Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Possible malicious juxtaposition

As others have stated above, the uncited point of view about the public mood, i.e. “A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported”, sets the tone for this para. The article thereunder states: "...Campbell ... cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics ... and ... a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was given as a cause of death. ... A spokesman from the ONS clarified that death certificates mentioning COVID-19 anywhere meant that COVID-19 was a causal factor in the death. ... The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000 ..." The implication is that Campbell had twisted or misquoted statistics, leaving the ONS with the need to clarify their own data. However, Campbell cited and explained the statistics exactly as published. He did so again on YouTube in his 29 Feb 2022 video. The sentence about the stats being "clarified" is therefore misleading and redundant, as it leaves the impression that clarification was required, where none was. Campbell was at pains to make clear that the 17,371 figure was what remained when deaths involving co-morbidities were excluded, but he has frequently also quoted the (mounting) overall deaths statistics, and explained at length in both relevant videos what the lower figure represented. I believe the mentioning of this apparent ‘clarification’ was at best mischievous, at worst malicious. This is an encyclopedia. A broadcaster, Campbell, quoted an official statistic and explained it unambiguously at least twice. In an area where many have axes to grind, this content needs to be redacted. Ad hominem content is not always a point-blank shot, and we must be alive to the art of juxtaposition, where contention is suggested that is, in reality, absent, to taint or discredit the original broadcaster. Given the propensity for reversion in many Covid-related articles, and the enormous time and prolix already devoted to these matters above, it is imperative IMHO that a more senior figure in the Wikipedia structure grasp the nettle here, and redact the unencyclopedic content. Humboles (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Per the cited source, Campbell suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Wikipedia follows sources, not the idea of drive-by editors. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I have no desire to inflate Campbell's viewing figures and bank balance by watching his video, so perhaps someone could explain why if the OP's assertions are correct then why do the BBC say Campbell released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"? FDW777 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, RS would have watched the video and (conspiracy theories aside) have no reason to misrepresent the situation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
What if the cited source is incorrect? Accidental misquotes and typos happen all the time, but in this case it does not appear that the source watched the video by Dr. Campbell. What is the method for correcting this?
Dr. Campbell has released a video stating that the BBC got his statement wrong: he thinks that 17,000 is much too low (starts at 2:20 [1]). In fact, he praises the Office of National Statistics (starts at 3:53. "Full marks for the Office of National Statistics, absolutely wonderful and we have done nothing but sing their praises all the way through this pandemic. To be quite honest they have been absolutely brilliant, which of course is why we use them." [2]). If nothing else, the article should be edited to reflect that he has stated he thinks that 17,000 is much too low. Jevandezande (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Self-serving, self-published claims are not appropriate and the whole targeting of the BBC is odd since (per the sources) it was the ONS, not the BBC, which had to slap down the claims about 17,000 deaths. Targeting "mainstream media" is a way to appeal to the fan base, I guess. Alexbrn (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest this article is removed in its entirety. It's currently a collection of opinions instead of unquestionable facts. Using so called "fact check"-websites as sources is highly questionable as many of these fact checks have been proved false just months later. The article is, however, currently used to frame John Campbell as a spreader of disinformation. Wikipedia should be neutral and stick to facts and it's clear this article doesn't. No article at all is better than an article with is falsely framing a youtuber. Martdj (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article is a badly written, badly cited mess. That's why it's getting so many drive-bys. No way is it an encyclopaedic biography. Scrap it. Faltero (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Then wp:afd it, but we need RS saying that anything he has said is correct, and no one has produced any yet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
But (be warned) an AFD based on "to many drive by's" won't swing it, it needs to be a policy-based argument.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It boggles me that there is so much back-and-forth about what the video says and what authoritative sources say the video says when it takes all of five minutes to see what it says for yourself. I'll start by pasting the relevant part of the Youtube transcript. "so / where covered 19 is the only / attributable cause of death / we see that the the rate of death is / actually uh remarkably / low / now / there's still deaths but it's much lower / than we've been thinking and it's much / lower than mainstream media seems to be / intimating" To me this is all one sentence. Telling sentences apart from each other is admittedly often difficult in speech, and there is often no consensus on where one sentence ends and another begins. For a journalistic outfit to split this into two sentences, however, seems to be a bad-faith attempt at watching a video, just as the others sharing it seem to have been careless. Should any of this be deemed relevant as to the claim that Dr. Campbell was spreading misinformation? 68.237.59.205 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no "back and forth", just some apologists who don't get it (and no, cherry-picked "transcripts" don't help). Campbell's meaning was clear as all sensible sources agree: he was obviously advancing the view that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted by a substantial factor. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
No, your interpretation of the video is completely irrelevant. FDW777 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I am aware that research is not allowed on a Wikipedia page, I'm not sure whether that extends to Talk pages, but if you say so, I'll take your word for it. Digesting an entire 20-minute video is of course right out, too. But I still think that a primary source is relevant when discussing the same primary source, and privileging secondary sources over the primary source must also be some violation of Wikipedia policy. And it's inaccurate to call this portion of the transcript "cherry-picked" when it includes the very portion quoted in the articles referenced in the Wikipedia page. 68.237.59.205 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
For fuck's sake. Everybody knew what Campbell meant. The people who corrected him (the ONS e.g.), his denier fan base (Jimmy Dore, e.g.) and  – even Campbell himself who said in his follow-up video (since you're so fond of transcripts) "I do hope you got a chance to look at that video which shows that by some calculations we're over-counting deaths by a factor of seven, eight or nine". Perhaps you should contact Campbell and tell him he doesn't understand himself, rather than trying to damage Wikipedia. For the importance of secondary sources, see WP:PSTS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to WP:PSTS and the explanation, @Alexbrn. But your claim that "everybody" knew what Campbell meant is patently false, as well as the implication that I would be "trying to damage" Wikipedia by soliciting understanding on why secondary sources are privileged over primary sources.
I have come around to understand that the use of the word "from" in the article is a fairly reasonable representation of what was understood by most viewers of the video, and so it is not in heavy need of revision on the page; that was in fact my only major issue with this article at the time.
But for fuck's sake, it's going to take people ten times longer to come around to something like this when they see you throwing tantrums in every other thread. 68.237.59.205 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
From the policy I linked to; All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Continued discussion of what you claim Campbell meant is a pointless waste of time. FDW777 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Why ONS 'clarification' cannot refer to Dr Campbell

When an author of a comment on this encyclopaedia Talk page congratulates himself for NOT personally acquainting himself with source material at first hand before he deems himself fit to pass pejorative comment on the material's creator, I nearly despair of this enterprise. When he says this is because he does not wish to swell the bank balance of the YouTube video’s creator, he is being, at best, illogical: he has no idea if the creator accepts emoluments or, if he does, whether they are donated charitably by the video creator thereafter. It is thus pejorative ad hominem criticism, certainly not neutral in its POV, and the commenter cites no source. These aspects alone make it inappropriate to Wikipedia.

James Tucker is, according to the article below the URL https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2022/01/26/to-say-only-17000-people-have-died-from-covid-19-is-highly-misleading/ the "Head of health and life events analysis" at the UK’s highly respected Office of National Statistics. The article states [26 January, 2022]: "To say only 17,000 people have died from COVID-19 is highly misleading", continuing, "[i]t’s being claimed that the true number of deaths caused by COVID-19 in England and Wales is 'only' around 17,000 people. The claim is based on ONS data on the number of coronavirus deaths where no other health conditions were noted on the death certificate. However, as James Tucker explains, to suggest that figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading."

So — James Tucker is concerned by "spurious claims that draw on a Freedom Of Information request published by [the ONS in 2021] which asked for mortality figures where COVID-19 was the 'sole' cause of death, "[as] taking this to mean the 'true' number of people dying from COVID-19 misses some crucial context." I have just rewatched the video evidence. If anyone believes Campbell was one of those guilty of the inferences deprecated by James Tucker, let them cite the video and timestamp concerned. Isn't Wikipedia about citing, not alleging, with the accent very much on clearly identify source/s?

Here is the nub — whatever clarification the ONS felt was necessary, Dr John Campbell, in his videos, never made any claim along the lines that troubled James Tucker when he 'clarified' the situation. Campbell certainly never asserted that "only 17,000 people have died from COVID-19". He instead explained in detail what the statistic meant — and what it did NOT mean. Thus, the mentioning of said 'clarification' in the Wiki is inappropriate and likely mischievous.

