This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
Done Alexbrn ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Everyone knows Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
Everyone knows Wikipedia is a lost cause as far as neutrality towards those who deviate from official orthodoxies is concernedthanks for confirming that WP policy has been applied. — Paleo Neonate – 17:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) 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)
This entry in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - it doesn't do anything for Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6513:BD00:3C13:4481:5F69:A25F ( talk) 19:44, 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 Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia entry a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 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)
Goodness, you really don't get this do you. If one is setting about writing an article, book, thesis, and even a Wikipedia 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)
Philip needs to grasp what an encylopedia is. Our task is not to produce "literature" that "honestly and accurately represent the the person's life". That is the job of a biographer, writing a secondary source. Our task is to skim and summarize what such secondary sources have said, at a remove (WP is a tertiary source). As you'd expect for a run-of-the-mill academic, there is scant sourcing on John Campbell before he shot to fame as a Youtuber. If you think there's a rich vein of sourcing on this guy, then produce the sources; my library searches have produced not a lot. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I respectfully request that this Wikipedia 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)
I must admit I tend to agree with you. From our dialogue, it's my perception that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
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)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) 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)
The ridiculous nature of the singular criticism of his many well referenced arguments being highlighted and placed in the spotlight is from a completely biased person.
It was enough to motivate me to finally create a wiki editor account. Pam Mable S. ( talk) 12:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
Can people please read wp:forum and wp:npa. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Collapse. Please abide by
WP:TPG.
|
---|
EDIT: people with an agenda keep removing parts of the article as well as the talk page. Pretty petty. In the last couple of years I started seeing these biased articles more and more often. I assume people with strong political beliefs come off Reddit or similar platform and use Wikipedia to try and paint their views as absolute. I can tell you that the result is Wikipedia becoming a less credible source of information. I would strongly suggest to change the content of this article from a smear attempt to an actual review of the person. Please follow the suggestions people made before me and change or delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.170.158 ( talk) 19:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
The Fact check reference 3 seems to be unavailable in the uk. Satherley D (November 26, 2021). "Did mutations or ivermectin help stamp out Delta in Japan?". Newshub (Fact check).
I come in peace, but given that much of the criticism rides on that one reference is there any way to make it available please?
I also seem unable to edit the most if the article. DicksterWall ( talk) 14:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
In the video, Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in nursing education but is not a physician, reads the abstract and says that if the findings are correct, it would be “incredibly significant.”[5] It then says he did not mention the expression of concern but did question the types and methodology. I don't see that he adopted any of the claims in the abstract, nor did he provide an uncritical viewpoint of it. The latter acknowledged in the fact check. Therefore, I do not see any claim he made that was refuted in the fact check. The key here seems to be that it was used by anti-vaxxers, not what he said. Compare with the other fact check which did attack what he said. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 18:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
"we're not the ones to judge it"← exactly right. Let's continue to WP:STICKTOSOURCE and all shall be well. This content is due in the article. Whether it's due in the lede is debatable. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In a paragraph that talks about misinformation relating to Ivermectin use in Japan I think we can assume a reader will know that any quote will be about Ivermectin use in Japan. We do not need to labour the point. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@ FDW777: I see you reverted an edit which used info from his LinkedIn, saying his LinkedIn has been rejected on talk. The only rejection of the source was in relation to a user claiming he was a doctor, rather than the source per se. What is the reason you oppose the edit? As mentioned in my edit, WP:ABOUTSELF should apply: the info is not unduly self-serving nor is it exceptional, it's not about a third party, and its authenticity is not doubted as he links that LinkedIn profile on his YouTube about page ( here). Best wishes, Solipsism 101 ( talk) 23:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it this page https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-john-campbell-5256223b~ which says he is a "Nurse currently working in A and E" (he is not). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.Not sure what other info could be from LinkedIn but quals/experience. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 10:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but no Stephen Hawking] even when they are as famous as this person we do not cal them Doctor. We usually do that for MD's. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
