Talk:The Real Anthony Fauci

This Article is Very Skewed Away From the Point of the Book

I read the book. The book does quote people on the crazy anti-vax side, but it does so as quotes of their opinions.

The book represents an excellent journalistic approach to what is going on in the world, with specific attention played to Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institutes of Health) and Bill Gates (co-director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and their influence over vaccine research almost the world over.

Some of the facts in the book were so horrifying that I had to take a break from reading it more than once. These are facts backed up by references. The references are easily followed when reading an electronic copy of the book. I was unable to find a single case in the dozens of references I reviewed where Mr. Kennedy changed the facts. There were a couple of cases where he cherry-picked parts of what was said in research papers, but in general these were extracting the damning facts that were being whitewashed by researchers who were paid by pharmaceutical companies.

On my opinion, the article about the book misrepresents the book and should be rewritten to more accurately reflect the actual arguments made in the book.

At least the many people who have read the book know what is going on, although it is hard to follow, even for people with a strong non-professional background in the biological sciences. Todd Bezenek (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This article represents what reliable reviews say about the book. What those sources say about the book is what is represented here, as Wikipedia is not the place for original research on subjects. Silverseren^C 02:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments @Silver seren.

(Side note: I have read all of the articles concerning the intent of Wikipedia and one of my closest friends got his Ph.D. next to me and now is a major person at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not trying to be a crazy Wikipedia zealot, as I have seen many times reading the banning documents.)

That is a good point. Perhaps an excerpt from a news article about one of the horrific things discussed in the book?

The entire intent of this book is to discredit Anthony Fauci. I doubt any of the reviewers--unless they were medical people--would have been able to absorb the book. It took me about 80 hours to read it. How long does a book reviewer spend? Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How about one paragraph about researchers testing chemotherapy drugs that burn people form the inside out at clinics in the United States which have been subsequently shut down? Even worse, after they are shut down, the tests are then done on people in Africa who do not have the ability to consent because they do not even understand what is being tested on them. One paragraph with reference from the book, not references to the book? Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should write this article based on your comprehensive and credible but also not published assessment the topic, instead of what reliable sources said about the topic? CT55555(talk) 04:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. I was only trying to fix something I thought was wrong. No problem. I've got more important things to do. :) Todd Bezenek (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So you have some RS sayong what you say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If "RS sayong" means "reason for saying", then my reason is the book the article is written about is intended to do one thing, which is evidenced by its title. That is to show what has happened to a pillar of our scientific community (Dr Fauci) over time. 90% of the book is about that subject, which includes Bill Gates, because of the money Mr. Gates is putting into the global pharmaceutical industry using the World Health Organization (and other global health organizations like UNICEF) and Dr Fauci's organization (NIH) as spigots.

This issue is of particular importance to the health of the world's population and the United States indirectly, because of the upcoming presidential election in the US.

Robert Kennedy's respectability as a whistleblower on behalf of the health of the world's population (and not over ivermektin and hydroxychloroquine (I&H)) is going to be a major factor in whether or not he becomes the President of the USA in 2024.

I&H are not the main problem. The main problem is anti-viral medications, including the chemotherapy drugs which have been tested on children in US hospitals in the late 20th century and after that testing was discovered, moved overseas to the African continent. In a significant (5-20%) portion of test subjects, these drugs either burn the subject from the inside or cause renal or hepatic failure. These drugs are being given to the children of parents who are unable to conceive of proper consent because of the lack of knowledge about modern medical procedures in their society. They don't know how dangerous the drugs they are allowing doctors to test on their children are. THIS is the statement the book is making. It is a statement none of the reviewers caught. It also makes up a majority of the book.

The book has thousands of referenced peer-reviewed journal articles and news articles by respected news sources (not CNN/FOX/RT/pick your currently non-respected news outlet) supporting its contention that what I discuss above is happening. During the 60-80 hours I spent reading the book and chasing references online to verify the author was being truthful, I was made sick to my stomach and had to put the book down until at least the next day.

I am in no way associated with any political party nor am I paid by anyone involved in this debate. In fact, I am an unemployed engineer (electrical engineering and software engineering) living in Silicon Valley, USA.

I have to get back to studying for interviews. If you reply to this I will read it.

