Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:59, 24 December 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This 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 This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Society Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Nurse?

Is he still a practicing nurse, because if he is not we should not have his page name as John Campbell (nurse), it should be John Campbell (Youtuber).Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

He's retired. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So the page name needs to change, he is not a nurse.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is still a registered nurse, with a registration that expires on '31/07/2022'.5.186.118.6 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sed fugit interea, fugit irreparabile tempus! Or to put it another way, in the absence of any real info on Campbell, you guys are merely quibbling over details. You need to flesh this article, put some meat on its bones, give it some substance, to give it any credibility. Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

General feel of article.

The article gives a strong impression of being bias with an emphasis being put upon the wrong information about Ivermectin. 194.75.18.91 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

His career section is longer. But feel free to expand the article in other directions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have more reliable sources with more information about his career you are also welcome to suggest them to help other editors improve the article. —PaleoNeonate – 17:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that there is very information to be found regarding Dr Campbell on the internet, which is why the author(s) of this Misplaced Pages page are struggling to get it up to par.--Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Influencer" in the lede

Everyone knows Misplaced Pages is a lost cause as far as neutrality towards those who deviate from official orthodoxies is concerned, but I did just want to note the nonsensicality of describing Campbell as an "influencer." As per Misplaced Pages's own definition, an "influencer" is someone engaged in "Influencer Marketing" which is "a form of social media marketing involving endorsements and product placement from influencers, people and organizations who have a purported expert level of knowledge or social influence in their field."

What exactly is John Campbell marketing and in what sense is his expertise as a retired academic "purported"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.138.173 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That word "purported". Where are you quoting it from? Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Internet celebrities often function as lifestyle gurus who promote a particular lifestyle or attitude. In this role", that seems to fit him. But maybe change it to "John L. Campbell is a British YouTube personalty".Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone knows Misplaced Pages is a lost cause as far as neutrality towards those who deviate from official orthodoxies is concerned thanks for confirming that WP policy has been applied. —PaleoNeonate – 17:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

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

The introductory paragraph to Dr John Campbell states he has "made false claims about the use antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a covid-19 treatment". I believe this is unfair. What little research has been done on the topic shows the drug's anti-viral properties can help against Covid-19. I also think its not a very flattering way to introduce someone who has produced a lot of factual informative information about the virus which helps a large community to say he basically gives false information. Below is a link to a journal which shows findings that ivermectin can help treat covid 19:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx 82.30.236.248 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2021 (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) 00:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This reads like real hatchet job

This entry in Misplaced Pages seems terribly unbalanced and reads like a hatchet job. You need to examine all the factual information relating to the career of Dr John Campbell and include at least some of this in the entry, not just cherry-pick the odd mistake he may have made in the past and build the whole piece around it. Very disappointed to see this low standard of writing on Misplaced Pages - it doesn't do anything for Misplaced Pages's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6513:BD00:3C13:4481:5F69:A25F (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You provide the RS to cover this and we might. But you might try and not wp:soapbox if you want to win people over.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I can do a literature search on Dr Campbell for you, however, first can I suggest you make a couple of amendments to this biased article. First, in the "COVID-19 misinformation" section where you state, "Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan". Suggesting a plausible hypothesis is not misinformation, it's how science works - researchers are always coming up with incorrect or incomplete hypothesis and testing them then rejecting or accepting them. Second, where you state, "Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems". Although the journal had not gone through peer review at the time, blood clotting and myocardial inflammation are now widely accepted to be side effects of the vaccine, and evidence is still being gathered to assess how serious a problem this is: from CDC website: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html and https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/vaccines/2021/11/myocarditis-pericarditis-mrna-vaccines.pdf?sc_lang=en and from Medical News Today: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/study-investigates-covid-19-vaccines-and-myocarditis

Again, putting forward hypothesis based on best available data at the time is not conspiracy, as this Misplaced Pages entry appears to be implying - Dr Campbell is simply giving his expert opinion here. For this reason I request that the section "COVID-19 misinformation" be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, source(s). The sources say ivermectin isn't used in Japan, so that means the "hypothesis" isn't "plausible". Gobshite more like. Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, can I suggest you alter the entry title from "John Campbell (YouTuber)" to Dr John Campbell, as he's a qualified medical doctor with many years of experience in the field -he's simply using 'YouTube' to communicate medical information. After all if he was utilising 'Twitter' or 'Snapchat' to communicate, you wouldn't describe him as John Campbell (Twtterer) or John Campbell (Snapchatter)? In short, I don't consider YouTube his defining characteristic, do you? You might also want to add a complete list of his qualifications and work experience in an attempt to improve the quality of this Misplaced Pages entry a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

He's not a "qualified medical doctor". Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at his Linkedin profile. You do regard that as reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, thinking about, this entry is so biased and lacking in substance, I suggest that it's either rewritten substantially or removed.

