Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 10 January 2022

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. Medicine 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States 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. 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.

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.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

It is requested that an image or photograph of Robert W. Malone be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Dr. Malone

I am very concerned about, Misplaced Pages, putting, misinformation , concerning, Dr.Malone, and do not, I repeat , do not state , sources or the author of this article/Bio/ on the Doctor! This is total propaganda , on behalf of WIKIPEDIA!! 50.35.17.3 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. What misinformation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And why do you think it is misinformation? Are you competent enough to tell the difference? Or did you have two sources contradicting each other, then throw a coin or something to decide which one was wrong, and it turned out to be Misplaced Pages? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Dr Malone actually got blocked on Twitter pretty recently, can't say if today or yesterday, presumably for the very same disinformation he was spreading on Twitter (I found no credible English outlet reporting on it, unfortunately), I find this comment unintentionally humorous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Twitter suspended him that's how you know he's wrong" Imbecilic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:8F40:E53B:6A76:C3A1:5CF3 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do we say that? And read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase second sentence of Overview section.

The public would greatly benefit from rephrasing the following sentence, which is confusing at best and grammatically incorrect.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, he is vaccinated, and he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines

A suggestion:

During the CoVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticised for promoting misinformation about the safety and efficacy of CoVID-19 vaccines, despite being vaccinated himself. Vixerunt69 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He specifically says that if you’ve had COVID and recovered, you have natural immunity that makes you 20-30x less likely to be hospitalized and if you take the vaccine post recovery, you have 3-7x increase chance of negative side effects from taking the vaccine. Basically, if you’ve been infected and recovered, you don’t need to take the vaccine. Saddario25 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

He had also said that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse. He has questioned their safety. No he has done far more than just said that natural immunity is better than a vaccine.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

but surely this man is qualified to make these statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:2cc:af00:ad82:1616:760b:9c87 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As are the many people who say otherwise. Misplaced Pages has rules for such situations, for example WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources linked for Roberts education are not proper sources and do not prove his education.

Recently Robert appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience claiming to be a DR and virologist who created MRNA vaccines and generally as a person who is throughly educated around COVID and virology in general. He might be those things BUT there is no proof of this available as a source on this Wiki page which claims "Robert Malone graduated from the University of California, Davis, and received his MD from Northwestern University. He also completed a fellowship at Harvard Medical School as a global clinical research scholar."

Sources 5 and 6 do not prove any part of this statement to be true. Source 5 goes to a dead link and source 6 goes to some unrelated article which does not prove his education. As per Wikipedias rules below this section of the article should be removed until proper proof of education can be found.

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.

Realmouthfull (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Source 5 is now fixed (the URL was missing a www prefix). The website doesn't have static webpages that point to each doctor, but searching Malone and the License Number present in the webpage title readily returns the information in the citation. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, I also added dates and majors to the section, and the institutional information from citation 5 agrees with the information it presents.

Concerning the failed verification, the article quotes states in the third paragraph: Robert Malone "spent a year in postdoctoral studies at Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training program." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is not the same as a "post-doctoral fellowship", and it does not say he completed any "Clinical Scholars Research Training program.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching for "Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training" yielded the link below. If that is the program mentioned in the Tennessee Star source and bearing in mind the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration of the program and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed, then we can infer a few things with the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed.

Searching Google for "Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training" (taken verbatim from the Tennessee Star article) yielded this link. If that is the program mentioned in the Tennessee Star source and bearing in mind the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration of the program and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed, then we can infer a few things:

1) The program lasts one year, and Dr. Malone spent a year in the program. Maybe he completed it, maybe he just left.

2) Under "Who Should Apply," it states that "candidates holding and MD, PhD, MBBS, DMD, DDS, PharmD, DNP, or an equivalent degree should apply." Given that in 2014, Robert Malone had completed his MD from Northwestern, this would constitute postdoctoral work.

