The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
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.
Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1234) 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)
Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1234) 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)
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 (12345), 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)
Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)
Why does it only mention covid related, John was quite popular before covid.
Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important.
This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of.
I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief.
He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking description of a man who has dedicated his life to people's health and continues to examine scientific fact. There is no misinformation on his YouTube only critical examination. 92.26.93.203 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Dr John Campbell and his eminent guests give totally reliable information and so do consultants from all over the world who contact him for advice. Wilki is obviously run by the left who want to keep feeding us toxic, unproven, unlicensed vaccines such as the Covid vaccine. Dr Campbell never usually sums up, he just gives us the facts so we can make our own minds up. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. 24.203.188.202 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are discussions often like that to improve Wikipedia articles? I honestly find this quite depressing. It's really unfortunate to see active contributors defending such fallacious claims on Wikipedia.
Claming someone who does not think they need a vaccine or do not recommend a specific vaccine as an antitax is totally illogical and irrational.
someone who does not think they need a vaccine That is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please inform yourself from from entire sentences instead of taking part of someone's post out of context. I also find the implication that Dr. John Campbell's pursuit of the truth leads to epidemics to be quite libellous. TheVBW (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your entire sentences. My response still fits, and what's more important, your approach is at odds with Wikipedia's rules. We will not delete a sourced statement just because some random person on the internet believes it is totally illogical and irrational. Otherwise, Wikipedia, just picking one example, would have to be silent on the shape of the Earth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person (John) in question does not seem to associate with total "anti-vax" either, and I have not seen him raise concerns on any other vaccines besides COVID jabs, besides drawing comparisons with the threshold of adverse events at which other drugs have been withdrawn - is he not a source on himself? TheVBW (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see two occurrences - but either way the erroneous claim that he's an anti-vaxxer is still being argued for in talk and I want to achieve consensus. TheVBW (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody who pumps out anti-vaccine information is fairly obviously antivax, More to the point, since we have a cited WP:GREL which asserts he is antivax, without qualification, Wikipedia is obliged to assert that too. Attributing it or otherwise watering it down would be WP:PROFRINGE and POV. Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not anti-vaccine - pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers. John has been vaccinated. Is he a fringe source on himself? TheVBW (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cares more about what independent sources have to say about a subject than what a subject as to say about themself. If we followed self descriptions David Duke's biography would call him a 'human rights advocate'. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"pro awareness of Coronavirus vaccine dangers" ← that is a WP:PROFRINGE framing since the "dangers" he trumpets are consistently fake, as sources relay. Unduly self-serving comments WP:ABOUTSELF are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, and nearly all antivaxxers claim they aren't one. The whole point is this guy changed from somebody semi-reasonable to a antivaxxer, as our sources say. Bon courage (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AstraZeneca have recently withdrawn their vaccine over such dangers and the NHS has published official advice. What are you on about? TheVBW (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't. They're withdrawing because they weren't making money due to competition from other vaccine makers. But see WP:NOTFORUM, Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for this. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And his whole schtick is how he used to get vaccinated but is now no longer taking up the NHS invitations. Even the morons in the Youtube comment section understand this. Anyway, we need independent reliable sources on this so this line of discussion is futile. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone obviously need to be against all vaccines to be an anti-vaxxer. With this fallacious reasoning, anyone who doesn't believe in a single religion, for instance, would be considered as anti-religion, right?
It is shameful that we need to discuss about obvious semantic logic like that with contributors who are defending false information that is causing diffamation.
People who considered they didn't need a vaccine who should be not be tagged as antivax. If this reasoning can drive the content of Wikipedia pages Wikipedia can not be considered as a reliable source anymore. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Wikipedia is built on the rule that all articles have to be based on reliable sources. What is "obvious" for you does not matter because of WP:OR. This page is for source-based discussions on how to improve the article based on sources. If you want to change the article about Campbell, you need sources talking about Campbell. If you do not like that, you are welcome to go to other websites where you can publish your opinion. This is not one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Cambell is not engages into anti-vaccine activism. This is a fallacious statement. He only questions the relevance and the risk benifit ratio of a specific vaccine. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This attitude is childish and counter productive. It is obvious it is just a typo and correcting disinformation is more important than joking. Dr Cambell often mentionned he had 2 doses of the vaccine during the pandemic and he is absolutly not an antivax. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Woah, is there anyone else who could jump in and analyse this toxic and rude interaction? Or has WP become the StackOverflow of information?
If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? TheVBW (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well "factually incorrect" is already sourced, as is "spurious" "misleading" and "misinterprets", so it seems to be that misinformation sums this up well, but we can go for "factually incorrect". Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please copy these citations into the relevant area, because the current FactCheck citation is not relevant. TheVBW (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passive voice is not intended - this is a more accurate description. WP:RS have mentioned John raising concerns over the presentation of the data he's covering, and I don't see how his recent interviews with medical experts and first-hand officially diagnosed vaccine injury sufferers could possibly be considered misinformation. Labelling all of his work as such is a huge disservice. TheVBW (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is not going to help. You must actually get support for your proposed edit from other editors, here on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be reading something into the article that is simply not there - and a misreading is not a reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He went from being semi-reasonable to being a total COVID crank according to Gorski. I don't believe there is any RS that says his videos now have any merit; quite the opposite. So the "veering into" phrase is apt and faithful to the sense of the sources cited. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests they were still praiseworthy with a smattering of misinformation, which does not fit with the "total COVID crank" which is sourced, or the unredeemed string of misinformation sources complain about after he became an antivaxxer. Bon courage (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your overthinking what it says. That's not my interpretation of that wording at all. "Began to include" to me simply indicates that there was divergence at some point in time. TarnishedPathtalk11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be accurate, and not give the impression his are praiseworthy videos which happen to "include" occasional misinfo. If we want to say there's a "divergence" then we should say that; I'd be fine saying his videos diverted into nisinformation, or that his videos came to "consist of" (not just "include") misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
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)