Several Talk comments belittle Dr Campbell’s qualifications, as if he has ever claimed to be any more expert than he is in virus matters (though I'd guess he is much more qualified in medicine than many of those contributing, including me!) Are other commenters aware that he has interviewed many globally acknowledged experts in his video series? They must be happy to accept his credentials or, presumably, they would not appear. He always makes it clear that he learns during the process (like every good teacher) and does not purport to be on a career par with virologists or other specialists in the field, any more than David Attenborough, for example, would claim to be an expert in every specialised biological science. Communicators need to be pretty well informed on the subjects they talk about, but their job is not to be highly skilled right across the board. Humboles (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Campbell was obviously advancing the view that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted by a substantial factor, and the ONS debunked this accordingly. That's just the reality, and is well-sourced here. Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
They must be happy to accept his credentials or, presumably, they would not appear. So that must make Joe Rogan an expert on COVID-19 since Robert W. Malone was happy to appear on his show? FDW777 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Or to frame it more simply in terms of policy. There are zero references that say Campbell is any kind of authority or expert on anything to do with COVID-19, vaccinations or coronaviruses in general. FDW777 (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
And there are no supporting references about Dr Campbell's supposed false claims about ivermectin either - the article alleges this twice with no supporting references.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there are. Should you continue to make false claims I will be asking for you to be topic banned. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
AS said above, we go by what RS have said, and they said his claims were misleading. If he has issues with that he needs to get those RS to issue clarifications, then we can alter it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Campbell said that the statistics say that there have been over 170,000 deaths from COVID-19, out of which about 17,000 were of people without comorbidities or previous conditions. At no point did he claim that COVID had only killed 17,000 people: he only said that, according to the data he was referencing, COVID killed 17,000 without the "help" of other conditions or diseases. DragonView2 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Campbell was obviously advancing the view that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted by a substantial factor. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Please remove the following:

In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially authorised for such use in the country—its use was merely promoted by the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] Meaghan Kall, the lead epidemiologist for COVID-19 at the UK Health Security Agency, said that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]

In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality, but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology, and a lack of clear data.[4] Danieltate (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This section should be removed as it violates Wikiepdia's BLP policy as it seeks to defame and/or degrade John Campbell's credibility. In a rapidly evolving pandemic, it is not unreasonable to occasionally misinterpret studies. The above seeks to protray John Campbell as some some sort of anti-vax role model, when in fact he is an accredited doctor. The above paragraph is political in nature, and should be removed. It also violates Wikipedia's BLP policy rv. contentious material and does does not meet BLP policy standards

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not the job of retired nurses (he is not an "accredited doctor") to interpet studies in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That's a laughable fallacy you've just engaged in, you realize that, right? What a ridiculous comment, and offensive to the nursing profession. He's an academic, and senior lecturer, whose books are widely aclaimed in the nursing field. Tell me, how is it that when journalists with no medical background interpret studies for our revered 'fact check' articles, that that meets your criteria? Who, exactly, is it who should be 'allowed' to interpret studies? Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that it is the job of doctors (people with a PhD degree) to interpret research papers, since precisely PhD people, and not medical doctors, are the main people in charge of producing and reviewing such papers. The fact that he is a nurse means that he is in the health field, thus medicine-related data is relevant to his field of expertise. I would find your logic more reasonable if he were a PhD in engineering or such, but this is within his field. DragonView2 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Nurse education and virology are very different fields. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Should be removed, violates terms Onlyfacts77 (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Entirety of education should be removed

There is no citation whatsoever for his educational credits, and my searching has only turned up self-reported information on his LinkedIn profile. Unless someone can turn up citation from a reliable source, this information should be challenged and removed. 2601:3CA:204:F860:D0E8:EC74:F94E:34EF (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems to indicate his credentials: University of Cumbria Autumn 2013 newsletter page 6 Homesteader17 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Good stuff! The source is a bit coy about where the Ph.D. was awarded (it says "another university") but is good for verifying that the degree was earned, which seems to be the OP's beef. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine

WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On my second vaccine i also had a chemical taste in my mouth it happend minutes after my 2nd jab ive sufferd heart pulpertations ever since 92.237.78.70 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusation of ONS misinformation seems misplaced

The January 2022 video referred to in the 'misinformation' section can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw . At about 55 seconds into the video, Dr Campbell comments on the UK government's official figure of 127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average, saying that "we have often thought that this is the most accurate way to look at deaths."

Dr Campbell then goes on to talk about the figure released by the UK's ONS (Office of National Statistics) of 17,371 deaths (England and Wales only, 2020 and first three quarters of 2021) from Covid-19 with no underlying comorbidities. Dr Campbell comments that "When Covid-19 is the only attributable cause of death, we see the rate of death is actually remarkably low. They are still deaths, but they are much lower than we've been thinking and it's much lower than mainstream media seems to be intimating."

This subject is of great interest to me as I am tracking deaths from Covid in Morocco and if the death rate varies to this degree from lack of comorbidities it helps explains why Morocco's death rate is so low (less than 16,000 as of today).

I understood totally what Dr Campbell was saying. The fact that some people may not have properly understood, or that other people tried to use the video to claim governments were over reporting deaths is unfortunate, but in my opinion Dr Campbell was NOT providing misinformation, he was merely reporting government statistics provided by ONS and his UPFRONT COMMENT that excess deaths over a five-year period is thought to be the most accurate way to look at deaths is of PARAMOUNT importance when considering whether he was guilty of misinformation.

I've also read David Davis' Twitter post on the subject which can be viewed at https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1485667919698796545 and his comments are largely highlighting the excess cancer deaths caused by interruptions to diagnosis and treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.27.90 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"I understood totally what Dr Campbell was saying" ← No you didn't. Campbell was obviously advancing the view that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted by a substantial factor. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The emphatic statement implies that you actually watched the video. Because of course, you can't make an emphatic statement about it unless you actually watch the source material. Anastrophe (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Not really, but there are those who are well-placed to know what the video meant. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Forcefully refusing to view the evidence directly is...well, I don't know a good word for it. Reminds me of Pravda. It's certainly the opposite of being informed, or thinking critically. If a 'fact check' links to a scientific study, do you refuse to read it, and just accept the 'fact check' at its word? I doubt it. You visit the link and read it for yourself. Wikipedia does indeed follow reliable sources. And editors should also make the most minimal effort on their own to determine if what the reliable source is saying is _actually reliable_.
Campbell's videos aren't behind a paywall. If one's sensibilities are so fragile that they fear "enriching" the source by a few fractions of a penny by viewing it, adblockers are not exactly arcane technology; most browsers have them built in. If a reliable newspaper presents you with a list of candidates that they endorse...do you uncritically accept their choices and dutifully vote for them, without doing any of your own due diligence? Of course not. You investigate it yourself. This notion that you don't check things out for yourself - supplication to the reliable sources only, no personal thoughtfulness involved - strikes me as barmy (trying to lighten things up with a regional colloquialism!).
Any time I read anything - anything! - I double check it with what other sources may say. Because, these matters _are_ political at this point. As someone recently said very wisely, discussing things regarding covid-19 that would have gotten you banned from social media a year ago are the science today. Because science evolves, particularly with a once in a hundred years pandemic. Dr. Fauci, February 2020, 'no, I don't think we need masks'. That turned out to be wrong, as have many other claims about the pandemic. That doesn't make it some kind of cause celebre or conspiracy or evidence that Fauci is incompetent, it's simply that knowledge was hard to come by. The best practices evolved as we learned that the virus was not meaningfully spread by contact.
As I've pointed out several times, to a deafening sound of crickets, Ivermectin is in active clinical trial right now. Right now, we don't believe it's particularly effective or useful for treating covid, because past studies have been inconclusive and of highly varying quality. The active clinical trials may come to the same conclusion. But the last word hasn't been written yet. It may likely not be written - as covid has followed, in retrospect, a fairly common path, more virulent, less deadly, as the virus can't spread if it kills its host. So, the clinical trials may simply never be completed, since - fingers crossed - we appear to be nearing the end of the pandemic, with covid endemic, highly annoying, and part of one's annual cocktail of antiviral shots.
Have I digressed here? Never! Coffee does this to me, and I suspect I'm not alone; I'm merely enabled by an absurdely fast typing speed which makes it easy to say in 4000 words what most could say in 40. Wikipedia indeed goes by the reliable sources. When I read an article, I don't just ignore the little "[34]" next to something. I go read it myself. So that I'll be better informed. and then, I'll then go visit the information that the source links to, and see for myself what that says, just as I went to all the linked stuff in the tiny handful of sources in this article. I agree with the science that's been referenced. I disagree with the 'these ideas are unorthodox and heretical, they must be suppressed' tone that suffuses these 'fact check' articles. I believe that ivermectin is a distraction from proper and proven treatments. That doesn't mean that I then put a padlock on any further thought - or discussion, or studies - regarding it. Because science changes. Being self-informed is an important step in determining whether something is being politically or ideologically driven, rather than being scientifically driven. The whole point of wikipedia is to become better informed. Becoming better informed doesn't mean 'just keep reading past the citation', it means visiting the citation, reading what it says, and reading (or viewing) what that includes as linked evidence. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The "whole point of Wikipedia" is to summarize what reliable sources are saying about a topic. This article does that, rather well. Alexbrn (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you please define what that "topic" is and how it pertains to the current title of this article? Faltero (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Huh? It's about "John Campbell (YouTuber)", so it will be about the life and deeds of ... John Campbell (YouTuber). Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The majority of this article concerns accusations by other people of false claims said to have been made by him. If you want to present it as a balanced article about the life and deeds of John Campbell you have, at the very least, to remove the second paragraph and the unverified comment “he made false claims” which sets a critical tone right from the start, before any evidence has been presented. Faltero (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the rest of the article. We can't remove the paragraph, it summarizes about half the rest of the article. Nor should it present all of the details (or the 'evidence' as you call it), it's got to be short. - MrOllie (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I was asking for it to be removed, not extended. A lead section which summarizes the article as the false claims Campbell made since November 2021 is entirely gratuitous in an article purporting to be about the man’s entire life. He was born in 1957. By your own admission, more than half the article concerns less than a year of his life. This is clearly not about the life and deeds of John Campbell even in the arbitrarily limited capacity of “youtuber”. If the purpose of this article is, as it seems to be, to bring attention solely to his alleged covid misinformation, most of it would be better in the Wikipedia “COVID-19 misinformation” article. To date, this article is entirely unbalanced in terms of the man’s whole career. Faltero (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point here. Wikipedia bases its articles on a few things but first of all "notability" is the thing that decides who or what gets an article. In this case, Campbell made himself notable by spouting his misinformation on youtube, and somehow gaining huge views due to the Covid deniers "sharing" his misinformation with all the other covid deniers. Given his notability for misinformation, a wikipedia article features centrally the thing that gives him his notability, (noteriety?), and we fill in other details based on what reliable sources tell us about him, Not too much in this case, as we cover his unremarkable career in a proper way. What makes him notable is what gets most prominence. -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing on the whole point of Wikipedia page supporting committing BLP violations or supporting hearsay references as proof that primary sources are wrong.96.64.153.94 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:or we do not analyse wp:primary sources we use their party wp:rs analysis of primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Morocco is a wonderful place. I lived there for a few years at the end of Hassan II's reign and the beginning of M6 !!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


