013 thesis (which would have been required to be deposited there) which would make an unimpeachable source. That's certainly a speedy PhD, BTW! Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Perhaps it's a regional coloquillism, I'm unfamiliar with such use, but immaterial. As has been mentioned previously, of course it's "self-serving", all CV material is such. It seems unlikely that he's prevaricating, based upon the existing 'knowns' about him. It's odd, there seems to be this mentality that Campbell is some sort of charlatan, when he's had a distinguished career as an academic and educator, and he's been praised for combatting covid 19 misinformation (notwithstanding the two instances of poor judgement he made re the material that's in dispute elsewhere here). I do wish other editors would at least look at his older videos, just to get a more balanced opinion of his work. Yes, yes, I'm not talking policies here. Basing opinions of Campbell solely by the two fact-checked ones is narrow. He's posted hundreds of enormously informative and educational videos about the virus and pandemic. But, I digress. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Strands of Campbell's output have been criticized by (real) scientists, but in venues[11] which do not rise to the level of RS on Wikipedia - it's not just "two" isolated lapses (there's also Vitamin D and the needle aspiration stuff, plus a lot more ivermectin boosting). Anyway, the PhD claim is about the awarding of a degree by an institution (i.e. a third-party), so fails WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll give it a couple of days then cut the section if no viable source has been found. (BTW, "mind" is "used to highlight or emphasize an exception, qualification, or explanation. Usually used at the beginning or end of a sentence". Primarily heard in UK, Ireland.[12] Alexbrn (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks re 'mind', I guess it's more common in the states to say 'mind you'. The edit I cited was reverted days ago. The needle aspiration stuff has merit, since it is recommended for intramuscular injections to ensure a vein hasn't been hit. He touches on lots of subjects, much of it still exploratory and not settled (for example, people keep claiming that ivermectin 'doesn't meet the scientific consensus' - that's bolox, to use another coloquillism, the extant evidence is conflicting, _and not settled_ as it is still under investigation in other studies. But that doesn't stop people from blurting out non sequiturs about 'consensus' that are just silly. Eventually the science on ivermectin - that "horse dewormer" that's been prescribed 3.7 billion times to humans - will be settled wrt its value or lack thereof with coronavirus. but I digress, as usual.). Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is ivermectin is of no benefit. This is covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, which we link. There is no credible evidence in its favour. This is why dog-whistling with a graph on a "miracle in Japan" with a big arrow pointing at the case decline saying "ivermectin allowed here" is dangerous misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

These matters have been politicized and weaponized by both those who support vaccination and those opposed (though that's a grossly simplified characterization). The "consensus", today, January 17 2022, may not be the same tomorrow, as there are clinical trials in progress as we speak -https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/ - which I why the cudgel of blasting 'consensus' at every turn isn't going to improve trust in the science. Personally, and bluntly, I don't give a single fuck about ivermectin, I'm thrice vaccinated and anticipate getting Omicron any day now (along with the other eight billion of us), having a bad "cold" for a few days, and returning to normal life. But the apparent zeal to tar and feather anyone who speaks about it - no matter what they actually say - is just more political bullshit. Nobody who wasn't already convinced that Ivermectin is a miracle is going to have their mind changed by Campbell's one video or by reading this BLP; to think otherwise is to fly with sprites and pixies. Ironically, countless people have come away far better educated about the science surrounding viruses, vaccines, the pandemic, by the hundreds of _other_ videos Campbell posted during the pandemic, and far more likely to embrace vaccination as the best means of combatting it. That's the peculiarity of the matter to me. But I digress, and for now I don't see the blockade on bringing this article to a more neutral presentation as going away any time soon. Perhaps years down the road the hysterical responses of both 'sides' will move more into a rational reflection of what took place during a global pandemic. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a mistake to view this in terms of "sides". Wikipedia is only interested in accepted knowledge as reported by reliable sources, and avoiding WP:GEVAL. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to "change minds" either. I don't think it's necessarily right to say these videos have "educated" people: the comments on Youtube seem to full of people who think that this hero "doctor" is fighting back against "the MSM" and "the authorities", and fantasizing about war crimes trials where the deniers of ivermectin will be dealt harsh justice. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought I was fairly clear when I said that it was a "grossly simplified characterization". The whole damn thing has been politicized, and perhaps history will someday have a better grasp of the mechanics of it in the first pandemic in a hundred years. As far as 'a little learning is a dangerous thing', I would encourage you to look further back than just the ivermectin videos; I've recommended this before but I suspect nobody has bothered - they've made up their minds that he's just another 'covid denier' or whatever derogatory epithet is in vogue this week. We're two years into covid 19, and he's been publishing videos nearly daily since January 26, 2020, and the vast majority have been highly informative, educational information - he is, I guess it needs reiteration, an academic who spent much of his career teaching. If you only want to focus on the recent videos, that's your privilege, but you're basing your opinion on an incomplete sample - not particularly rigorous. It's worth pointing out that youtube comments are notorious for being almost uniformely a cesspool, no matter what the content of the actual material. There's nothing of value there, since there are trolls trolling trolls every which way mathematically possible. Nothing good is ever found there (with rare exception). Campbell isn't responsible for the ramblings of the criminally stupid. Anastrophe (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"they've made up their minds that he's just another 'covid denier'" ← Wrong. The content of this article is more complex than that. Campbell was praised (by a UNICEF branch - as I added) early in the pandemic but some subsequent output attracted criticism. Wikipedia covers it all without fear or favour, to be neutral. As to "Campbell isn't responsible" ... well, the point of our sources is that is also more complex, with incautious pronouncements apparently fuelling antivax sentiment. Alexbrn (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