3) I agree, this program is not accurately described by the word fellowship. Certificate seems more appropriate as it is used on its own webpage. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And source five only supports "NORTHWESTERN UNIV MED SCH Graduation Year: 1991" the rest do not seem to be listed (though some post graduate courses are, but no qualifications).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE lists five criteria that need to be met to use a self-published source. Let me propose this source for supporting the claim of Dr. Malone's BSc, MSc, and MD. Of most interest is the fourth point concerning "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We would need to confirm this is his CV, how?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• While a primary source, his 1991 MD award and previous education is printed in the 1991 Northwestern University commencement program. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

His CV is partially described in the first few paragraphs of a NATURE article that investigated who invented the idea of the mRNA vaccine...if we can't find a source that says he graduated from college, do we have to assume he is inflating his credentials/lying and delete it? Lmao, literally headlines a Nature article about who invented one of the most important medical developments of the century...and here is Misplaced Pages, ready to delete his claim that he graduated from college, because we can't find third party proof... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep State Patriot (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is evidence of higher education, the reader can conclude the existence of a college graduation just as well as you can, so it is not needed in the article. No big deal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, impostors exist. They succeed for a while because of people with your attitude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If he has an MD from a US medical school, he has a college degree from somewhere, likely in the US. Nature says he was a graduate researcher at the Salk Institute. Since someone pulled up proof of his medical graduation, the only thing that is missing is proof of his degrees from the two UC schools. I'm not sure if you're calling me stupid or what with the statement about my "attitude", but I was merely pointing out how absurd it would be to inflate such trivial components of one's background (relative to the mRNA contributions, which seem to be akin to Doudna and Charpentier's contributions to the Crispr idea, prior to Zhang's improvements). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep State Patriot (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

here is Misplaced Pages, ready to delete his claim that he graduated from college, because we can't find third party proof and it is the right thing to do, because... I already explained why: the reader can conclude. Omitting it is not "inflating" anything, it is just omitting it. As I said: No big deal. No reason to kneel on the stage, throw the head back, open your mouth in horror, tear at your hair, and emit a loud wail. There is no problem with demanding independent confirmation, but there is a problem with not demanding it: as I said, impostors exist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The guy seems to be more of a Bobby "The real deal but bad at PR" Fischer character than an Al "No, I really invented the internet, people" Gore one. I agree though--the reader can infer--but what if we said "according to Malone's public CV"? Are self published sources allowed at all on wikipedia? I just want to be sure this is being applied consistently... Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A CV (by it's ver nature) is promotional. So it can be used for information that is not unduly self-serving only. I would argue that means things like date of birth, not information that a person may exaggerate for the purposes of employment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Would a guy like Malone really want to lie about going to...UC Davis? (Great school, by the way...) If personal sources aren't expressly forbidden, then what's the big deal? Given the scrutiny this guy is getting, I'm sure any of these institutions would've already flagged any false claims, and they haven't... Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

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

This claim is unsupported by the document given. Every restriction described by Malone in the excerpt of the Bannon interview is congruent with what's described on the FDA press release 8 days prior (August 23rd 2021)... The vaccine was issued on an emergency use authorisation and was restricted for use on anyone under 16.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

"Malone has also been criticized for falsely claiming that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021."

The word "falsely" should be supported by citation. If the claim is simply "Malone was criticised for saying X", citation works... but as to the criticisms basis in fact... we would need an article with evidence to that effect. EmptyAtoms (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Or we could use this as well and change it to misleadingly ].Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe expand it to also include the false claim it lacked liability protection ]..

Yes I think it needs expanding.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification and accuracy (without belaboring a point into pedantry) is always better than broad brush claims or weasel words, but keep in mind that not all verifiable criticism, or failed fact-checks necessarily must be included, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOTSUFF. I'm not saying anything needs to be omitted currently, but fact-checks by their nature tend to be very fleeting and myopically focused on a single tweet or sentence (as opposed to more long-form articles covering a career) and over-reliance on fact-checks can in theory distort the perception. Politifact has 7 false claims (including 1 Pants on Fire) by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, yet we need not include all such verifiable misinformation in her article (this is only an analogy: I realize the two have different reasons for notability and levels of press coverage) --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, in his eyes, "full approval" meant having safety follow-up studies years later, the ability to market, and other safety/teratogenicity/toxicity/etc. which is impossible of course, unless the virus and vaccines were being studied in a lab years prior to the pandemic...LOL JK ANYWAY...if there's a way to incorporate his more nuanced explanation that would be great. In his eyes, "full approval" might mean something different than "full approval under emergency use authorization" or whatever. He worked for a contract research organization prior to the pandemic and is well qualified to comment about the drug approval process and that the process was altered/rushed. If we're citing a blanket/blunt fact check that doesn't expand on what he actually said, I don't think it is fair. I am not sure if he is correct, as I'm not a drug approval expert, but it seems one-sided to just cite how the fact check characterized his claims, because it was more than just "there was no full approval". Sadly most of his rebuttals and claims, which are extremely cogent, are said on podcasts with hosts who aren't known for great histories in the "fact" universe, and likely won't be able to be cited here, right? Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why SPS should not be used for controversial or self-serving statements. Did he say at the time "according to how I interpret the rules" or was this only after his statements were fact-checked? Or did he say it as a fact?Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I will do a deep dive in the alternative and normie media universe, time permitting, and get back to you. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I an unsure that ALtrelantive media (or whatever Normie means) will pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