I think right now a few users need to stop with the wep:forum posts. This page is not about your holidays or morocco.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I was particularly interested to read about the low comorbidities in Morocco -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Then the place for such a discussion is an article about that, wp:forum is not optional.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Nope, it seems pertinant to Campbell's schtick about comorbidities in the UK. Do stop tone policing people please, here and everywhere else you do it. It gets boring. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

" to "University of Lancaster (MSc) Firebolt.Samil (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done FDW777 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022 (2)

Please remove the following:

"In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment."

This is put in the top summary section as if a single video on a single treatment should define a long career including multiple years of creating youtube educational content. The significance of a single video in his larger body of work is miniscule and should not be promoted as his defining characteristic.96.64.153.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The reference is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It states "false claims" as if this were established facts and it uses the phrase "anti-parasitic drug ivermectin" implying that use of ivermectin in non-"anti-parasite" usages is somehow odd or unusual. For reference, Ivermectin has been studied as an anti-viral since at least 2012 [1]. Clearly it is its use as an antiviral that is relevant, but the statement would be seen by most readers as mocking the idea of using ivermectin on viruses.
The source provided is an unreliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for more information. From this page, for medical references, "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, independent, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.". The source provided is a non-verified blog that contradicts a variety of medical references and should be considered a self-sourced work (Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE). The source makes the claim "the second, that old staple of conspiracy theorists and fake news peddlers - the anti-parasitic medicine ivermectin, which is has yet to be shown to be effective against COVID-19 in any reputable medical trial." with a reference supposedly supporting the "yet to be shown..." but links to a reference that does not seem to address this directly. This claim contradicts multiple medical papers, eg [2], [3], [4]. Sensational self-contradictory self-publishing references should not be considered references for claims made by actual medical journal research papers even if they are loosely associated with organizations that have in other forums provided fact-checked and peer-reviewed works, especially when they are written with sensationalist and uncritical language.96.64.153.94 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 Not done. Per WP:ER, they are not for controversial changes that require consensus. See also #Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus regarding the snake oil you refer to. FDW777 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22417684/
  2. ^ https://linklegal.net/covid/outros/2021_04-Ivermectina_en_COVID19-Hirsch&Carvallo-eBook.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304684#bib0013
  4. ^ https://www.diannalynnrobinson.com/site-backups/Controlled%20randomized%20clinical%20trial%20on%20using%20Ivermectin%20with%20Doxycycline%20for%20treating%20COVID-19%20patients%20in%20Baghdad,%20Iraq%20%7C%20medRxiv.html

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

Please remove the following: "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment." Change to "Campbell was accused of making false claims" It contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in that “false” implies that he made claims knowing them to be untrue, which is opinionated an unproven. The source is opinionated and inadequately sourced; by a tweet which doesn’t validate it. Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE There does seem to be a consensus growing on this.Faltero (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for an edit before using this template. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Claim of misinformation needs citation

The claim made of Dr. John Campbell being guilty of wrongthink needs substantial corroborating evidence. 2603:6011:4F43:5900:4DAA:52C7:75F4:4F9F (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the best referenced part of the article. FDW777 (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Technically they are correct, none of our sources say he is "guilty of wrongthink". But we have cites for his claims being misinformation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with due diligence, entirely agree Usmc medical (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

With what, there is more than one person here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources Please read American Journal of Theraupeutics 28, e434-460 (2021).

Please read American Journal of Theraupeutics 28, e434-460 (2021)

This needs to be considered when examining this page. Wysiwygil (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

See #Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus regarding the snake oil. FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
In particular see Talk:Ivermectin/Archive 3#Bryant, Lawrie, et al returns. FDW777 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Or, even more pertinently, see here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Time for a FAQ? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Another factcheck

Here.[3]

This is about the "other" recent ivermectin paper, and has some more detail. I'm not sure how much Ivermectin material we want - it all gets quite detailed. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

Dr John Campbell does not spread misinformation or make false claims. He simply informs. He always makes his source information available to viewers so that they can check the information for themselves. Whoever has written this Wikipedia entry is libelling this well respected Doctor. 2A00:23C4:9DD1:7401:C5B:F94A:D80C:2300 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is an unactionable rant. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It's more rational and unbiased than much of what is on this page, and the article. Can I remind you, the official definition of a Covid death (re the 175,000 figure) was reverted by someone claiming it is "Ignorant and irrelevant". Unbelievable, but, unfortunately, true. JustinSmith (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

John Campbell is not spreading misinformation about the Covid19 vaccination program he is trying to evaluate the risk benefit analysis of the emergency implementation of an experimental Vaccine that was in development for 20 years and only 2 years and 6 months into a three year human trail due to the high rate of fatality in the animals it was tested on in development.

Please refer to the Pfizor documents released under a court order at this Web location :-

https://phmpt.org/ Magic.Mike63 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this : evaluate the risk benefit, if not all of what you say. There is almost no benefit to jabbing kids, and not much in vaccinating healthy people under 40, so any risk, however small, from the vaccine becomes relatively speaking, more significant. JustinSmith (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Please focus on editing the article and please take other editors advice about conduct. MarshallKe (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The article states Dr John spreads misinformation this is absolutely not true. He always explains that any research is not his personal opinion he only presents the facts and makes sense of complicated studies. If a mistake is made he puts it right immediately. Fialsibob (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Not according to the evidence he doesn't. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
RS says he spreads it, and Spread and create do not mean the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware he makes no corrections (except once, and we even point it out in the article's effort to bend over backwards to be nice). Even then he says he wasn't to know the abstract he used was secretly withdrawn so it's really the publisher's fault not his. This is false - the abstract in question was never "withdrawn". Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Ultimately the only person responsible for what John Campbell says is John Campbell. Nobody forced him to cover Steven R. Gundry's abstract. He covered it despite the expression of concern, lack of clear data and methodology, and that Gundry has a sideline selling groceries. Nobody forced him to suggest the abstract could be "incredibly significant". FDW777 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Change “misinformation” to “information” 111.65.57.253 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Ha, no. ––FormalDude talk 04:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation should not be there

User made absolutely no argument other then this person said no so I believe then instead. Onlyfacts77 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is absurd I represent a veteran research community with medical doctors and other related professionals. It is urgent continuously with overwhelming data that this is complete defamation an absolute misinformation on behalf of those who seek to eliminate the credible reputation of Dr PhD John Campbell. There’s absolutely no justification for any of the misleading comments such as this information false claims or any other related defamation currently posted on this very prestigious webpage. It is evidently false and rather insulting to anyone who knows the truth and anyone who doesn’t being misled. The editor of this sea of lies is the miss information corporate not Dr. John Campbell Usmc medical (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, you are not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The wording of this article clearly violates the Neutral Point of View guidelines. It is obvious that the "point of view" is that everything on Dr. Campbell's podcasts is misinformation; that his goal is to spread misinformation. That is how the wording comes across. A more judicious use of words would be more in keeping with NPV, such as:
John L. Campbell is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube videos containing controversial commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic on his Dr. John Campbell channel. By January 2022, his videos had been viewed more than 429 million times.
Campbell has repeatedly made controversial claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, questioned vaccine safety, and claimed that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted.
Similar types of edits could be made in the "Misleading Information" section. One might say something such as: Dr Campbell suggests that ivermectin might be an effective treatment for COVID-19, but current research does not support this claim [site source already in place]." Let us remember that the science is continually changing as are recommendations for preventive measures and treatments. Using neutral wording is a hedge against our writing itself becoming misinformation. 2601:901:203:3900:7D78:9281:FBE2:A757 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The current tone of this article inaccurately represents John Campbell's contributions to public understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has posted hundreds of videos related to COVID-19, while only a handful contain insufficient caveats or outright errors, which have been seized upon by misinformation agents. To focus on the misinformation angle in the introductory sentence buries the lede and does not present a Neutral Point of View.
It would be more accurate to say "John L. Campbell is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted a large number YouTube videos pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these videos cover factual reports, statistics, and other health information related to the coronavirus, though some wander into premature speculation or contain errors that have been abused by others to spread misinformation on social media and other platforms." 68.188.157.201 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content

Wikipedia is being bought into disrepute

My edits on this page have been reverted :

Campbell has made repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and allegedly[3] spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety, though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid[4]. It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death.[5].[6][7][8]

Both additions are cited.

