Misplaced Pages

Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:48, 14 March 2022 editJustinSmith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,587 edits Misplaced Pages is being bought into disrepute: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:33, 11 December 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,373 edits WP:NOTFORUM 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{Ds/talk notice|covid}}{{Ds/talk notice|blp}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|covid}}
{{WPBS|blp=1|1=
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp}}
{{WikiProject Biography|class=Start|living=yes|listas=Campbell, John|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=low}}
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=Start|importance=low}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=30 March 2022 |result='''keep''' |page=John Campbell (YouTuber)}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=Start|society=yes|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |blp=yes |listas=Campbell, John |1=
{{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |society=yes |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{reqphoto}} {{reqphoto}}
{{FAQ}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=240
| archiveprefix=Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=2
| format= %%i
}}
{{British English}}
{{Archives}}<br/>
<br>
__TOC__
<br> <br>
{{COVID-19 treatments (current consensus)}} {{COVID-19 treatments (current consensus)}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 6
| maxarchivesize = 75K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}


__TOC__
== Misinformation should not be there ==


== Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024 ==
User made absolutely no argument other then this person said no so I believe then instead. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:We go with what RS say, you are not an RS. ] (]) 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022 (2)==
{{edit semi-protected|John Campbell (YouTuber)|answered=yes}} {{edit semi-protected|John Campbell (YouTuber)|answered=yes}}
I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ ] (]) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Please remove the following:
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the from that journal's editor ] (]) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

::"This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"
"In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment."
::An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. ] (]) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
: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.] (]) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
:::We just say "no" and move on. The Misplaced Pages is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. ] (]) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

:::I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. ] (]) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
:The reference is a violation of ]. 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 <ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22417684/</ref>. 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 ] 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 (]). 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 <ref>https://linklegal.net/covid/outros/2021_04-Ivermectina_en_COVID19-Hirsch&Carvallo-eBook.pdf</ref>, <ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304684#bib0013</ref>, <ref>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</ref>. 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.] (]) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{not done}}. Per ], they are not for controversial changes that require consensus. See also ] regarding the ] you refer to. ] (]) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 ==
{{edit semi-protected|John Campbell (YouTuber)|answered=yes}}
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 ] 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. ]
There does seem to be a consensus growing on this.] (]) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} Please establish consensus for an edit before using this template. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

:That's the best referenced part of the article. ] (]) 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.] (]) 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with due diligence, entirely agree ] (]) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:With what, there is more than one person here. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

:See ] regarding the snake oil. ] (]) 22:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

:In particular see ]. ] (]) 22:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Or, even more pertinently, see ] (]) 05:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

== Misplaced Pages is being bought into disrepute ==

My edits on this page have been reverted :


== Is this article ] compliant? ==
''Campbell has made repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and allegedly spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety, '''though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid'''. 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'''..''


After scanning through the references I'm seeing a lot of Politifact, AFP FactCheck, Atlantic, Guardian, BBC, and so on, but not a lot of ] sources, which is arguably required for over half of this article. Perhaps ] is relevant here, but probably a lot of these references should be replaced with references to the medical research cited in each fact-check. The sources in the "Current Consensus" template at the top of this page are good examples. ] (]) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
'''Both additions are cited.'''
:I think then issue is, that as nothing he says is, we do not really need any to refute it. ] (]) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::Yes the sourcing is fine for what it is especially given the need for ], but there'd be no harm in 'pulling up' some of the underlying references assuming ] can be avoided. ] (]) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


== Misinformation ==
I am very saddened by this, it is the very worst of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
--] (]) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:It does not matter if both edits were cited, they need to be cited to ], one of your sources does not even mention (so violated either ] or ], and maybe both). Edits must obey our policies (as must talk page comments). ] (]) 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


easally claimed! But Come with specific examples! ] (]) 12:36, 14 November 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages faithfully mirrors, per core policy. The OP must not insert daft personal musings into Misplaced Pages and should be aware repeated disruption like that will get them banned, as it's that kind of damage which actually "brings Misplaced Pages into disrepute". ] (]) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
:There are in the article. ] (]) 12:43, 14 November 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages, 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. ] (]) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:33, 11 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Campbell (YouTuber) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Society Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconCOVID-19 Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Upload
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
  • Q: Why does the article describe Campbell in such a negative way?
  • A: Because the information is what reliable sources say.
  • Q: You should at least add my primary-sourced or sourceless clarification to XYZ
  • A: no, see WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY


Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

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

  1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
  2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
  3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)
Which pages use this template?
Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

 Not done: not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the Expression of Concern from that journal's editor Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"
An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. 2001:818:E94C:D00:18FA:F52F:6A38:DF39 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
We just say "no" and move on. The Misplaced Pages is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this article WP:MEDRS compliant?

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

I think then issue is, that as nothing he says is, we do not really need any to refute it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes the sourcing is fine for what it is especially given the need for WP:PARITY, but there'd be no harm in 'pulling up' some of the underlying references assuming WP:SYNTH can be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

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

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