Cheers!

Todd Todd Bezenek (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

RS means WP:RS. Your contribution is based on a wrong assumption. (Several wrong assumptions, of course, for example the ridiculous one that Kennedy is a credible source.)

@Slatersteven: better use the link instead of just the abbreviation in the future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional wrong assumptions:

• that a lawyer like Kennedy or an engineer like you is qualified to judge the content, result, quality and reliability of medical studies.
• that lawyers (like Kennedy) will impartially use any reliable source, instead of only those sources that sound like supporting their ideas.
• that quackery advocates (like Kennedy) will impartially use any reliable source, instead of only those sources that sound like supporting their ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hob: You do make a good point. I'm only an engineer.

I spent a long time writing this (over an hour), so please take 3-5 minutes to read it.

We need to find someone who is credible in the area of vaccination research. There is one. I can't remember his name but I can find him. He was a pillar in his area of research in the world and a faculty member at Berkeley. He criticised the idea that vaccines were the best solution for everything and his career was destroyed.

There are people at the top of their game who disagree all the time, but people don't feel the need to destroy their career to shut them up. For this I'll address something for which I am an expert. You can look at the Wikipedia article describing the DeWitt Clause. This was caused when David Dewitt (an acquaintance of mine) published a paper showing that Oracle's database was slower than the competition. Larry Ellison (the guy who started Oracle) still hates David DeWitt, but nobody lost their career over anything. Today, David is the head of the Jim Gray Microsoft Research Lab, which does cutting edge database/cloud computing research. Back to the book.

The argument here is not that vaccines have no place. It is that the mechanism for driving medical research has been hijacked by patentable medicines. It works this way: a company takes an old, discarded chemotherapy drug. They repackage it as a different mixture (more saline or whatever stabilizing agent they have to use to preserve it until it burns its way into the patient) which makes it sellable for $10,000 per treatment. Then, in order to get it approved, they test it on children in Africa.

There is nothing written in the above that has to do with vaccines, other than the fact that the money to be made from perfectly good vaccine research led to this terrible use of children to test chemotherapy drugs which are known to be highly dangerous on perfectly healthy children in Africa. And, the papers that were published state the fact--all but how many people died.

So, there is a leap-of-faith that has to be taken here. We have to believe that a chemotherapy drug which was shown to cause renal/hepatic failure in 5-10% of adults when they were given it before it was withdrawn from the market decades ago for safety concerns will actually kill children if it is given to them today. It will. There is no leap-of-faith.

A reasonable person would say, "Isn't it fine to give adults these drugs because they are going to die from cancer?" I'll say, yes! Give the adults the drug because they are going to die and they can make the choice. But, do not give the drug to children in New Jersey--which caused deaths proven by children's bodies piled in a mass grave--or to children in Africa who are being experimented on because of consent given to doctors in exchange for basic medical care by parents who do not understand how dangerous these drugs can be.

If it is not possible to convince a Wikipedia editor to do a little reading to save a bunch of children, then there is no point. I did what I could.

Cheers!

Todd

p.s. I would be perfectly happy if you said you see how the premise of the book is believable, but Robert Kennedy's credibility has already been destroyed by his earlier public statements. That is a good reason to not put the information out there. The only thing that has me upset is I saw terrible things in this book and when I say there are terrible things in the book I like to be acknowledged. I studied how to research ideas to get to the bottom of what is true and I did so under the guidance of many of the most recognized researchers on the U. of Wisconsin, one of the most recognized research institutions in the world.

One of the people I studied under won the billion-dollar lawsuit against Intel. I studied and learned for 16 years. Doing good research is the same whether it is in the computer sciences, electrical engineering, artificial intelligence, or in deducing whether or not someone likely experimented on children. One of the keys is recognizing when a person does not understand something. So, a person must read enough to be absolutely certain. In the case of the chemotherapy drugs I am certain. I am in no other case. But, the whole book leads up to that one, sickening case. I'll never forget it. Mengele did worse, but not by much.

The doctors who did the study should be ashamed of themselves. Just like the people who listened to Hitler and killed all those nice people back in the 1930s and 1940s, they followed the money and did what they did. And, I am not Jewish, Romany, homosexual, mentally handicapped, or suffering from any of the other things that caused Hitler to want them killed.