whose pov?

Alexbrn, please explain your reversion. Whose POV is being 'skewed'? I provided the basis for the changes. The presentation that you restored is not neutral, it vastly overstates the impact of these two 'events'. This is a BLP. I get a sense of ownership taking place here. You've yet to respond to the majority of the policy-based problems I've brought up. Eventualism isn't acceptable in a BLP. Please explain how my edit "skews" the pov, and what that pov is. Anastrophe (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The POV of the article. As discussed above. You arguments are not policy based but riddled with opinion and falsity. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting my statements and pretending not to see the policies I've used in making the changes. BLP is very clear. The BLP engages in recentism. My changes did not remove the challenges, they brought them into neutral proportion for a BLP. We are to use a neutral tone. The article in its current condition vastly overstates the impact of two criticized videos. Giving an entire separate section is obviously overstating the matter, particularly when only one source is used for each, and the 'event' wasn't even picked up by the agencies/syndicates. Articles are to be neutral in their presentation of the material, so, in fact, the version you restored skews the POV by knocking it into vast overstatement.

As it seems some have forgotten these crucial policies, here you go:

• "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
• "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events."
• "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints"
• "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.

These are policies, yet you claim they are not. That's a fairly remarkable claim. The demand that the article give disproprionate space to these minor events is untenable by BLP standards; discretionary sanctions are indeed in place. You are forcing an imbalanced presentation of the subject matter.Anastrophe (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"yet you claim they are not" ← Another false statement. We are fully in line with BLP in all the respects you mention, and more. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a false statement. You wrote You arguments are not policy based - even though I've presented those actual policies; therefore, you are denying they are policies. The article overstates the impact of these events. It gives disproportionate space to the matter - nearly a third of the article space is devoted to it. It engages in recentism. The presentation is grossly imbalanced. It's nice to dismiss my policy-based arguments by saying they aren't policy-based, but it holds no water. The stick is, apparently, held by you - insisting on an imbalanced, overstated presentation about a living person.Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:TINFOILHAT (which is a section of WP:NPOV) applies. The views Campbell promotes, unwittingly or otherwise, should not be presented as being equal to the mainstream consensus. FDW777 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And they are not presented as equal to mainstream consensus. Please review the version I posted before Alexbrn's reversion.Anastrophe (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest caution in tossing out the tinfoilhat policy; This is a BLP.Anastrophe (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, that part of the policy WP:NPOV must be modified as applying only to the opinions of long-dead people, because every tinfoil hatter of this and the last century is a BLP in the wider sense. Go to the policy talk page and get the policy changed according to your wishes before applying the policies you wish we had. Until then, we apply the existing ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is incomprehensible and appears to be circular. We're not supposed to impugn the subjects of BLP in articles or in talk. 'tinfoil hat' is pejorative, even when applied appropriately - it's a pejorative term, unless you have some examples of when it's a compliment. I'd suggest you reread the policy, both 'tinfoil hat' and blp - your 'guidance' is way off the mark per the policies themselves. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to contribute to the quality of content on Wikipedia. This page has been vandalized and some editors are clearly biased. I don't see any YouTube videos referenced, only articles that discuss supposed video content. I am surprised to see a 'misinformation' section because I have watched every video. The covid misinformation section wrong. Peacheyreader (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not reference any videos as wp:or forbids us from drawing conclusions. We go by what wp:rs say. This is not vandalism, it is obeying our policies on content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Suggest we REMOVE this prominent paragraph: In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said.[4]