We must all ensure that disinformation is not allowed to be expressed here (no matter the source, and even a hint of it must not be tolerated, this is too important) - Many acceptable RS cited contain opinion and narrative, not fact. Since this is a biography of a living person primary source rebuttal needs to be part of the article. The subjects call for statistical study would provide balance and rebuttal. Reticence to provide counterbalance to a one sided analysis is misinformation! I don't know! or We don't know? that is what you would expect to be the correct answer about a new bio-technology or a new virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs)

We don't do false balance here. - MrOllie (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone saying there is not a finding of statistical fact is not false balance, Its simply a call for more fact finding. aka Neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

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

Change "misinfortmation" in the introduction to "fact-based information" 2602:47:D1E9:5F00:E95B:910A:80F0:54B2 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We follow what the sources say, and that is definitely not what they say. - MrOllie (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep "mis-information" btw I thought wikipedia was based on consensus building? Please pause and consider. Change - RWM is not the inventor or MRNA he is a contributor. The article should not include he said she said. Suggest that the article change to reflect the chronology. "The currently available mRNA vaccines are the results of contributions from multiple people in different locations over time." ForbesForbes Nature describes his work in 1987 as a landmark experiment and stepping stone.Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w The nature article has a chronology that pre-dates Malone and it also suggests that his work was far away from a vaccine.

Change - Add a reference to the fact that RWM is calling for statistical study as a rebuttal to the conclusion in the first sentence. There are numerous RS to that effect. eg "we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously"

Provide one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously. Again he asks, "Is there information or patterns that can be found quotation asking for more informaiton

On another note, I was able to find metrics from UK NHS on vaccine effectiveness https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf The report does not cover adverse reactions but it does cover pregnancy; From what I can tell pregnancy risk of a premature birth is about 1/2 a percent greater vaccinated vs unvaccinated. The UK's adverse reaction reporting system cites 137686 adverse reactions and 856 fatalities; immune system reactions in a single week 54870 (171 fatalities) with the denominator being 39,324,944 with two vaccinations and 21,339,420 with two shots and a booster. With three shots adverse reactions are a little less than 1%. In the data its is very clear that the vaccine prevents hospitalization. My guess is that 1% is a very high adverse reaction reporting rate. The data also suggests that the vaccine has a very short effective duration, very short duration. I mention this because there IS DATA TO BE FOUND that is organized and meaningful I was not able to find usable data in the US, but that might be a function of having a national health system vs a highly distributed system. I am not advocating that original research be presented; Several leading academic institutions and academics are calling for more data, and they are calling for a pause to vaccinations in favor of changing the vaccine to match the variants. There is also an indicator that the vaccine is shaping mutations. I am very convinced that Malone is promulgating opinions that are falsely interpreted in fact, I am also convinced that politics has supplanted pragmatism; there are unknowns from every direction.

Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting original research be used or presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Then what are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• OR is prohibited. Is there a source about Malone on the table? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.totalhealth.co.uk/blog/are-people-getting-full-facts-covid-vaccine-risks one of many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A blog post. Right. I think we can close this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Curious editors might want to know that that website appears to be drenched in Kool-Aid. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

But it's written by "leading doctors"! It's in fact very un-transparent about its provenance, saying only "© Copyright 2019 Synaptic Limited" at the foot of the page. This appears to be a management consultancy (with overdue accounts). Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: delete "mass formation psychosis" paragraph

