Talk:Robert W. Malone/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dr Malone

You are to give facts not opine . Dr Malone has factual data concerning all aspects of Covid. 108.233.129.6 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022 (2)

The statement: "a member of the scientific advisory board of EpiVax", in the 2nd paragraph of the careers section is false and should be removed completely. Epivaxwiki (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it, source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Slatersteven, can't really source a negative. There's also no sourcing specifically saying I'm not the Lord High Marshal of the British Marines, but that doesn't make it true. I did some looking and didn't find any secondary sources, just some primary stuff, like this, which says he's no longer on the board. Consulting services for EpiVax, 2005-2018 (member, Scientific Advisory Board), 2020. - Epivax, Scientific Advisory Board, 2012-2019. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sort of, but you could (for examp[le) point to the companies own list of staff and say "he is not on it". So what you have found would be enough (for me) to say an unsourced claim should be rmeoved.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, —PaleoNeonate – 02:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

In the first paragraph for the overview, a source is cited to show that Dr. Malone pedals misinformation. The source is source [1] from the Atlantic. This article is simply gossip and centers around people close to Dr. Malone, or people who do not know him very well at all (some only worked with him on a project or so). This source from the Atlantic does not cite or reference the studies and journals cited by Dr. Malone, and therefore, does not debunk any information shared by Dr. Malone. Please consider removing this source. 100.37.228.159 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The source does address the claim and seems reliable to me, however let's see what other editors who watch this article have to say. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

False information

How do you change false information on the page Veritas aequitas 20 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You say what is false, provide RS saying it is false and then ask for a change to be made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing False About It

