Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)

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]

We do, its just that he became more notable afterward. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its "own belief" is to reflect the scholarly consensus, not to repeat cherry-picked opinions. Topologyrob (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus, scholarly or otherwise. What you support are cherry picked opinions. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please provide sources for his pre-covid notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have proof, RS do, as they claimed it, ask them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (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]
wp:rs say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 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]
Could I request an edit to this post. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what the cited sources have to say, not your personal impression of how reliable he is. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit your own post. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vax

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]

Follow the sources. You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism; in fact most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine (but aren't). Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism;"
Yes you do. It's in the very essence of the term. For being a Science editor you should know better than this.
"most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine"
Eh... no they don't. You're again missing the lexicological aspect of words. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the sources. Your opinion counts for nothing. "You should know better" is an empty bluff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 17 April 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.
What is the procedure to escalate this kind of issue to prevent misinformation on Wikipedia? 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Where (in our article) do you want to remove the claim he is anti-vax from? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 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]
I agree, this needs attibuting. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 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]
We follow the reliable sources. An argument for anything else is is an argument for original research TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a diversion with general information that brings nothing to this talk. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a helpful pointer for a rookie to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 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]
Dr Campbell actually had all his Covid jabs and is not an anti-Vader. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pointout where we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly shared his vaccination status in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ceurG7P89c 38.133.44.131 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we say he is Anti-Vax? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is he really anti-Vader, or just pro-Skywalker? Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 17 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]
is absolutly[sic] not an antivax. Well, reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[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]
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)[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?
Same for the buddy below, that "go take your business elsewhere" attitude kinda brings back memories of times that were not so good for freedom of information. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re 1222341366

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]
They are, we don't generally cite the lede as it is only a summary of the body. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove. TheVBW (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not, you have not gotten a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I have now altred it to reflect the sources, and provided one. Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved one of the references and removed a duplicate which is only relevant later in the text TheVBW (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this wording is less "coy"[sic] TheVBW (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need a consensus to make a change. I find that switching to passive voice is unhelpful here. The misinformation didn't just fall into his videos on its own. MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 12 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]
The article doesn't 'label all of his work as such', so we are in good shape, then. MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 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]
Seems to. TheVBW (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find nothing in the article that does so, and I've read it several times. MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"they later veered into misinformation" - something "veering" is not going down multiple paths at once. TheVBW (talk) 01:32, 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]
I don't believe anyone being earnest would disagree with me on this. TheVBW (talk) 01:58, 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]
This is quite a sweeping statement as well as a personal attack. Also, false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actauly "begun to include covid misinformation" I like. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I've edited the article as such with the minor adjustment to "began to include COVID-19 misinformation". TarnishedPathtalk 11:10, 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]
No less than the current wording does. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how to convey the flip from "semi-reasonable" to full-on antivaxxer with a grifting business model? Bon courage (talk) 11:34, 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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 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]
"but they later diverged into COVID-19 misinformation"? TarnishedPathtalk 12:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. I wonder if the BBC content I just added[1] is relevant to how we think of this? Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing that his copout was that he wasn't a statistician and he hadn't done the original analysis. Full crank. TarnishedPathtalk 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)"