This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I read the book. The book does quote people on the crazy anti-vax side, but it does so as quotes of their opinions.
The book represents an excellent journalistic approach to what is going on in the world, with specific attention played to Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institutes of Health) and Bill Gates (co-director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and their influence over vaccine research almost the world over.
Some of the facts in the book were so horrifying that I had to take a break from reading it more than once. These are facts backed up by references. The references are easily followed when reading an electronic copy of the book. I was unable to find a single case in the dozens of references I reviewed where Mr. Kennedy changed the facts. There were a couple of cases where he cherry-picked parts of what was said in research papers, but in general these were extracting the damning facts that were being whitewashed by researchers who were paid by pharmaceutical companies.
On my opinion, the article about the book misrepresents the book and should be rewritten to more accurately reflect the actual arguments made in the book.
At least the many people who have read the book know what is going on, although it is hard to follow, even for people with a strong non-professional background in the biological sciences. Todd Bezenek ( talk) 01:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
are book reviewers experts?Not necessarily.
how do you determine a book reviewer is an expert?There is no simple recipe anyone can apply; WP:CIR.
s it if they publish in one of the reliable sources listed on Wikipedia's reliable sources list?Not necessarily. A reliable source is reliable within a certain scope. If the subject is stocks, Wall Street Journal is probably a RS; if the subject is climate change, they are not.
If I want to check sources on this book about Fauci (and maybe the other book about Fauci), where is the search engine which will search only the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Web sites?
If you do not know where this is, where can I go to get permission to build it. I don't mean permission as in anyone can build it, I mean permission as in PERMISSION to build it, i.e., a meeting with someone important enough to discuss building it.
Cheers! Todd Todd Bezenek ( talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Taken higher up the food chain. Todd Bezenek ( talk) 19:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
[1] David Gorski calls it a "conspiracy book" here and here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This article describes and repeats Kennedy's hooey with very little contextualization. The lede treats the book as a serious work, ending with a tepid "uproven" and "described as 'controversial'."
Main ideas from Kennedy's firehose of crap are then repeated for the Wikipedia reader. Until way down in the Reception section, at the end of a paragraph about the book's popularity, we finally see AP pointed out FDA's 3 phases of testing. Followed by some paragraphs of criticism.
In a climate denier's page you can't simply describe their view: so-and-so claims climate alarmism is leftist scientists' plan for global domination. No matter how ridiculous the statement, somebody will delete it with the edit summary WP:UNDUE. The page has to read so-and-so falsely asserts... Fact-checks from Snopes and AP show this is false.[2][3]
But the standard against repeating unconextualized hooey has not applied here.
Properly the lede sentences should inform the reader that the book is full of nonsensical conspiracy theories, disproven claims, and pseudoscience. It should link to COVID-19 misinformation and HIV/AIDS denialism. (The latter is indeed linked from this article.) As long as the body of the article covers the book properly the lede can merely summarize what the article says. It doesn't need a cite on the specific phrase "pseudoscientific book" -- M.boli ( talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This topic went off the rails a while ago. This topic is about the book. Nothing else. Personal opinions can be left on separate pages talking about "conspiracy" or "opinions".
No different that the 911 or JFK Conspiracy pages. The "official" narrative on the main page. People's opinions on another.
This topic should be about the book and what it reported. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Anything else, is just plain wrong. Lkandia ( talk) 23:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The book is a best seller. I put that into the intro and it was reverted.
Hence the talk note. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The links make clear that the words "controversial" and "inflammatory" are not part of reviews by the Guardian, Newsweek and Publishers weekly.
I added this information into the article and it was reverted.
Suggest that this context is added as follows.
Both The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as controversial in articles on other topics. Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in an article about Norman Mailer changing publisher.