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A professional in the field of virology and an inventer of vaccines but he is the one producing fallacies ? Come on now he is the only one speaking the TRUTH about all this and it is pissing the right people off. The ones that are making money off the deaths of humans. 50.27.242.246 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC) RS disagree, about almost all of what you said.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC) FYI, RS means "reliable sources"; see WP:RS. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not the truth. Ideally they are one and the same, but that's outide the purview of this encyclopedia. WP:NOTTRUTH. I would say he is definitely an mRNA pioneer/discoverer of transfection of mRNA turned outspoken Boomer, who has been pilloried by the mainstream press seemingly for both ordinary and sinister reasons, which is why I've advocated for more robust sourcing for his pre covid scientific bio info to avoid WP:RECENTISM. 2600:1012:B044:B442:5DBA:8C89:E9F1:3EF1 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Even of the assumptions you made were true, helping to invent a microbiological technique and judging the effectiveness of a medical intervention are totally different things and require totally different skills. Whether the medical intervention is based on the technique is neither here nor there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I completely agree. I may have a soft spot for eccentrics and may find it easier to look past his recent statements. What I see in his past was the prototypical proof-of-concept that could win him a Nobel. Transfection of unstable mRNA, to immediately produce protein for therapeutic effect, is really a novel idea that required quite a bit of imagination. And the more scientific RS (Nature) seemingly agree that his contributions were seminal, while less scientific RS (NYT) completely wrote him out of their history. Kariko herself said she "only" helped mRNA get past our body's defenses...and Feng Zhang "only" made CRISPR possible in eukaryotes. Who would we say invented CRISPR? It's neither here nor there--they all contributed enormously. We shouldn't judge people's present selves by their past selves nor their past selves by their present selves. Malone was an "underappreciated pioneer" and prior to becoming outspoken as a fringe figure was relatively unknown...his life deserves proper and fair scrutiny, as does every bio on here. Yes we saw George Floyd had a past, where his actions were completely dispicable, but he did his time, and that past should have no bearing on how he should be judged in his most known moments, not in a courtroom, and not on here. Everyone already knew Bobby Fischer was the greatest at chess and it was widely covered, so his descent into wacky antisemitic ideas later in life never led anyone to challenge his chess legacy, as it was undisputed. Malone never got widespread coverage in his heyday because science can be esoteric and proceed slowly or all at once. The RS who rightly categorize some of his views as fringe shouldn't be given carte blanche authority to simultaneously judge his scientific achievements as weak. The agenda to undermine his early contributions is all too obvious. 2600:1012:B044:B442:8D55:606C:C6AF:B1CB (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC) We can't make up his early history based on no sources. The RS, of which there are many, have detailed his claims of significance as being entirely valid - but not his claims of having invented the vaccines (which he has since revised his biography about several times, long with his CV). It's not an agenda to refute Malones agenda. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I meant an agenda in the mainstream nonscientific media, not necessarily on here. Seeing as I am an editor on here, it would be absurd for me to claim there is a cabal with an agenda on Wikipedia, unless I was delusional and unwittingly part of it...hmmmm. 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I don't think there is an agenda to discredit him, rather an agenda not to platform disinformation. As a result most of what Malone has said has garnered little attention other than to specifically debunk particular disinfo claims. They just happen to have been about inflating his early career and his significant importance. Similarly his recent foray into PopPsych drew little attention until it was clear it was achieving disinfo proportions across various venues. Koncorde (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Hob Gadling - what's your expertise that would lend credibility to your saying "helping to invent a microbiological technique and judging the effectiveness of a medical intervention are totally different things and require totally different skills"? Nothing specified on your user page. Do you assert you know more about the medical effectiveness than Malone? It doesn't make much sense that someone can invent a technology with no awareness of its efficacy. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) It's called general education. Judging the effectiveness of a medical intervention requires an understanding of medical statistics, and developing microbiological techniques does not. How can one not know that? But my "expertise" is neither here nor there. The point is that we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions, about the qualifications of scientists or about anything else. Allowing it would be a very bad idea, for several reasons, including the fact that some Wikipedia editors seem to lack the general education to do it correctly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Hob Gadling - So the answer is you have no professional medical credentials. "we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions, about the qualifications of scientists or about anything else" - Yet there you are doing so, and claiming insight into what is or isn't involved in what Malone did or does. I just wanted to clarify that if put in his place your "general education" would leave you without the vaguest idea where to even begin, and you have no idea what he knows and doesn't know. TheJazzFan (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC) "So the answer is you have no professional medical credentials" maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant. Please see WP:SOAPBOX/WP:NOTFORUM, WP:RS, WP:CITE. —PaleoNeonate – 02:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Of course it's relevant to his acting in contradiction to his own assertion - he's passing judgement on the scope of a credentialed professional's knowledge in the same breath as saying one isn't supposed to do that - "we as Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions, about the qualifications of scientists". But curiously you don't chastise him for soapboxing. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Bullshit. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions and put them in articles. Doing that is called WP:OR. Someone said on the Talk page that they wanted to do something that is clearly OR, and I said it was OR and that it was also wrong. I did not want to put my knowledge into the article. Stop this, you have no clue what you are talking about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Editors don't need special qualifications to read RS and summarize them. The voice of a person, scientist or not, also doesn't dismiss what WP considers RS. Even less the statements of official medical bodies and the results of international scientific teams, trials, or the statistics about the millions already vaccinated. While public opinion may, science doesn't revolve around specific individuals considered authorities (no matter qualified, they must go through processes like publication and peer review and it's part of the method to attempt to correct bias). WP appeals to authorities but they're reputably published sources. —PaleoNeonate – 07:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC) PaleNeonate "Editors don't need special qualifications to read RS and summarize them." - As he clearly stated Hob Gadling made assertions about the scope of Malone's knowledge based *not* on RS but solely on his "general education" - that's his response to my inquiry on this specific point. I was clarifying that Hob has no field-relevant professional credentials or intimate familiarity with what Malone does or doesn't know. Carry on. TheJazzFan (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I'd like to add, Malone is mentioned more than any other scientist in the Nature history article. In the NYT one he is not mentioned at all. Do ctrl+find+malone and see. 174.193.139.150 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Robert Malone has published close to 100 peer reviewed papers which have been cited more than 12,000 times. Seems pretty authoritative. Mirddes (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC) He is definitely more authoritative than some of his nastiest critics that have sought to marginialize him. I'm not going to name names, but many of his critics have far fewer citations and aren't medical doctors let alone immunologists, and due to their blue check they have carte blanche ability to "discredit" him? Of course he's authoritative, at least to anyone that matters; that's why some people consider him so dangerous. I don't think many editors here on Wikipedia are disputing that he is a legit scientist, though. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:2C85:EB9B:8074:12F (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Scientists sitting around a table and slamming publications down, and the one with the most publications wins and gets to say what is true, is not how science works. Arguing on Talk pages about who has the bigger publication penis is not how Wikipedia works either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Indeed, some will claim it's how one uses their scientific prowess, and Malone rubbed one too many people the wrong way; however, in the scientific universe, anyone will testify that citation count and h-indices do matter, despite what some will tell themselves to feel better about their unimpressive citation/publication count. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:B5D7:CCF8:5A35:6BA2 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Linus Pauling had two Nobels, but that didn't make him right about vitamin megadosing. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (Reads Pauling's Wikipedia page)...died in Big Sur, checks out. Pauling got his recognition prior to his smelly pee advocacy; Malone's "RNA as a drug" idea was dormant until recently. I must say I am very glad we are acknowledging he is a pioneer in the lede now and think the only thing the article needs is better coverage of his pre covid days. 174.193.197.145 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC) So how many papers has he had published on Covid?Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Censoring facts only because you disagree, is still censorship