qualified medical doctor with many years of experience in the field, based on his Linkedin profile. FDW777 ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
He has a certificate in tropical diseases from Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and a postgraduate certificate in pharmacology from the University of Lancaster. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Huh. Perhaps it's a regional coloquillism, I'm unfamiliar with such use, but immaterial. As has been mentioned previously, of course it's "self-serving", all CV material is such. It seems unlikely that he's prevaricating, based upon the existing 'knowns' about him. It's odd, there seems to be this mentality that Campbell is some sort of charlatan, when he's had a distinguished career as an academic and educator, and he's been praised for combatting covid 19 misinformation (notwithstanding the two instances of poor judgement he made re the material that's in dispute elsewhere here). I do wish other editors would at least look at his older videos, just to get a more balanced opinion of his work. Yes, yes, I'm not talking policies here. Basing opinions of Campbell solely by the two fact-checked ones is narrow. He's posted hundreds of enormously informative and educational videos about the virus and pandemic. But, I digress. Anastrophe ( talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"they've made up their minds that he's just another 'covid denier'"← Wrong. The content of this article is more complex than that. Campbell was praised (by a UNICEF branch - as I added) early in the pandemic but some subsequent output attracted criticism. Wikipedia covers it all without fear or favour, to be neutral. As to "Campbell isn't responsible" ... well, the point of our sources is that is also more complex, with incautious pronouncements apparently fuelling antivax sentiment. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn, please explain your reversion. Whose POV is being 'skewed'? I provided the basis for the changes. The presentation that you restored is not neutral, it vastly overstates the impact of these two 'events'. This is a BLP. I get a sense of ownership taking place here. You've yet to respond to the majority of the policy-based problems I've brought up. Eventualism isn't acceptable in a BLP. Please explain how my edit "skews" the pov, and what that pov is. Anastrophe ( talk) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"yet you claim they are not"← Another false statement. We are fully in line with BLP in all the respects you mention, and more. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
You arguments are not policy based- even though I've presented those actual policies; therefore, you are denying they are policies. The article overstates the impact of these events. It gives disproportionate space to the matter - nearly a third of the article space is devoted to it. It engages in recentism. The presentation is grossly imbalanced. It's nice to dismiss my policy-based arguments by saying they aren't policy-based, but it holds no water. The stick is, apparently, held by you - insisting on an imbalanced, overstated presentation about a living person. Anastrophe ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to contribute to the quality of content on Wikipedia. This page has been vandalized and some editors are clearly biased. I don't see any YouTube videos referenced, only articles that discuss supposed video content. I am surprised to see a 'misinformation' section because I have watched every video. The covid misinformation section wrong. Peacheyreader ( talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest we REMOVE this prominent paragraph: In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said.[4]
It is biased, unobjective, not encyclopaedic, and arguably libellous; an attempt to slur a non 'mainstream media' contributor who appears to use data objectively, who does not use fearmongering in the way reputable news organisations have done (albeit with good intent... eg to encourage uptake of vaccines). It should be understood that Campbell is not an anti-vaxxer or covid denier either - he consistently encourages and supports the use of vaccines and boosters in his videos, and praises countries on their vaccine uptake ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vYslhtMbDw and many others), and consistently draws on reputable authorities for the data he analyses. Your contributor's hang up seems partly to do with ivermectin - often asssociated with right wing anit-vaxxers. The jury is out on ivermectin, there is not enough proof either way, but just because it is used to medicate horses, does not mean it cannot be used in different doses in humans, remember Viagra was supposed to be a heart medication! Campbell upset some anti-right wing journalists by including a prominent Japanese medic's comments on trying ivermectin as one of several possible influences on the sudden and dramatic downturn in cases in Japan, which may or may not have been coincidental rather than causal.
These are all valid topics for discussion in chats but not for the encyclopaedic "definition" of a person. Somebody is abusing Wikipedia by including this as biographical material and exacerbating it by positioning it so prominently, with the words 'false claims' highlighted.