Or perhaps bring to the front the lack of reviews by major media organisations
There were no reviews by major media organisations. The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as "controversial" in articles on other topics while Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in a similar side note. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
References
To state this at almost the start of the article is a disgrace. The book is well referenced and fact based. Unlike this idiotic critique. 2A00:23C6:56E0:3601:CDD8:455F:1B2D:157B ( talk) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from @ Slatersteven, @ Hob Gadling and @ M.Boli why they think it's fine to state that this book is "misinformation" without any citation whatsoever, and why it's not okay to mention the book is a New York Times bestseller in the lead of the article. I made an insignificant change to this article to make it less biased and more in harmony with WP:NPOV but apparently this is problematic? Why? Hooky6 ( talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit removes sourced content, instead:
I claim this is vandalism and removed it. But nope. So rather than continuing edit war I'm leaving it at m:The wrong version and invite other editors to handle this. M.boli ( talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I have stricken the clear personal attacks above by Philomathes2357, starting with the words "You clearly have very strong personal...". Don't personalize this. Comment on content, not editors. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Valjean, @ M.boli, @ Ixocactus, and others:
In the "Synopsis" subsection, multiple editors have insisted upon keeping the following phrase:
"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19"
There are a lot of problems with this. I thought they were self-evident and had simply been overlooked, but apparently, the phrase is seen as not only correct, but an essential part of the "synopsis".
Problem 1: "Factcheck.org" is not an appropriate source for making scientific statements of fact in Wikivoice. Duh.
Problem 2: "Factcheck.org"'s source for the claim is...factcheck.org! Nice! Specifically, this article, which was published all the way back in July of 2021. The article is a story about a scientific debate that was taking place at the time, between some scientists who were skeptical of hydroxychloroquine's efficacy and at least one scientist who stated "that the question on whether the drugs can provide a benefit for early treatment or prevention “remains open.”" In the article, the scientists' hypotheses, tentative conclusions, and critiques of each other's studies are presented in narrative form. It does not demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine is "ineffective", it merely presents that as a view that are held by some (but not all) scientists in the context of an ongoing debate.
Problem 3: A lot of research has taken place regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 since July 2021. A sample:
Problem 4: As these studies demonstrate, there remains a lively, ongoing debate regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19, surrounding dosage, severity of infection, and the relative merits of observational studies versus RCTs.
There are a lot of other studies like these from 2022-2024.
Problem 5: The phrase, besides being misleading and poorly sourced, is completely irrelevant to a "synopsis" of the book, which is the name of the section. There is already a "critical reception" section, where we provide third-party commentary about the book. The synopsis is for accurately summarizing the book in question, not for sloppily and inaccurately summarizing the current state of hydroxychloroquine research in order to further a narrative.
Problem 6: The only reason to include the phrase is to frame Kennedy's book in the context of a political narrative regarding Anthony Fauci, RFK, and others. It is a textbook example of POV pushing and the politicization of science.
Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demand that the phrase be removed entirely. A compromise might be to accurately describe the state of hydroxychloroquine-COVID research, but I still think it would be undue here, and the energy needed to do so would be better spent updating the out-of-date article about the subject.
I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible, so that the reader understands that they are supposed to dislike him. But please, let's not politicize science in order to push that POV. It's tacky, unencyclopedic, and misleading.
The fact that bringing this into question has led to me being accused of being a "vandal" and a "weasel" further suggests that emotions are at play, rather than neutral analysis.
You are all smart folks. Let's do better. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 06:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demandsand
You are all smart folks. Let's do betteras if the conclusion from those were to agree with you. That way, everybody can see that you think you know better than everybody else.
I did not accuseReally?
I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possibleis a pretty clear case of poisoning the well. It implicitly accuses everybody who contradicts you of having a hidden agenda.
Thanks also for the condescendingDon't make such stupid mistakes (or intentional misrepresentations? Who knows) as confusing a wikilink with calling you a weasel, and people will not treat you like someone who makes stupid mistakes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This whole push about whitewashing hydroxychloroquine here is a violation of WP:COATRACK. This article is about the book. Take it to the hydroxychloroquine article and settle it there. Then, and only then, could one maybe be justified in making extremely short mention here, in the context of how the book mentions it, not to promote it. If that were to happen, it should be in its historical context, showing that Kennedy promoted a drug, that at the time he was promoting it, was not accepted by the medical profession as effective for treating COVID-19, and that statistics had shown its use increased the number of deaths. That would be consistent with how we treat fringe subjects, and much about Kennedy is fringe. Then, if the scientific consensus changed, and several RS mentioned the book and Kennedy's claims as being prescient at the time, one could also mention (not instead of) that newer fact here using those RS.
