Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the Expression of Concern from that journal's editor Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"

An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. 2001:818:E94C:D00:18FA:F52F:6A38:DF39 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We just say "no" and move on. The Wikipedia is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this article WP:MEDRS compliant?

After scanning through the references I'm seeing a lot of Politifact, AFP FactCheck, Atlantic, Guardian, BBC, and so on, but not a lot of WP:MEDRS sources, which is arguably required for over half of this article. Perhaps WP:PARITY is relevant here, but probably a lot of these references should be replaced with references to the medical research cited in each fact-check. The sources in the "Current Consensus" template at the top of this page are good examples. 0xchase (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think then issue is, that as nothing he says is, we do not really need any to refute it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes the sourcing is fine for what it is especially given the need for WP:PARITY, but there'd be no harm in 'pulling up' some of the underlying references assuming WP:SYNTH can be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

easally claimed! But Come with specific examples! 2A10:3781:47F4:0:F908:ADDE:288E:78F4 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There are in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)