The "evidence" cited in footnote [3] is even more un-journalistic and unobjective, using slurs and guilt by association "In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead." ... The second claim is pointless and again should not be included in this profile: "another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said." a) it says he had not said it... so why is this a prominent detail in his biographical summary? b) anti-vax activists (of which he is clearly not one) used his video to make some or other claim. The Trump campaign used Neil Young's and Bruce Springsteen's music... that does not justify tarring Young or Springsteen as Trumpers does it!
May I recommend that you remove both these paragraphs - this is a supposed to be an objective biography section not a character assassination section written by someone with a grudge or political agenda. Thank you. My "qualifications" for this... Masters in Biological Sciences, 10 years reporting and objective documentary making for a major broadcaster, pro-vaxxer, pro-health, and yes I have watched several of Campbell's videos but have no connection with him. I have also followed much of the reporting on CNN, MSNBC, BBC and CBC. Fact and balance please, this is not the place for political or personal sniping, from either side! Thanks for reviewing! DiRoio ( talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DiRoio ( talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. FDW777 ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While attempting to make the following edit, the protected edit status refused to allow the link to a video immediately predating the video referenced by a claimant whose claims were not substantiated in the video. Confusing? Yes, which is why the following edit sets things in their proper perspective: On October 9, 2021, in response to the BBC's ivermectin-opposition article entitled, "Reality Check," Dr. Campbell stated, "Now, what is the fact that many people are anti-vaccine activists? Is that true? They give no evidence for that. Let's take me, for example, and a lot of other people I've been talking to. We are very pro-vaccination because we want to prevent human pain, suffering and death via disease. We are also very pro-treatment, if treatments are available, we want that treatment. I'm greedy. I want both. I want to help as many people as much as I can. That's what you go into healthcare for." [1] In November 2021, Dr. Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. [2] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was taken out of context and used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks. [3]. The blocked link was the zy7c_FHiEac YouTube video. How Dr. Campbell's videos ended up on the blacklist is another matter, one that's of grave concern to many scientists, as Dr. Campbell has approached matters using strict scientific methodology, namely question everything, beginning with one's own hypotheses. Science is all about discovery. It is NOT about protecting agendas. In that respect, Dr. Campbell is an excellent scientist and a very good educator. Clepsydrae ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Peacheyreader ( talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
—
In almost every video John Campbell has stressed the importance of the vaccine and other non-medical safeguards such as mask wearing. Yes, he questions some data but overall, and many times over, he states that the deaths from Covid are underestimated. That is that there are more deaths from covid than governments make claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
When the errors haven’t been fixed, it doesn’t really matter that you went over it. It seems everyone can see how bad the article is, except for a few people who have the power to stop edits. DisCerno ( talk) 07:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information does not cite misrepresentation sources in argument of opinions published. To publish slander, one must cite why stating citations of a professional published medical reference (ie; New England Journal of Medicine, etc) and no citations were given to back the misinformation published about Dr. John Cambell. This needs to be added to the commentary opinions in the Wiki that no evidence has been found or source to substantiate such claims. NakatsuMegami ( talk) 16:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove - Initially, his videos received some praise, but later they veered into containing misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3][4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]
Replace with - Dr Campbell uses published data sources to discuss COVID-19 and other major health issues. He has admitted that some of his assumptions based on single data sources have been mistaken, but his assertions around vaccine safety, Vitamin D use and COVID-19 treatments have yet to be countered by established publications. He has been accused of making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3][4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. 164.134.2.67 ( talk) 11:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Remove: In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6] Campbell's video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks.[6] According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to typos in the abstract, and a lack of methodology and data, but he did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant".[6] Replace with: In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6]
