![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This section is a duplicate of an open discussion at
WP:BLPN. Further discussion can happen there or in one of the above sections on identical subjects.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
This entry violates Wikipedia biographies of living persons: "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell. The Wikipedia entry: "John Lorimer Campbell[3] is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell. Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. " Wikipedia was asked repeatedly to remove the statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation" but refuses to do so. The statement is defamatory of Dr. Campbell's character and can affect negatively his reputation, career and financial well-being. And yet, the statement has no place in a Wikipedia entry. Keeping that statement would mean, every Wikipedia entry about someone who has posted videos would most probably require that same statement. Wikipedia entries on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, etc., as these companies, at one time or another, whether on purpose or inadvertently, have posted videos which contain misinformation. And yet we do not have that statement on their entries. Second, the so-called rationale for saying his videos contain misinformation, i.e., "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" -- may not be "misinformation" as the full picture/complete data on those matters have not been gathered. It's very possible that some or all of those are proven true. For example, for the first statement "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted", hospitals in the Philippines, during the pandemic, would be able to charge more, i.e., earn more profits from health insurance companies or government health care reimbursement, if they claim the patient had COVID-19 rather than another ailment like pneumonia or lung cancer, etc., and so, many of them erroneously list death is by COVID-19, thus upping the death-by-COVID-19 count. Third, his videos are usually about Dr. Campbell reporting on studies or report. He does not actually create the studies or reports. If these studies or reports give results and conclusions contrary to what the Wikipedia reviewer would like to hear, they shouldn't be immediately marked as "misinformation." Dr. Campbell reviews them and explains the key points in an understandable way. In conclusion, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. John Campbell must remove the unnecessary, defamatory, unproven, controversial statement. It does not add illumination to the entry, but merely gaslights and defames the subject without clear, unquestionable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelobe ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 May 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.
The intro paragraph of this article currently reads 'Some of his videos contain 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, and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.' After reviewing the videos, I have found that all of the sources and studies referenced are included in the description boxes with these videos. Although many of these studies may derive different results than the ones listed under 'Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus' in this talk page. This means that the information he is sharing from those studies that have been labelled 'false claims', are not necessarily false, but are simply study results that may not be completely in agreement with other reliable sources.
In order to continue to further scientific understanding, it is important to review various studies that may have different conclusions. In Dr. Campbell's videos, he is simply sharing the results of various scientific studies.
As a result, I suggest that this article should be modified to consider that various studies may be in opposition, and simply state the objective facts. For example, the statement could be rephrased to say: 'Some of his videos contain information from studies that differ from many other reliable sources {insert sources here}, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated {remove 'false'} claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and {remove 'misleading'} commentary about vaccine safety.' The validity of studies should be up to the readers to determine based on the merits, and Wikipedia should not claim as fact which studies are false or misinformation. Scientific knowledge is updated regularly based on the continual study and challenging previously held notions (i.e. masking was originally said to be ineffective to protect against COVID-19). As this page stands right now, it borders on commentary, instead of an encyclopedia.