I wish Robert Kennedy had titled the book, "What went wrong with the global health system" and only written about the chemotherapy drug studies. But, he had to tie everything to the stupid anti-vax movement.

Robert Kennedy might be a hard-working lawyer fighting for people who have been damaged by environmental contamination, but he will always be an anti-vaxxer. I'd rather have an anti-vaxxer who has never hurt anyone in his life running things than any alternative.

You are right. I just want to see a decent person running what is still the most powerful country in the world for a while. China has a supercomputer that uses 15,000,000KW!) I was in the audience when the researcher from China presented the "God" processor paper detailing the design. It was designed to be able to be used to build the fastest fixed-point supercomputer in the world--and China did it. This makes me afraid for my descendants. And yours. And everyone's.

Whew! He kicks the soapbox to the side and tries to get a couple of hours sleep before the day starts. :) Thank you for reading. Todd Bezenek (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX is exactly the right word. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum. It is not for walls of text: I stopped reading after a few sentences.

If you want to research what is true by diving into sources or to confirm certain beliefs by sniffing out someone with the belief you want to confirm, you are in the totally wrong place. Wikipedia is for exactly reproducing what reliable sources say, and nothing else. As far as this page is concerned, we check what experts publish about this book, and that's it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse, @Hob. You just said two things:

1. [We] reproduce what reliable sources say.

2. [W]e check what experts publish about this book.

So, are book reviewers experts? If so, how do you determine a book reviewer is an expert? Is it if they publish in one of the reliable sources listed on Wikipedia's reliable sources list? If I have this correct, then I understand. Please confirm.

Cheers!

Todd Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

are book reviewers experts? Not necessarily. how do you determine a book reviewer is an expert? There is no simple recipe anyone can apply; WP:CIR. s it if they publish in one of the reliable sources listed on Wikipedia's reliable sources list? Not necessarily. A reliable source is reliable within a certain scope. If the subject is stocks, Wall Street Journal is probably a RS; if the subject is climate change, they are not.

Explaining the basics does not belong on this page; there should be a place where it is appropriate but I cannot think of it at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Thank you for sticking with the discussion. I appreciate it! I don't know Wikipedia markdown, so most of the stuff below is raw text.

Below, "FaucI Article" refers to the article this talk is about. Each of my conclusions is in bold. If you don't read anything else, please read the bold parts.

I believe we are getting to the root of the issue! Stick with me please. Here I am addressing each of the issues you mentioned, in order:

o WP:CIR refers to the competence of the person adding to Wikipedia. I'm competent, so this is not relevant based on what you said.

o You are saying that even if someone publishes in a "reliable source", they are NOT reliable unless they are an expert. Book reviewers are experts on books. Does this make them an expert on all books? No. So what to do? Find a reviewer who is an expert at medicine? Yes! None of the reviewers mentioned in the Fauci Article fit this case, so most of the stuff in it is non-reliable. This is a fact based on what you said.

o You are an expert on Science and Pseudoscience. I know it because you say this on your Wikipedia Talk page.

o I believe we have already covered the basics. That is why you don't know where to look. You are obviously an expert at Wikipedia, so if you don't know where to look, it means it is not there.

What to do next? From what I see, we either have to wipe most of the Fauci Article or find someone who is better expert on Science/Pseudo Science. Looking on Wikipedia (my root of knowledge), Dehart Hurd, Paul is an expert on Pseudoscience and Science. We need to talk with him to resolve this.

Who are the real experts on Wikipedia? We need to find one to help out with this. One way to find experts is to see who is willing to let you know who they are. I need to add contact information to my Talk page. The only reliable contact information today is a person's phone number. I'm putting my phone number on my Wikipedia talk page right after I send this.

Any thoughts?

Thank you for sticking with this. That is how progress is made.