There's an issue where it's being conflated with mass psychogenic illness via google search despite being, as defined by Malone and the academic he quotes, about leaders taking advantage of widespread dysfunction (commonly known as "mass hypnosis"), essentially, with no components of psychogenic/psychosomatic illness (psychogenic/psychosomatic phenomena are best illustrated in the movie Airplane! when the fish allegedly was leading to illness). I think the confusion arises from how it's a pandemic and people do get sick, but the conflation is a big problem, because absolutely the ideas are completely different, and if Misplaced Pages is claiming Malone is saying people are imagining being sick, that's like...hugely defamatory. Apparently it's a term made up by an academic and used by Robert Malone--two people. But if it's such a rare term, I don't think it belongs on here. Either we define it and explain it with redirect pages etc., or we don't bring it up at all. Do we invoke the term and risk amplification/endorsement of a niche and incendiary term, or do we remove all traces of it, because it's so rare, and not risk amplifying it? The redirect page I created was deleted because it risked amplifying the term, but the editor who deleted it said to post here, so here I am...Deep State Patriot (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would say it is very relevant that he is trying to draw a parallel between the rise of Naxi Germany and Covid. That he is claiming that the leadership of the western world is trying to take advantage of a global pandemic in the same way the Nazis used fear to gain power. Yes that is very relevant to our understanding of his views.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So maybe it should just be "sequestered" to this page? I suppose when you search for "mass formation psychosis" on here it doesn't lead you to "mass psychogenic illness" but rather this page leads the results, so that's good. Google's problems are a different story and are likely unfixable, but at least perhaps it is fine on here? Does a redirect page really risk amplifying it though? If we make a redirect page would that fix the google results? Maybe we could fix Google's search issue by making a redirect page, since apparently their highly paid employees can't design a search engine that produces correct results. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If "mass formation psychosis" only exits in two places, it will not be a search term look for in isolaotion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you do a google search and tell me what you see. You do see proper explanations of its niche application. Then you see Misplaced Pages, completely useless, providing an irrelevant article in response--a complete non sequitur. I am wondering if we could do here what Google's $250,000 software engineers/censors could not. Apparently for some time after the Rogan podcast was released, Google had a notification saying "we are improving results", so they're onto it and aware of the issue. That they would eventually link the incorrect Misplaced Pages article is either malevolent mischaracterization or extreme incompetence. They pay their employees so much, and we're getting paid nothing...and they were completely useless and wrong on this. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Deep State Patriot questioned whether "we remove all traces of it, because it's so rare, and not risk amplifying it?" We’re not here to decide whether something we write risks amplifying it…if it’s notable. That’s called censorship. Wikipedians kind of should not do that. Ever. As in never ever. And as the interview has made headlines around the world, and a video of the interview had no fewer than 3,000,000 views according to an article on mainstream media outlet RealClearPolitics, and a Congressman saw fit to actually have a transcript of the whole interview entered into the Congressional record to avoid social media censorship, I think we can safely say and maybe even agree that it’s notable. However, Misplaced Pages has yet to catch up and produce an article about it. Googling Mattias Desmet, the Ghent University professor who first described the term is informative. Malone is no idiot, he’s a very highly regarded researcher. He mentions Desmet in his interview. Boscaswell talk 05:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph shouldn't be trying to confirm his definition as valid. Currently written presenting his views uncritically, as if it is factual. Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We present it as they RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

...that makes literally no sense, so I am very confused why you would even suggest that as an outcome. Right now we are presenting Malones POV as a clinical diagnosis equating the significant majority of the US with Nazi's. Putting "claimed" at the beginning and then presenting those same WP:FRINGE claims isn't how we do things, particularly when providing lengthy quotations. Koncorde (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact I am now assuming that you missed this change to the article which completely altered the tone, weight and attribution? Koncorde (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No we are not, we are staying he said it. We offer no judgment, nor do the RS, they just let the statement stand (or fall) on its own. Nor are we saying anything about it being a clinical diagnosis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we're full on WP:FRINGE and I am really surprised you don't seem to see that. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see it because we are just reporting he said it (which RS did). Yes it is fringe, it is misinformation. It is another example of his Covid misinformation., this is why it should be here. So people can see what he says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We can say what he says by quoting what other people say about it and him the way we would with any other subject matter. We are not reporting that he said it, we are duplicating it entirely, uncritically. We would not quote wholesale such inanity with such undue weight to a persons opinion on a FRINGE subject that they are neither an expert on (be it history, psychology or sociology) without equivalent peer coverage. WP:FRINGE policy is very clear on non-expert opining outside their lanes. Koncorde (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the urgency here. Malone was speaking extemporaneously on a talk show, and it's clear from the otherwise informal language in the quote that his words were a matter of opinion presented in an off-the-cuff manner. I think it would be overkill to include peer coverage for the sole sake of discounting obvious conjecture. Bleepenvoy (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A matter of opinion presented in an off-the-cuff manner does not belong in a Misplaced Pages article at all unless there is peer coverage for it, and if there is, then the peer coverage needs to be the source for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, the quote is sourced to three separate periodicals which covered the interview. The quote itself has been being reprinted in full, presumably because it involves a virtual neologism ('mass formation psychosis') that's seen very little past usage. In my mind, the direct quote is the shortest path from A to B in terms of describing what was noteworthy there. Bleepenvoy (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What is in your mind does not matter. The policy WP:PSTS says, Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't dug too much into the literature but I think there is a reasonable amount of politics and sociology that are using the term psychosis quite liberally to mean "beliefs that are at odds with reality despite evidence", rather than "a state of the brain that causes it to generate such beliefs". The "psychosis" in this usage is maintained by social effects such as propaganda etc. I suspect that if you say, dict into the literature of cults or regimes you'll find a discussion of the effects that allow large number of people to believe lies. I think it would be useful to highlight how this is different from psychosis and make clear that this is not really a psychological term. The question is whether the literature is there. I still don't really know how wikipedia deals with a small and biased literature. Talpedia (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