In conclusion, I think it would be appropriate to remove the terms "misinformation", "false" and "misleading" from the article, as they are subjective and not reflective of the ongoing scientific studies and statistics that Dr. Campbell shares in his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
What is RS? Odonanmarg ( talk) 08:50, 1 July 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 is NOT spreading mis infirmation ! Wikepedia is in this case! 83.81.130.118 ( talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Odonanmarg agrees with the opening statement. He has never spread misinformation. He has ALWAYS said that COVID-19 deaths are UNDERcounted. This article seems to have been created by “admins” (whatever they are) who are opposed to Dr. Campbell’ s views. Dr. Campbell often points out that he is expressing his own views, and that individuals should consult with their own physicians. Because the creators of the article have admin(?) status, they seem to have a “lock”🔒on this mis-informative article. Odonanmarg ( talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get your MIS-information from then? Odonanmarg ( talk) 08:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Egregious typos in the lede section:
Thanks. 70.172.194.25 ( talk) 00:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Dr Campbell's date of birth can be improved with reference to UK Gov Companies House register of directors, https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/caiVOU_nx3L97MptSiezuq2lT-Y/appointments which confirms he was born in May 1957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patxi1204 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have removed his DOB as it seems to be based on OR, if a date is not given we leave it out, not try to guesstimate it. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy Dore is not John Campbell. This article seems to be quite confused by this issue. The politifact article cited is fact-checking a claim made by Jimmy Dore, not by Dr John Campbell. Campbell is mentioned in the article because it was one of his videos that was misrepresented by Dore. Given the extra care that is supposed to be taken according to Biographies policy, this is really not acceptable. Claims that Campbell has spread misinformation need to be supported by articles that directly state that he has done so. I've not yet checked any of the others claims of misinformation spreading in this article, but it's clear that the sources do not support this particular one. 86.174.10.156 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 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". Wikipedia reflects such reliable sources. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
If this carries on I will ask for a close, it has run its course, please WP:JUSTDROPIT. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggestion:
Remove "Monkeypox parallels" section entirely
Reason:
The assertions made in the Monkeypox parallels section are vague, bizarre and inaccurate. The youtube video created by John from which these claims are sourced isn't referenced and refutes the assertions in any case. Kellerto ( talk) 16:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)he is on rumble now Dr. John Campbell (rumble.com) 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:A4A1:D9AC:53F8:7A49 ( talk) 07:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: the fact that Campbell often teaches in African countries. 204.11.186.190 ( talk) 18:13, 8 December 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.
The majority of this biographical article has a very predisposed and opinionated tone. This is unfortunate, for both the subject of the article, and the Wikipedia community as a whole. -- Zamdrist ( talk) 05:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Bon courage ( talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)John Campbell, someone who seemed semi-reasonable early on in the pandemic but long ago turned into a total COVID-19 crank
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.
The third paragraph currently states: "In July 2022, Campbell gave an error-filled account of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and falsely claimed that it showed the risk to children from COVID-19 vaccination was much greater than the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself. The video received over 700,000 views. The article actually showed that COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of children getting seriously ill from COVID-19.[21]"
Cite 21 suggests that the study gives "hospitalizations" and "serious adverse events" as direct comparison. It goes on to claim that Dr. Campbell's use of only children hospitalized with oxygen rather than the full gamut of adverse events is misinformation. It then admits that, quote: "... the study itself does not say that the other 283 admissions were non-serious or “precautionary” cases."
Despite the aspersions it casts, cite 21 plainly states that the HSA paper's comparison is no more scientifically rigorous than Dr. Campbell's own claim.
Cite 21 then continues, quote: “The same HSA document says: It is important to note that the [adverse events] reported do not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused these [adverse events]"
This is not a valid scientific claim. It is logically consistent with the following statement: "I may pay you somewhere between 0 dollars and 288 dollars."
Luckily for us, several studies have been conducted on VAERS accuracy. Every study I've reviewed has found that total adverse events are under-reported, sometimes dramatically. Here is one such study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20312548?via%3Dihub
Furthermore, the following study found that vaccine adverse events are far more likely to be reported if they are serious: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X13004283
This stands in stark contrast to reporting of disease-related hospitalizations. Positive cases are typically counted as a hospitalization regardless of whether that case is necessarily a causative factor. Additionally, severe cases are often only a small fraction of those admitted. Here is a study to scientifically corroborate my preceding claims: https://publications.aap.org/hospitalpediatrics/article/11/8/e151/179740/For-COVID-or-With-COVID-Classification-of-SARS-CoV?autologincheck=redirected
As such, cite 21's broad condemnations apparently arise from multiple corruptions of nonspecific claims within the HSA paper. Finally, the footer of cite 21 says, quote: "The risks to children, both from Covid and from Covid vaccines, are very low. They are also hard to estimate precisely." I think advocating for weighing risk and benefit is exactly what should be done when the evidence is so admittedly thin.
In short, while Dr. Campbell is not making claims having p=0.05 accuracy, it appears the science stands firmly on his side. Cite 21 thus seems to be either a biased misinterpretation of a flawed scientific paper or an attempted character assassination.
Are we okay with propagating such false and damaging accusations? Cite 21 is not merely harming Dr. Campbell's reputation; it's also espousing anti-science sentiment. I believe honesty and propriety behoove us to check scientific sources more rigorously.
24.61.163.167 (
talk)
05:49, 31 December 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.