Cheers! Todd Bezenek (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I should have said User:User Page, not User:User Talk page. Todd Bezenek (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In summary, you don't think the people who wrote the sources are qualified. Including author and medical doctor Theodore Dalrymple and science communicator Dan Wilson (biologist). Instead you'd like the invite comment from a specific scientist. That is not how Wikipedia works. CT55555(talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the bolded parts, and they do not make sense. One particularly egregious piece: Wikipedia pages are not based on talking with people, it is based on published sources. You keep disregarding the purpose of this page, and you keep spreading fringe nonsense and relying on clearly bad sources. Stop it. The longer you do it, the more likely you are to be banned. Also, do not ping me. I have a watchlist. This pseudo-discussion is over as far as I am concerned. Do your off-topic chatting somewhere else where it is on topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Is there a tool where I can quickly check my sources against Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list? Or do I have to check them all by hand to find out if they are "green"? Todd Bezenek (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Look here WP:RSPSS CT55555(talk) 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I see now that you know that exists. I am not aware of any simpler process than looking at the list. CT55555(talk) 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Where is the Search Engine I Can Use to Check Sources on the Fauci Book

If I want to check sources on this book about Fauci (and maybe the other book about Fauci), where is the search engine which will search only the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Web sites?

If you do not know where this is, where can I go to get permission to build it. I don't mean permission as in anyone can build it, I mean permission as in PERMISSION to build it, i.e., a meeting with someone important enough to discuss building it.

Cheers! Todd Todd Bezenek (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make a new search engine that includes only what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, I don't think you need anyone's permission to do that.

The list of Reliable sources and Perennial sources is here WP:RSPSS CT55555(talk) 18:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you are missing my point. I couldn't do that legally.

I want to make something legal.

I asked my CTO to post to here so we could get through, but I didn't need to. :)

Can you help? Do you want to discuss this over a medium where I can be sure my idea is protected from prying eyes? Doug Burger is the person who told me to bring this up. There is also a place on the Web where he talks about how the NYT is wrong. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/podcast/clouds-catapults-life-end-moores-law-dr-doug-burger/?ocid=msr_podcast_dburger_profile.

This is getting fun. I may blow off looking for work today. :) Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't want to help you with this project. CT55555(talk) 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make it clear. This project will benefit Wikipedia. Well, actually, the Wikimedia Foundation, which will benefit all of the projects under its umbrella, including Wikipedia. :)

Is there SSO available for Wikimedia yet? Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck. CT55555(talk) 19:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Taken higher up the food chain. Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific book"

[1] David Gorski calls it a "conspiracy book" here and here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

...and? Miner Editor (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am just saying that although we do not seem to have sources for calling it a pseudoscientific book, we do have a source for calling it a conspiracy book. Draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Then just say what you want and leave my revert (which was required by policy and which I stand by) out of it. Miner Editor (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is weird. I already said what I wanted: to give a source, to be used or not depending on what other users prefer. You seem to see a link to your revert as an attack or something. It was not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We can call it both. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in the first sentence of the lead we can't, and not without a sourceMiner Editor (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why not, does it no postulate a conspiracy? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it does have a source, in the OP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This article describes and repeats Kennedy's hooey with very little contextualization. The lede treats the book as a serious work, ending with a tepid "uproven" and "described as 'controversial'."

Main ideas from Kennedy's firehose of crap are then repeated for the Wikipedia reader. Until way down in the Reception section, at the end of a paragraph about the book's popularity, we finally see AP pointed out FDA's 3 phases of testing. Followed by some paragraphs of criticism.

In a climate denier's page you can't simply describe their view: so-and-so claims climate alarmism is leftist scientists' plan for global domination. No matter how ridiculous the statement, somebody will delete it with the edit summary WP:UNDUE. The page has to read so-and-so falsely asserts... Fact-checks from Snopes and AP show this is false.[2][3]

But the standard against repeating unconextualized hooey has not applied here.

Properly the lede sentences should inform the reader that the book is full of nonsensical conspiracy theories, disproven claims, and pseudoscience. It should link to COVID-19 misinformation and HIV/AIDS denialism. (The latter is indeed linked from this article.) As long as the body of the article covers the book properly the lede can merely summarize what the article says. It doesn't need a cite on the specific phrase "pseudoscientific book" -- M.boli (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this and what was said by Hob and Slatersteven. Miner, youre in the wrong here. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is also a matter of WP:WEIGHT. If absolutely no one on the internet is referring to it as a "pseudoscientific" book, our calling it so in the first sentence of the lead before even the name of the author is obviously undue weight. Miner Editor (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The book is comprised of false conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism, and Covid-19 misinformation. The problem is this article too much pretends the book is a serious work, and the lede follows the body of the article. There is no "undue weight" problem with accurately describing the book. I think the phrase "pseudo-scientific book" is bad because it is awkward and generic. It would be better for the lede two sentences to describe the book as conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism, and Covid misinformation. -- M.boli (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The body contains sources for all of those, and they definitely belong in the lede. The milquetoast "controversial" is expendable, it adds nothing because a book full of misinformation will obviously be controversial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia

This topic went off the rails a while ago. This topic is about the book. Nothing else. Personal opinions can be left on separate pages talking about "conspiracy" or "opinions".

No different that the 911 or JFK Conspiracy pages. The "official" narrative on the main page. People's opinions on another.

This topic should be about the book and what it reported. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Anything else, is just plain wrong. Lkandia (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That would violate WP:FRINGE. Kennedy is spreading disinformation in the book, and we need to give that context or violate the guideline. If you want to change that Wikipedia guideline and make Wikipedia less reliable by allowing any random bullshit to stand without refutation, Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories is the right place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"make Wikipedia less reliable by allowing any random bullshit to stand" That would be Wikipedia according to the ideas of Larry Sanger, instead of Jimmy Wales. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding bestselling into the intro

The book is a best seller. I put that into the intro and it was reverted.

Hence the talk note. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content will be removed. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it, source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two sources currently in the article, down in the "reception" section. The Hawes historical list of NYT Best Sellers shows the book had been on the best seller list for 12 weeks as of February 20, 2022. -- M.boli (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No reviews by major publications

The links make clear that the words "controversial" and "inflammatory" are not part of reviews by the Guardian, Newsweek and Publishers weekly.

I added this information into the article and it was reverted.

Suggest that this context is added as follows.

Both The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as controversial in articles on other topics. Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in an article about Norman Mailer changing publisher.

Or perhaps bring to the front the lack of reviews by major media organisations

There were no reviews by major media organisations. The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as "controversial" in articles on other topics while Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in a similar side note. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding your view here. There's no expectation that reliably sourced descriptions of books should come from full reviews. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Or indeed from reviews. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The text that was inserted had the effect of undermining or deprecating the published assessments by RS. We don't do that, per NPOV and V. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The publisher Tony Lyons complained that the legitimate media would not touch his book, they didn't want to review or mention it. Lyons also said tech platforms wouldn't accept advertising. He found a sympathetic ear at the Washington Times (naturally). My guess is that the legit media were practicing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE -- they didn't want to lend legitimacy to this fetid pile of feces, especially in the middle of the pandemic when amplifying Jr's views would arguably be killing people.

I agree with OP that reviews from reliable sources would we be helpful. It is hard to find good quotes discussing the book in any depth. Although Science-Based Medicine have covered RFK Jr.'s activities and some other anti-vax works, even they did not write an article specifically addressing the book.

Possiby a useful reference: an article in Business Insider blasted Tucker Carlson for an interview with Jr. promoting the book.

But generally speaking, finding RS articles which directly address this book and its claims would be a benefit to this article. -- M.boli (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"amplifying Jr's views would arguably be killing people." Journalists and media people have ethics and an aversion to killing? I am genuinely surprised. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

To state this at almost the start of the article is a disgrace. The book is well referenced and fact based. Unlike this idiotic critique. 2A00:23C6:56E0:3601:CDD8:455F:1B2D:157B (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is an article in the NYTimes that says I was in a gunfight and shot a man to death. It contains my real name and previous home address. Guess what? I did not shoot a man to death.

NYTimes is not a reliable source.

Maybe you still think Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Because NYTimes said so?

Is Wikipedia just a collection of the writings of ill-informed journalists?

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In essence yes, but the NYT is not the only souced we use. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edits regarding NPOV

I'd like to hear from @Slatersteven, @Hob Gadling and @M.Boli why they think it's fine to state that this book is "misinformation" without any citation whatsoever, and why it's not okay to mention the book is a New York Times bestseller in the lead of the article. I made an insignificant change to this article to make it less biased and more in harmony with WP:NPOV but apparently this is problematic? Why? Hooky6 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)