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is nothing to suggest that Robert Malone MD is “spreading misinformation about Covid 19”, when he shared countless reasons and facts about his claims. His list of accomplishments alone should make people listen to him. He is a VIROLOGIST. You are censoring freedom of information by listing this as a troll page, and your opinion doesn’t change the facts. Kmarie628 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Assessing whether he has spread misinformation or not is not up to Wikipedians. Instead we simply compile/summarize what reputable sources report on Malone and if some of those assess that Malone has spread misinformation, we include that here as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) What you say is a problem of massive proportions. Anointing certain sources as reliable and others as not can generate egregious oversights. Yes there are sources that are outright unreliable, but we should never assume perfect reliability from any source. And we now see these oversights become entrenched facts, as is evident across wikipedia when it comes to issues where the fact of the matter is political and far too nuanced to be captured by mere deference to these so called "sources". We know for a fact that many mainstream sources function as organs of propaganda. But their game is subtle. It's not the outright censorship of former Soviet dictatorships; rather they control opinion by cherry picking information, committing errors of omission, and tainting the narrative with subtle and not so subtle emotional manipulation. If wikipedia becomes the mouthpiece for these "sources", then "may God help it". --SeldomTimely (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC) If you'd like to change Wikipedia's policy on this, the place to start is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, not this article's talk page. Here we have to abide by policy as it is. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Fair enough, and thanks for that link. But I don't see a pointed discussion there about quite the issue I'm raising, though perhaps I could start one. There are stories where sourcing CNN, MSNBC or FOX may be perfectly reliable. And there are also stories where sourcing these is highly, very highly problematic. Corporate media should not get a categorical stamp of approval, and there are overwhelmingly good reasons for this. I'll do my bidding and read more on Wikipedia policy to see if the procedures in place are as good as they could be in order to maximize truth/be conducive to it. But my current impression is that, whatever the policy is, it might not be fine-tuned enough to prevent sometimes outright propaganda from slipping through the cracks and get represented as fact. And finally, wikipedia should also not be a place where "myth of the metals" types of white lies get propagated even if they serve an honourable utilitarian purpose. --SeldomTimely (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC) I linked pages in the reversion for you to read so you can learn about how wikipedia works in my edit summary, but if you missed it, ill link it here: WP:TRUTH, WP:RS, WP:OR. Please read those and if you have issues with how we include our sourced material, feel free to voice your concerns then. 2600:1012:B006:C552:397E:8891:5EFD:50E1 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC) We see this censorship claim a lot but also relevant is WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If the claim is about the article itself, what is missing exactly? Please provide specific suggestions and cite sources. Talk pages are not discussion forums (WP:NOTFORUM). I had rightly reverted the original post that seemed redundant and non-actionable, but some editors insisted to reply. —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "We see this censorship claim a lot…" Well maybe if certain editors didn’t indulge in it so much, you wouldn’t see the statement that it is taking place. The quote, even a trimmed version, of Robert Malone’s words describing Mass Formation Psychosis, which thousands of Wikipedia users turned to the site to find out about, had certain editors enraged. Oh no, we can’t state what he said and what 11 million tuned in to Joe Rohan’s podcast to find out about. Oh no, that’s not allowed. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT didn’t apply, apparently, although it was fairly obvious that for certain editors, it did. So if this ridiculous censorship came to an end, so would the statements of others stating that it happens. Easy. Boscaswell talk 07:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC) WP:Fringe theories application isn't IDONTLIKEIT. The shortest way to describe it is one sentence of independent analysis avoiding a quote. A longer one could perhaps include the attributed quote but would still need to put it in proper context. Good sources about it exist for plenty of criticism. Would a whole other paragraph of criticism not be undue versus a sentence? —PaleoNeonate – 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Then provide an RS saying he is not speadgin misinforation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine mandate rally

Hi, my edit that changed the phrase anti-vaccine and anti-vaccine mandate rally to anti-vaccine mandate rally was recently reverted by Orangemike, with the claim that the information I "added" was incorrect (despite the fact that I did not add any new information). The stated goal of the rally was to "defeat the mandates", not to generally protest vaccines themselves, which is what the current iteration disingenuously implies. For example, from this Forbes article:

On Sunday, protester assembled for the “Defeat the Mandate” rally in Washington, D.C., right in the middle of a Winter Covid-19 surge. But instead of rallying against the virus, they protested Covid-19 vaccination and face mask requirements. [emphasis mine]

as well as this one:

Protestors marched from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on Sunday in objection to the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, drawing an array of sometimes controversial speakers and groups.

Even the article that is currently cited agrees:

Thousands of protesters from across the country — including some of the biggest names in the anti-vaccination movement — descended on the nation’s capital Sunday for a rally against vaccine mandates.

Seeing as how this meets the WP:RS requirement, I see no reason why it should be reverted. To conflate opposition to mandates and opposition to vaccination in general is intellectually dishonest. Nsophiay (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The post writes: 'The marchers carried posters and flags that included false statements such as “Vaccines are mass kill bio weapons”'. I'm not going to lose any sleep over characterizing it as an antivax rally. - MrOllie (talk)

Regardless of how it's characterized, it is quite poor writing to just state "on this date he spoke/appeared at a rally" and leave it as such. Like what is the context and significance? Is Wikipedia a daily newspaper telling Malone fans (or foes) what he did today and yesterday? I'm not saying it should be removed (as many would surely scream "white-washing!"), but without context it's about as meaningful as "in December 2020, Malone ate a pastrami sandwich". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Post does have a specific quote: 'Malone stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and falsely told thousands of cheering spectators that “the science is settled. They’re not working.”' We could add that. MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Would that make sense in 5 years? Or is it WP:RECENTISM? There is an entire WAPO profile on Malone that can provide context. Disregarding your own views of Malone or vaccines, ask: "how might a decent encyclopedia incorporate this info? How would American National Biography or Encyclopedia Britannica cover this event?" I can guarantee it would not be a mere quote or an isolated "on day X he did Y". --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So make a suggestion, then. MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who edits Wikipedia should demonstrate proof of passing a high school level introductory writing class that covers paragraph form, composition, sentence structure, grammar, flow, style, and so forth in the past 50 years. Alternatively, Wikimedia Foundation could use all those $3 donations to mail everyone a copy of Strunk & White. Lastly, Wikipedia:Writing better articles could be consulted. Unfortunately, "try make article good" is neither policy nor guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