It is biased, unobjective, not encyclopaedic, and arguably libellous; an attempt to slur a non 'mainstream media' contributor who appears to use data objectively, who does not use fearmongering in the way reputable news organisations have done (albeit with good intent... eg to encourage uptake of vaccines). It should be understood that Campbell is not an anti-vaxxer or covid denier either - he consistently encourages and supports the use of vaccines and boosters in his videos, and praises countries on their vaccine uptake (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vYslhtMbDw and many others), and consistently draws on reputable authorities for the data he analyses. Your contributor's hang up seems partly to do with ivermectin - often asssociated with right wing anit-vaxxers. The jury is out on ivermectin, there is not enough proof either way, but just because it is used to medicate horses, does not mean it cannot be used in different doses in humans, remember Viagra was supposed to be a heart medication! Campbell upset some anti-right wing journalists by including a prominent Japanese medic's comments on trying ivermectin as one of several possible influences on the sudden and dramatic downturn in cases in Japan, which may or may not have been coincidental rather than causal.

These are all valid topics for discussion in chats but not for the encyclopaedic "definition" of a person. Somebody is abusing Wikipedia by including this as biographical material and exacerbating it by positioning it so prominently, with the words 'false claims' highlighted.

The "evidence" cited in footnote [3] is even more un-journalistic and unobjective, using slurs and guilt by association "In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead." ... The second claim is pointless and again should not be included in this profile: "another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said." a) it says he had not said it... so why is this a prominent detail in his biographical summary? b) anti-vax activists (of which he is clearly not one) used his video to make some or other claim. The Trump campaign used Neil Young's and Bruce Springsteen's music... that does not justify tarring Young or Springsteen as Trumpers does it!

May I recommend that you remove both these paragraphs - this is a supposed to be an objective biography section not a character assassination section written by someone with a grudge or political agenda. Thank you. My "qualifications" for this... Masters in Biological Sciences, 10 years reporting and objective documentary making for a major broadcaster, pro-vaxxer, pro-health, and yes I have watched several of Campbell's videos but have no connection with him. I have also followed much of the reporting on CNN, MSNBC, BBC and CBC. Fact and balance please, this is not the place for political or personal sniping, from either side! Thanks for reviewing! DiRoio (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DiRoio (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:ER, consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. FDW777 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that there is neither consensus for inclusion nor consensus for removal. If I'm not mistaken, typically material that has been challenged does _not_ remain in a BLP until consensus has been reached. But, as I mentioned - I may be mistaken on that point - wikilawyering is not something I have any skill in, so other editors can certainly clarify. Having read all of my bloviations, and others commentary, I am not in favor of excluding the material from the article. However, I do believe that my single edit of the article brought the material into proper balance by BLP standards; giving a third of the article space to the two matters that were fact-checked is just silly, and obviously gives undue weight to them, in the totality of Campbell's life. But we need consensus, not ownership and blockading. I believe my edit was a fair compromise. Anastrophe (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

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.

---

While attempting to make the following edit, the protected edit status refused to allow the link to a video immediately predating the video referenced by a claimant whose claims were not substantiated in the video. Confusing? Yes, which is why the following edit sets things in their proper perspective: On October 9, 2021, in response to the BBC's ivermectin-opposition article entitled, "Reality Check," Dr. Campbell stated, "Now, what is the fact that many people are anti-vaccine activists? Is that true? They give no evidence for that. Let's take me, for example, and a lot of other people I've been talking to. We are very pro-vaccination because we want to prevent human pain, suffering and death via disease. We are also very pro-treatment, if treatments are available, we want that treatment. I'm greedy. I want both. I want to help as many people as much as I can. That's what you go into healthcare for." In November 2021, Dr. Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was taken out of context and used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks.. The blocked link was the zy7c_FHiEac YouTube video. How Dr. Campbell's videos ended up on the blacklist is another matter, one that's of grave concern to many scientists, as Dr. Campbell has approached matters using strict scientific methodology, namely question everything, beginning with one's own hypotheses. Science is all about discovery. It is NOT about protecting agendas. In that respect, Dr. Campbell is an excellent scientist and a very good educator. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and WP:YOUTUBE is hardly ever acceptable, especially for biomedical topics. Please get consensus before requesting an edit. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 23 January 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