Reason: As the mRNA vaccines have been proven to cause heart problems, in particular myocarditis, the rest of the line is simply not relevant. Campbell reported this and his claim was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdj ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It is 'Dr. John Campbell' to you. Your prejudice is not part of the real world/future. Name this article as it should be: "Dr. John Campbell" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.181.183 ( talk) 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Ph.D. in nursing education from the University of Bolton.[8]"
To "Ph.D. in nursing from the University of Bolton.[8]"
Citation [8] that is listed at the bottom of this article states that his Ph.D. is in nursing, not nursing education. In it's current form, the wiki page is not correctly quoting the citation. Aberickson ( talk) 02:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The referenced articles from the Website Health Feedback do not provide a link to the claims that they criticize. Hence, readers have to go to great lengths, in order to evaluate and doublecheck the criticism for themselves. This is bad style and indeed unscientific. If Health Feedback were convinced of its work, it would provide all necessary sources and links in a reader-friendly way. Niemandsbucht ( talk) 08:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
There is so many things wrong with this article and there is so much missing information that it makes it a joke. Dr. Campbell has been a guiding light during this pandemic. Things I found wrong and misleading! 1. No mention of the CURRENT under reported number of cases and deaths coming out of China, showing that Dr. Campbell was correct in his early assumption. 2. No mention of the Meta Anylsis done on the studies of Ivermectin done by Theresa A. Lawrie A. MBBCH, PhD Who has worked for the WHO doing such studies. 3. No mention how the FDA labeled this medication as "Horse Medicine" on its site, when it's been used by millions of people. 4. No mention the reliable studies, published in accepted and reliable Journals, that Dr. Campbell reported on. 5. No mention of the lack of Government agencies reporting on the use vitamin D3 or sunshine as a defense against Covid, as Dr. Campbell and other doctors reported, when low levels of D3 were reported in people suffering severe Covid. While no,one was or could be expected to get all the correct information out there as soon as possible while the pandemic raged and mutated, Dr. Campbell did a much better job it, when I consider what Dr. Fauci told us during that time. I could go on, but this article is purely a "smear campaign" !!! 173.216.30.195 ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The source cited for this claim seems to go against what was actually said in a video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E6cD-VWhQY, by the subject of this article. One could argue that the comment was meant to be taken tongue in cheek but semantically John Campbell explicitly states "We're going to just stick to the facts about monkey-pox, not Covid-19, not SARS-Coronavirus although you may draw some parallels" the sentence to me doesn't qualify as promoting a misleading idea. Furthermore even if you take the view of this does promote the idea of a parallel I certainly struggle with how the intention of Campbell was misleading.
In light of not having a better source for this claim, and the horses mouth being contradictory to what is written here, I have removed it. SuperiorWalrus (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dr Campbell has consistently championed the use of Vitamin D supplements and often appears in his videos with a toy black dog who is positioned alongside a tub of vitamin D. 2A02:C7D:93FD:C800:E475:5215:9B:227E ( talk) 21:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Bon courage moved the goalpost; My replies above were to Zaathras' request for evidence that Vitamin D has an impact on Covid. Now Bon courage is making a new, separate request for sources about Campbell's citation of these sources. The discussion was archived as I was entering a further response. As this is a {{ BLP}}, much more careful decision making is needed when choosing content, and it appears to me that this page is being "protected" from edits and constructive conversation by a few POV Warriors. (*Note: I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia as you may guess from my likely multiple format errors. I am referring this page for BLP oversight, as it is not currently up to NPOV standards.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altairah ( talk • contribs)
I object to the use of unhelpful and frankly provocative language in the opening of the article; I recently made an edit which was quite reasonable but which was reverted. The current wording of the page does not include other viewpoints. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not a news source nor the arbitrator of the truth. The views of John Campbell are not pseudoscience as defined in Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS, but is at worst questionable science, described on the same page.