Who are these users and what Phd do they have to throw opinions about what is misinformation in Dr. Campbell channel? Gigi.chelu ( talk) 06:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Turning yourself into a judge and drowning conclusions about ongoing scientific debates, based on other professionals, more or less, opinions, is not what Wikipedia should be about. A professional opinion that is not agreed by all professionals today, is not misinformation. Tomorrow it may be proven true. Misinformation is spread by nonprofessionals like you, whom opinions based on biased sources judge others and tell others what should be the source of the truth. Gigi.chelu ( talk) 14:06, 31 December 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.
The accusation of misinformation is misguided and should be removed or changed to: Dr John Campbell uncovers demonstrable acts of misinformation. 2A00:23A8:8F3:C401:6945:4DB:D6FC:3FD ( talk) 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
( talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Are we going to have to ask for talk page protection to stop the raft of wp:spa edit requests that cannot be actioned? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:canvas. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:01, 31 December 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.
I believe this should be added to the intro. “To minimize his own biases, and fight the spread of misinformation, John Campbell displays the URL’s for the articles he sites, describes where they were published, and encourages viewers to “not take my word for it” but to read the article for themselves.”
John Campbell tries hard to remain unbiased, and site his sources. He usually states when something is his opinion when not citing a source. He also often states that this is how he interprets the data but that viewers should read the articles for themselves. I feel this Wiki page should reflect his efforts to remain unbiased and encourage further research by his viewers. 76.126.130.128 ( talk) 15:33, 31 December 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 “stating facts backed up by sources that are peer reviewed” You have called Dr. John Campbell a miss information spreader which is actually misinformation. You are the misinformation spreader! Amazing that this is allowed by any means. All his videos are backed up by scientific journals that are peer reviewed. He is not giving an opinion but merely stating facts and you call that misinformation because you have an agenda to protect mRNA vaccines intellectual properties!
1 in 800 adverse events and the vaccine is still being promoted! Please let real scientist describe who or what Dr. Campbell is!
I would like to write a Wikipedia page to describe how you are the miss information spreader! 213.213.202.118 ( talk) 16:16, 1 January 2023 (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.
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The change I suggest is you get your facts right before maligning a person disgracefully like this, yes YOU Wikipedia 86.1.232.46 ( talk) 09:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
One January 5 Dr. Campbell uploaded a video claiming that the risk of a getting infected with Covid rises after every dose of Covid vaccine. Later he removed that video from YouTube, which he also confirmed on his Twitter account, but the same video is still online at Rumble. He did not give a reason for removing his video from YouTube, but it obviously violates Google's guidelines against vaccine misinformation. So he very likely got a warning from YouTube. If he thought that his video is false, he would also have deleted it from Rumble. In some of his latest videos he indicated that his channel might be banned soon. In the next video ("Swindon data") he apologized three times for the removal of the other video, but he still did not give a reason. Skyscraperfan ( talk) 11:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you edit this part: „Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation“
It is incorrect to state that the videos veered into misinformation. The line above clearly states the authors view that the videos created were based on misinformation - however all content shared by John Campbell is linked to his source of data 2003:CD:E73E:F285:B14F:9057:9548:1EC5 ( talk) 12:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a lot of responses along the lines of "We go off based on what WP:RS says" when replying to requests regarding the "tone" of the article. Might it be worth adding a FAQ to this talk page, similar to [3]? I think it might be worth it considering that the same thing is happening on the page this is from.
158.94.122.191 ( talk) 17:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Dr. Campbell has not made any reference himself to Jimmy Dore, nor referred to him directly in any way. So it does not make sense that the actions of Jimmy Dore be referenced in an article about Dr. Campbell, except by a limited single comment like "Comedian Jimmy Dore has cited Campbell on multiple occasions" when discussing the popularity of Dr. Campbell. The numerous irrelevant and unnecessary references to Dore implies a false sense of collaboration between the two, when there clearly is not. Qed ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (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.
If John Campbell has a PhD as claimed in the article then he should be referred to at least Dr John Campbell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 ( talk) 12:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes if one get awarded a PHD they are entitled to call themselves Doctor. However, they then might become a professor thus use an even more prestigious title.
