![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
As others have stated above, the uncited point of view about the public mood, i.e. “A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported”, sets the tone for this para. The article thereunder states: "...Campbell ... cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics ... and ... a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was given as a cause of death. ... A spokesman from the ONS clarified that death certificates mentioning COVID-19 anywhere meant that COVID-19 was a causal factor in the death. ... The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000 ..." The implication is that Campbell had twisted or misquoted statistics, leaving the ONS with the need to clarify their own data. However, Campbell cited and explained the statistics exactly as published. He did so again on YouTube in his 29 Feb 2022 video. The sentence about the stats being "clarified" is therefore misleading and redundant, as it leaves the impression that clarification was required, where none was. Campbell was at pains to make clear that the 17,371 figure was what remained when deaths involving co-morbidities were excluded, but he has frequently also quoted the (mounting) overall deaths statistics, and explained at length in both relevant videos what the lower figure represented. I believe the mentioning of this apparent ‘clarification’ was at best mischievous, at worst malicious. This is an encyclopedia. A broadcaster, Campbell, quoted an official statistic and explained it unambiguously at least twice. In an area where many have axes to grind, this content needs to be redacted. Ad hominem content is not always a point-blank shot, and we must be alive to the art of juxtaposition, where contention is suggested that is, in reality, absent, to taint or discredit the original broadcaster. Given the propensity for reversion in many Covid-related articles, and the enormous time and prolix already devoted to these matters above, it is imperative IMHO that a more senior figure in the Wikipedia structure grasp the nettle here, and redact the unencyclopedic content. Humboles ( talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"? FDW777 ( talk) 08:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest this article is removed in its entirety. It's currently a collection of opinions instead of unquestionable facts. Using so called "fact check"-websites as sources is highly questionable as many of these fact checks have been proved false just months later. The article is, however, currently used to frame John Campbell as a spreader of disinformation. Wikipedia should be neutral and stick to facts and it's clear this article doesn't. No article at all is better than an article with is falsely framing a youtuber. Martdj ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. This whole article is a badly written, badly cited mess. That's why it's getting so many drive-bys. No way is it an encyclopaedic biography. Scrap it. Faltero ( talk) 11:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It boggles me that there is so much back-and-forth about what the video says and what authoritative sources say the video says when it takes all of five minutes to see what it says for yourself. I'll start by pasting the relevant part of the Youtube transcript. "so / where covered 19 is the only / attributable cause of death / we see that the the rate of death is / actually uh remarkably / low / now / there's still deaths but it's much lower / than we've been thinking and it's much / lower than mainstream media seems to be / intimating" To me this is all one sentence. Telling sentences apart from each other is admittedly often difficult in speech, and there is often no consensus on where one sentence ends and another begins. For a journalistic outfit to split this into two sentences, however, seems to be a bad-faith attempt at watching a video, just as the others sharing it seem to have been careless. Should any of this be deemed relevant as to the claim that Dr. Campbell was spreading misinformation? 68.237.59.205 ( talk) 18:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Continued discussion of what you claim Campbell meant is a pointless waste of time. FDW777 ( talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
When an author of a comment on this encyclopaedia Talk page congratulates himself for NOT personally acquainting himself with source material at first hand before he deems himself fit to pass pejorative comment on the material's creator, I nearly despair of this enterprise. When he says this is because he does not wish to swell the bank balance of the YouTube video’s creator, he is being, at best, illogical: he has no idea if the creator accepts emoluments or, if he does, whether they are donated charitably by the video creator thereafter. It is thus pejorative ad hominem criticism, certainly not neutral in its POV, and the commenter cites no source. These aspects alone make it inappropriate to Wikipedia.
James Tucker is, according to the article below the URL https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2022/01/26/to-say-only-17000-people-have-died-from-covid-19-is-highly-misleading/ the "Head of health and life events analysis" at the UK’s highly respected Office of National Statistics. The article states [26 January, 2022]: "To say only 17,000 people have died from COVID-19 is highly misleading", continuing, "[i]t’s being claimed that the true number of deaths caused by COVID-19 in England and Wales is 'only' around 17,000 people. The claim is based on ONS data on the number of coronavirus deaths where no other health conditions were noted on the death certificate. However, as James Tucker explains, to suggest that figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading."
So — James Tucker is concerned by "spurious claims that draw on a Freedom Of Information request published by [the ONS in 2021] which asked for mortality figures where COVID-19 was the 'sole' cause of death, "[as] taking this to mean the 'true' number of people dying from COVID-19 misses some crucial context." I have just rewatched the video evidence. If anyone believes Campbell was one of those guilty of the inferences deprecated by James Tucker, let them cite the video and timestamp concerned. Isn't Wikipedia about citing, not alleging, with the accent very much on clearly identify source/s?