Of course I am not asking for an endorsement of the view, or even a change to the information present in the paragraph, it seems pretty sound to me, the wording, though, is not appropriate when there are in fact prominent fringe theories, true or false, going against what almost all scientists say. I understand that the purpose of the article is to present the scientific consensus, but it should be done in an objective manner. The current language implies that the fringe theories are false where in reality there is no complete consensus on the issues, for example even in this talk page the official consensus is that "Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive" . The article should also include a brief summary of the opposing views, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. Timeless99 ( talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
Done Alexbrn ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Everyone knows Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
Everyone knows Wikipedia is a lost cause as far as neutrality towards those who deviate from official orthodoxies is concernedthanks for confirming that WP policy has been applied. — Paleo Neonate – 17:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) 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)
This entry in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - it doesn't do anything for Wikipedia's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6513:BD00:3C13:4481:5F69:A25F ( talk) 19:44, 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 Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia entry a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Philip Taylor ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 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)
Goodness, you really don't get this do you. If one is setting about writing an article, book, thesis, and even a Wikipedia 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)
Philip needs to grasp what an encylopedia is. Our task is not to produce "literature" that "honestly and accurately represent the the person's life". That is the job of a biographer, writing a secondary source. Our task is to skim and summarize what such secondary sources have said, at a remove (WP is a tertiary source). As you'd expect for a run-of-the-mill academic, there is scant sourcing on John Campbell before he shot to fame as a Youtuber. If you think there's a rich vein of sourcing on this guy, then produce the sources; my library searches have produced not a lot. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I respectfully request that this Wikipedia 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)
I must admit I tend to agree with you. From our dialogue, it's my perception that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
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)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) 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)
The ridiculous nature of the singular criticism of his many well referenced arguments being highlighted and placed in the spotlight is from a completely biased person.
It was enough to motivate me to finally create a wiki editor account. Pam Mable S. ( talk) 12:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
Can people please read wp:forum and wp:npa. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Collapse. Please abide by
WP:TPG.
|
---|
EDIT: people with an agenda keep removing parts of the article as well as the talk page. Pretty petty. In the last couple of years I started seeing these biased articles more and more often. I assume people with strong political beliefs come off Reddit or similar platform and use Wikipedia to try and paint their views as absolute. I can tell you that the result is Wikipedia becoming a less credible source of information. I would strongly suggest to change the content of this article from a smear attempt to an actual review of the person. Please follow the suggestions people made before me and change or delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.170.158 ( talk) 19:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
The Fact check reference 3 seems to be unavailable in the uk. Satherley D (November 26, 2021). "Did mutations or ivermectin help stamp out Delta in Japan?". Newshub (Fact check).
I come in peace, but given that much of the criticism rides on that one reference is there any way to make it available please?
I also seem unable to edit the most if the article. DicksterWall ( talk) 14:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
In the video, Dr. Campbell, who has a doctorate in nursing education but is not a physician, reads the abstract and says that if the findings are correct, it would be “incredibly significant.”[5] It then says he did not mention the expression of concern but did question the types and methodology. I don't see that he adopted any of the claims in the abstract, nor did he provide an uncritical viewpoint of it. The latter acknowledged in the fact check. Therefore, I do not see any claim he made that was refuted in the fact check. The key here seems to be that it was used by anti-vaxxers, not what he said. Compare with the other fact check which did attack what he said. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 18:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