You might want to take a look at his Linkedin profile. You do regard that as reliable source? No, we don't. He's not, and has never been, a medical doctor, simple as that. FDW777 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Too bad. Then tell me, if a doctorate in teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education, a masters health science, dozens of publications in nursing journals and a lifetime's work in the medical profession don't count for much, then what will it take for you to write a fair and balanced encyclopaedia entry about Dr Campbell, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources, sources and more sources. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well then, given the lack of credible sources relating to Dr Campbell's life and achievements, can I suggest Misplaced Pages simply remove the page. Because you chaps seem to have lost sight of the purpose of an encyclopedia - "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title" (a definition from Misplaced Pages). The key word here being "factual", not the smattering of "factoids" in this entry for Campbell, which has more than a strong whiff of confirmation bias about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources, sources, and sources. Misplaced Pages reflects sources. If you think he's not notable, then nominate the article for deletion. Alexbrn (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a sterling idea - I was attempting to give the author the piece an opportunity to improve upon the content, however you're right the article should be nominated for deletion. Further, to reiterate, Misplaced Pages really should keep in mind that the ultimate goal of an encyclopedia should be to inform and educate, not misrepresent, or be used maliciously against an individual. This kind poor content, referencing and writing style only reflects badly on Misplaced Pages, not on the person they're attempting the hatchet job on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically sounds like you just "don't like" what the sources say, even though they're reliable and relay expert reaction and analysis. If you think something is "misrepresented" then that should be easy to demonstrate. But instead you are making assertions without evidence. Misplaced Pages is not an "educational" resource, merely a summary of accepted knowledge on topics. Currently this article does do an excellent job of informing readers, who might otherwise be ignorant of the fact, about misinformation in some Youtube videos. There's more stuff out there on John Campbell (e.g.), but it does not meet the threshold of reliability/weight for use on Misplaced Pages, so cannot be used. Finally, your imputations of motive are daft - one might as well say you have some personal reason to boost John Campbell and have come here with the express purpose of doing that. Alexbrn (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Finally, your imputations of motive are daft - one might as well say you have some personal reason to boost John Campbell and have come here with the express purpose of doing that." Wow, you deduced that based on the fact that I'm suggesting how to improve the quality of this Misplaced Pages entry - I think you've just made my point for me, better than I ever could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You miss my point. Anybody can say anything about motive but it's silly as you can't know another's mind. So far, you have made no proposals to "improve the quality" of this article. Instead you seem to want to suppress certain items of knowledge and delete the article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't don't how you've managed to jump to that conclusion - I et al. have simply been requesting that the quality of the content of the page to be improved, specifically make it a more balanced and comprehensive description of Dr Campbell. Currently it reads like a bitter attempt to undermine him - I don't think that's a healthy thing for Misplaced Pages's content writers to be indulging in, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation is constructed at the point of reading. From what I have seen the channel was regarded as sensible to start with, but increasingly has veered into ivermectin promotion, conspiracy theories and flirtation with antivax tropes - so that expert reaction to it is now pretty horrified. Misplaced Pages simply reports the reality as found in sources. I think your disappointment may be with reality, not with Misplaced Pages and, while that's understandable, it's not our problem to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I had to read that twice - at first I thought you were referring to this Misplaced Pages page, not Dr Campbell's YouTube channel. Okay, have it your way - if Misplaced Pages wants to spend its time attempting to undermine the credibility of people, rather than be a fact-based repository of knowledge, so be it - but I think I now understand why many academics frown upon students citing Misplaced Pages in their dissertations and research work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not "attempt to undermine" anybody. It disinterestedly reports what's in appropriate sources and the cards fall as they will. What you seem to be suggesting is that certain sources should be ignored so as to hide the fact that this channel is spreading misinformation. Now, that actually would be against Misplaced Pages's core requirement for WP:NPOV, as well as morally reprehensible. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the second one, about Gundry's paper, is likely undue and should be removed from the lead and the Covid misinformation section. The factcheck (link) we include does not directly implicate him in spreading misinformation; it says he talked about the paper, said the findings might be significant, and this was used by conspiracy theorists to conclude the vaccine was causing heart attacks. It did not criticise him in express terms. I am not sure about the first one about Japan and ivermectin as I cannot access the factcheck from the UK, but I think we need to be cautious in adding information to a WP:BLP and I don't feel it is met with the Gundry paper one. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Goodness, you really don't get this do you. If one is setting about writing an article, book, thesis, and even a Misplaced Pages page they need to undertake a literature search first - that is examine all, I'll say it again, all available references, not just cherry-pick a few factoids to confirm a preconceived bias or belief about that individual. Why not take a look at the man's body of work over his entire life, his teaching, publications in journals, his books, etc instead of attempting to build a narrative, that Campbell is a conspiracy theorist who's against vaccination, from carefully selected material gathered in only recent weeks? Given that he's spent a lifetime working as a nurse and been administering vaccinations since he was 18 years old, this article is laughable. It's obvious to me, and others, that its author hasn't even bothered to do their research on the man or his publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has had 32 editors. I have searched the literature and added all the appropriate sources that turned up. If there are more sources, what are they? (as you have been repeatedly asked). The article nowhere says "Campbell is a conspiracy theorist who's against vaccination", so you're straw-manning in saying that. I expect more sources will be published soon. Who are these "others" you refer to? Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play ball and do your homework for you AlexBrn. Here's a little bedtime reading for you: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Campbells-Physiology-Notes-John-Campbell/dp/0955379725 I recommend you read this text thoroughly and check the quality of the references. Once you've done this you should be in a better position to write with more authority on Campbell's abilities as a medical expert. I suggest adding a link to this publication to his Misplaced Pages page (I note his book has an excellent rating) and anyone visiting his page on Misplaced Pages will surely want to know more about the man, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are based on secondary sources with respect to their subject. So that source is useless for our purposes. We want sources about Campbell (or his work), not sources by Campbell. If there are reliably-published reviews of that book, on the other hand, they may be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ, a reference Campbell's publications would surely help build a fuller picture of the man - that's what you're attempting to do in writing this article, yes? Here's the link to the book with reviews: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Campbells-Physiology-Notes-John-Campbell/dp/0955379725 You really should include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not suitable: WP:RSPAMAZON. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is not point using arguments that seem to say "well I disagree with policy".Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Rules, regulations are specifications are a wonderful thing, until they become a means unto themselves, however quality should be the ultimate goal in any endeavour. That aside, I can see you've begum to make a few nice amendments to this page, but it still has a way to go yet. Can I further suggest you correct the sentence, " misinformation that vaccines cause heart attacks" as one of the documented side effects of the vaccine is myocardial inflammation https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-information-for-healthcare-professionals/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-following-covid-19-vaccination and blood clots if accidentally injected into the blood stream. This article still needs a great deal of work to give it credibility - but keep at, I know you can do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is not a heart attack.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're making my case for me. These physiological problems can lead to heart attacks - you could have checked that before posting. With all due respect, the problem here is that the folk editing this article simply don't possess the expertise or experience to do a good job on it.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Can, not do always. But you are right we do not have the expertise to make medical claims, so we rely on those made by RS. I also note that the claim is not "they cause heart attacks" but that they "‘Dramatically Increase’ Heart Attack Risk". Which is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