So you don't think that it serves one of WP's goal, public education, to mention this activism, so that mislead people who fall victim to personality cults have the opporunity to read about it if they ever visit the article? Just recently a friend was telling me how he's a fan of a particular French personality and follows all his reports, how they're the best ones, how he knows his stuff, etc. I won't mention the name but WP has an article about that person that many mislead fans lookup to. Fortunately it at least mentions that it's misinformation. That friend will not get vaccinated and is vulnerable for severe desease or mortality at his age. Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me, especially when RS also mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 06:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but rather than gratuitously insulting whoever it was that initially made that addition, perhaps we should try to focus on making the article better. MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Facebook quite clearly said they refused to deplatform the organization of the rally because it was explicitly anti-mandate, not anti-vaccine, and I agree with that characterization and think we should emulate it. We could clarify it though. While it was "officially" an anti-mandate rally, it is true that there was plenty of trash-talking of the vaccine by speakers there. If you want to parrot the RS and say it was an "antivax" rally because Malone said the vaccines don't work as they claimed they would in the face of Omnicom (prevent spread and lead to herd immunity) and that he has bioethical concerns about young men and myocarditis, go ahead. Rather than platforming the correct information, Wikipedia will probably end up making people identify as "antivax" who wouldn't have otherwise with such clumsy use of the label...The country of Sweden recently declined to recommend vaccines for kids, so the idea is absolutely not fringe and the label not appropriate: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-recommending-covid-vaccines-kids-aged-5-12-2022-01-27/ Theyre not only not mandating it, theyre not recommending it. Also, I noticed some RS called Malone a "vaccine skeptic", not "anti vaccine"--I'm therefore not sure if it would be appropriate to use that label on Malone's page, "Skeptic" seems more appropriate. 2600:1012:B047:24C7:2C85:EB9B:8074:12F (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of your comment is WP:SOAPBOXING. I considered collapsing but decided to just leave it be, but if you keep at it, expect your comments to be hidden or removed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed some of the soap-y material. 174.193.130.251 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

In the first section of the Robert W. Malone biographical page, the last sentence of the paragraph should be edited to read that Dr. Malone "has been accused...of spreading misinformation..." The Wikipedia entry states unequivocally that Dr. Malone has misled the public, though that assertion is currently under debate and unclear given how much data and literature is available to argue both sides of the case. There is no reason for Wikipedia to take an unsettled stand in either direction; the entry should highlight that his credibility is in question, but should not also serve as arbiter of that dispute. ALChittur (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This will be a contentious change. Please seek consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree This article seems to have an aura of a non-neutral POV. EytanMelech (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for the unequivocal assertion that Malone has "spread misinformation." Including that sentence, unaltered, rather than the qualified assertion that he has been "accused of spreading misinformation" is what is contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.160.187 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Look at the article. The blue links are citations. —PaleoNeonate – 02:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

External links

Hi MrOllie, regarding your revert of Malone's Substack as an external link, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Substack is not linked from Malone's official page, so it meets the second criterion. And regarding the first criterion, the Substack appears to be updated through the present (updates within the last few days), unlike the blog on Malone's official website which has not been updated since last November, and appears to be the source of his current claims which have been discussed in reliable sources. So I think this is also significant unique content, and worth including as an external link. What do you think? Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Since it's been a couple days I am going to replace the external link to Malone's Substack due to the above reasoning for now. Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED - Clearly no consensus for this move RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Robert W. Malone → Robert Malone – A previous discussion (permalink) established that Robert Malone (American football) is not the primary topic for Robert Malone, but didn't establish any consensus to whether the virologist is the primary topic. Given how many pageviews this gets vs the football player, I think it's quite clear that he's the virologist is the primary topic, and disambiguation would be best done with a hatnote on his page (and therefore the disambiguation page currently at Robert Malone would be deleted for the move to be carried out).