"we're not the ones to judge it"← exactly right. Let's continue to WP:STICKTOSOURCE and all shall be well. This content is due in the article. Whether it's due in the lede is debatable. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In a paragraph that talks about misinformation relating to Ivermectin use in Japan I think we can assume a reader will know that any quote will be about Ivermectin use in Japan. We do not need to labour the point. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@ FDW777: I see you reverted an edit which used info from his LinkedIn, saying his LinkedIn has been rejected on talk. The only rejection of the source was in relation to a user claiming he was a doctor, rather than the source per se. What is the reason you oppose the edit? As mentioned in my edit, WP:ABOUTSELF should apply: the info is not unduly self-serving nor is it exceptional, it's not about a third party, and its authenticity is not doubted as he links that LinkedIn profile on his YouTube about page ( here). Best wishes, Solipsism 101 ( talk) 23:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it this page https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-john-campbell-5256223b~ which says he is a "Nurse currently working in A and E" (he is not). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.Not sure what other info could be from LinkedIn but quals/experience. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 10:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but no Stephen Hawking] even when they are as famous as this person we do not cal them Doctor. We usually do that for MD's. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
qualified medical doctor with many years of experience in the field, based on his Linkedin profile. FDW777 ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
He has a certificate in tropical diseases from Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and a postgraduate certificate in pharmacology from the University of Lancaster. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Huh. Perhaps it's a regional coloquillism, I'm unfamiliar with such use, but immaterial. As has been mentioned previously, of course it's "self-serving", all CV material is such. It seems unlikely that he's prevaricating, based upon the existing 'knowns' about him. It's odd, there seems to be this mentality that Campbell is some sort of charlatan, when he's had a distinguished career as an academic and educator, and he's been praised for combatting covid 19 misinformation (notwithstanding the two instances of poor judgement he made re the material that's in dispute elsewhere here). I do wish other editors would at least look at his older videos, just to get a more balanced opinion of his work. Yes, yes, I'm not talking policies here. Basing opinions of Campbell solely by the two fact-checked ones is narrow. He's posted hundreds of enormously informative and educational videos about the virus and pandemic. But, I digress. Anastrophe ( talk) 21:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"they've made up their minds that he's just another 'covid denier'"← Wrong. The content of this article is more complex than that. Campbell was praised (by a UNICEF branch - as I added) early in the pandemic but some subsequent output attracted criticism. Wikipedia covers it all without fear or favour, to be neutral. As to "Campbell isn't responsible" ... well, the point of our sources is that is also more complex, with incautious pronouncements apparently fuelling antivax sentiment. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn, please explain your reversion. Whose POV is being 'skewed'? I provided the basis for the changes. The presentation that you restored is not neutral, it vastly overstates the impact of these two 'events'. This is a BLP. I get a sense of ownership taking place here. You've yet to respond to the majority of the policy-based problems I've brought up. Eventualism isn't acceptable in a BLP. Please explain how my edit "skews" the pov, and what that pov is. Anastrophe ( talk) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"yet you claim they are not"← Another false statement. We are fully in line with BLP in all the respects you mention, and more. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
You arguments are not policy based- even though I've presented those actual policies; therefore, you are denying they are policies. The article overstates the impact of these events. It gives disproportionate space to the matter - nearly a third of the article space is devoted to it. It engages in recentism. The presentation is grossly imbalanced. It's nice to dismiss my policy-based arguments by saying they aren't policy-based, but it holds no water. The stick is, apparently, held by you - insisting on an imbalanced, overstated presentation about a living person. Anastrophe ( talk) 20:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to contribute to the quality of content on Wikipedia. This page has been vandalized and some editors are clearly biased. I don't see any YouTube videos referenced, only articles that discuss supposed video content. I am surprised to see a 'misinformation' section because I have watched every video. The covid misinformation section wrong. Peacheyreader ( talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggest we REMOVE this prominent paragraph: In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said.[4]
It is biased, unobjective, not encyclopaedic, and arguably libellous; an attempt to slur a non 'mainstream media' contributor who appears to use data objectively, who does not use fearmongering in the way reputable news organisations have done (albeit with good intent... eg to encourage uptake of vaccines). It should be understood that Campbell is not an anti-vaxxer or covid denier either - he consistently encourages and supports the use of vaccines and boosters in his videos, and praises countries on their vaccine uptake ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vYslhtMbDw and many others), and consistently draws on reputable authorities for the data he analyses. Your contributor's hang up seems partly to do with ivermectin - often asssociated with right wing anit-vaxxers. The jury is out on ivermectin, there is not enough proof either way, but just because it is used to medicate horses, does not mean it cannot be used in different doses in humans, remember Viagra was supposed to be a heart medication! Campbell upset some anti-right wing journalists by including a prominent Japanese medic's comments on trying ivermectin as one of several possible influences on the sudden and dramatic downturn in cases in Japan, which may or may not have been coincidental rather than causal.
These are all valid topics for discussion in chats but not for the encyclopaedic "definition" of a person. Somebody is abusing Wikipedia by including this as biographical material and exacerbating it by positioning it so prominently, with the words 'false claims' highlighted.