I am very saddened by this, it is the very worst of Wikipedia. Saying one cannot use the actual comment from the subject of the article, but only use a comment from some other site quoting the subject of the article is utterly ludicrous and basically certain editors are using esoteric Wikipedia rules to promote their own agenda. Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated (fact 1), and he recommends vaccinations to all those at significant risk of Covid (fact 2). The article, and certainly the introduction, is implying Campbell is somehow anti-vax and is therefore inaccurate. I will accept alteration of my edits provided that the form of words used still makes clear Campbell is in favour of vaccination. --JustinSmith (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if both edits were cited, they need to be cited to wp:rs, one of your sources does not even mention (so violated either wp:or or wp:synthesis, and maybe both). Edits must obey our policies (as must talk page comments). Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. And in fact Campbell said he now didn't think the vaccine was safe in one of his recent videos. Basically, it's all about courting loonies for money and his repeatedly grift has been document by reliable sources which Wikipedia faithfully mirrors, per core policy. The OP must not insert daft personal musings into Wikipedia and should be aware repeated disruption like that will get them banned, as it's that kind of damage which actually "brings Wikipedia into disrepute". Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
No, using terms like "courting loonies" proves you are indeed pushing your own agenda by using obscure rules to delete provable facts that disagree with the narrative you want to push. Banning me, after 16 years editing Wikipedia, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated. JustinSmith (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You need a source saying he is not anti-vax, how you interpret a source is not good enough, and after 16 years of editing Wikipedia you should be aware of that. Nor do we (In fact) say he is Anti-vax, so it is hard to see which of our content you think this disputes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
If you think Wikipedia policies are "obscure rules", I suggest reading all of them first. FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think anything here is citable, but for the "facts" from the primary source, this twitter thread usefully captures the main vax/anti-vax aspects. Wikipedia does not say Campbell is antivax, mind you. That may change as sourcing grows. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Why are you reading, or citing, a critical Twitter thread rather than actually hearing the man say he is triple vaccinated with his own mouth ? This sums up how biased this page has become. JustinSmith (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • What does him being triple jabbed have to do with anything? It doesn't in any way negate the misinformation about vaccines he's peddled to other people. FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Because we go by what wp:rs say, not wp:primary, and what Twitter thread do we cite in the article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Per WP:TWITTER, self-published sources may be used to support claims about the subject itself. If someone with a Wikipedia article claims they got a shot and self-published the claim, the source can be used to support the statement "Subject claims to have received a shot". This is all supported by policy and a statement is undeniably relevant to this article. While I do not support Justin Smith's edit warring behavior, we are forgetting that one of the edits he's trying to make is valid, just executed in a biased way. The added blurb should be more like "Campbell claims to be triple-vaccinated against COVID-19", rather than a statement of absolute fact. I am inclined to add this to the article. MarshallKe (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    To those who think his vaccination status is irrelevant, what is it irrelevant to? John Campbell, or the impression we might want a reader to leave with? MarshallKe (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Juxtaposing the statements like that is still a WP:SYN problem, it suggests a connection that isn't drawn from a source. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    MarshallKe is right that we could include his claim about vaccination status if attributed per WP:ABOUTSELF. MrOllie is right that doing so might lead to implications that aren't present in any secondary RS. It's abundantly clear that JustinSmith's intention was to create such an implication. I am weakly against including an attributed self-claim somewhere away from the misinfo section, maybe in Personal life. I'm opposed to putting it in the lead or anywhere it might lead to an implied OR claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that the two statements together, as originally suggested, is not good, and I never suggested otherwise. I also am fine with putting his jab status in the personal life section. MarshallKe (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    The problem (As I see it) was the justification for its addition is that it balances out our claim he is Anti-Vax, the problem is we do not claim he is. So if we do include this it can't be anywhere that might be seen as implying something about his covid misinformation not being misinforation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's cherry-picked trivia with implications. We might as well cherry pick that he's "not a happy man" about vaccine safety these days. Leave it out and stick to secondary, reliable sources is the best way. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to ask a question inspired by wp:not, what does this tell us about him? how is it not just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE peice of trivia. I mean (yes I agree this is a whataboutism argument) do we do this for anyone else? Why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. That policy would argue against, for example, including an exhaustive list of Campbell's YouTube video titles in the article, but using it to argue that his covid-19 vaccine decision shouldn't be included in an article mostly about someone spreading covid-19 misinformation is a huge, disingenuous stretch. Wikilawyering. MarshallKe (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
We really need it to be contextualized, though, because otherwise it looks like the article is making the man out to be a hypocrite. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I would imagine pretty much any reader who sees that someone is publishing information against a vaccination that they themselves elected to receive is going to think of that person as a hypocrite. Why do you care whether someone leaves the article with that conclusion? MarshallKe (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Is that not the whole basis of the recent dispute, trying to make this page less negative? How is making him looks hypocrite achieving that? Surely what wew needed to find and add is positive assemtns of his work, and not random factoids about his vaccination status? Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not how NPOV works. We are not concerned one bit with how negative or positive an article looks for its subject. Correcting bias in the context of Wikipedia editing means to read the sources and edit the text to be more faithful to the sources, and possibly look for more sources. MarshallKe (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to include anything from Campbell's YT channel without engaging in editorial decision-making to the point where it violates multiple policies. Quite apart from anything else, nobody here is familiar with the entirety of his output to the extent they'd know what was representative or due. Let's stick to independent, reliable, secondary sources and keep safe - as we should do on a BLP of course. Alexbrn (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
At least some of the sources cited in the article are unreliable. For example, the HealthFeedBack.Org article (citation no. 4) doesn't acknowledge retractions Dr. Campbell has made. Specifically, for the Pfizer "adverse events" video, he released a later video in which he acknowledged that he and a number of (unnamed) medical doctors whom he consulted about the document didn't understand that Pfizer was asking doctors to report any such adverse events when giving the vaccines, rather than warning that they were known adverse effects. The HealthFeedback blog has a consistent pattern of not acknowledging when Dr. Campbell retracts or clarifies his earlier videos, so their articles are clearly poorly researched hit pieces.
As for the ivermectin videos, he's on thin ice, although he repeatedly points out that Merck refused to support any clinical studies for potential use of ivermectin as an antiviral treatment. That seems to be the crux of his argument: that without clinical studies, we're left with only anecdotal studies. However, the Newshub article (citation no. 3) doesn't actually link to or quote any of Dr. Campbell's videos - it instead summarizes points it attributes to him but quotes Tweets or other sources that purport to dispute Dr. Campbell's claims. That's hardly a fair and unbiased method of reporting. It would be absurd for anyone to defend it as such.
Dr. Campbell has disputed the BBC article (citation no. 18) which misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said (he was reading from official documents that were released under a Freedom of Information Act). Nor did the article link to the video. And the BBC never issued any kind of clarification on their misrepresentation, despite a rebuttal video from Dr. Campbell posted on January 29. Now, I'm sure many people would extend some credibility to the BBC (although the article author said on Twitter that she was being misunderstood by people who read her article - hard to see how that's possible) - but HealthFeedback is just publishing sensational hit pieces. None of these articles are well-researched or resourced, they're clearly designed to rabble rouse, and Wikipedia should not be using them as sources for Dr. Campbell's biography. At the very least, his rebuttals and actual statements should be included in the article as they are easily sourced from his own videos - which can be used as sources according to Wikipedia policy Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. Dr. Campbell just reads stuff from official documents or published research, so he's a secondary source (supplementing the content with his own opinions and anecdotes from his experiences, just as the sources being used to assassinate his character here on Wikipedia offer their opinions).
The article should either be redacted to remove the obviously biased and controversial assertions or it should be amended to include his rebuttals. Otherwise, it's just another hit piece that repeats really bad research from biased sources. And that's not in keeping with Wikipedia's intentions.Michael Martinez (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. 126.74.254.241 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "the BBC article (citation no. 18) which misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said" ← this is an extraordinary allegation of (at least) unethical behaviour by a journalist, made without supporting evidence by Michael Martinez. So, what is the "clear" evidence of this intent to deceive? Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Here's the paragraph in question from the BBC article: "Then on 20 January, Dr John Campbell, a retired nurse educator who has amassed a huge following on YouTube, released a video describing the figures as a 'huge story' and suggested Covid deaths were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating'. In the video (Cf. 9UHvwWWcjYw - which Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to link to), starting around 4 minutes he goes through the data under "Death registrations for 2020 and 2021" noting that the numbers are "surprisingly low". He then cites the numbers and their classifications. At about 6 minutes 4 seconds he summarizes by saying: "so, where Covid-19 is the only attributable cause of death, we see that the rate of death is actually remarkably low. Now, they're still deaths but it's much lower than we've been thinking, and it's much lower than mainstream media seems to be intimating." He's clearly only commenting on the attributions of deaths. He goes on in the video to talk about excess deaths that were probably caused by the pandemic (lack of treatment, co-moribidities, etc.) The BBC article doesn't mention any of that. It just plucks one partial statement out of the video and makes a false assertion.
    You guys keep asking for sources that dispute these articles. That isn't the point. These accusations are such fringe material (not picked up by any other reporting sources) as to be questionable for their isolation. A search of Google News for Dr. John Campbell and Covid deaths pulls up a story from Politifact, published several days prior to the BBC article, that mentions the Campbell video without making this misleading assertion. No, death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated. If you want to use THIS article to mention Dr. Campbell's video, then you'll have to revise what you're saying because he's clearly NOT being accused of spreading misinformation by Politifact.
    Michael Martinez (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    That is not how it works, The BBC is an RS. Now if you are arguing three is not enough coverage for him to pass GNG, please comment in the AFD to that effect. But we go with what RS say. If you are staying the BBC is not an RS take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter if the BBC is an RS. The article is misrepresenting what is in the video. It's not an acceptable citation source for anything about what Dr. John Campbell actually said. We're not going to take this elsewhere on Wikipedia over 1 article. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    NO, that is your OR, take this to wp:rsn and make a case there this is don't an RS for this claim. Ohh and "we"? Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not going to do that. You need to confine the conversation to the sources being discussed here. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    What? you are saying the BBC is not an RS for this claim, I am asking you to make a case at RSN for that. If you refuse to then its not be found to not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    by the wat Politifact [[4]] says "We rate this claim Pants on Fire.", so no it is not contesting he is not wrong, it is saying he is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    They're not rating Dr. Campbell's statement "Pants on Fire", the article is about the Jimmy Dore claim. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Michael Martinez: From that, the BBC seems completely savvy in understanding Campbell's suggestion, providing exactly the kind of informed knowledge Wikipedia prizes and must relay. You bring nothing. Everybody understands that Campbell was saying in his "revelation" video, that deaths had been overcounted many times. He has said so explicitly himself. You have still provided no evidence for your extraordinary claim that the BBC was engaging in planned deception. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Dr. Campbell didn't suggest that Covid deaths were under-reported. From the Politifact article):
    "'So you mean all the stuff that they’ve been saying for two years straight about the death rate has been bull—-?' said Dore, who said Americans have been 'victims of a scaremongering campaign.'
    "No, that’s not what the numbers mean.
    "According to the report cited in the video, there were 131,641 COVID-19 deaths overall in England and Wales at the time it was published and 140,776 in the most recent report. The numbers Campbell cites are those whose sole cause of death was listed as COVID-19. But that does not mean the other deaths attributed to the virus aren’t also legitimate — they simply show people whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19 and other conditions at the same time." So Politifact repeats the information that Dr. Campbell quoted - and no one is accusing THEM of spreading misinformation on this subject. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Everybody knew what Campbell meant. The people who corrected him (the ONS e.g.), his denier fan base (Jimmy Dore, e.g.) and – even Campbell himself who said in his follow-up video (since you're so fond of transcripts) "I do hope you got a chance to look at that video which shows that by some calculations we're over-counting deaths by a factor of seven, eight or nine". Perhaps you should contact Campbell and tell him he doesn't understand himself, rather than trying to damage Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Actually it says he did say "may be way lower than anyone had thought." He then said that such data would likely also apply to the U.S. and the rest of the world.". It says the claim is false. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Again, you're confusing what Politifact says about the Jimmy Dore video with what they say about the Campbell video. They do NOT say that anything in Dr. Campbell's video is false. They cite the same numbers he cites and agree with Dr. Campbell's summation. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    "Everybody knew what Campbell meant." Um, no, that's quite a misleading statement. As I've said elsewhere on this page, I've only watched a few of his videos. Never heard of him prior to this year. But I did watch THAT video and he didn't say anything inappropriate in it as far as I am concerned. He didn't make any false claims about Covid deaths. He was discussing a specific set of death certificate numbers and went on to talk about other death rates rising during the pandemic. No one corrected him. The Jimmy Dore video was clearly misleading, and Politifact explains how Dore's video misuses Campbell's video. You really need to tone it down. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately your (or my) concerns aren't really that relevant, not in the face of what secondary sources say. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This needs formally closing now as a waste of everyone's time. We do not get to second guess RS, or use our wp:or to question them. This really has run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. And the OP has been indef'd in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Covid deaths