May I recommend that anyone citing WP:FRINGE also take a look at WP:FRINGENOT, which has these words: "the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists." This does not apply to subjects such as the argument that a population has been manipulated. That article, WP:FRINGENOT, is well worth reading. I added the quote and put the two refs against it, and I imagine that there are many more RS’s available which have done the same. Note that both of the refs include all the words quoted, and little more. So why are they quoting that? Why are "we" quoting them? To explain to their readers. Because it’s notable. And that’s what we do. The interview video had 3,000,000 views in a couple of days before YT pulled it. This article had approaching 700,000 page views in December, and was trending high in the last few days of the month. People want to read about him and what he said. Not to be a source of information, or far, far worse, refusing to be a source of information, whether we agree with it or not, that’s called censorship. Boscaswell talk 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no part of that which is relevant. Idle speculation that the majority of a population is mentally ill, and an analogous to Nazi Germany isn't a "NOTFRINGE" issue. It patently is fringe, as the coverage states, particularly it isn't even a published theory. It also isn't censorship to not include every word of the Fringe claim by a non-expert. Koncorde (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As a reader coming to this page in an attempt to understand where Malone got 'Mass Formation Psychosis' from I found the redirect to this page hugely helpful. I was, frankly, quite pleased to not find an entire page devoted to it, but rather a link to the person who is the reason I was looking for it in the first place. Good work editors.Davecormier (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about a potential reference

Would somehow adding information from the Nature Reviews's article Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery to the context of Malone's part on the development of the mRNA vaccines be adequate here? I feel like it's verging on WP:OR since it doesn't mention Malone by name, only one of his papers. OTOH, it's an important part of the current controversy regarding his claims of being "the inventor", and on Nature. Opinions? VdSV9•♫ 02:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

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

Get rid of the "misinformation" in his description. 174.99.20.114 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Age

He was 62 at the time of the #1757 podcast he did with Joe Rogan in December 2021.Artaxerxes (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

His age is given as 61 in a June 17, 2021 RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland article (in German) and an August 12, 2021, Atlantic article. As of January 4, 2022, News.com.au still gives age as 61. Assuming the Joe Rogan Podcast is considered reliable (e.g. if Malone gave his own age as 62 which would probably be a permissible WP:SELFSOURCE), I think it would be acceptable to generalize DOB to ca. 1959 for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added age. Malone states his own age as 62 in the Joe Rogan podcast, per the transcript, which is acceptable via WP:SELFSOURCE. Unless my math is wrong (which it could be), if he was 61 August and 62 in December 2021, his birth year is 1959. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone find an open source picture of him? Could we use one of the Dos Equis "most interesting man" until we find one? 2600:1012:B017:656E:A9E1:A702:EA2D:4BD9 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

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

“Misinformation” is an opinion, not a fact. Remove the word, please. 108.54.82.152 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We say he was criticised for it, he was.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, we get that from reliable sources, and it is an important fact. It would be irresponsible to sweep it under the rug. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what I meant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the original sentiment: it should be changed. The language is too strong. Perhaps, instead: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Malone became associated with his controversial remarks on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and has drawn accusations of promoting misinformation." Same idea, little more objective. Bleepenvoy (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mass formation psychosis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mass formation psychosis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Mass formation psychosis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody can add this AP article on the MFP misinformation: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-joe-rogan-ap-fact-check-a87b1044c6256968dcc33886a36c949f?utm_medium=APFactCheck&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5895:6600:D441:F68A:6E7C:743F (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dutch wiki