Peacheyreader (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No request. Alexbrn (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

—

looking at the trees not the forest

In almost every video John Campbell has stressed the importance of the vaccine and other non-medical safeguards such as mask wearing. Yes, he questions some data but overall, and many times over, he states that the deaths from Covid are underestimated. That is that there are more deaths from covid than governments make claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

All of which we have gone over more than once here (see the talk page above). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

When the errors haven’t been fixed, it doesn’t really matter that you went over it. It seems everyone can see how bad the article is, except for a few people who have the power to stop edits. DisCerno (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean experienced editors who understand our policies and how to apply them, as opposed to new users who do not, yes you are right. We reflect what RS say, if RS has it wrong there are mechanisms to address that. But until those RS are either contradicted by other RS, or retract their claims we must reflect what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@DisCerno The sources argument was settled in the AFD. The mandate coming out of that decision was to improve the article, not to remove anything based on disagreements about sources. I promised a couple of weeks ago to propose some edits here on the Talk page (I won't edit the article). I don't have much time right now and I wanted to look at the changes made by @Straybolt in detail before I try to suggest anything. Wikipedia doesn't promise to be 100% accurate about anything. It promises to back up what it says with sources that have been accepted as reliable. And until such time as consensus changes on any given article, the Wikipedia way is to live with what we have and keep working on improving things with minimal conflict. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Martinez: A reminder: Template:Reply_to You cannot directly type the "@" symbol to notify a user of your reply, you must use the template documented here or manually create a wikilink to their user page. The "@" symbol is used by this template for display purposes only.

Also, it is StrayBolt, with a capital "B". StrayBolt (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback but I'm still getting used to the reply interface/box which prompts you to pick a username when you type in the @ symbol. Perhaps it's a bug? Michael Martinez (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

Information does not cite misrepresentation sources in argument of opinions published. To publish slander, one must cite why stating citations of a professional published medical reference (ie; New England Journal of Medicine, etc) and no citations were given to back the misinformation published about Dr. John Cambell. This needs to be added to the commentary opinions in the Wiki that no evidence has been found or source to substantiate such claims. NakatsuMegami (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And please read the umpteen threads already about this. If people want to raise this again, can you please bring some new arguments backed up by sources. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

Remove - Initially, his videos received some praise, but later they veered into containing misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3][4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]

Replace with - Dr Campbell uses published data sources to discuss COVID-19 and other major health issues. He has admitted that some of his assumptions based on single data sources have been mistaken, but his assertions around vaccine safety, Vitamin D use and COVID-19 treatments have yet to be countered by established publications. He has been accused of making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3][4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. 164.134.2.67 (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read all the talk page threads discussing these matters already. You need to bring fresh sources to this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The lede is currently a good summary of the article, and properly neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove: In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6] Campbell's video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks.[6] According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to typos in the abstract, and a lack of methodology and data, but he did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant".[6] Replace with: In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6]

Reason: As the mRNA vaccines have been proven to cause heart problems, in particular myocarditis, the rest of the line is simply not relevant. Campbell reported this and his claim was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdj (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done answered above. Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Not supporting the contention, but there's nothing answered above about the particular claim made. The archives have some discussion of it, but not directly addressing this particular contention. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Technically you are correct, but this has been addressed before, its in the archives. Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It is "Dr. John Campbell"

It is 'Dr. John Campbell' to you. Your prejudice is not part of the real world/future. Name this article as it should be: "Dr. John Campbell" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.181.183 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, no, we do not do that for any article title. Except for Doctor Who, Dr. Dre, and Dr. Feelgood, of course. Zaathras (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I PROTEST!! ThEy arEN't evEn REAl DoCTorZ bUt YoU CalL TheM onE!!! (just kidding of course) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Technically yes, as he has a doctorate. But we do not tend (here on WP) to call people with academic doctorate doctors. Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The page that says it is MOS:CREDENTIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

Change "Ph.D. in nursing education from the University of Bolton.[8]"