As Campbell has claimed they have been inflated we can not imply this may be the case, unless RS explicitly say it is the case. So I think we need to take care how we word it to not give the impression Campbell's claim is supported by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, mis-using death certificate to imply wrong things about COVID deaths is precisely the misinformation at hand. The last thing Wikipedia should be doing is joining in. Add: Oh I see this misrepresentation has now been added back.[5] Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Technically it's not actually misinformation, but its inclusion does not (to my mind (and per wp:brd should not have been added back once revered) adds anything. As (to my mind) it is unclear what its inclusion tells us about Campbell or his claims. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
What's been added is misinformation. The source does not say things on death certificates are other "causes" of death. This is the nub of the whole death-with-not-from-COVID trope that has run throughout the pandemic. It's another in a pattern of attacks on medical content this editor has been making. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
"Weekly deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date registered" says "Weekly number of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes", so yes it does support the text. Whether the text is undue as it is not really about the topic is another matter. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I also note that those arguing for inclusion, are still to make a case here as to why this is relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think because this is so open to misinterpretation about "causes" we would need a WP:MEDRS explainer. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with the content. If anything, the clarification only serves to make Campbell's 17,000 claim look even more wrong, since it's emphasising that the 170,000 (and counting) figure is death certificates with COVID as a cause of death. FDW777 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think the text is a problem since it says "defined by numbers of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes". The problem is this implies something else helped cause the death, so "it wasn't really COVID". The issue is that the concept of "cause" has a precise meaning on death certificates which is different from its general lay use. We would need to explain that although (say) respiratory failure might be the ultimate cause of death in the causal chain, the death was as a result of getting infected with COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
That is the issue for me, why add this as " The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000" says the same thing, and does not need that caveat to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This "...other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything." is telling, this is exactly what we cannot imply, that RS may be wrong about this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It's the "with-COVID" myth, and the locus of the complain about Campbell's video in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You're trying to edit based on what you want the reader to leave with, rather than reflecting the facts as accurately as possible, as they are in the RS. It doesn't matter that you think the article will imply something you don't like. You can't twist the facts. One number has only covid on the death certificate, the other number can have other things. We can use the sources to explain why this doesn't support conspiratorial thinking, but we cannot lie about the facts. MarshallKe (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
In other words, you don't get to publish *disinformation* in order to combat *misinformation* MarshallKe (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
We also don't get to pick facts from unrelated sources to try to make some sort of point, as that is WP:SYN. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It's from the official government stats source. Take your own advice, and refrain from leaving out crucial facts to try to make some sort of point. MarshallKe (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • So, it seems to me that the existing wording "COVID-19-related deaths" may sufficiently reflect the fact that these are listed as covid and possibly something else on the death certificate. Would any of the do-gooder, WP:Right great wrongs editors like to remove the "-related"? MarshallKe (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The point is, it's not a "crucial fact" that people who die from COVID have "other things" on their death certificate, that is the locus of the disinformation from the COVID deniers. It is MarshallKe's (and Campbell's) fringe contention that this is "crucial". As the ONS had to explain, in most cases where "other things" appear, COVID is nevertheless the underlying cause and the death is due to COVID (specifically in 140,000 of the 175,000 cases, not 17,000 of them). I would not object to adding that 140,000 figure to our article if it helps scotch this confusion. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
      Maybe you're right, and it's not crucial. But it is a fact, and you are proposing omitting a well-sourced, neutrally worded, factual edit in furtherance of a point of view. This is pure POV pushing, on your part. MarshallKe (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
      It's RS that says it's not "crucial", not me. Cherry picking a "fact" and presenting it devoid of necessary context is exactly what the antivaxers and deniers have done, and you are seeming to approve. Wikipedia policy advises care when using primary sources (if they are to be used at all) and this kind of enthusiasm for picking out a bit of primary source in a misleading way is the opposite of careful. Alexbrn (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I am a retired professor of public health. I have regularly watched John Campbell’s reports. I am stunned to see this article claim that he has promolugated the the idea that COVID deaths are inflated. He has repeatedly, in many posts, pointed out that the best measure of COVID deaths is excess deaths compared with prior years. This is generally HIGHER not lower than the “official numbers.” He did one video on the paper that reported 17,000 deaths with ONLY COVID as the cause. He did not suggest that this was the true number of COVID-related deaths. The fact that this video was picked up and misused by antivaxxers is not on him. In the very next video he addressed this issue. He has consistently presented a nuanced view of hospitalizations and deaths that is not at all reflected in this article. As the prevalence of COVID has increased dramatically in the omicron wave, he has pointed out, citing the UK Office of National Statistics, that 60% of the COVID hospitalizations are for patients admitted for some other reason who did not even know they were COVID positive until tested in the hospital as part of the admitting process. I would like to know the credentials of the editors who are responsible for this page. Glad to share my credentials—master of public health from Yale, PhD from MIT and served on the faculties of Harvard, Yale and UCLA schools of public health. QuakerShan (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