The term mass formation comes from Mattias Desmet (Belgium). There is a Dutch wiki article that clearly describes the phenomenon according to Desmet. https://nl.wikipedia.org/Massavorming In German they call it Massenbildung (coined by Freud if I am correct). Other sources: Gustave le Bon's The Crowd, Hannah Arendt, Elias Canetti wrote about it, but not specifically with the words 'mass formation'. 2A02:A443:5030:1:A462:63C9:B0D0:B4A (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It just means "crowd building". In this context, "Masse" is German for "crowd" or "mob", and the idea behind using it is that a mob is more prone to being wrong than an individual. Of course, the problem is that the science community has radically different mechanisms from a mob, and if Malone wants to change the consensus by gathering a mob of non-scientists, he is doing it wrong.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? What edit to the article are you suggesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is directed to Robert Malone: Mass_formation_psychosis. I'd say you make a proper article about mass formation/massavorming/massenbildung in the way Desmet has brought up this term and connecting it to Le Bon/Arendt, with the addition that Malone added the word 'psychosis' to it. Desmet corrects Malone in this YouTube that he uses Mass formation, not Mass formation psychosis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNbaXW6ypUY

The term Mass Formation and Mass Formation Psychosis deserve a proper wiki article itsself, since it became a recent top search on Google and Reuters, The Hill, Business Insider and soon other msm also talk about it. Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it should be clearly defined how experts, society and media are using this term.

2A02:A443:5030:1:C993:2B9B:B12A:BE95 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This guy is referring to meme currently popular in anti-vaccination circles. It has not scientific basis. See for example this article . Fringe noticeboard, maybe? - Skysmith (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

the source of your link is Reuters. Business insider copied exact the same content from Reuters too. As said above: whether it is a scientific term or a 'Malone term', it doesn't matter. It is an existing term with a no1 google search as we are typing right now. The Reuters/your link overlook Desmet totally as the primary source who connected mass formation to covid. The theory exists in that form since Autumn 2020 in Dutch. The first source is this article in the Belgium Knack (magazine) (famous magazine): https://www.knack.be/nieuws/wetenschap/in-de-coronacrisis-is-de-publieke-opinie-in-de-greep-van-absurde-oordelen/article-opinion-1634377.html

Nobody ever claimed the term was "scientific". It's more philosophical/sociological/psychological. None of those fields are scientific...they're basically humanities. Also, I must object to how I perceive that the term "science" is being abused to basically be a proxy for what mainstream sources deem "true" or not. If a scientist describes an unprovable (which makes the use of the word "unproven" in the article really, really dumb) idea that is widely covered, there's no reason it shouldn't be on here. Otherwise, maybe we should start culling scientists' personal lives sections, political views sections, etc.? Some of you need to get out more. "It's not scientific"...of course it isn't, and it was never claimed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:D879:7066:5347:F49F:3E6 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody ever claimed the term was "scientific". It's more philosophical/sociological/psychological. None of those fields are scientific...they're basically humanities - excuse me? Psychology is a science. I know pop psych is full of nonsense, but that doesn't mean that the actual field isn't science, it just means that random people love to latch onto fringe and unscientific ideas. Like mass formation, for example. Misplaced Pages shouldn't start pushing fringe psych ideas just because some guy thought they sounded cool. And regardless, its application to the pandemic specifically is highly unscientific and highly fringe.Just a note, please see MOS:INDENTGAP and MOS:INDENTMIX, you have been making this conversation inaccessible. I've corrected it, but please use lists in conversations properly. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Followed by a conversation with Marlies Dekkers and Dutch professor philosophy at the Leiden University Ad Verbrugge (https://nl.wikipedia.org/Ad_Verbrugge) (Famous thinker in NL who has published ten books. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOLhF9fyjkk This became a YouTube hit in The Netherlands, since that channel is a big countermedia channel in Dutch.