To "Ph.D. in nursing from the University of Bolton.[8]"

Citation [8] that is listed at the bottom of this article states that his Ph.D. is in nursing, not nursing education. In it's current form, the wiki page is not correctly quoting the citation. Aberickson (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Unscientific Source

The referenced articles from the Website Health Feedback do not provide a link to the claims that they criticize. Hence, readers have to go to great lengths, in order to evaluate and doublecheck the criticism for themselves. This is bad style and indeed unscientific. If Health Feedback were convinced of its work, it would provide all necessary sources and links in a reader-friendly way. Niemandsbucht (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to "show their working" to editors' personal preferences. If you want to learn for yourself what thy're referencing that could be a side project for you, but has nothing to do with this article. Bon courage (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Dr John Campbell data.

There is so many things wrong with this article and there is so much missing information that it makes it a joke. Dr. Campbell has been a guiding light during this pandemic. Things I found wrong and misleading! 1. No mention of the CURRENT under reported number of cases and deaths coming out of China, showing that Dr. Campbell was correct in his early assumption. 2. No mention of the Meta Anylsis done on the studies of Ivermectin done by Theresa A. Lawrie A. MBBCH, PhD Who has worked for the WHO doing such studies. 3. No mention how the FDA labeled this medication as "Horse Medicine" on its site, when it's been used by millions of people. 4. No mention the reliable studies, published in accepted and reliable Journals, that Dr. Campbell reported on. 5. No mention of the lack of Government agencies reporting on the use vitamin D3 or sunshine as a defense against Covid, as Dr. Campbell and other doctors reported, when low levels of D3 were reported in people suffering severe Covid. While no,one was or could be expected to get all the correct information out there as soon as possible while the pandemic raged and mutated, Dr. Campbell did a much better job it, when I consider what Dr. Fauci told us during that time. I could go on, but this article is purely a "smear campaign" !!! 173.216.30.195 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This article follows what reliable sources say, not tinpot conspiracy sites. Zaathras (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And there is your first problem, Capbel is not an MD, he is a nurse. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Find some RS that link those things to Campbell. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Monkeypox parallels

The source cited for this claim seems to go against what was actually said in a video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E6cD-VWhQY, by the subject of this article. One could argue that the comment was meant to be taken tongue in cheek but semantically John Campbell explicitly states "We're going to just stick to the facts about monkey-pox, not Covid-19, not SARS-Coronavirus although you may draw some parallels" the sentence to me doesn't qualify as promoting a misleading idea. Furthermore even if you take the view of this does promote the idea of a parallel I certainly struggle with how the intention of Campbell was misleading.

In light of not having a better source for this claim, and the horses mouth being contradictory to what is written here, I have removed it. SuperiorWalrus^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we're not at all shocked that the vaccination denier comes out and denies - again - being a denier. Zaathras (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, I fail to see how your comment adds anything of value to my point? Your edit message was that the source is reliable, clearly there is doubt about this since the source itself relies on the video I have linked above which directly negates what is trying to be said.

Now you are the one spreading misinformation! I don't claim to be an avid viewer of Campbell's but his stance on vaccine is far from denial. SuperiorWalrus^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Campbell is trotting out the same, tired canards that he did with Covid-19 - trying to blame experiments in the Wuhan lab for the outbreak of monkeypox. The mn is a spreader of misinformation, as our article attests to. Zaathras (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification of your view, however respectfully disagree with how the source attests to the specific claim of drawing parallels. I would have no problem if you found a source which didn't solely rely on a video that directly negates the articles point. Since WP:BLP is quite clear that poorly sourced claims are to be removed I am going to restore my edit back, I would appreciate you leaving this in place until we can have a third opinion. SuperiorWalrus^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What you are claiming has no basis in reality. Campbell released a video containing false claims regarding monkeypox. A reliable source face-checked the video and noted his false claims. That's all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe not. That is why we do not use wp:or to analyze sources, we just say what they say. An RS watched the video analyzed it and commented on it. It is not poorly sourced. It should stay, or its detractors need to get RS saying our source is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this, I have concerns that parts of it - relating to the accusation of "misinformation" in the introduction - may not follow NPOV rules ( wp:voice ) unless the editors can justify the language usage. While I do agree with the sources used for citation - considering what others have said already here - I personally don't think we should be using what I see as "demonising" language here. Plus, I personally don't want a repeat of Facebook vs BMJ ( https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 ). I wouldn't know what to reword it to, just it rubs off the wrong way considering Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Again, just concerned, won't complain if nothing is done. 82.24.6.246 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Your concerns about NPOV are unnecessary. NPOV tells us to follow reliable sources, and they say it is misinformation. They also often say that what is says is false. It does not take a lot of understanding that "demonising" is something else entirely, and your use of the word where it is inappropriate is suspiciously polemical. Being wrong about something is not a property one would associate with a demon.