We are FAR FROM ANYWHERE CLOSE TO ANY OF THAT NOW. Philomathes2357, you need to drop this if you wish to avoid returning to ANI and getting a topic ban or worse. (I don't recall right now, but aren't you editing under some type of topic ban or warnings already and need to be careful?) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 13:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
od "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." we cannot say a person deliberately tried to kill people without including any information that contradicted such a claim. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" (so arguably the recsi8ign line "The book accuses Fauci of deliberately neglecting to use hydroxychloroquine in order to increase the number of people who would die from COVID-19" should not even by the the article). For a start. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
THis is going nowhere and needs closing. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Philo, "spread medical misinformation" is what Kennedy does. That you consider RS to be doing that based on your opinion of the current state of research is just that, your opinion, and you're getting pushback on that. It would be wise for you to not "die on that hill" without the backing of fellow editors.
There is no rush. Wait for the medical consensus to change. Then we'll gladly help you. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
A reason the discussion is going nowhere is Philo dismisses with alacrity pretty good explanations as "very strong personal feelings" and "goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible". I further note that before responding I briefly tried to ascertain the current reliable stance toward HCQ as Covid treatment or prophylaxis. As people have discovered, the public health authorities (CDC, WHO) strongly advise against it. The popular research topics seem to have shifted from does it work a few years ago to nowadays how bad is it and how much damage did it cause during the pandamic. The changes that Philo is pushing are decidedly fringe.
I agree with Slatersteven it is time to close the discussion. Furthermore people might put the hydroxychloroquine articles on their watchlists. The articles possibly could use updating, but not with fringe notions. -- M.boli ( talk) 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
WHO is an eminently reliable MEDRS.
WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19." This statement is hyperlinked to a page that isn't very well maintained. There is better evidence out there. The following website has links to 410 HCQ Covid studies - the vast majority of them indicate improvement:
"Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization." HCQ for COVID-19 https://c19hcq.org/meta.html 2001:569:5045:500:7D62:2B88:E5FE:E65C ( talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Synopsis doesn’t reflect any content in the book 172.58.142.200 ( talk) 10:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
RFK Jr would’ve been sued into oblivion if any of his claims were false. No such claims have or ever will be made. Chew on that… 174.29.178.113 ( talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I read the book. The book does quote people on the crazy anti-vax side, but it does so as quotes of their opinions.
The book represents an excellent journalistic approach to what is going on in the world, with specific attention played to Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institutes of Health) and Bill Gates (co-director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and their influence over vaccine research almost the world over.
Some of the facts in the book were so horrifying that I had to take a break from reading it more than once. These are facts backed up by references. The references are easily followed when reading an electronic copy of the book. I was unable to find a single case in the dozens of references I reviewed where Mr. Kennedy changed the facts. There were a couple of cases where he cherry-picked parts of what was said in research papers, but in general these were extracting the damning facts that were being whitewashed by researchers who were paid by pharmaceutical companies.
On my opinion, the article about the book misrepresents the book and should be rewritten to more accurately reflect the actual arguments made in the book.
At least the many people who have read the book know what is going on, although it is hard to follow, even for people with a strong non-professional background in the biological sciences. Todd Bezenek ( talk) 01:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
are book reviewers experts?Not necessarily.
how do you determine a book reviewer is an expert?There is no simple recipe anyone can apply; WP:CIR.
s it if they publish in one of the reliable sources listed on Wikipedia's reliable sources list?Not necessarily. A reliable source is reliable within a certain scope. If the subject is stocks, Wall Street Journal is probably a RS; if the subject is climate change, they are not.
If I want to check sources on this book about Fauci (and maybe the other book about Fauci), where is the search engine which will search only the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Web sites?
If you do not know where this is, where can I go to get permission to build it. I don't mean permission as in anyone can build it, I mean permission as in PERMISSION to build it, i.e., a meeting with someone important enough to discuss building it.