Who is we? How does your one opinion represent the whole of Wikipedia and fly against social convention. Even if you disagree with a person’s views, please be respectful of qualifications they have received at legitimate universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 ( talk • contribs)
Mis informationThe 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. There is deliberately biased mis information here about J. Campbell. Not correcting this will further degrade public confidence or trust in Wikipedia. Wiki should be about truth and not be used as a mouthpiece for vested interests. 2A01:CB19:8B3E:5A00:4DDC:3178:9A13:3B26 ( talk) 10:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
|
see above two sections
| ||
---|---|---|
Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023
I suggest changing this: "repeating false claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing misleading commentary" To: repeating claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing commentary" Reason: an encyclopedia should never present information using bias, biases, or biased, slanderous language. It is insulting to a reader, researcher, and even worse, teaches young students that bias in journalism is acceptable. Just state the facts; to say someone is "misled" or "false" is always going to be read by a reader as the author's opinion, forces a reader to take sides with no justification, and those particular words are not fact until proven in a court of law. The public's opinion is not law, and if it is, then Wikipedia is a contributor to society's descent into anarchy. Call me an intellectual, but to publicly claim someone is false or a conspirator (as in other influencers' Wiki profiles) is highly lacking in integrity, and is the reason I will not financially support Wikipedia; if Wikipedia does the right thing someday, and eliminates all personal words of malice against all individuals, I'll be happy to contribute my time and financial resources. Dkuha ( talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
|
No idea what this was about, seems unproductive and skippable
Dronebogus (
talk)
15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
John Campbell makes the assertion that monkeypox research was occurring at Wuhan in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E6cD-VWhQY. He bases that claim on a published article here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995820X22000414 which clearly demonstrates from the title that it is a monkeypox study (Efficient assembly of a large fragment of monkeypox virus genome as a qPCR template using dual-selection based transformation-associated recombination). The refuting article claiming this to be misinformation ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/conspiracy-theories-about-monkeypox/) would have to demonstrate that either: 1. The study in question is bogus. 2. The research did not take place in Wuhan. of which it does neither. This is the para dedicated to why the author thinks this is misinformation: "I looked up the study, and—surprise!—it shows nothing like what Dore and Campbell claim that it shows. First of all, the scientists didn’t create a whole monkeypox genome, only a portion of it and then only to use to test a method known as “transformation-associated recombination”, which is used to assemble large pieces of DNA. Also, the monkeypox sequence used to assemble the partial genome is different from that of the monkeypox virus now circulating. The current outbreak is due to the West African clade virus while the viral sequence used in the research belongs to the Congo Basin clade." As can be seen clearly, the author in fact affirms that monkeypox research did in fact take place, which is what Campbell claimed in the first place. The article in no way rebuts the assertion that monkeypox research did take place at Wuhan. I petition for either: 1. This source to be replaced with something that actually fact checks Campbell. 2. The removal of the line "but later veered into misinformation" from the introduction. A reply from the moderators to the effect of "it is a reliable source" would be egregiously irresponsible to the point where I would question your motives, since I have clearly shown above that it is in fact not a reliable source, at the very least not in this particular incident. Ritwikvd ( talk) 07:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
|
more of the same
|
---|
Wikipedia's job is not to judge people but to deliver facts, I think we all agree on that. In this article many accusations include that he said something might or could be, but that's the average job of a scientists: to formulate a hypothesis. If that is sufficient base for an accusation of spreading false information, then every existing scientist would have to be subjected to the same treatment, and every existing scientist would have to be called a liar. Once again I think we can agree that that would be highly irrational. That a hypothesis might be misleading to an uninformed viewer is true, but then again if that was a criteria then every scientists would be doomed to stay silent. Because no matter what you say, at least someone will misunderstand it. As Dr. Campbell usually cites official sources, I see no reason why his scientific research should be worth less than that of anyone else. Every expert in this pandemic has at some point spread false or misleading information, because simply no one knew the facts. Countries even spent billions on enforcing regulations to protect the people based on the recommendations from experts, just to later learn that they were barely effective, and mostly just caused collateral damage. This makes this article look like it was written with the political agenda to degrade Dr. Campbell, and that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I therefore recommend to lift the protection and rework this article using neutral speech. TwoThe ( talk) 01:39, 13 January 2023 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This section is a duplicate of an open discussion at