Also Trouw (prominent Dutch newspaper) followed then, Feb 2021: https://www.trouw.nl/religie-filosofie/de-coronacrisis-is-ook-een-zingevingscrisis-met-blikvernauwing-als-gevolg~b8e44231/

Maurice de Hond published a Dutch interview with him.

It took one year to jump from Dutch to English. This happened in several steps. Eric Clapton picks up the term and starts to talk about it with Robert F Kennedy jr https://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1457729180855160837

Then Chris Martenson picks it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRo-ieBEw-8

Aubrey Marcus as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqPJiM5Ir3A

And now Malone and it was Malone who added 'Psychosis'.

Sources enough and I now enumerate the timeline how the term spreaded.

2A02:A443:5030:1:C993:2B9B:B12A:BE95 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Background: This is related to a discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion. Platonk (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand or remove final paragraph of COVID-19 section

The final paragraph of the COVID-19 section of this article reads:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has given interviews to Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, InfoWars, and former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon."

While true, it isn't critical information, and the absence of follow-up regarding the content/significance of those interviews gives the impression that this line was included simply for the sake of associating Malone with politically divisive entities.

My opinion is that the line should be removed entirely and reintroduced only if it's expanded on to include what was noteworthy about the interviews. Bleepenvoy (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

1. McCarthy, Bill (2022-01-06). "PolitiFact - Who is Robert Malone? Joe Rogan's guest was a vaccine scientist, became an anti-vaccine darling". PolitiFact. Retrieved 2022-01-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Proposal: Identify Malone as AN inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, with citation to US Patent listing him as an inventor

The statement that he "claims to be the inventor" is neither neutral nor an accurate statement of the facts. He is listed as an inventor on, among others, U.S. Patent No. 6,673,776, which describes the invention as follows:

"The present invention relates to introduction of naked DNA and RNA sequences into a vertebrate to achieves controller expression of a polypeptide. It is useful in gene therapy, vaccination, and any therapeutic situation in which a polypeptide should be administered to cells in vivo."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6673776B1/

References

1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6673776B1/

When he says he invented mRNA vaccine technology, that is literally true, as acknowledged by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Or is this branch of the US government not credible on this platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4180:4A20:8966:82B2:666E:7DB6 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As well, the part saying, "credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi," relies solely on an article from a Portuguese newspaper. If Karikó and Rossi are more commonly credited for the technology, you'd think there'd be an English-language source to substantiate that claim. Bleepenvoy (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh? There are three more citations there. MrOllie (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Read 'em. These make no mention of either Karikó or Rossi, and the last one only asserts that Karikó contributed in an important fashion but that the effort was largely collaborative. None of the offered sources gel with the statement, "credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi," except the Portuguese article.

Bleepenvoy (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Kariko is on record (I believe in the Nature piece?) as saying her contribution was narrow (it absolutely was important). Seriously, I recommend looking into the case of who discovered and who improved CRISPR; it just seems like history will be repeating itself, unless politics get in the way. 174.193.138.201 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we say that Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, or that Feng Zhang, invented/discovered Crispr? What did the Nobel committee eventually think? There's a concerted effort to discredit Dr. Malone, and in my opinion that has extended to involve revisionism of his scientific discoveries that happened during the Cold War. By the standards of the powers that exist in Stockholm, there's an extremely strong case to be made that Dr. Malone was the brainchild of mRNA vaccine therapy. I know we have to rely on reliable sources (which also universally acknowledge Malone was a formative figure in RNA vaccine tech), but a bit of research quickly reveals that if anyone was the "founding parent" of mRNA tech, it was Dr. Malone. Yes, absolutely don't give him full credit for mRNA vaccines as they exist today in this article, but do not understate his pioneering contribution to the transfection of RNA and production of a desired protein as a therapy, and be wary of sources that try to say otherwise. It is indeed funny how, when considering his present politics/perceived politics, he is actually the O.G., who did stand on the shoulders of many giants, with any of the other contributors to mRNA vaccines having some sort of load being transferred to his shoulders. 174.193.138.201 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "From COVID to Malaria: The potential of mRNA vaccines". Deutsche Welle. July 28, 2021. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
2. Kertscher, Tom (June 16, 2021). "The COVID-19 vaccines' 'spike protein is very dangerous, it's cytotoxic.'". Politifact. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
3. "The development of mRNA vaccines was a collaborative effort; Robert Malone contributed to their development, but he is not their inventor". Health Feedback. August 26, 2021. Retrieved August 31, 2021.

• 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
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images