Here is the nub — whatever clarification the ONS felt was necessary, Dr John Campbell, in his videos, never made any claim along the lines that troubled James Tucker when he 'clarified' the situation. Campbell certainly never asserted that "only 17,000 people have died from COVID-19". He instead explained in detail what the statistic meant — and what it did NOT mean. Thus, the mentioning of said 'clarification' in the Wiki is inappropriate and likely mischievous.
Several Talk comments belittle Dr Campbell’s qualifications, as if he has ever claimed to be any more expert than he is in virus matters (though I'd guess he is much more qualified in medicine than many of those contributing, including me!) Are other commenters aware that he has interviewed many globally acknowledged experts in his video series? They must be happy to accept his credentials or, presumably, they would not appear. He always makes it clear that he learns during the process (like every good teacher) and does not purport to be on a career par with virologists or other specialists in the field, any more than David Attenborough, for example, would claim to be an expert in every specialised biological science. Communicators need to be pretty well informed on the subjects they talk about, but their job is not to be highly skilled right across the board. Humboles ( talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
They must be happy to accept his credentials or, presumably, they would not appear. So that must make Joe Rogan an expert on COVID-19 since Robert W. Malone was happy to appear on his show? FDW777 ( talk) 08:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Campbell said that the statistics say that there have been over 170,000 deaths from COVID-19, out of which about 17,000 were of people without comorbidities or previous conditions. At no point did he claim that COVID had only killed 17,000 people: he only said that, according to the data he was referencing, COVID killed 17,000 without the "help" of other conditions or diseases. DragonView2 ( talk) 18:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following:
In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially authorised for such use in the country—its use was merely promoted by the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] Meaghan Kall, the lead epidemiologist for COVID-19 at the UK Health Security Agency, said that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]
In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality, but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology, and a lack of clear data.[4] Danieltate ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This section should be removed as it violates Wikiepdia's BLP policy as it seeks to defame and/or degrade John Campbell's credibility. In a rapidly evolving pandemic, it is not unreasonable to occasionally misinterpret studies. The above seeks to protray John Campbell as some some sort of anti-vax role model, when in fact he is an accredited doctor. The above paragraph is political in nature, and should be removed. It also violates Wikipedia's BLP policy rv. contentious material and does does not meet BLP policy standards
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Cannolis (
talk)
23:25, 17 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. |
I would argue that it is the job of doctors (people with a PhD degree) to interpret research papers, since precisely PhD people, and not medical doctors, are the main people in charge of producing and reviewing such papers. The fact that he is a nurse means that he is in the health field, thus medicine-related data is relevant to his field of expertise. I would find your logic more reasonable if he were a PhD in engineering or such, but this is within his field. DragonView2 ( talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Should be removed, violates terms Onlyfacts77 ( talk) 09:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no citation whatsoever for his educational credits, and my searching has only turned up self-reported information on his LinkedIn profile. Unless someone can turn up citation from a reliable source, this information should be challenged and removed. 2601:3CA:204:F860:D0E8:EC74:F94E:34EF ( talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This seems to indicate his credentials: University of Cumbria Autumn 2013 newsletter page 6 Homesteader17 ( talk) 23:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On my second vaccine i also had a chemical taste in my mouth it happend minutes after my 2nd jab ive sufferd heart pulpertations ever since 92.237.78.70 ( talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The January 2022 video referred to in the 'misinformation' section can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw . At about 55 seconds into the video, Dr Campbell comments on the UK government's official figure of 127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average, saying that "we have often thought that this is the most accurate way to look at deaths."
Dr Campbell then goes on to talk about the figure released by the UK's ONS (Office of National Statistics) of 17,371 deaths (England and Wales only, 2020 and first three quarters of 2021) from Covid-19 with no underlying comorbidities. Dr Campbell comments that "When Covid-19 is the only attributable cause of death, we see the rate of death is actually remarkably low. They are still deaths, but they are much lower than we've been thinking and it's much lower than mainstream media seems to be intimating."
This subject is of great interest to me as I am tracking deaths from Covid in Morocco and if the death rate varies to this degree from lack of comorbidities it helps explains why Morocco's death rate is so low (less than 16,000 as of today).
I understood totally what Dr Campbell was saying. The fact that some people may not have properly understood, or that other people tried to use the video to claim governments were over reporting deaths is unfortunate, but in my opinion Dr Campbell was NOT providing misinformation, he was merely reporting government statistics provided by ONS and his UPFRONT COMMENT that excess deaths over a five-year period is thought to be the most accurate way to look at deaths is of PARAMOUNT importance when considering whether he was guilty of misinformation.
I've also read David Davis' Twitter post on the subject which can be viewed at https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1485667919698796545 and his comments are largely highlighting the excess cancer deaths caused by interruptions to diagnosis and treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.27.90 ( talk) 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
"I understood totally what Dr Campbell was saying"← No you didn't. Campbell was obviously advancing the view that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted by a substantial factor. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I think right now a few users need to stop with the
wep:forum posts. This page is not about your holidays or morocco.