Also noting that Robert W. Malone is frequently referred to his name as just "Robert Malone", far more often than as "Robert W. Malone", so if it's determined that he isn't the primary topic here, the title should still be moved away from using his middle initial as the disambiguator and to something else (such as Robert Malone (virologist)). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the previous RM: @Roman Spinner, Crouch, Swale, Randy Kryn, Ortizesp, Yaksar, and 力:. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please change it. But please don’t add (virologist). All that’s needed is a distinguish hatnote for the sportsman. And one on the sportsman’s page for this Robert Malone. Boscaswell talk 07:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment On his website (https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) he identifies himself as Robert W Malone MD. In the two scientific papers quoted in the Atlantic article (https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf and https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1690918) he is cited as ROBERT W. MALONE. GregKaye 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. My concern expressed in the previous discussion was that the subject in question's page views have been influenced by him being in the news, but as the page was only created six months ago there isn't a great way to account for long term significance without potential recentism. That being said, we're only dealing with one other subject of the same name here, and from biography alone its not clear the athlete has any more relative longterm significance, so I don't think I would oppose this (although I'd also be fine waiting longer).--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment He isn't a virologist, so that shouldn't be in contention as a qualifier. Neither is he an immunologist. He is a physician though. Perhaps Robert Malone (physician) ? Bob247 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Robert Malone (biochemist) would work better in my opinion because he is more well known for his mRNA development than general physician practices. EytanMelech (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that subject self-identifies with the middle-initialed name and is listed with the middle initial on Google Scholar. Also, there are four entries upon the Robert Malone dab page (listed in order of specified or extrapolated birth year) — 1) Robert W. Malone (born 1959), American virologist   2) Bob Malone (born 1965), American keyboardist, singer and songwriter   3) Rob Malone, Irish bass player for David Gray, performing since 1980s   4) Robert Malone (American football) (born 1988), punter. Thus, the existence of a disambiguation page listing four names would indicate that such a page needs to be retained, not deleted. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There were only two names when I opened this RM. I agree that since there are now more than two listed, the page should be kept and moved to Robert Malone (disambiguation). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comment and per WP:NATURAL. As confirmed above by Greg Kaye [at 10:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)], the middle initial "W." is part of Malone's pen name and is used with sufficient frequency to qualify, alongside the plain "Robert Malone", as his WP:COMMONNAME. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL and the sources noted by GregKaye which show that the middle initial is in common use. --Jayron32 20:37, 8 February 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.

Images uploaded to Wikimedia

I contacted Dr. Malone for some freely licensed photos for this article and he emailed me back two pictures stating that they are freely licensed. I'm not the greatest at uploading pictures to articles, if someone else could check out my Wikimedia uploads.Somers-all-the-time (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's added Somers-all-the-time (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Somers-all-the-time: If you have received permission, you should forward it, or better yet ask Malone to forward explicit permission, to Commons:Volunteer Response Team. The copyright holder (whom is usually the photographer not the subject unless contractually arranged otherwise), needs to verify their images can be freely used for all purposes, not just on Wikipedia for instance. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I sent him a link to the email template for the volunteer response team, but he didn't give any response following that. So, I guess we'll wait and see if those images can stay. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant citation

The citation https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9EU9W7-1 infers wrongdoing in Malone's tweeting (on 'Jun 26') a scientific paper that was only submitted for a retraction on 1 July 2021 that was only published on 2 July 2021. The article only says that the tweet is no longer available which may just mean that Malone deleted the tweet. What is the relevance of this article? GregKaye 12:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It says what it says, that is why it is relevant. Of course, it may no longer be available for many reasons, but we go with what RS say, not what we assume.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Questioning the authority

What "experts" does wiki use to be able to state this doctors in formation about corona virus vaccines, specifically mRNA inhibitors is not correct and thereby label it as misinformation. Show us "your" credible resources. 75.167.237.118 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We do they are in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They're linked in the article. Click on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The article can use standard reliable sources and summarize what they have reported in relation to Malone, but for statistics about the safety and effectiveness of current vaccines I recommend looking at the official websites of major medical bodies like the CDC and the WHO, instead of what a particular person or scientist says. In relevant articles, Wikipedia usually relies on WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 16:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS means "MEDically Reliable Sources". -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the title is "questioning authority", maybe I should add that there are people who believe that those authoritative sources are biased and many people fear vaccination for a number of reasons. Wikipedia has articles about this, like Big Pharma conspiracy theory and Vaccine hesitancy. —PaleoNeonate – 18:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There are people who believe in the flat Earth, in the moon landing hoax conspiracy, etc. But Wikipedia does not take into account their belief systems when writing topics on the Earth or Apollo 11. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

He mentioned we attended Santa Barbara City college while on the Joe Rogan podcast. 2600:1700:BB80:2910:D0C:C3F6:BCE1:40D8 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

MAybe, but in what capacity?Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 31 January 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we self source and say he went to SBCC and that he was a carpenter before that? By saying "Malone said that prior to attending UC Davis, he attended SBCC and was a carpenter prior to that." Why would anyone inflate these credentials? Is SBCC more prestigious than Cuesta College? Is being a carpenter more prestigious than being a janitor? Is that why we have to assume he could be inflating anything? Why can't we just self-source these things and attribute it to him. Apparently the entire rogan episode is in the congressional record. So the carpenter and sbcc claims will be there. Can we cite that? Also will like to add this: it seems likely Malone was in an NIH funded Medical Scientist Training Program. https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2014/07/mstp_50th_anniversary/ Northwestern was one of the first three to receive NIH funded MSTP scholarships in 1964 though it had awarded a joint degree since 1928. Feinberg's online alumni directory doesn't go back far enough though: https://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/sites/mstp/about/alumni/alumni-directory.html