Cheers! Todd Todd Bezenek ( talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Taken higher up the food chain. Todd Bezenek ( talk) 19:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
[1] David Gorski calls it a "conspiracy book" here and here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This article describes and repeats Kennedy's hooey with very little contextualization. The lede treats the book as a serious work, ending with a tepid "uproven" and "described as 'controversial'."
Main ideas from Kennedy's firehose of crap are then repeated for the Wikipedia reader. Until way down in the Reception section, at the end of a paragraph about the book's popularity, we finally see AP pointed out FDA's 3 phases of testing. Followed by some paragraphs of criticism.
In a climate denier's page you can't simply describe their view: so-and-so claims climate alarmism is leftist scientists' plan for global domination. No matter how ridiculous the statement, somebody will delete it with the edit summary WP:UNDUE. The page has to read so-and-so falsely asserts... Fact-checks from Snopes and AP show this is false.[2][3]
But the standard against repeating unconextualized hooey has not applied here.
Properly the lede sentences should inform the reader that the book is full of nonsensical conspiracy theories, disproven claims, and pseudoscience. It should link to COVID-19 misinformation and HIV/AIDS denialism. (The latter is indeed linked from this article.) As long as the body of the article covers the book properly the lede can merely summarize what the article says. It doesn't need a cite on the specific phrase "pseudoscientific book" -- M.boli ( talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This topic went off the rails a while ago. This topic is about the book. Nothing else. Personal opinions can be left on separate pages talking about "conspiracy" or "opinions".
No different that the 911 or JFK Conspiracy pages. The "official" narrative on the main page. People's opinions on another.
This topic should be about the book and what it reported. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Anything else, is just plain wrong. Lkandia ( talk) 23:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The book is a best seller. I put that into the intro and it was reverted.
Hence the talk note. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The links make clear that the words "controversial" and "inflammatory" are not part of reviews by the Guardian, Newsweek and Publishers weekly.
I added this information into the article and it was reverted.
Suggest that this context is added as follows.
Both The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as controversial in articles on other topics. Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in an article about Norman Mailer changing publisher.
Or perhaps bring to the front the lack of reviews by major media organisations
There were no reviews by major media organisations. The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as "controversial" in articles on other topics while Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in a similar side note. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
References
To state this at almost the start of the article is a disgrace. The book is well referenced and fact based. Unlike this idiotic critique. 2A00:23C6:56E0:3601:CDD8:455F:1B2D:157B ( talk) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from @ Slatersteven, @ Hob Gadling and @ M.Boli why they think it's fine to state that this book is "misinformation" without any citation whatsoever, and why it's not okay to mention the book is a New York Times bestseller in the lead of the article. I made an insignificant change to this article to make it less biased and more in harmony with WP:NPOV but apparently this is problematic? Why? Hooky6 ( talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit removes sourced content, instead:
I claim this is vandalism and removed it. But nope. So rather than continuing edit war I'm leaving it at m:The wrong version and invite other editors to handle this. M.boli ( talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I have stricken the clear personal attacks above by Philomathes2357, starting with the words "You clearly have very strong personal...". Don't personalize this. Comment on content, not editors. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Valjean, @ M.boli, @ Ixocactus, and others:
In the "Synopsis" subsection, multiple editors have insisted upon keeping the following phrase:
"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19"
There are a lot of problems with this. I thought they were self-evident and had simply been overlooked, but apparently, the phrase is seen as not only correct, but an essential part of the "synopsis".
Problem 1: "Factcheck.org" is not an appropriate source for making scientific statements of fact in Wikivoice. Duh.
Problem 2: "Factcheck.org"'s source for the claim is...factcheck.org! Nice! Specifically, this article, which was published all the way back in July of 2021. The article is a story about a scientific debate that was taking place at the time, between some scientists who were skeptical of hydroxychloroquine's efficacy and at least one scientist who stated "that the question on whether the drugs can provide a benefit for early treatment or prevention “remains open.”" In the article, the scientists' hypotheses, tentative conclusions, and critiques of each other's studies are presented in narrative form. It does not demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine is "ineffective", it merely presents that as a view that are held by some (but not all) scientists in the context of an ongoing debate.