Slatersteven (
talk)
18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
" to " University of Lancaster ( MSc) Firebolt.Samil ( talk) 16:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following:
"In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment."
References
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following: "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment." Change to "Campbell was accused of making false claims" It contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in that “false” implies that he made claims knowing them to be untrue, which is opinionated an unproven. The source is opinionated and inadequately sourced; by a tweet which doesn’t validate it. Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE There does seem to be a consensus growing on this. Faltero ( talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The claim made of Dr. John Campbell being guilty of wrongthink needs substantial corroborating evidence. 2603:6011:4F43:5900:4DAA:52C7:75F4:4F9F ( talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree with due diligence, entirely agree Usmc medical ( talk) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Please read American Journal of Theraupeutics 28, e434-460 (2021)
This needs to be considered when examining this page. Wysiwygil ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Time for a FAQ? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Here. [3]
This is about the "other" recent ivermectin paper, and has some more detail. I'm not sure how much Ivermectin material we want - it all gets quite detailed. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dr John Campbell does not spread misinformation or make false claims. He simply informs. He always makes his source information available to viewers so that they can check the information for themselves. Whoever has written this Wikipedia entry is libelling this well respected Doctor. 2A00:23C4:9DD1:7401:C5B:F94A:D80C:2300 ( talk) 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
John Campbell is not spreading misinformation about the Covid19 vaccination program he is trying to evaluate the risk benefit analysis of the emergency implementation of an experimental Vaccine that was in development for 20 years and only 2 years and 6 months into a three year human trail due to the high rate of fatality in the animals it was tested on in development.
Please refer to the Pfizor documents released under a court order at this Web location :-
https://phmpt.org/ Magic.Mike63 ( talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states Dr John spreads misinformation this is absolutely not true. He always explains that any research is not his personal opinion he only presents the facts and makes sense of complicated studies. If a mistake is made he puts it right immediately. Fialsibob ( talk) 15:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “misinformation” to “information” 111.65.57.253 ( talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
User made absolutely no argument other then this person said no so I believe then instead. Onlyfacts77 ( talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree this is absurd I represent a veteran research community with medical doctors and other related professionals. It is urgent continuously with overwhelming data that this is complete defamation an absolute misinformation on behalf of those who seek to eliminate the credible reputation of Dr PhD John Campbell. There’s absolutely no justification for any of the misleading comments such as this information false claims or any other related defamation currently posted on this very prestigious webpage. It is evidently false and rather insulting to anyone who knows the truth and anyone who doesn’t being misled. The editor of this sea of lies is the miss information corporate not Dr. John Campbell Usmc medical ( talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Wikipedia is being bought into disreputeMy edits on this page have been reverted : Campbell has made repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and allegedly[3] spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety, though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid[4]. It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death.[5].[6][7][8] Both additions are cited. I am very saddened by this, it is the very worst of Wikipedia. Saying one cannot use the actual comment from the subject of the article, but only use a comment from some other site quoting the subject of the article is utterly ludicrous and basically certain editors are using esoteric Wikipedia rules to promote their own agenda. Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated (fact 1), and he recommends vaccinations to all those at significant risk of Covid (fact 2). The article, and certainly the introduction, is implying Campbell is somehow anti-vax and is therefore inaccurate. I will accept alteration of my edits provided that the form of words used still makes clear Campbell is in favour of vaccination. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Allow me to ask a question inspired by wp:not, what does this tell us about him? how is it not just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE peice of trivia. I mean (yes I agree this is a whataboutism argument) do we do this for anyone else? Why do we need this? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This needs formally closing now as a waste of everyone's time. We do not get to second guess RS, or use our wp:or to question them. This really has run its course. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
|
As Campbell has claimed they have been inflated we can not imply this may be the case, unless RS explicitly say it is the case. So I think we need to take care how we word it to not give the impression Campbell's claim is supported by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So how about "The official figure for deaths in which Covid was listed as a cause of death in the UK for the period was over 175,000, with Covid listed as the underlying cause of death and in 140,000 deaths" ? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I have now made the change, with a slight rewording to make it flow better. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your edit about Dr John Campbell spreading disinformation is visibly untrue. Please observe and correct. Dr John Campbell's video evidence on an incorrect BBC "fact check" Many Thanks. 2A00:23C5:E917:9301:D41B:924C:2BF3:3EE7 ( talk) 15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This page has been clearly been written as an attack on John Campbell and to discredit him. There is no balanced discussion here and this page should either be severely rewritten with a more balanced view or be just be deleted. 125.238.120.107 ( talk) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Page has been written as a personal attack on John Campbell with a very biased and unbalanced viewpoint. I propose this page should be deleted as it is not constructive and does not meet the standard we expect from Wikipedia. 125.238.120.107 ( talk) 00:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Pleae wp:afd it. I am unsure he is notable myself. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have now AFD'd it myself. Let the community decide, note this is just about his notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I am absolutely disgusted and outraged that you dare label this man to be spreading misinformation. It is completely evident that you have never watched any of his videos. How dare you suggest he is spreading misinformation when you haven’t even seen what he speaks of! If you have then clearly you would see that this man shares HARD COLD facts on covid mostly by the Office of National Statistics, Tim Spectre’s ZOE covid study, the CDC, the FDA, the British Medical Journal, Our World in Data and the likes of these worldwide official government bodies. He is absolutely the best person in the world right now it seems who can interpret all of this covid data to the regular person who finds it hard to interpret data, scientific papers and medical statistics.