WP:BLPN. Further discussion can happen there or in one of the above sections on identical subjects.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
This entry violates Wikipedia biographies of living persons: "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell. The Wikipedia entry: "John Lorimer Campbell[3] is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell. Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. " Wikipedia was asked repeatedly to remove the statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation" but refuses to do so. The statement is defamatory of Dr. Campbell's character and can affect negatively his reputation, career and financial well-being. And yet, the statement has no place in a Wikipedia entry. Keeping that statement would mean, every Wikipedia entry about someone who has posted videos would most probably require that same statement. Wikipedia entries on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, etc., as these companies, at one time or another, whether on purpose or inadvertently, have posted videos which contain misinformation. And yet we do not have that statement on their entries. Second, the so-called rationale for saying his videos contain misinformation, i.e., "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" -- may not be "misinformation" as the full picture/complete data on those matters have not been gathered. It's very possible that some or all of those are proven true. For example, for the first statement "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted", hospitals in the Philippines, during the pandemic, would be able to charge more, i.e., earn more profits from health insurance companies or government health care reimbursement, if they claim the patient had COVID-19 rather than another ailment like pneumonia or lung cancer, etc., and so, many of them erroneously list death is by COVID-19, thus upping the death-by-COVID-19 count. Third, his videos are usually about Dr. Campbell reporting on studies or report. He does not actually create the studies or reports. If these studies or reports give results and conclusions contrary to what the Wikipedia reviewer would like to hear, they shouldn't be immediately marked as "misinformation." Dr. Campbell reviews them and explains the key points in an understandable way. In conclusion, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. John Campbell must remove the unnecessary, defamatory, unproven, controversial statement. It does not add illumination to the entry, but merely gaslights and defames the subject without clear, unquestionable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelobe ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 May 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.
The intro paragraph of this article currently reads 'Some of his videos contain 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, and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.' After reviewing the videos, I have found that all of the sources and studies referenced are included in the description boxes with these videos. Although many of these studies may derive different results than the ones listed under 'Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus' in this talk page. This means that the information he is sharing from those studies that have been labelled 'false claims', are not necessarily false, but are simply study results that may not be completely in agreement with other reliable sources.
In order to continue to further scientific understanding, it is important to review various studies that may have different conclusions. In Dr. Campbell's videos, he is simply sharing the results of various scientific studies.
As a result, I suggest that this article should be modified to consider that various studies may be in opposition, and simply state the objective facts. For example, the statement could be rephrased to say: 'Some of his videos contain information from studies that differ from many other reliable sources {insert sources here}, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated {remove 'false'} claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and {remove 'misleading'} commentary about vaccine safety.' The validity of studies should be up to the readers to determine based on the merits, and Wikipedia should not claim as fact which studies are false or misinformation. Scientific knowledge is updated regularly based on the continual study and challenging previously held notions (i.e. masking was originally said to be ineffective to protect against COVID-19). As this page stands right now, it borders on commentary, instead of an encyclopedia.