For those unfamiliar with MSTP or MD PhD programs, the idea is the first two years of med school (heavy bio coursework) will precede the PhD portion, which is completed prior to the clinical years (3 and 4) of medical school. Oftentimes people can complete the PhD portion in a shorter amount of time (3 or 4 years) since intro grad bio coursework is oftentimes similar to the first two years of med school. These people usually finish residency (if they do one, because it isn't always necessary, as they're very well equipped to do research too) well into their 30s and as a result, the NIH pays a full scholarship, to make it a more reasonable financial proposition. The dates of Malone's education follow this: he didn't defend a thesis due to a falling out (it happens), got a "consolation MS" at UCSD, also in La Jolla and a "sister institution" of Salk, and went back to Northwestern to finish his MD. So he did what you're supposed to do...I wish we could get some better sourcing though, because he said he worked with some very high level people at Salk who probably have Wiki articles during the AIDS crisis, and that would give a lot of interesting and good context here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B023:44CA:1540:6A1C:A84D:CBAF (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC) 2600:1012:B023:44CA:1540:6A1C:A84D:CBAF (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, in what capacity?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the hierarchy of carpentry is, nor the history in California. Maybe he was a unionized carpenter? Maybe he was an unlicensed contractor? Is that what you mean? And as for SBCC, he would be an enrolled student? California's community colleges are open to admission to all residents, and you don't necessarily have to seek a degree. So do we even need to say what capacity? He was a community college student. Or do you mean like he could have been a Goodwill Hunting character like Matt Damon, who was actually a carpenter at SBCC, but had innate genius that took him places, but was never a student? How many capacities can you be at a community college? Do you mean he could have audited classes? These are all absurd possibilities in my opinion that are nothingburgers since we're attributing the claims to him anyway. 2600:1012:B061:AB01:A41A:5DEB:6F8A:BFC3 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as otherwise its pointless trivia that tells us nothing. For all we know he studied macrame or basket weaving. Content actually has to tell us something and "he went to a college" tells us nothing. Yes (by the way) they are his claims it is what he said. It is a strange type of wp:puffery that does not increase the academic reputation one jot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe my point of view in this day and age is akin to permanently wearing rose-tinted goggles, but I don't think it's pointless trivia that someone could go from being a carpenter to pioneering RNA as a drug. I would love to be wrong...that would mean that we live in a far more egalitarian world today than some would want us to believe. 174.193.194.59 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is also wp:or as we do not know if he worked as a carpenter or studied it in school. We would need an RS drawing this conclusion. All we have is his claim this is what he did, which means (as I said) it can be argued to be pufferySlatersteven (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC).

This entire time i have been advocating for saying "According to Malone"..... 2600:1012:B00F:5DB3:7917:5B9D:16C0:B61A (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I get that, but I am still not seeing what this adds. You want to add this as you think it says something about Malone, I do not agree it does say anything about him. Not in and of itself, its trivai.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation is not a proper term

Using "misinformation" is not a verifiable term given the large amount of varied medical opinion, including Dr Malone's, regarding the treatment and use of vaccines. Controversial is an appropriate term as it leaves a factual and non-biased cover. 2600:1003:B868:54E5:D88D:5FC:FFB1:5B0 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is as RS say it, thus it passes wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The term itself implies that his claims are objectively false, clearly taking a side, violating NPOV. Hrmpk (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And that is what RS say, so that is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You should actually read WP:NPOV instead of just throwing the abbreviation at people. It says, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That clearly allows us to call something false when reliable sources call it false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What does "RS" mean? Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources (as in wp:rs). Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Claim is right

That Malone is "the inventor of mRNA vaccines" is clearly false, so "claimed" is the right word. "Said" is WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:CLAIM says, To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, which is exactly what we should do here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Or some other forms of words "portrays himself" e.g.. "Said" is off-hand to the point of POV. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think "portrays himself" works better. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's asking for a bit of heavy lifting on a single word. I think either wording works fine and it is more important that the details of the claims/sayings/portrayals/promotions as well as the rejoinders be explained clearly. jps (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As I was saying, MOS:SAID is not an absolute and there are instances like here where "claimed" would absolutely be the right word to use. I've put in "portrays himself as" if that will avoid the complaints about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Hob or Alexbrn. Stating that he merely "said" it is too weak - he rigorously defends himself as "the" inventor. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This Politifact article used the phrasing "Malone has billed himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines." which I think gets the point across well. - MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My view is that "claim" shouldn't be used to describe a statement unless there is no (significant) evidence in support and all evidence suggests otherwise. Because Malone has done work which has been described by some individuals mentioned in RS (and this article) as highly significant to mRNA vaccine development, and because the assignation of credit for an invention can be subjective, I was concerned that in this case "claim" might be too strong. But I do also agree with the point as explained above that saying he "said" might be too weak. Anyway, what's currently on the page, "Malone promotes himself as...", seems to be a good fit. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal action being taken

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

---

I note that this person has begun legal action in respect of some of the claims we repeat in the article. I have therefore deleted them iaw WP:BIO WP:LIBEL.Springnuts (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference for the legal action is here: [[1]]. Springnuts (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Springnuts: nothing in this article counts as libel. Wikipedia is not censored. ––FormalDude talk 06:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