So how about "The official figure for deaths in which Covid was listed as a cause of death in the UK for the period was over 175,000, with Covid listed as the underlying cause of death and in 140,000 deaths" ? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That would at least be accurate, and put to bed this "crucial fact" claim. I'd be okay with it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
No objection to this. MarshallKe (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I will wait 24 hours before making the change, but so far we have a consensus, with a slight alteration to remove the extra and at the end. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now made the change, with a slight rewording to make it flow better. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Your edit about Dr John Campbell spreading disinformation is visibly untrue. Please observe and correct. Dr John Campbell's video evidence on an incorrect BBC "fact check" Many Thanks. 2A00:23C5:E917:9301:D41B:924C:2BF3:3EE7 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Your vague request has no support from WP:RS reliable sources, therefore we cannot action it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything about disinformation but misinformation, they are two different things. FDW777 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This Wiki Page is a personal attack

This page has been clearly been written as an attack on John Campbell and to discredit him. There is no balanced discussion here and this page should either be severely rewritten with a more balanced view or be just be deleted. 125.238.120.107 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There may be people who agree with you, but unless you use a Wikipedia account to participate in discussions, not everyone will take your point of view seriously. Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell may be his own worst enemy in this matter by calling attention to this article. He apparently doesn't understand that Wikipedia has problems with meat puppetry. I don't think it was his intention to engage in that - he only advised people to look at the craziness here. He didn't ask them to do anything. But now it may be even more difficult to get the biased information out of the article. Michael Martinez (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@125.238.120.107 yes this page is very biased against Mr Campbell, with undue weight given to some of his reporting on findings that are contrary to official recommendations. I'm surprised that it is allowed to stand as it is. 118.149.93.77 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
If you well-meaning folks continue posting comments from anonymous addresses, your actions will probably have the opposite effect of what you desire. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Account created. I stand by my comments as this page been more of a personal attack and should be deleted. Any counterargument I see that has been attempted on here in the history seems to get quickly reverted by a particular user even when references are provided. ScottL88 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about any personal attacks. Some of the comments by contributors above justifying their edits are just plain nonsense. But you need to understand that the best way to get and keep changes is to build consensus. Wikipedia has rules against multiple reversions, and recruiting people to help edit articles. The idea is to get unbiased editors to come in and look at what's going on and help keep order. That doesn't always happen, but that should be the first approach for anyone who is new to the process. The idea that Dr. Campbell is anti-vax is laughable. Just in the few videos I've watched, he very clearly says he thinks everyone should get vaccinated. I don't know where the idea that he says a vaccine is dangerous comes from. I'm not going to watch all his videos to try to find that. But you should think in terms of what contributions you can make here that help clarify the situation and what contributions you can make to the article that won't be challenged by reasonable people. Michael Martinez (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I would like to make edits to provide corrections with references but the page edit protection will not allow me. ScottL88 (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is protected and you need to make your case here on the Talk page. I've been involved with Wikipedia for many years and there's no way I'm would try to change the article without having a solid case and some support from other editors here. This process will take some time but I believe the inaccuracies will eventually be corrected. Something about Dr. Campbell's ivermectin comments will have to remain because, frankly, he made them. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
amen. This whole article reads like a hit piece. What the relevance? Just because he dares to think openly about ivermectin ? There are research trials about the effectiveness of ivermectin against Covid-19, surely one is allowed to talk about it, and have their own view on it? Campbell’s channel is, as he repeatedly states, not intended as medical advice, but for education and research purposes. 213.205.192.157 (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
RS think it is, and wp:rs is what we go by. No one is stopping him from talking about it, and people are allowed to comment on what he says, and we are allowed to repeat them if they are RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources on Ivermectin. This topic is all covered in depth in the Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic article. Claims that ivermectin is of use in treating/prevent COVID are misinformation (as other reliable sources say). It is not Wikipedia's job to apologise for misinformation on Youtube, merely to reflect what is written about it, no matter who is spouting it. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal For Page Deletion

Page has been written as a personal attack on John Campbell with a very biased and unbalanced viewpoint. I propose this page should be deleted as it is not constructive and does not meet the standard we expect from Wikipedia. 125.238.120.107 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@125.238.120.107 why not just rewrite it, almost from scratch? Go. 118.149.93.77 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think John needs a Wikipedia article about him. Especially not one that is setup as a personal attack. ScottL88 (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree there should not be an article about him (or anybody who is not a Major Figure, frankly). But the articles exists and IMO there's no way in Hell an AfD would succeed. But the option is open to you if you want to make a case. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Pleae wp:afd it. I am unsure he is notable myself. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now AFD'd it myself. Let the community decide, note this is just about his notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is NO misinformation on his Channel!!!

I am absolutely disgusted and outraged that you dare label this man to be spreading misinformation. It is completely evident that you have never watched any of his videos. How dare you suggest he is spreading misinformation when you haven’t even seen what he speaks of! If you have then clearly you would see that this man shares HARD COLD facts on covid mostly by the Office of National Statistics, Tim Spectre’s ZOE covid study, the CDC, the FDA, the British Medical Journal, Our World in Data and the likes of these worldwide official government bodies. He is absolutely the best person in the world right now it seems who can interpret all of this covid data to the regular person who finds it hard to interpret data, scientific papers and medical statistics.

Have you seen the hundreds of videos he’s posted? So how many do you think he’s done on the ‘medicine that can not be named’ Ivermectin? By the sounds of what you wrote it sounds like you think he made many videos on that topic. Maybe you should go back and do some research and see the very very few times he mentions this topic. And Why exactly did he mention those topic on those videos? Because a major scientific paper came out each time on the subject and he looked at it. Makes you wonder does it? Why you imply that he’s giving his opinion when clearly he is not and never has given his opinion (other than he believes people should get vaccinated!!!) and instead focuses only on looking at all the up to date relevant covid data.

I am just speechless that your interpretation of misinformation is someone relating facts and stating data from the cdc.

Are you thank blind that you do not see that you are the one who is intact spreading not only Misinformation but lies about this man. It doesn’t make any sense. Why? Because he mentioned the ivermectin studies? What does that enrage you enough that you want to defame him? Especially when the studies had positive outcomes? Is that actually why you want to lie about this man?

I am disgusted in Wikipedia for orchestrating such a false description of this man and what he does. Also he is not a YouTuber !! He is a highly Sought out and respected medical professional. So are we going to start calling Boris Johnson a Tv personality rather than the prime minister, because he also happens to make announcements on the tv?

You should be throughly ashamed of yourself.

Get someone to write a REAL description of this wonderful man, his great work and complete objectivity when it comes to discussing data and covid. 2600:1700:4DB4:2800:3D37:D278:1498:352C (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@2600:1700:4DB4:2800:3D37:D278:1498:352C well said. I agree 100%. This article needs to be substantially corrected and rewritten to remove the obvious biased opinion regarding misinformation. 118.149.93.77 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
So find some RS that would enable us to do it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Campbell mentioned this page in a recent video

Campbell briefly mentions this article in a video posted today (March 29), in case others are wondering what led to the spike in interest.