Have you seen the hundreds of videos he’s posted? So how many do you think he’s done on the ‘medicine that can not be named’ Ivermectin? By the sounds of what you wrote it sounds like you think he made many videos on that topic. Maybe you should go back and do some research and see the very very few times he mentions this topic. And Why exactly did he mention those topic on those videos? Because a major scientific paper came out each time on the subject and he looked at it. Makes you wonder does it? Why you imply that he’s giving his opinion when clearly he is not and never has given his opinion (other than he believes people should get vaccinated!!!) and instead focuses only on looking at all the up to date relevant covid data.
I am just speechless that your interpretation of misinformation is someone relating facts and stating data from the cdc.
Are you thank blind that you do not see that you are the one who is intact spreading not only Misinformation but lies about this man. It doesn’t make any sense. Why? Because he mentioned the ivermectin studies? What does that enrage you enough that you want to defame him? Especially when the studies had positive outcomes? Is that actually why you want to lie about this man?
I am disgusted in Wikipedia for orchestrating such a false description of this man and what he does. Also he is not a YouTuber !! He is a highly Sought out and respected medical professional. So are we going to start calling Boris Johnson a Tv personality rather than the prime minister, because he also happens to make announcements on the tv?
You should be throughly ashamed of yourself.
Get someone to write a REAL description of this wonderful man, his great work and complete objectivity when it comes to discussing data and covid. 2600:1700:4DB4:2800:3D37:D278:1498:352C ( talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Campbell briefly mentions this article in a video posted today (March 29), in case others are wondering what led to the spike in interest.
To new or returning editors: you are much more likely to effect change in this article if you keep your requests concise and base them on reliable sources. Is there a news article, paper, or book about Campbell that we haven't yet included? Should one of the existing sources in the article be removed, and if so, why? Is the language in the article unfaithful to the sources, and if so, how should it be tweaked to better reflect the reliable coverage? Firefangledfeathers ( talk | contribs) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You are all right, either take the comment about users to their talk page or report then here wp:ani. Do not clog up article talk pages with telling us how shit the other person is. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page contains misleading and incorrect information. The opening lines states 'Campbell has repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3]'. this is not correct and the reference for this statement is not available.
Dr Campbell has (since I started watching in Mar 2020) supplied his reference material for the topics he has spoken on. His sources are generally based on respected and often, peer reviewed research such as BMJ, ONI, CDC etc. Dr Campbell has spent many years in medical training and his Covid videos have helped millions understand a little more about the virus, trends, treatments and misinformation. The current Wikipedia page is currently not factual or correct and appears to have been edited by someone wanting to spread misinformation. I have supported Wikipedia with donations, and would be extremely disappointed if the page is not updated to show factual information. Edwardsp1916 ( talk) 06:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I really think the editors of Wikipedia should do extensive research ( like Dr John Campbell does) before writing a single word... he doesn't make any false claims like you, he just explains the facts in an easy to comprehend manner.. I find it quite disgusting that Wikipedia is being so derogatory towards a man who speaks the truth and will openly admit if he has made a mistake... you could learn a lot from his example.... sorry guys but in my opinion you haven't done your research and you've made terrible mistakes which are just plain nasty... 31.4.129.103 ( talk) 10:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be good if we could talk more generally about Campbell. Things like talking about the fact that he summarizes papers daily, and has done so since the beginning of the pandemic, and appears on DW (german national broadcaster I believe) and is a strong support of the vaccine.