He hasn't begun legal action. It's just a blustery letter. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

When (and if) the courts find in his favour we can reword it to says that the claims had been dismised by a court of law. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified." - let us know when it has been identified. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we just remove it because Malone doesn’t like it, and because it would be nice thing to do? One kind act, paid forward, can amplify into multitudes, like Putin ending the war in Ukraine. 2600:1012:B014:5F9F:987A:86C3:AAA1:55C2 (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, as WP is not censored. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Non. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe yes if he wins a potential lawsuit. But for now, no. X-Editor (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The claim that Malone has begun legal action is false, and such a claim indicates that you didn't read the reference you cite. We'll see where this threat leads, but past cases (for example, this) suggest that all Malone can reasonably expect is a smaller balance in his bank account (see this). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians do not jump when someone on the internet snaps their fingers and says "I don't like what it written about me!". Next time, investigate first before this kind of knee-jerk blanking. ValarianB (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

April Fools' Day interview

Malone made the weekly fake news roundup by the Associated Press, saying in an interview with an unnamed website on 1 April 2022 that COVID vaccines cause immunosuppression. I don't know whether this is worth mentioning in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you know what April Fools’ day entails? 2600:1012:B014:5F9F:987A:86C3:AAA1:55C2 (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

We all do, but the fake news roundup referenced by WhatamIdoing is not a hoax article. jps (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really, as he says a lot of stuff. We need RS to decide this is more noteworthy than the rest of what he says. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Unbiased

Unbiased means neutral comments. Calling something misinformation instead of pointing out statements and facts to support or to deny claims is biased. Calling something false without explaining what it actually false is also biased. Reaching conclusions is rare when being totally neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:447F:9CB0:49EA:5AB:12E2:1C41 (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it means wp:npov which means we reflects what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is why a lot of people don't consider Wikipedia to be an unbiased source anymore. Whoever curates that list of "reliable sources" controls the truth on this platform. Wikipedia has a lot of libel on its hands. It's such a pity, because I thought this site had so much promise back in 2001. Edsanville (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes from strength to strength, so far as I can see, and that the only people getting upset by it are the idiots/cranks whose stupidities don't get traction. What is your evidence for this "lot of libel on its hands" you're claiming? Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

For real, the article has heavy bias in the first paragraph.

And a user here resorts to name calling. What's going on here? Scientificaldan (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, as to name calling if you have an issue take it to wp:ani, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. Alexbrn, you seem to be allowing bias by removing my edits, which aim not to defend Malone, but remove the severely negative framing and conclusion forming statements which are currently live. Editor976 (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, while I share a view similar to Alexbrn on this issue and disagree with the edits made thus far, I also agree that the current wording can be seen as biased from a reader's perspective. Would "is widely attributed to have promoted" rather than "has promoted" be a satisfying compromise? Alternatively, would the discussed content better serve the "COVID-19 research and controversy" section?(Apologies if I've made any mistakes posting this here, I'm very new) Rickyflare (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's widely attributed then it's unnecessary to make a distinction. That'd be like "Elvis is widely claimed to be dead" when all reliable sources say that he did in fact die, and 0 sources say he is still alive but some randoms speculate about it. We don't write content to leave gaps for conspiracy theories or WP:FRINGE. Koncorde (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Whilst in the name of wp:balance that might seem to be fair, we must also be wary of false balance, when we have only one side of a debate except for "some bloke down the pub". Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I see, that is definitely a fair point @Slatersteven. While I'd personally prefer the more emotive (as evidenced by the threads below XD) text to be in the body of the article, I can see why the current wording stands. Thanks for clarifying! Rickyflare (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

PP

I have asked for page protection, if we are having to deal with SPA socks I have better ways to spend my time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Heavy bias needs addressing.

Given that this topic is controversial and challenging, I am amazed at the level of bias throughout this article. My early attempts to correct this by softening the language and harsh framing, to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts, have been consistently reversed.

Despite Dr Malone being heavily criticised during the pandemic and today, Wikipedia ought not to bow to "going with the masses" or go to ng along with mainstream media reporting, and should be a neutral, balanced read.

For example, the claim in the introductory paragraph is that Dr Malone has promoted misinformation. Who decides what misinformation is? Surely where articles have been written criticising him in this way, Wikipedia ought to remain neutral, by merely describing the accusations, rather than stating as fact that it's misinformation?