In conclusion, I think it would be appropriate to remove the terms "misinformation", "false" and "misleading" from the article, as they are subjective and not reflective of the ongoing scientific studies and statistics that Dr. Campbell shares in his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
What is RS? Odonanmarg ( talk) 08:50, 1 July 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 is NOT spreading mis infirmation ! Wikepedia is in this case! 83.81.130.118 ( talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Odonanmarg agrees with the opening statement. He has never spread misinformation. He has ALWAYS said that COVID-19 deaths are UNDERcounted. This article seems to have been created by “admins” (whatever they are) who are opposed to Dr. Campbell’ s views. Dr. Campbell often points out that he is expressing his own views, and that individuals should consult with their own physicians. Because the creators of the article have admin(?) status, they seem to have a “lock”🔒on this mis-informative article. Odonanmarg ( talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Where did you get your MIS-information from then? Odonanmarg ( talk) 08:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Egregious typos in the lede section:
Thanks. 70.172.194.25 ( talk) 00:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Dr Campbell's date of birth can be improved with reference to UK Gov Companies House register of directors, https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/caiVOU_nx3L97MptSiezuq2lT-Y/appointments which confirms he was born in May 1957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patxi1204 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have removed his DOB as it seems to be based on OR, if a date is not given we leave it out, not try to guesstimate it. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy Dore is not John Campbell. This article seems to be quite confused by this issue. The politifact article cited is fact-checking a claim made by Jimmy Dore, not by Dr John Campbell. Campbell is mentioned in the article because it was one of his videos that was misrepresented by Dore. Given the extra care that is supposed to be taken according to Biographies policy, this is really not acceptable. Claims that Campbell has spread misinformation need to be supported by articles that directly state that he has done so. I've not yet checked any of the others claims of misinformation spreading in this article, but it's clear that the sources do not support this particular one. 86.174.10.156 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 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". Wikipedia reflects such reliable sources. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
If this carries on I will ask for a close, it has run its course, please WP:JUSTDROPIT. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Suggestion:
Remove "Monkeypox parallels" section entirely
Reason:
The assertions made in the Monkeypox parallels section are vague, bizarre and inaccurate. The youtube video created by John from which these claims are sourced isn't referenced and refutes the assertions in any case. Kellerto ( talk) 16:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)he is on rumble now Dr. John Campbell (rumble.com) 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:A4A1:D9AC:53F8:7A49 ( talk) 07:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: the fact that Campbell often teaches in African countries. 204.11.186.190 ( talk) 18:13, 8 December 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.
The majority of this biographical article has a very predisposed and opinionated tone. This is unfortunate, for both the subject of the article, and the Wikipedia community as a whole. -- Zamdrist ( talk) 05:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Bon courage ( talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)John Campbell, someone who seemed semi-reasonable early on in the pandemic but long ago turned into a total COVID-19 crank
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.
The third paragraph currently states: "In July 2022, Campbell gave an error-filled account of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and falsely claimed that it showed the risk to children from COVID-19 vaccination was much greater than the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself. The video received over 700,000 views. The article actually showed that COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of children getting seriously ill from COVID-19.[21]"
Cite 21 suggests that the study gives "hospitalizations" and "serious adverse events" as direct comparison. It goes on to claim that Dr. Campbell's use of only children hospitalized with oxygen rather than the full gamut of adverse events is misinformation. It then admits that, quote: "... the study itself does not say that the other 283 admissions were non-serious or “precautionary” cases."
Despite the aspersions it casts, cite 21 plainly states that the HSA paper's comparison is no more scientifically rigorous than Dr. Campbell's own claim.
Cite 21 then continues, quote: “The same HSA document says: It is important to note that the [adverse events] reported do not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused these [adverse events]"
This is not a valid scientific claim. It is logically consistent with the following statement: "I may pay you somewhere between 0 dollars and 288 dollars."
Luckily for us, several studies have been conducted on VAERS accuracy. Every study I've reviewed has found that total adverse events are under-reported, sometimes dramatically. Here is one such study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20312548?via%3Dihub
Furthermore, the following study found that vaccine adverse events are far more likely to be reported if they are serious: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X13004283
This stands in stark contrast to reporting of disease-related hospitalizations. Positive cases are typically counted as a hospitalization regardless of whether that case is necessarily a causative factor. Additionally, severe cases are often only a small fraction of those admitted. Here is a study to scientifically corroborate my preceding claims: https://publications.aap.org/hospitalpediatrics/article/11/8/e151/179740/For-COVID-or-With-COVID-Classification-of-SARS-CoV?autologincheck=redirected
As such, cite 21's broad condemnations apparently arise from multiple corruptions of nonspecific claims within the HSA paper. Finally, the footer of cite 21 says, quote: "The risks to children, both from Covid and from Covid vaccines, are very low. They are also hard to estimate precisely." I think advocating for weighing risk and benefit is exactly what should be done when the evidence is so admittedly thin.
In short, while Dr. Campbell is not making claims having p=0.05 accuracy, it appears the science stands firmly on his side. Cite 21 thus seems to be either a biased misinterpretation of a flawed scientific paper or an attempted character assassination.
Are we okay with propagating such false and damaging accusations? Cite 21 is not merely harming Dr. Campbell's reputation; it's also espousing anti-science sentiment. I believe honesty and propriety behoove us to check scientific sources more rigorously.
24.61.163.167 (
talk)
05:49, 31 December 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.