Unfortunately a lot of these sort of sources are not from reliable sources. I have found 3 such summaries in unreliable sources (e.g. New York Post, Forbes.com). This summary from a paid, award winning, New Zealand publication might be better. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/doctors-virus-videos-go-global. Do we consider Newsroom (website) reliable? Talpedia ( talk) 18:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah there is a lack of sources. Very little seems to be said about Campbell between April 2020 and January 2022. I found a few quotes from local newspapers near where he lives and some brief references in DW, but they are quoting him rather than talking about him. Think I'm giving up for now :/. Hopefully a newspaper will come along and give a more balanced summary, though I think he's not quite bit enough. Talpedia ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
As others have stated above, the uncited point of view about the public mood, i.e. “A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported”, sets the tone for this para. The article thereunder states: "...Campbell ... cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics ... and ... a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was given as a cause of death. ... A spokesman from the ONS clarified that death certificates mentioning COVID-19 anywhere meant that COVID-19 was a causal factor in the death. ... The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000 ..." The implication is that Campbell had twisted or misquoted statistics, leaving the ONS with the need to clarify their own data. However, Campbell cited and explained the statistics exactly as published. He did so again on YouTube in his 29 Feb 2022 video. The sentence about the stats being "clarified" is therefore misleading and redundant, as it leaves the impression that clarification was required, where none was. Campbell was at pains to make clear that the 17,371 figure was what remained when deaths involving co-morbidities were excluded, but he has frequently also quoted the (mounting) overall deaths statistics, and explained at length in both relevant videos what the lower figure represented. I believe the mentioning of this apparent ‘clarification’ was at best mischievous, at worst malicious. This is an encyclopedia. A broadcaster, Campbell, quoted an official statistic and explained it unambiguously at least twice. In an area where many have axes to grind, this content needs to be redacted. Ad hominem content is not always a point-blank shot, and we must be alive to the art of juxtaposition, where contention is suggested that is, in reality, absent, to taint or discredit the original broadcaster. Given the propensity for reversion in many Covid-related articles, and the enormous time and prolix already devoted to these matters above, it is imperative IMHO that a more senior figure in the Wikipedia structure grasp the nettle here, and redact the unencyclopedic content. Humboles ( talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"? FDW777 ( talk) 08:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I suggest this article is removed in its entirety. It's currently a collection of opinions instead of unquestionable facts. Using so called "fact check"-websites as sources is highly questionable as many of these fact checks have been proved false just months later. The article is, however, currently used to frame John Campbell as a spreader of disinformation. Wikipedia should be neutral and stick to facts and it's clear this article doesn't. No article at all is better than an article with is falsely framing a youtuber. Martdj ( talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. This whole article is a badly written, badly cited mess. That's why it's getting so many drive-bys. No way is it an encyclopaedic biography. Scrap it. Faltero ( talk) 11:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It boggles me that there is so much back-and-forth about what the video says and what authoritative sources say the video says when it takes all of five minutes to see what it says for yourself. I'll start by pasting the relevant part of the Youtube transcript. "so / where covered 19 is the only / attributable cause of death / we see that the the rate of death is / actually uh remarkably / low / now / there's still deaths but it's much lower / than we've been thinking and it's much / lower than mainstream media seems to be / intimating" To me this is all one sentence. Telling sentences apart from each other is admittedly often difficult in speech, and there is often no consensus on where one sentence ends and another begins. For a journalistic outfit to split this into two sentences, however, seems to be a bad-faith attempt at watching a video, just as the others sharing it seem to have been careless. Should any of this be deemed relevant as to the claim that Dr. Campbell was spreading misinformation? 68.237.59.205 ( talk) 18:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Continued discussion of what you claim Campbell meant is a pointless waste of time. FDW777 ( talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
When an author of a comment on this encyclopaedia Talk page congratulates himself for NOT personally acquainting himself with source material at first hand before he deems himself fit to pass pejorative comment on the material's creator, I nearly despair of this enterprise. When he says this is because he does not wish to swell the bank balance of the YouTube video’s creator, he is being, at best, illogical: he has no idea if the creator accepts emoluments or, if he does, whether they are donated charitably by the video creator thereafter. It is thus pejorative ad hominem criticism, certainly not neutral in its POV, and the commenter cites no source. These aspects alone make it inappropriate to Wikipedia.
James Tucker is, according to the article below the URL https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2022/01/26/to-say-only-17000-people-have-died-from-covid-19-is-highly-misleading/ the "Head of health and life events analysis" at the UK’s highly respected Office of National Statistics. The article states [26 January, 2022]: "To say only 17,000 people have died from COVID-19 is highly misleading", continuing, "[i]t’s being claimed that the true number of deaths caused by COVID-19 in England and Wales is 'only' around 17,000 people. The claim is based on ONS data on the number of coronavirus deaths where no other health conditions were noted on the death certificate. However, as James Tucker explains, to suggest that figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading."
So — James Tucker is concerned by "spurious claims that draw on a Freedom Of Information request published by [the ONS in 2021] which asked for mortality figures where COVID-19 was the 'sole' cause of death, "[as] taking this to mean the 'true' number of people dying from COVID-19 misses some crucial context." I have just rewatched the video evidence. If anyone believes Campbell was one of those guilty of the inferences deprecated by James Tucker, let them cite the video and timestamp concerned. Isn't Wikipedia about citing, not alleging, with the accent very much on clearly identify source/s?