To new or returning editors: you are much more likely to effect change in this article if you keep your requests concise and base them on reliable sources. Is there a news article, paper, or book about Campbell that we haven't yet included? Should one of the existing sources in the article be removed, and if so, why? Is the language in the article unfaithful to the sources, and if so, how should it be tweaked to better reflect the reliable coverage? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Is there a news article, paper, or book about Campbell that we haven't yet included?" First priority should be to excise the unreliable sources that HAVE been included, which include at least the BBC, HealthFeed.Org, and NewsHub articles. They don't meet Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I pasted this into a discussion above, so I am repeating myself, but it will be easier for people to understand what I am referring to if I copy it here.
At least some of the sources cited in the article are unreliable. For example, the HealthFeedBack.Org article (citation no. 4) doesn't acknowledge retractions Dr. Campbell has made. Specifically, for the Pfizer "adverse events" video, he released a later video in which he acknowledged that he and a number of (unnamed) medical doctors whom he consulted about the document didn't understand that Pfizer was asking doctors to report any such adverse events when giving the vaccines, rather than warning that they were known adverse effects. The HealthFeedback blog has a consistent pattern of not acknowledging when Dr. Campbell retracts or clarifies his earlier videos, so their articles are clearly poorly researched hit pieces.
As for the ivermectin videos, he's on thin ice, although he repeatedly points out that Merck refused to support any clinical studies for potential use of ivermectin as an antiviral treatment. That seems to be the crux of his argument: that without clinical studies, we're left with only anecdotal studies. However, the Newshub article (citation no. 3) doesn't actually link to or quote any of Dr. Campbell's videos - it instead summarizes points it attributes to him but quotes Tweets or other sources that purport to dispute Dr. Campbell's claims. That's hardly a fair and unbiased method of reporting. It would be absurd for anyone to defend it as such.
Dr. Campbell has disputed the BBC article (citation no. 18) which misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said (he was reading from official documents that were released under a Freedom of Information Act). Nor did the article link to the video. And the BBC never issued any kind of clarification on their misrepresentation, despite a rebuttal video from Dr. Campbell posted on January 29. Now, I'm sure many people would extend some credibility to the BBC (although the article author said on Twitter that she was being misunderstood by people who read her article - hard to see how that's possible) - but HealthFeedback is just publishing sensational hit pieces. None of these articles are well-researched or resourced, they're clearly designed to rabble rouse, and Wikipedia should not be using them as sources for Dr. Campbell's biography. At the very least, his rebuttals and actual statements should be included in the article as they are easily sourced from his own videos - which can be used as sources according to Wikipedia policy Are IRC, Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube reliable sources?. Dr. Campbell just reads stuff from official documents or published research, so he's a secondary source (supplementing the content with his own opinions and anecdotes from his experiences, just as the sources being used to assassinate his character here on Wikipedia offer their opinions).
The article should either be redacted to remove the obviously biased and controversial assertions or it should be amended to include his rebuttals. Otherwise, it's just another hit piece that repeats really bad research from biased sources. And that's not in keeping with Wikipedia's intentions Michael Martinez (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read your full response. I'd prefer to start by reading the sources. Which reliable sources dispute the material in the currently present sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The UNreliable sources used in the article are such fringe material that you would have to go directly to the GOVERNMENT and ACADEMIC sources that Dr. Campbell reads in his videos to understand just how misleading the accusations made against him are. You need to look at those cited sources and ask WHY they aren't quoting him directly, linking to his videos, or mentioning his own retractions as new information comes his way. Let's not play the "assume these sources are reliable" game. They're not.Michael Martinez (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It's reasonable to claim that the HealthFeedback sources are unreliable. You might consider bringing them up for discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. I do presume that the BBC source is reliable. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The BBC article is not reliable, either, in my opinion. The author refused to update the article when people on Twitter pointed out the errors. She claimed she had tried to contact Dr. Campbell. He claimed he never heard from her. It's a disputed source and certainly doesn't accurately describe the video in question. I'm not ready to escalate anything to another part of Wikipedia because this article is so contentious and now he's unwittingly spurred some meat puppetry. I'd rather see a consensus form here. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It appears to me, from scanning the history of this page, that an almost acceptable edit using an unreliable source (Newshub) was made to the Short Description (the introduction, for non-Wikipedians) in December: "Campbell has included false claims in his videos about the utility of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment." I've only watched a few of Dr. Campbell's videos. They do include unsubstantiated claims about ivermectin (in the context of when the videos were uploaded). Again, he points out that Merck has refused to support a clinical study, so he favors anecodotal studies that support the POV that ivermectin helps. And thousands of doctors around the world have prescribed the treatment; he just doesn't discuss how the placebo effect could be influencing these doctors' opinions. They have no clinical data to work with. It didn't take long for someone to edit the article to be more accusative without providing reliable sources. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have just created an account as you suggested. Upon looking at the history of the article there is definitely one user that stands out as having the most edits and looking at their first edit on this article on 16 December they were the first to write about the topic of misinformation. Sorry if I have broken some sort of rules by singling a particular person out on here but looking at their edits certainly raises questions around the motivation of their edits. This person was also very quick to revert edits such as John been triple vaccinated or that seemed to bring some kind of counterbalance to the misinformation arguments. ScottL88 (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the Wikipedia community. It's a complicated environment. While I agree this article has serious problems, the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia is you need to build consensus among the volunteer editors. That takes time, and rational discussion. Try not to focus on who did what. Try not to get into why anyone made a specific edit. The way to effect change is to learn the rules as well as you can and explain why an edit or a source doesn't comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. This article will never be perfect. But I believe it can be fixed. Michael Martinez (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That's good to hear at least people recognize and are listening to the issues in this article. As a regular consumer of Wikipedia when I want quick information I certainly want to have the confidence that the articles are balanced and not biased towards a single point of view or only read as an attack on someone or something. Unfortunately right now this article certainly reads as an attack on John. ScottL88 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
For me, the biggest problem is the ivermectin controversy. It deserves to be mentioned in this article because he involved himself in it. But I don't know if there are any unbiased sources of information about his ivermectin videos. And I don't know how many of those videos there are. The misleading sources used to justify the ivermectin "false claims" should be removed or replaced. But because this is such a contentious topic, there may be no unbiased sources that deal with his videos.
And, quite frankly, his last ivermectin video didn't help his case in the least. He seemed to be unaware that he was citing a "peer-reviewed" journal that is open to anyone's review (much like Wikipedia is open to anyone's edits). The paper he summarized was denounced by the health department of the Brazilian city where the study supposedly got its data - and I believe there was a more formal rebuttal of that study which showed that its data was made up. So, for better or worse, Dr. Campbell is on the ivermectin radar as someone who has cited discredited sources. And he has yet to retract his statements about THAT study. So he's in a tempest partially of his own making. And that means we can only do so much to fix the article.
At this point, it would be better to remove the badly sourced statements - but the controversy really does deserve to be mentioned. Michael Martinez (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anything is "badly sourced". I also don't think ivermectin is "contentious", in a medical sense. The science (distinct from the advocates' hype) has been clear for a long time. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Good sources don't present 1-sided views that are misleading. The sources used in this article are inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. If your intention was to put Dr. Campbell's ivermectin views on display, you need to find better sources. Otherwise, I'll push to have the ivermectin assertions removed from the article. Wikipedia should not be used for character assassination. Michael Martinez (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course, but Wikipedia very much is "1-sided" when it's science on one side and misinformation on the other. That is central to NPOV. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and I'm not seeing any material here which is not supported by a suitable source. What "assertion" are you going to "push" to remove? Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Right now this Wikipedia article is citing misleading sources. There's no neutral point of view in this article, which fails to mention Dr. Campbell's retractions and which repeats the false accusation that he's making false claims about Covid deaths. I've outlined above (TWICE) some of the problems with these sources. This isn't the kind of content Wikipedia wants to source.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You're wrong about the sources being misleading, invoking conspiracy theories in your argument (the BBC intentionally set out to mislead? riiight). Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Elsewhere I referenced the Politifact story that presents the video in question in a completely different light. I leave the link here because this Talk page has become so convoluted it's hard to follow all the discussions. No, death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated. So, no, I'm NOT wrong about the BBC article being misleading. It simply repaints the whole context of Dr. Campbell's content in the worst-possible light. I doubt the reporter actually watched the video. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, first you accuse a reported reporter of deliberate deception, then incompetence, while professing to be careful about WP:BLP. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC); amended 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You really need to stop Wikilawyering. You might distract new visitors to this page with these non sequiturs, but you're making the situation worse for everyone. You're a contributor to the article, your contributions have been called into question, and you need to let the discussion proceed without making personal attacks. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You probably need to understand what "Wikilawyering", "non sequitur" and "personal attack" mean. What you have said about the BBC and their staff is a matter of record. It's not a convincing argument. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
  • Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.
  • Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
  • Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
  • Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions
  • Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem
Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Michael Martinez (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You really should stop doing all those things Michael. Do try, thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: You need to stop this. You're just distracting people from the discussion at hand. Michael Martinez (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You are all right, either take the comment about users to their talk page or report then here wp:ani. Do not clog up article talk pages with telling us how shit the other person is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

The page contains misleading and incorrect information. The opening lines states 'Campbell has repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3]'. this is not correct and the reference for this statement is not available.

Dr Campbell has (since I started watching in Mar 2020) supplied his reference material for the topics he has spoken on. His sources are generally based on respected and often, peer reviewed research such as BMJ, ONI, CDC etc. Dr Campbell has spent many years in medical training and his Covid videos have helped millions understand a little more about the virus, trends, treatments and misinformation. The current Wikipedia page is currently not factual or correct and appears to have been edited by someone wanting to spread misinformation. I have supported Wikipedia with donations, and would be extremely disappointed if the page is not updated to show factual information. Edwardsp1916 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Current content is sourced, no proposal made. Alexbrn (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dr John Campbell