Who are these users and what Phd do they have to throw opinions about what is misinformation in Dr. Campbell channel? Gigi.chelu ( talk) 06:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Turning yourself into a judge and drowning conclusions about ongoing scientific debates, based on other professionals, more or less, opinions, is not what Wikipedia should be about. A professional opinion that is not agreed by all professionals today, is not misinformation. Tomorrow it may be proven true. Misinformation is spread by nonprofessionals like you, whom opinions based on biased sources judge others and tell others what should be the source of the truth. Gigi.chelu ( talk) 14:06, 31 December 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.
The accusation of misinformation is misguided and should be removed or changed to: Dr John Campbell uncovers demonstrable acts of misinformation. 2A00:23A8:8F3:C401:6945:4DB:D6FC:3FD ( talk) 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
( talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Are we going to have to ask for talk page protection to stop the raft of wp:spa edit requests that cannot be actioned? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:canvas. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:01, 31 December 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.
I believe this should be added to the intro. “To minimize his own biases, and fight the spread of misinformation, John Campbell displays the URL’s for the articles he sites, describes where they were published, and encourages viewers to “not take my word for it” but to read the article for themselves.”
John Campbell tries hard to remain unbiased, and site his sources. He usually states when something is his opinion when not citing a source. He also often states that this is how he interprets the data but that viewers should read the articles for themselves. I feel this Wiki page should reflect his efforts to remain unbiased and encourage further research by his viewers. 76.126.130.128 ( talk) 15:33, 31 December 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 “stating facts backed up by sources that are peer reviewed” You have called Dr. John Campbell a miss information spreader which is actually misinformation. You are the misinformation spreader! Amazing that this is allowed by any means. All his videos are backed up by scientific journals that are peer reviewed. He is not giving an opinion but merely stating facts and you call that misinformation because you have an agenda to protect mRNA vaccines intellectual properties!
1 in 800 adverse events and the vaccine is still being promoted! Please let real scientist describe who or what Dr. Campbell is!
I would like to write a Wikipedia page to describe how you are the miss information spreader! 213.213.202.118 ( talk) 16:16, 1 January 2023 (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.
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The change I suggest is you get your facts right before maligning a person disgracefully like this, yes YOU Wikipedia 86.1.232.46 ( talk) 09:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
One January 5 Dr. Campbell uploaded a video claiming that the risk of a getting infected with Covid rises after every dose of Covid vaccine. Later he removed that video from YouTube, which he also confirmed on his Twitter account, but the same video is still online at Rumble. He did not give a reason for removing his video from YouTube, but it obviously violates Google's guidelines against vaccine misinformation. So he very likely got a warning from YouTube. If he thought that his video is false, he would also have deleted it from Rumble. In some of his latest videos he indicated that his channel might be banned soon. In the next video ("Swindon data") he apologized three times for the removal of the other video, but he still did not give a reason. Skyscraperfan ( talk) 11:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
John Campbell (YouTuber) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you edit this part: „Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation“
It is incorrect to state that the videos veered into misinformation. The line above clearly states the authors view that the videos created were based on misinformation - however all content shared by John Campbell is linked to his source of data 2003:CD:E73E:F285:B14F:9057:9548:1EC5 ( talk) 12:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a lot of responses along the lines of "We go off based on what WP:RS says" when replying to requests regarding the "tone" of the article. Might it be worth adding a FAQ to this talk page, similar to [3]? I think it might be worth it considering that the same thing is happening on the page this is from.
158.94.122.191 ( talk) 17:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Dr. Campbell has not made any reference himself to Jimmy Dore, nor referred to him directly in any way. So it does not make sense that the actions of Jimmy Dore be referenced in an article about Dr. Campbell, except by a limited single comment like "Comedian Jimmy Dore has cited Campbell on multiple occasions" when discussing the popularity of Dr. Campbell. The numerous irrelevant and unnecessary references to Dore implies a false sense of collaboration between the two, when there clearly is not. Qed ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (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.
If John Campbell has a PhD as claimed in the article then he should be referred to at least Dr John Campbell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 ( talk) 12:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes if one get awarded a PHD they are entitled to call themselves Doctor. However, they then might become a professor thus use an even more prestigious title.