Here is the nub — whatever clarification the ONS felt was necessary, Dr John Campbell, in his videos, never made any claim along the lines that troubled James Tucker when he 'clarified' the situation. Campbell certainly never asserted that "only 17,000 people have died from COVID-19". He instead explained in detail what the statistic meant — and what it did NOT mean. Thus, the mentioning of said 'clarification' in the Wiki is inappropriate and likely mischievous.
Several Talk comments belittle Dr Campbell’s qualifications, as if he has ever claimed to be any more expert than he is in virus matters (though I'd guess he is much more qualified in medicine than many of those contributing, including me!) Are other commenters aware that he has interviewed many globally acknowledged experts in his video series? They must be happy to accept his credentials or, presumably, they would not appear. He always makes it clear that he learns during the process (like every good teacher) and does not purport to be on a career par with virologists or other specialists in the field, any more than David Attenborough, for example, would claim to be an expert in every specialised biological science. Communicators need to be pretty well informed on the subjects they talk about, but their job is not to be highly skilled right across the board. Humboles ( talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
They must be happy to accept his credentials or, presumably, they would not appear. So that must make Joe Rogan an expert on COVID-19 since Robert W. Malone was happy to appear on his show? FDW777 ( talk) 08:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Campbell said that the statistics say that there have been over 170,000 deaths from COVID-19, out of which about 17,000 were of people without comorbidities or previous conditions. At no point did he claim that COVID had only killed 17,000 people: he only said that, according to the data he was referencing, COVID killed 17,000 without the "help" of other conditions or diseases. DragonView2 ( talk) 18:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following:
In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially authorised for such use in the country—its use was merely promoted by the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] Meaghan Kall, the lead epidemiologist for COVID-19 at the UK Health Security Agency, said that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it "appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation".[3]
In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality, but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology, and a lack of clear data.[4] Danieltate ( talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This section should be removed as it violates Wikiepdia's BLP policy as it seeks to defame and/or degrade John Campbell's credibility. In a rapidly evolving pandemic, it is not unreasonable to occasionally misinterpret studies. The above seeks to protray John Campbell as some some sort of anti-vax role model, when in fact he is an accredited doctor. The above paragraph is political in nature, and should be removed. It also violates Wikipedia's BLP policy rv. contentious material and does does not meet BLP policy standards
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Cannolis (
talk)
23:25, 17 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. |
I would argue that it is the job of doctors (people with a PhD degree) to interpret research papers, since precisely PhD people, and not medical doctors, are the main people in charge of producing and reviewing such papers. The fact that he is a nurse means that he is in the health field, thus medicine-related data is relevant to his field of expertise. I would find your logic more reasonable if he were a PhD in engineering or such, but this is within his field. DragonView2 ( talk) 18:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Should be removed, violates terms Onlyfacts77 ( talk) 09:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no citation whatsoever for his educational credits, and my searching has only turned up self-reported information on his LinkedIn profile. Unless someone can turn up citation from a reliable source, this information should be challenged and removed. 2601:3CA:204:F860:D0E8:EC74:F94E:34EF ( talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This seems to indicate his credentials: University of Cumbria Autumn 2013 newsletter page 6 Homesteader17 ( talk) 23:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On my second vaccine i also had a chemical taste in my mouth it happend minutes after my 2nd jab ive sufferd heart pulpertations ever since 92.237.78.70 ( talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The January 2022 video referred to in the 'misinformation' section can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw . At about 55 seconds into the video, Dr Campbell comments on the UK government's official figure of 127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average, saying that "we have often thought that this is the most accurate way to look at deaths."
Dr Campbell then goes on to talk about the figure released by the UK's ONS (Office of National Statistics) of 17,371 deaths (England and Wales only, 2020 and first three quarters of 2021) from Covid-19 with no underlying comorbidities. Dr Campbell comments that "When Covid-19 is the only attributable cause of death, we see the rate of death is actually remarkably low. They are still deaths, but they are much lower than we've been thinking and it's much lower than mainstream media seems to be intimating."
This subject is of great interest to me as I am tracking deaths from Covid in Morocco and if the death rate varies to this degree from lack of comorbidities it helps explains why Morocco's death rate is so low (less than 16,000 as of today).
I understood totally what Dr Campbell was saying. The fact that some people may not have properly understood, or that other people tried to use the video to claim governments were over reporting deaths is unfortunate, but in my opinion Dr Campbell was NOT providing misinformation, he was merely reporting government statistics provided by ONS and his UPFRONT COMMENT that excess deaths over a five-year period is thought to be the most accurate way to look at deaths is of PARAMOUNT importance when considering whether he was guilty of misinformation.
I've also read David Davis' Twitter post on the subject which can be viewed at https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1485667919698796545 and his comments are largely highlighting the excess cancer deaths caused by interruptions to diagnosis and treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.27.90 ( talk) 16:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
"I understood totally what Dr Campbell was saying"← No you didn't. Campbell was obviously advancing the view that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted by a substantial factor. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I think right now a few users need to stop with the
wep:forum posts. This page is not about your holidays or morocco.