The "evidence" cited in footnote [3] is even more un-journalistic and unobjective, using slurs and guilt by association "In late October, a white supremacist radio broadcaster in the US who's served prison time falsely claimed Japan's success came after the nation cancelled its vaccine rollout and started using ivermectin instead." ... The second claim is pointless and again should not be included in this profile: "another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said." a) it says he had not said it... so why is this a prominent detail in his biographical summary? b) anti-vax activists (of which he is clearly not one) used his video to make some or other claim. The Trump campaign used Neil Young's and Bruce Springsteen's music... that does not justify tarring Young or Springsteen as Trumpers does it!
May I recommend that you remove both these paragraphs - this is a supposed to be an objective biography section not a character assassination section written by someone with a grudge or political agenda. Thank you. My "qualifications" for this... Masters in Biological Sciences, 10 years reporting and objective documentary making for a major broadcaster, pro-vaxxer, pro-health, and yes I have watched several of Campbell's videos but have no connection with him. I have also followed much of the reporting on CNN, MSNBC, BBC and CBC. Fact and balance please, this is not the place for political or personal sniping, from either side! Thanks for reviewing! DiRoio ( talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DiRoio ( talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. FDW777 ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While attempting to make the following edit, the protected edit status refused to allow the link to a video immediately predating the video referenced by a claimant whose claims were not substantiated in the video. Confusing? Yes, which is why the following edit sets things in their proper perspective: On October 9, 2021, in response to the BBC's ivermectin-opposition article entitled, "Reality Check," Dr. Campbell stated, "Now, what is the fact that many people are anti-vaccine activists? Is that true? They give no evidence for that. Let's take me, for example, and a lot of other people I've been talking to. We are very pro-vaccination because we want to prevent human pain, suffering and death via disease. We are also very pro-treatment, if treatments are available, we want that treatment. I'm greedy. I want both. I want to help as many people as much as I can. That's what you go into healthcare for." [1] In November 2021, Dr. Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. [2] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was taken out of context and used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks. [3]. The blocked link was the zy7c_FHiEac YouTube video. How Dr. Campbell's videos ended up on the blacklist is another matter, one that's of grave concern to many scientists, as Dr. Campbell has approached matters using strict scientific methodology, namely question everything, beginning with one's own hypotheses. Science is all about discovery. It is NOT about protecting agendas. In that respect, Dr. Campbell is an excellent scientist and a very good educator. Clepsydrae ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Peacheyreader ( talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
—
In almost every video John Campbell has stressed the importance of the vaccine and other non-medical safeguards such as mask wearing. Yes, he questions some data but overall, and many times over, he states that the deaths from Covid are underestimated. That is that there are more deaths from covid than governments make claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
When the errors haven’t been fixed, it doesn’t really matter that you went over it. It seems everyone can see how bad the article is, except for a few people who have the power to stop edits. DisCerno ( talk) 07:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information does not cite misrepresentation sources in argument of opinions published. To publish slander, one must cite why stating citations of a professional published medical reference (ie; New England Journal of Medicine, etc) and no citations were given to back the misinformation published about Dr. John Cambell. This needs to be added to the commentary opinions in the Wiki that no evidence has been found or source to substantiate such claims. NakatsuMegami ( talk) 16:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove - Initially, his videos received some praise, but later they veered into containing misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3][4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]
Replace with - Dr Campbell uses published data sources to discuss COVID-19 and other major health issues. He has admitted that some of his assumptions based on single data sources have been mistaken, but his assertions around vaccine safety, Vitamin D use and COVID-19 treatments have yet to be countered by established publications. He has been accused of making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3][4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. 164.134.2.67 ( talk) 11:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Remove: In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6] Campbell's video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks.[6] According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to typos in the abstract, and a lack of methodology and data, but he did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant".[6] Replace with: In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6]