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

I respectfully request that this Misplaced Pages page be deleted as it does not give a balanced representation of the individual described. More specifically, the few sources cited focus excessively on Campbell's medical advice on COVID-19 during the last 6 months and any errors he may have made. Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Others won't do this; you need to do it yourself by following the process at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. However, you will need to argue convincingly that the article subject fails WP:N / WP:NBIO and, given the sourcing available, that is unlikely to be possible. Alexbrn (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I tend to agree with you. From our dialogue, it's my perception that Misplaced Pages lacks the detailed background knowledge and expertise to properly assess the quality of the content in this particular entry. But I've already made a case—as have several other of Misplaced Pages's peers—and there seems to be little motivation to take on board these constructive criticisms to improve the quality of the content on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is just an enyclopedia. It merely summarizes the accepted knowledge found in reliable sources. That's it. As other have said, sources are all. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So tabloids are "reliable sources", but LinkedIn isn't - correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Philip Taylor what tabloid source is included? Thanks in advance. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Some tabloids are, some aren't: see WP:RSPSOURCES for a list. A person writing about themselves on LinkedIn can be used as a source so long as the statements being made there aren't "self-serving nor an exceptional claim", nor about third parties: see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. An article from "The Guardian" is referenced when discussing the popularity of Campbell's YouTube channel - "Between February and March 2020, his channel increased from an average of 500,000 views per month to 9.6 million, the plurality of which originated from the United States". Not really sure why this is of particular interest compared to say, his academic achievements, publications or teaching of health workers in India and Cambodia. As a reader, I certainly would have like to have known more about that - it sounds fascinating and would surely help build a better picture of the man's character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So what does it say you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, if there's going to be a paragraph on COVID-19 misinformation, which represents less than a fraction of percent of Campbell's work, then perhaps, for sake of balance, add paragraphs on his other work which he's been more heavily involved in over a longer period of time. Again, some references to his academic papers, books and other textual materials would improve the quality of the article, for example, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015612517 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