Let's discuss. Editor976 (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with mainstream respected sources and clearly identifies fringe views as such, for neutrality. See WP:NPOV and in particular WP:GEVAL. Also WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Who decides what misinformation is? From your language My early attempts to correct this, you seem to think it is you and nobody else. Wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And I don't think it's me who decides what misinformation is. The point I'm making is that this article contains few referenced sources which amount to scholarly critique, and lots of opinion pieces from journalists who clearly are biased in their framing of the issue. For this article, it appears that the original writers are unaware of the many published, scholarly critiques of COVID 19 Vaccination which form the basis for / support Dr Malone's views. This alone means that it is biased to phrase the introductory paragraph in such stark terms. I'm not claiming to be the arbiter of misinformation, but might be more aware than the original author of other sources which invalidate the black and white claim that him spreading misinformation is a fact. Editor976 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You offer zero sources, but your own antivax opinion instead. There are zero respectable sources that are "critiques of COVID 19 Vaccination "; such material is only found in the crank-o-sphere. Fringe bollocks can be called out by any decent source, see WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, that last sentence should read: "other sources which invalidate the black and white representation of him spreading misinformation". Editor976 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine, then produce some. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea who I am or what my views are. I'm not at all anti vax. I didn't have time to complete my editing because by the time I had published the first bit, even minor edits had been reversed. I'm happy to reference, but need more than 15 minutes to complete them. I also referenced every addition I made. You are clearly so blinkered in your POV that you don't understand the literature. I never brought up anti vax. Criticism isn't anti vax. That's a term you used, and it betrays your own bias.

Editor976 (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll get the references done first, then make a new edit. Editor976 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I would rather you posted your suggested text here first, so we can save the time of having to revert if they are not up to scratch. If your edit were already referenced, and were rejected that means they will be rejected again. Also read wp:npa, all you have done is make me warry of the likely push of your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Can not prove there is misinformation

I didn't agree the content sentenced that he "promoted the misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines" as nobody including existing experts can prove that he is wrong. It is not yet a fair moment to say he promoted "misinformation" as we know nothing about the side-effect from mRNA vaccine after 10 or 20 years.

I suggest the statement should be edited as "he promoted the different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccine.” Ldlch2 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That you know nothing does not mean that nobody knows anything. It is very possible to spread misinformation on a subject although there are known unknowns. Reliable sources call it misinformation, so we call it misinformation. Your agreement is not required. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You may not agree, wp:RS do. We go by what RS say, and not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

Original： During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][4][5][6][7]

Suggested edition： During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted different view and opinion about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Ldlch2 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia follows reliable sources. The WP:GEVAL fallacy you espouse is forbidden by policy. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And please read all the talk page comments about this issue already. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy

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

---

I propose to change, in the first sentences, "Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy..." => "Malone has promoted alternative information about the safety and efficacy..." 150.145.142.9 (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

See all the threads above and in the archive about why this will not be done. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 24 October 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.

Vandalism

To "manually archive" this discussion after merely 9 days for being long is one way to avoid losing an argument. How is this following the encyclopedia's rules-based order? —89.206.112.12 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to read wp:npa, and this is not the place to discuss user actions, that is their talk page or wp:aiv (I would advise against going there). Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I did and no provision of it was violated. How come you have the last word on literrally every single section of the entire talk page? —89.206.112.12 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This needs closing as off topic. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Although yours might be "the last comments as they cannot be improved upon", Malone's spike toxicity claim remains unadressed in the article. —89.206.112.12 (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We mention them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now added the claims made about his claims. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well done. Albert and Janine would certainly agree that your erudite edit "cannot be improved upon". —89.206.112.12 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First off, there is more than one vaccine in use, made by more than one company. Secondly, I see no reference to spike toxicity or Malone. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The burden is not on Malone or the public to proof toxicitiy, but with the applicants to proof lack thereof. The citations form Reuters and Politifact only find lack of evidence, which the article then erroneously potrays as proof of safety. A balanced article would point out, that - as they are only required for regular, but not for emeregency drug approval - almost no toxicological findings have been published by the applicants to date and the S-protein's full safety profile remains unknown to the public. To call Malone's reservations on toxicity misleading is thus misleading the reader about the extent of current knowledge. But who am I to question Authority? —89.206.112.12 (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. We use a very specific set of sources to determine medical claims and their veracity. see WP:MEDRS. If there are no medrs that prove toxicity, we will not say there is toxicity. Simple as that. If you wish to change how Wikipedia determines the veracity of a medical claim, you should take that to another page, such as WT:MEDRS or WT:BMI. This is not the venue for such a discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are no MEDRS that prove safety, why does this article say there is safety? —89.206.112.12 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There are countless MEDRS saying the approved COVID vaccines are safe and effective e.g.[2] Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

... and 53 references currently in the article. Count them. - Roxy the dog 14:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Of the 53 references currently in the article, only 10 are MEDRS, 3 of which are from Malone and 3 predate SARS-CoV-2. None of the remaining 4 contain toxicologic data on SARS-CoV-2's S-protein as required in regular clinical trials leaving its safety unproven. This is insufficient to evaluate either Malone's toxicity or the FDA's safety claim. —89.206.112.12 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't need WP:MEDRS to call out medical bullshit. Any sensible source will do. See WP:PARITY. 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. We use a very specific set of sources to determine medical claims and their veracity. see WP:MEDRS. Even though you consider it bullshit, they should be included in the article as informed consent requires their disclosure. If there are no medrs that prove safety, we must not say there is safety. Simple as that. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DFTT.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I did set the archive age to seven days (i.e. lower than the nine days that thread went without a response) before manually archiving it. (The archiving time was later reduced even further). This sort of aggressive archiving is needed on extremely busy talk pages like this one. I'm not going to get involved in this discussion any further. Graham87 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)