Reason: As the mRNA vaccines have been proven to cause heart problems, in particular myocarditis, the rest of the line is simply not relevant. Campbell reported this and his claim was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdj ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It is 'Dr. John Campbell' to you. Your prejudice is not part of the real world/future. Name this article as it should be: "Dr. John Campbell" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.181.183 ( talk) 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Ph.D. in nursing education from the University of Bolton.[8]"
To "Ph.D. in nursing from the University of Bolton.[8]"
Citation [8] that is listed at the bottom of this article states that his Ph.D. is in nursing, not nursing education. In it's current form, the wiki page is not correctly quoting the citation. Aberickson ( talk) 02:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The referenced articles from the Website Health Feedback do not provide a link to the claims that they criticize. Hence, readers have to go to great lengths, in order to evaluate and doublecheck the criticism for themselves. This is bad style and indeed unscientific. If Health Feedback were convinced of its work, it would provide all necessary sources and links in a reader-friendly way. Niemandsbucht ( talk) 08:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
There is so many things wrong with this article and there is so much missing information that it makes it a joke. Dr. Campbell has been a guiding light during this pandemic. Things I found wrong and misleading! 1. No mention of the CURRENT under reported number of cases and deaths coming out of China, showing that Dr. Campbell was correct in his early assumption. 2. No mention of the Meta Anylsis done on the studies of Ivermectin done by Theresa A. Lawrie A. MBBCH, PhD Who has worked for the WHO doing such studies. 3. No mention how the FDA labeled this medication as "Horse Medicine" on its site, when it's been used by millions of people. 4. No mention the reliable studies, published in accepted and reliable Journals, that Dr. Campbell reported on. 5. No mention of the lack of Government agencies reporting on the use vitamin D3 or sunshine as a defense against Covid, as Dr. Campbell and other doctors reported, when low levels of D3 were reported in people suffering severe Covid. While no,one was or could be expected to get all the correct information out there as soon as possible while the pandemic raged and mutated, Dr. Campbell did a much better job it, when I consider what Dr. Fauci told us during that time. I could go on, but this article is purely a "smear campaign" !!! 173.216.30.195 ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The source cited for this claim seems to go against what was actually said in a video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E6cD-VWhQY, by the subject of this article. One could argue that the comment was meant to be taken tongue in cheek but semantically John Campbell explicitly states "We're going to just stick to the facts about monkey-pox, not Covid-19, not SARS-Coronavirus although you may draw some parallels" the sentence to me doesn't qualify as promoting a misleading idea. Furthermore even if you take the view of this does promote the idea of a parallel I certainly struggle with how the intention of Campbell was misleading.
In light of not having a better source for this claim, and the horses mouth being contradictory to what is written here, I have removed it. SuperiorWalrus (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dr Campbell has consistently championed the use of Vitamin D supplements and often appears in his videos with a toy black dog who is positioned alongside a tub of vitamin D. 2A02:C7D:93FD:C800:E475:5215:9B:227E ( talk) 21:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Bon courage moved the goalpost; My replies above were to Zaathras' request for evidence that Vitamin D has an impact on Covid. Now Bon courage is making a new, separate request for sources about Campbell's citation of these sources. The discussion was archived as I was entering a further response. As this is a {{ BLP}}, much more careful decision making is needed when choosing content, and it appears to me that this page is being "protected" from edits and constructive conversation by a few POV Warriors. (*Note: I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia as you may guess from my likely multiple format errors. I am referring this page for BLP oversight, as it is not currently up to NPOV standards.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altairah ( talk • contribs)
I object to the use of unhelpful and frankly provocative language in the opening of the article; I recently made an edit which was quite reasonable but which was reverted. The current wording of the page does not include other viewpoints. As I have said before, Wikipedia is not a news source nor the arbitrator of the truth. The views of John Campbell are not pseudoscience as defined in Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS, but is at worst questionable science, described on the same page.
Of course I am not asking for an endorsement of the view, or even a change to the information present in the paragraph, it seems pretty sound to me, the wording, though, is not appropriate when there are in fact prominent fringe theories, true or false, going against what almost all scientists say. I understand that the purpose of the article is to present the scientific consensus, but it should be done in an objective manner. The current language implies that the fringe theories are false where in reality there is no complete consensus on the issues, for example even in this talk page the official consensus is that "Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive" . The article should also include a brief summary of the opposing views, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. Timeless99 ( talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)