Slatersteven (
talk)
18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
" to " University of Lancaster ( MSc) Firebolt.Samil ( talk) 16:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following:
"In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment."
References
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following: "In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment." Change to "Campbell was accused of making false claims" It contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in that “false” implies that he made claims knowing them to be untrue, which is opinionated an unproven. The source is opinionated and inadequately sourced; by a tweet which doesn’t validate it. Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE There does seem to be a consensus growing on this. Faltero ( talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The claim made of Dr. John Campbell being guilty of wrongthink needs substantial corroborating evidence. 2603:6011:4F43:5900:4DAA:52C7:75F4:4F9F ( talk) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree with due diligence, entirely agree Usmc medical ( talk) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Please read American Journal of Theraupeutics 28, e434-460 (2021)
This needs to be considered when examining this page. Wysiwygil ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Time for a FAQ? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Here. [3]
This is about the "other" recent ivermectin paper, and has some more detail. I'm not sure how much Ivermectin material we want - it all gets quite detailed. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dr John Campbell does not spread misinformation or make false claims. He simply informs. He always makes his source information available to viewers so that they can check the information for themselves. Whoever has written this Wikipedia entry is libelling this well respected Doctor. 2A00:23C4:9DD1:7401:C5B:F94A:D80C:2300 ( talk) 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
John Campbell is not spreading misinformation about the Covid19 vaccination program he is trying to evaluate the risk benefit analysis of the emergency implementation of an experimental Vaccine that was in development for 20 years and only 2 years and 6 months into a three year human trail due to the high rate of fatality in the animals it was tested on in development.
Please refer to the Pfizor documents released under a court order at this Web location :-
https://phmpt.org/ Magic.Mike63 ( talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states Dr John spreads misinformation this is absolutely not true. He always explains that any research is not his personal opinion he only presents the facts and makes sense of complicated studies. If a mistake is made he puts it right immediately. Fialsibob ( talk) 15:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “misinformation” to “information” 111.65.57.253 ( talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
User made absolutely no argument other then this person said no so I believe then instead. Onlyfacts77 ( talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree this is absurd I represent a veteran research community with medical doctors and other related professionals. It is urgent continuously with overwhelming data that this is complete defamation an absolute misinformation on behalf of those who seek to eliminate the credible reputation of Dr PhD John Campbell. There’s absolutely no justification for any of the misleading comments such as this information false claims or any other related defamation currently posted on this very prestigious webpage. It is evidently false and rather insulting to anyone who knows the truth and anyone who doesn’t being misled. The editor of this sea of lies is the miss information corporate not Dr. John Campbell Usmc medical ( talk) 13:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Wikipedia is being bought into disreputeMy edits on this page have been reverted : Campbell has made repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and allegedly[3] spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety, though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid[4]. It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death.[5].[6][7][8] Both additions are cited. I am very saddened by this, it is the very worst of Wikipedia. Saying one cannot use the actual comment from the subject of the article, but only use a comment from some other site quoting the subject of the article is utterly ludicrous and basically certain editors are using esoteric Wikipedia rules to promote their own agenda. Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated (fact 1), and he recommends vaccinations to all those at significant risk of Covid (fact 2). The article, and certainly the introduction, is implying Campbell is somehow anti-vax and is therefore inaccurate. I will accept alteration of my edits provided that the form of words used still makes clear Campbell is in favour of vaccination. -- JustinSmith ( talk) 15:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Allow me to ask a question inspired by wp:not, what does this tell us about him? how is it not just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE peice of trivia. I mean (yes I agree this is a whataboutism argument) do we do this for anyone else? Why do we need this? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This needs formally closing now as a waste of everyone's time. We do not get to second guess RS, or use our wp:or to question them. This really has run its course. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
|
As Campbell has claimed they have been inflated we can not imply this may be the case, unless RS explicitly say it is the case. So I think we need to take care how we word it to not give the impression Campbell's claim is supported by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So how about "The official figure for deaths in which Covid was listed as a cause of death in the UK for the period was over 175,000, with Covid listed as the underlying cause of death and in 140,000 deaths" ? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I have now made the change, with a slight rewording to make it flow better. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your edit about Dr John Campbell spreading disinformation is visibly untrue. Please observe and correct. Dr John Campbell's video evidence on an incorrect BBC "fact check" Many Thanks. 2A00:23C5:E917:9301:D41B:924C:2BF3:3EE7 ( talk) 15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This page has been clearly been written as an attack on John Campbell and to discredit him. There is no balanced discussion here and this page should either be severely rewritten with a more balanced view or be just be deleted. 125.238.120.107 ( talk) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Page has been written as a personal attack on John Campbell with a very biased and unbalanced viewpoint. I propose this page should be deleted as it is not constructive and does not meet the standard we expect from Wikipedia. 125.238.120.107 ( talk) 00:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Pleae wp:afd it. I am unsure he is notable myself. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I have now AFD'd it myself. Let the community decide, note this is just about his notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I am absolutely disgusted and outraged that you dare label this man to be spreading misinformation. It is completely evident that you have never watched any of his videos. How dare you suggest he is spreading misinformation when you haven’t even seen what he speaks of! If you have then clearly you would see that this man shares HARD COLD facts on covid mostly by the Office of National Statistics, Tim Spectre’s ZOE covid study, the CDC, the FDA, the British Medical Journal, Our World in Data and the likes of these worldwide official government bodies. He is absolutely the best person in the world right now it seems who can interpret all of this covid data to the regular person who finds it hard to interpret data, scientific papers and medical statistics.
