Talk:Wolfgang Wodarg

Conspiracy theorist?

An article in the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph[1] dated February 6 uses the term conspiracy theorist to denote Wodarg. It is unclear whether the term is used by an interview subject or the newspaper itself. Due to BLP concerns over the pejorative connotations of the term I don't think the term should be used in the article unless several more reliable sources use it. __meco (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The article that mentioned him was actually from 2nd February 2010. [2] Cimbalom (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Critical voices https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:798F:12D4:1D29:A244 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Nutcase website, not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing is Dr. Wodarg investigated corruption and of interest conflicts relating to the medical industry in the past. That should be in the article. Or does that count also as "conspiracy theory" nowadays (It sort of is, if one points out collusion, racketeering and other con-scams that involve more than one person). --105.8.3.221 (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That depends on whether one has evidence or nothing but argumentum ex culo. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Maybe I'm confused, but there seems to be a lot of stated "factual" information here that doesn't have a reference to anything. Most of these claims are made on his personal website, but does this qualify as wiki-worthy information? At the very least I think there should be a "this article needs better citations" doodad at the top of the page, or that it be noted that this information is questionable and from personal testimony. - Vigilanti --24.202.147.144 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree (ten years later), so I've added BLP sources. Cimbalom (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

New article by him https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/covid-19-a-case-for-medical-detectives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:69D5:6CA4:AB4F:E92A (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed coronavirus controversy section

I removed the coronavirus controversy section, because it was based on self-published information. Two references were given: the first was a video talk by the subject himself. The second reference did not mention him. Cimbalom (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Noew the problem seems that the section is well sourced but somewhat undue (too big) whereas the rest of the article is still largely unsourced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Now his views are notable inasmuchas they have been widely refuted. So I have left a small section that briefly describes his views, and that many have commented upon them. But it is not reasonable to expound and argue the case for his views, referring to articles that don't even mention him (WP:OR, WP:UNDUE). And it is not reasonable to reference his own website, which is of course self-published (WP:SELFPUB). So I have removed those parts. Cimbalom (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

sentence to remove:

Chinese scientists published on March 5th a report that concluded that "in the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives", corroborating the questions Wodarg raised in the interviews.[8] The reference is: "Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients]. [Article in Chinese] Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 5;41(4):485-488. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200221-00144". However, this article was retracted. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32133832. See also: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/26/822084429/in-defense-of-coronavirus-testing-strategy-administration-cited-retracted-study?t=1586160134910

Controversies

I do not think we need the Controversies section. It contains a sentence about Gert Postel, which is not controversial, and a section about COVID, about which there already is another section above. I'll merge them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)