Who is we? How does your one opinion represent the whole of Wikipedia and fly against social convention. Even if you disagree with a person’s views, please be respectful of qualifications they have received at legitimate universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 ( talk • contribs)
Mis informationThe 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. There is deliberately biased mis information here about J. Campbell. Not correcting this will further degrade public confidence or trust in Wikipedia. Wiki should be about truth and not be used as a mouthpiece for vested interests. 2A01:CB19:8B3E:5A00:4DDC:3178:9A13:3B26 ( talk) 10:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
|
see above two sections
| ||
---|---|---|
Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023
I suggest changing this: "repeating false claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing misleading commentary" To: repeating claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing commentary" Reason: an encyclopedia should never present information using bias, biases, or biased, slanderous language. It is insulting to a reader, researcher, and even worse, teaches young students that bias in journalism is acceptable. Just state the facts; to say someone is "misled" or "false" is always going to be read by a reader as the author's opinion, forces a reader to take sides with no justification, and those particular words are not fact until proven in a court of law. The public's opinion is not law, and if it is, then Wikipedia is a contributor to society's descent into anarchy. Call me an intellectual, but to publicly claim someone is false or a conspirator (as in other influencers' Wiki profiles) is highly lacking in integrity, and is the reason I will not financially support Wikipedia; if Wikipedia does the right thing someday, and eliminates all personal words of malice against all individuals, I'll be happy to contribute my time and financial resources. Dkuha ( talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
|
No idea what this was about, seems unproductive and skippable
Dronebogus (
talk)
15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
John Campbell makes the assertion that monkeypox research was occurring at Wuhan in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E6cD-VWhQY. He bases that claim on a published article here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995820X22000414 which clearly demonstrates from the title that it is a monkeypox study (Efficient assembly of a large fragment of monkeypox virus genome as a qPCR template using dual-selection based transformation-associated recombination). The refuting article claiming this to be misinformation ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/conspiracy-theories-about-monkeypox/) would have to demonstrate that either: 1. The study in question is bogus. 2. The research did not take place in Wuhan. of which it does neither. This is the para dedicated to why the author thinks this is misinformation: "I looked up the study, and—surprise!—it shows nothing like what Dore and Campbell claim that it shows. First of all, the scientists didn’t create a whole monkeypox genome, only a portion of it and then only to use to test a method known as “transformation-associated recombination”, which is used to assemble large pieces of DNA. Also, the monkeypox sequence used to assemble the partial genome is different from that of the monkeypox virus now circulating. The current outbreak is due to the West African clade virus while the viral sequence used in the research belongs to the Congo Basin clade." As can be seen clearly, the author in fact affirms that monkeypox research did in fact take place, which is what Campbell claimed in the first place. The article in no way rebuts the assertion that monkeypox research did take place at Wuhan. I petition for either: 1. This source to be replaced with something that actually fact checks Campbell. 2. The removal of the line "but later veered into misinformation" from the introduction. A reply from the moderators to the effect of "it is a reliable source" would be egregiously irresponsible to the point where I would question your motives, since I have clearly shown above that it is in fact not a reliable source, at the very least not in this particular incident. Ritwikvd ( talk) 07:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
|
more of the same
|
---|
Wikipedia's job is not to judge people but to deliver facts, I think we all agree on that. In this article many accusations include that he said something might or could be, but that's the average job of a scientists: to formulate a hypothesis. If that is sufficient base for an accusation of spreading false information, then every existing scientist would have to be subjected to the same treatment, and every existing scientist would have to be called a liar. Once again I think we can agree that that would be highly irrational. That a hypothesis might be misleading to an uninformed viewer is true, but then again if that was a criteria then every scientists would be doomed to stay silent. Because no matter what you say, at least someone will misunderstand it. As Dr. Campbell usually cites official sources, I see no reason why his scientific research should be worth less than that of anyone else. Every expert in this pandemic has at some point spread false or misleading information, because simply no one knew the facts. Countries even spent billions on enforcing regulations to protect the people based on the recommendations from experts, just to later learn that they were barely effective, and mostly just caused collateral damage. This makes this article look like it was written with the political agenda to degrade Dr. Campbell, and that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I therefore recommend to lift the protection and rework this article using neutral speech. TwoThe ( talk) 01:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
|