Have you seen the hundreds of videos he’s posted? So how many do you think he’s done on the ‘medicine that can not be named’ Ivermectin? By the sounds of what you wrote it sounds like you think he made many videos on that topic. Maybe you should go back and do some research and see the very very few times he mentions this topic. And Why exactly did he mention those topic on those videos? Because a major scientific paper came out each time on the subject and he looked at it. Makes you wonder does it? Why you imply that he’s giving his opinion when clearly he is not and never has given his opinion (other than he believes people should get vaccinated!!!) and instead focuses only on looking at all the up to date relevant covid data.
I am just speechless that your interpretation of misinformation is someone relating facts and stating data from the cdc.
Are you thank blind that you do not see that you are the one who is intact spreading not only Misinformation but lies about this man. It doesn’t make any sense. Why? Because he mentioned the ivermectin studies? What does that enrage you enough that you want to defame him? Especially when the studies had positive outcomes? Is that actually why you want to lie about this man?
I am disgusted in Wikipedia for orchestrating such a false description of this man and what he does. Also he is not a YouTuber !! He is a highly Sought out and respected medical professional. So are we going to start calling Boris Johnson a Tv personality rather than the prime minister, because he also happens to make announcements on the tv?
You should be throughly ashamed of yourself.
Get someone to write a REAL description of this wonderful man, his great work and complete objectivity when it comes to discussing data and covid. 2600:1700:4DB4:2800:3D37:D278:1498:352C ( talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Campbell briefly mentions this article in a video posted today (March 29), in case others are wondering what led to the spike in interest.
To new or returning editors: you are much more likely to effect change in this article if you keep your requests concise and base them on reliable sources. Is there a news article, paper, or book about Campbell that we haven't yet included? Should one of the existing sources in the article be removed, and if so, why? Is the language in the article unfaithful to the sources, and if so, how should it be tweaked to better reflect the reliable coverage? Firefangledfeathers ( talk | contribs) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You are all right, either take the comment about users to their talk page or report then here wp:ani. Do not clog up article talk pages with telling us how shit the other person is. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page contains misleading and incorrect information. The opening lines states 'Campbell has repeatedly made false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[3]'. this is not correct and the reference for this statement is not available.
Dr Campbell has (since I started watching in Mar 2020) supplied his reference material for the topics he has spoken on. His sources are generally based on respected and often, peer reviewed research such as BMJ, ONI, CDC etc. Dr Campbell has spent many years in medical training and his Covid videos have helped millions understand a little more about the virus, trends, treatments and misinformation. The current Wikipedia page is currently not factual or correct and appears to have been edited by someone wanting to spread misinformation. I have supported Wikipedia with donations, and would be extremely disappointed if the page is not updated to show factual information. Edwardsp1916 ( talk) 06:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I really think the editors of Wikipedia should do extensive research ( like Dr John Campbell does) before writing a single word... he doesn't make any false claims like you, he just explains the facts in an easy to comprehend manner.. I find it quite disgusting that Wikipedia is being so derogatory towards a man who speaks the truth and will openly admit if he has made a mistake... you could learn a lot from his example.... sorry guys but in my opinion you haven't done your research and you've made terrible mistakes which are just plain nasty... 31.4.129.103 ( talk) 10:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be good if we could talk more generally about Campbell. Things like talking about the fact that he summarizes papers daily, and has done so since the beginning of the pandemic, and appears on DW (german national broadcaster I believe) and is a strong support of the vaccine.
Unfortunately a lot of these sort of sources are not from reliable sources. I have found 3 such summaries in unreliable sources (e.g. New York Post, Forbes.com). This summary from a paid, award winning, New Zealand publication might be better. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/doctors-virus-videos-go-global. Do we consider Newsroom (website) reliable? Talpedia ( talk) 18:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah there is a lack of sources. Very little seems to be said about Campbell between April 2020 and January 2022. I found a few quotes from local newspapers near where he lives and some brief references in DW, but they are quoting him rather than talking about him. Think I'm giving up for now :/. Hopefully a newspaper will come along and give a more balanced summary, though I think he's not quite bit enough. Talpedia ( talk) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)