An unfortunate consequence of YouTube and the like is that widespread exposure, even viral sometimes, means that his publishing re COVID-19 can no longer be considered a small fraction of his entire body of work, at least in this important respect. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, with viewing figures rivalling the BBC and international news coverage it's the most notable thing about him. Alexbrn (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

So this is an article about either COVID-19 or YouTube fame, not Dr John Campbell. Given the article is so light on references and factual info relating to Campbell, perhaps it would be simply be best to delete it.Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You're going round in circles. There is ample sourcing for a Misplaced Pages biography (for better or worse) so it would stand no chance of deletion. The article shall reflect what sources are saying about the subject and, given the prominence of the Youtube channel that is inevitably going to a lot about that (probably more so as more sources appear). Without the YT channel Campbell would not merit a Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages is just a reflection of the sources out there (as everybody is repeatedly trying to tell you). Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

BY all means add other information you think is lacking sourced to wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. So articles on Misplaced Pages are simply to be based a consensus of current opinion (aka fads), rather than historically or scientifically accurate knowledge? Your objective isn't to strive to write articles of the highest quality you possibly can?Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read our policies then you would know the answer, yes we go with what the consensus of expert opinion (see wp:medrs) say, which is what we srive to do, reflect what the bulk of people who know what they are talking about say). But I would suggest that vaccines are not a fad. Mr Campbell is a nurse, he is not an MD, so no he is not an RS for medical opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

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

I don't know if this is the way to do it, but when saying that Dr Campbell spreads missinformation, please explain a bit why it is missinformation. Writing how his YouTube channel got an award and then a sentence later saying that in this case he is simple wrong, while completely ignoring his arguments isn't convincing people. 85.250.105.11 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You should read the two citations that support what we say in that sentence, cite numbers and at the moment. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin misinformation

I saw a video of Dr Campbell where he compares ivermectin and Pfizer's new drug paxlovid. I've got to say he makes a pretty compelling argument. I wanted to see who this guy is so I went on wikipedia. At the beginning it says how he way a nurse instructor and his YouTube channel even got a prize for the quality of it's content. I scrolled a bit more expecting to find more specific information about his COVID stance. Indeed there was a specific addressing, but it was very limited. He has videos where he makes very scientific arguments, and all it says on this page is that it is misinformation, without explaining why. With the Japan thing there was an explanation (although it was bad because giving a hypothesis that turns out to be wrong is not actively spreading misinformation, but at least you explain your claim). If you can't find sufficient information falsifying his ivermectin claims you can't simply shake it off as misinformation. Please provide an explanation for why you claim his ivermectin claims are wrong, or take that part off the page. 85.250.105.11 (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

See the Science-Based Medicine article linked in the further reading in the article, in which John Campbell makes a cameo appearance. This information is also covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Pfizer's drug development. Alexbrn (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

He is not an MD, nor is he a micro-biologist. We need qualified people supporting his findings.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the same here. I came to this page seeking information on Dr Campbell only to find gossip on Covid-19 conspiracies, YouTube rankings, and very little substance about the man himself. Not sure why Misplaced Pages would want to publish twaddle like this - it says more about them than it does Dr Campbell. --Dr Philip Taylor (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

As you have been told, because we can only repeat what RS have said. If you want to expand the article you can start to expand it, no one is stopping you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"So-called experts" who act outside their field of expertise really annoy me. To top that, Youtube is now suggesting that I view his videos. -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If you find your emotions are engaged, perhaps step away from editing this article. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, or chewing a brick? -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• Start-Class society and medicine articles
• Low-importance society and medicine articles
• Society and medicine task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English