I really think the editors of Wikipedia should do extensive research ( like Dr John Campbell does) before writing a single word... he doesn't make any false claims like you, he just explains the facts in an easy to comprehend manner.. I find it quite disgusting that Wikipedia is being so derogatory towards a man who speaks the truth and will openly admit if he has made a mistake... you could learn a lot from his example.... sorry guys but in my opinion you haven't done your research and you've made terrible mistakes which are just plain nasty... 31.4.129.103 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We should use reliable sources WP:RS and for medical content, medically reliable sources WP:MEDRS to explain. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I checked, we do use good sources. You need to provide some if you want to change this article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Slow down, there. The fact that Health Feedback is on the list of fact-checking Websites doesn't mean the blog post in question adheres to Wikipedia guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."). The three source articles I called out don't even come close to doing that. They in fact misrepresent what Dr. Campbell has said.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do their own research. See WP:OR. We depend on reliable sources instead. See WP:RS. If you have reliable sources that support your opinion, bring them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's keep the original research false flag out of this. The question is whether the source articles are reliably and accurately representing what is in the videos. The videos SHOULD be sourced in the article because Dr. Campbell is simply reading documents from the Web, providing his sources. He's just acting like a secondary source and there is no original involved here. The Wikipedia article repeats false claims that are not substantiated by cited evidence. They're just rumor-mongering about the Covid deaths comments he made (he was literally reading from government documents). And that makes them unacceptable sources. If you cannot find acceptable sources for these claims, then according to Wikipedia policy they cannot remain in the artcile. Wikipedia is not to be used to spread misinformation or engage in character assassination.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but no they are not, they have watched his videos and drawn conclusions. To say they are wrong is OR as it is users drawing conclusions. Some of these are top-line RS (such as the Times) these are not "some block on the internet". So you say what they are accusing him of is wrong you need RS to say they are. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Michael Martinez is simply wrong. The FOI'd documents nowhere say COVID deaths are "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating" - that is Campbell's spin. Everybody understands Campbell was suggesting that COVID deaths had been overcounted many times over. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The quote you're citing is taken from an article that misrepresents what he actually says in his video (the statement can be found here youtu.be/9UHvwWWcjYw?t=388 at approximately 6:28). The article just blatantly ignores the context and makes it appear he's saying something he doesn't. That's NOT an acceptable source for Wikipedia.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, you've invoked this BBC conspiracy theory already. With zero evidence. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the erroneous WP:PROFRINGE opinions of editors. Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is NOT a conspiracy theory. No, death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated. The BBC article clearly doesn't accurately represent what is in the video.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Then take it to wp:rsn and convince the community its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The solution here is not to get the BBC banned on Wikipedia. It's to get other editors to acknowledge that the BBC article is not providing reliable information about the Dr. John Campbell video where he reads death certificate numbers. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Have you considered that a major news organization might be right, and that your odd theory they were deliberately setting out to deceive, might be wrong? What do you think Wikipedia is bound to follow: a golden RS or a random Wikipedian with a conspiracy theory? Alexbrn (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Major news organizations publish bad information all the time. The fact you're now trying to discredit anything I say by accusing me of posting conspiracy theories undermines your own arguments in favor of the BBC article. If it's really reliable, you don't need to insult anyone to prove that (and your insults cannot prove that). Please maintain Wikipedia decorum and treat other commenters with respect. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'reliable' means on Wikipedia. You can read our definition at WP:RELIABLE. It means that it is published by a reputable organization with a reputation for being right the great majority of the time. It does not mean that you agree or disagree with the conclusions of any particular article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
No, I do NOT have a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'reliable' means on Wikipedia. I object to any source that isn't acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. The articles I've called into question do not meet those criteria. Major news organizations DO publish bad information all the time. They issue retractions, they disagree with each other, etc. Being deemed a reliable source doesn't mean everything it publishes is to be accepted 100% without verification.
This article also violates the Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
However, as this article has now been proposed for deletion, I suggest we slow down discussion here on the Talk page until that issue has been settled. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a very robust Wikipedia-wide consensus that the BBC is a reliable source, you are simply not going to be able to overrule that on this talk page. If you really think the BBC is unreliable, the only path forward would be to have a well-attended discussion (probably a RFC) at the noticeboard for reliable sources. Material isn't 'poorly sourced' just because you say it is - you'll need to build that consensus that the BBC is a poor source first. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. And I write that Michael Martinez is using a conspiracy theory because they wrote BBC the "misquotes him in a fashion clearly designed to misrepresent what he said". Let's see their evidence of this clear design, or maybe a retraction? By my reading, the BBC is spot on. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
They have already said (more than once, and in more than one place) that they do not challenge the BBC's status as an RS, their whole argument is that in this one case (based upon their own research) the BBC are wrong. There really is no valid debate here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has nothing to do with whether the BBC is a reliable resource. It's about 1 misleading article on the BBC site that was used in this Wikipedia article. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe don't say its unreliable if that isn't what you mean. MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
What I mean is that the BBC article used as a citation in the article is unreliable. So please stop distorting what I say with non sequiturs about the BBC as a whole. Michael Martinez (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you either stop banging the "BBC article is unreliable" drum or take your assertion to WP:RSN and test it against the wider community. The BBC are reliable. FDW777 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not going to happen. You don't try to get an entire news organization banned over 1 inaccurate article. You guys need to stop dragging in irrelevant "suggestions". It doesn't matter how reliable any 1 news organization is deemed. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources article CLEARLY cautions editors against assuming that news articles are automagically "reliable". Michael Martinez (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Until you do, the BBC article remains reliable. Accept it and move on, or I might just stop you wasting more time and ask for sanctions now. FDW777 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Stop making irrelevant statements. This has nothing to do with whether the BBC is reliable. I suggest YOU go read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources article again as your comments indicate you aren't familiar with what it actually says about the reliability of news articles. Michael Martinez (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

General Context

I think it would be good if we could talk more generally about Campbell. Things like talking about the fact that he summarizes papers daily, and has done so since the beginning of the pandemic, and appears on DW (german national broadcaster I believe) and is a strong support of the vaccine.

Unfortunately a lot of these sort of sources are not from reliable sources. I have found 3 such summaries in unreliable sources (e.g. New York Post, Forbes.com). This summary from a paid, award winning, New Zealand publication might be better. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/doctors-virus-videos-go-global. Do we consider Newsroom (website) reliable? Talpedia (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of unreliable sources on Campbell. I don't think he's (now) a strong supporter of vaccines. Here[6] is Steve Kirsch (in another unreliable source) welcoming him to the "red pilled" crowd wrt vaccines. He may summarize some papers, but sometimes doesn't seem to understand material at a basic level; other times he just interviews random people spouting the most arrant rubbish, as in this incident[7] (yes, another unreliable source, but at least from an actual scientist). In general, I think opening the article up to poor sources would be a policy-noncompliant route to disaster. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that he is carrying out interviews (with GPs, academics, and those who suspect they are experiencing COVID side effects. I think he is moot on the fourth dose since he believes that natural immunity provides superior immunity and thinks everyone will be infected with Omicron. I think he would still suggest a booster dose prior to infection. My hope is that the above source is might be considered reliable such that we can avoid questions of violating wikipedia policies. Talpedia (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Talpedia: Generally speaking, Wikipedia policy advises against using older content that is contradicted by more recent content as a source of information. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy advises editors to NOT assume all reporting from news sites is 100% reliable. Now, the editors who have made the most contributions to this article have - after considering contrary opinions (not limited to mine) - concluded that the articles used as sources are acceptable. Until the consensus shifts toward other sources, we must allow these citations to stand. Dr. Campbell is not ant-vaxx by any means - that's a ridiculous over-simplification of his recent comments. But though Wikipedia policy does provide for situations where you can quote sources like his videos, you need consensus from the contributing editors. Otherwise they'll just revert the citations and any appeal to the admin community would probably be decided in their favor.
People need to find a compelling reliable source that provides a more balanced view of Dr. Campbell's reporting. And if one doesn't come along, then the article will have to stand as is. People can continue to explain their objections here on the Talk page but Wikipedia policy is both clear and ambiguous in these kinds of disputes. It errs on the side of caution to avoid reversion wars. For better or worse, Dr. Campbell drew much more attention to his ivermectin comments, and the reactions to those comments probably influenced some of the media reports covering him. We'll need to wait for something less biased to be published. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
We could add material from an older source that does not contradict later sources on claims of information. Campbell summarized academic papers about COVID-19 during the pandemic regardless of whether he made false statements about COVID.
My hope is that this source is reliable, if so there is no need to wait. Unless you think sources talking about information invalid *any* reliable source about any aspect of Campbell's youtube activites? Talpedia (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Because this article is controversial and is on numerous people's watchlists, the best approach for anyone who wants to make a change is to suggest it here on the Talk page, make an unemotional case for the change, and provide a link to a source that Wikipedians would consider to be reliable. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken this is precisely what I am doing, no? Should we add contextual information from this source, which I suspect wikipedia may consider is reliable? You will have to assess the emotional content yourself Talpedia (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
As I explained above, the article you link to is pretty old. It's not enough to justify removing the inaccurate citations in the article. The Wikipedia process is not perfect but it's the result of nearly 20 years of experimentation and community discussion. Keep in mind that this article will evolve over time. Hopefully more balanced stories will be produced about him in the future, but the past can't undo what's happening in the present. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not propose to remove any material, rather adding context from this source. Might I suggest you apply the Wikipedia process given your praise for it. Do you think the contextual information in this source will be inaccurate due to the sources ages, the source will have become unreliable due its age, or that the source is unreliable? Talpedia (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not praising anything. I'm just explaining the Wikipedia process for the benefit of all the people who came here and bothered to stick around.
As Firefangledfeathers says the Newsroom article is already used as a citation, it's not going to help any further. At this point, you could try suggesting some rewrites for the article. I suggest you first read the Talk page Archives. And do each suggestion 1 at a time. Don't try to get it all rewritten at once. I'm not going to edit the article. I've only been commenting on it for less than a day. Michael Martinez (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the Newsroom source can be presumed reliable. It's already being used in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah I missed that. I'll try to avoid contradicting newer information when adding context from it Talpedia (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah there is a lack of sources. Very little seems to be said about Campbell between April 2020 and January 2022. I found a few quotes from local newspapers near where he lives and some brief references in DW, but they are quoting him rather than talking about him. Think I'm giving up for now :/. Hopefully a newspaper will come along and give a more balanced summary, though I think he's not quite bit enough. Talpedia (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)/Archive_3"