Regarding that Facebook/BMJ correction: It would be stupid to keep silent just to avoid ever being proven wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin D

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.

---

Dr Campbell has consistently championed the use of Vitamin D supplements and often appears in his videos with a toy black dog who is positioned alongside a tub of vitamin D. 2A02:C7D:93FD:C800:E475:5215:9B:227E (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Point? Zaathras (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If he's claiming its a treatment for Covid, its yet another example of him promoting pseudoscience (There IS evidence that most people have mild vitamin D defficiences. What there ISNT any evidence, is that it has any impact on covid, and the evidence on its impact on general health is debatable at best). If you wish to find citations for reputable sources stating that *HIS* references to it are correct, OR if you find sources stating what I have said above, it might become an addition appropriate to wikipedias standards. Duckmonster (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is WP:RS covering this aspect of Campbell's output. A general discussion of the topic is included at COVID-19 misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263069 Altairah (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440922000455?via%3Dihub Altairah (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2770157 Altairah (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/6703/section/116129 Altairah (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin D, part 2

Bon courage moved the goalpost; My replies above were to Zaathras' request for evidence that Vitamin D has an impact on Covid. Now Bon courage is making a new, separate request for sources about Campbell's citation of these sources. The discussion was archived as I was entering a further response. As this is a {{BLP}}, much more careful decision making is needed when choosing content, and it appears to me that this page is being "protected" from edits and constructive conversation by a few POV Warriors. (*Note: I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia as you may guess from my likely multiple format errors. I am referring this page for BLP oversight, as it is not currently up to NPOV standards.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altairah (talk • contribs)

1:wp:agf 2: read wp:npa 3:We do not mention his claims about Vitamin D. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion about specific changes to this biography, not for debate about Vitamin D or Covid in general. Noting that and closing the discussion is not 'moving the goalpost', it is noting that you are playing in entirely the wrong stadium. - MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 16 November 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.

Use of language in opening

I object to the use of unhelpful and frankly provocative language in the opening of the article; I recently made an edit which was quite reasonable but which was reverted. The current wording of the page does not include other viewpoints. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not a news source nor the arbitrator of the truth. The views of John Campbell are not pseudoscience as defined in Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS, but is at worst questionable science, described on the same page.

Of course I am not asking for an endorsement of the view, or even a change to the information present in the paragraph, it seems pretty sound to me, the wording, though, is not appropriate when there are in fact prominent fringe theories, true or false, going against what almost all scientists say. I understand that the purpose of the article is to present the scientific consensus, but it should be done in an objective manner. The current language implies that the fringe theories are false where in reality there is no complete consensus on the issues, for example even in this talk page the official consensus is that "Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive" . The article should also include a brief summary of the opposing views, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. Timeless99 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

As has been asked many many times, please provide wp:RS that support "other viewpoints". And no WP:FALSEBALANCE means we can't give Fringe theories the same weight as scientific consensus. So we need RS to contest the claims he did not promote "COVID-19 misinformation". Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources that support other viewpoints found on one of his videos that support a 'lab leak' incident: from the US senate: [13] from the Telegraph [14] Timeless99 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Which as far as I now we do not mention in the article, let alone the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course if you wish to add this we need to see some RS that actually discusses his views. So we can write about it in a way that does not rely on wp:OR or WP:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your involvement in this, I suppose that's the problem Wikipedia has with research, it follows only the main line. Timeless99 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:MAINSTREAM sources govern content so on Wikipedia, the Holocaust happened, the earth is not flat, prayer doesn't cure cancer and ... ivermectin is useless for COVID-19. This is a feature not a bug. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• There is consensus on ivermectin: there is no good evidence it's of any benefit for COVID and has been pushed by quacks, frauds, grifters and fools. We have an entire article on that: Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the lede I think "descended" could be changed to "veered" as original written. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)