Problem 3: A lot of research has taken place regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 since July 2021. A sample:
Problem 4: As these studies demonstrate, there remains a lively, ongoing debate regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19, surrounding dosage, severity of infection, and the relative merits of observational studies versus RCTs.
There are a lot of other studies like these from 2022-2024.
Problem 5: The phrase, besides being misleading and poorly sourced, is completely irrelevant to a "synopsis" of the book, which is the name of the section. There is already a "critical reception" section, where we provide third-party commentary about the book. The synopsis is for accurately summarizing the book in question, not for sloppily and inaccurately summarizing the current state of hydroxychloroquine research in order to further a narrative.
Problem 6: The only reason to include the phrase is to frame Kennedy's book in the context of a political narrative regarding Anthony Fauci, RFK, and others. It is a textbook example of POV pushing and the politicization of science.
Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demand that the phrase be removed entirely. A compromise might be to accurately describe the state of hydroxychloroquine-COVID research, but I still think it would be undue here, and the energy needed to do so would be better spent updating the out-of-date article about the subject.
I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible, so that the reader understands that they are supposed to dislike him. But please, let's not politicize science in order to push that POV. It's tacky, unencyclopedic, and misleading.
The fact that bringing this into question has led to me being accused of being a "vandal" and a "weasel" further suggests that emotions are at play, rather than neutral analysis.
You are all smart folks. Let's do better. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 06:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demandsand
You are all smart folks. Let's do betteras if the conclusion from those were to agree with you. That way, everybody can see that you think you know better than everybody else.
I did not accuseReally?
I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possibleis a pretty clear case of poisoning the well. It implicitly accuses everybody who contradicts you of having a hidden agenda.
Thanks also for the condescendingDon't make such stupid mistakes (or intentional misrepresentations? Who knows) as confusing a wikilink with calling you a weasel, and people will not treat you like someone who makes stupid mistakes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This whole push about whitewashing hydroxychloroquine here is a violation of WP:COATRACK. This article is about the book. Take it to the hydroxychloroquine article and settle it there. Then, and only then, could one maybe be justified in making extremely short mention here, in the context of how the book mentions it, not to promote it. If that were to happen, it should be in its historical context, showing that Kennedy promoted a drug, that at the time he was promoting it, was not accepted by the medical profession as effective for treating COVID-19, and that statistics had shown its use increased the number of deaths. That would be consistent with how we treat fringe subjects, and much about Kennedy is fringe. Then, if the scientific consensus changed, and several RS mentioned the book and Kennedy's claims as being prescient at the time, one could also mention (not instead of) that newer fact here using those RS.
We are FAR FROM ANYWHERE CLOSE TO ANY OF THAT NOW. Philomathes2357, you need to drop this if you wish to avoid returning to ANI and getting a topic ban or worse. (I don't recall right now, but aren't you editing under some type of topic ban or warnings already and need to be careful?) -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 13:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
od "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." we cannot say a person deliberately tried to kill people without including any information that contradicted such a claim. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" (so arguably the recsi8ign line "The book accuses Fauci of deliberately neglecting to use hydroxychloroquine in order to increase the number of people who would die from COVID-19" should not even by the the article). For a start. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
THis is going nowhere and needs closing. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Philo, "spread medical misinformation" is what Kennedy does. That you consider RS to be doing that based on your opinion of the current state of research is just that, your opinion, and you're getting pushback on that. It would be wise for you to not "die on that hill" without the backing of fellow editors.
There is no rush. Wait for the medical consensus to change. Then we'll gladly help you. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
A reason the discussion is going nowhere is Philo dismisses with alacrity pretty good explanations as "very strong personal feelings" and "goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible". I further note that before responding I briefly tried to ascertain the current reliable stance toward HCQ as Covid treatment or prophylaxis. As people have discovered, the public health authorities (CDC, WHO) strongly advise against it. The popular research topics seem to have shifted from does it work a few years ago to nowadays how bad is it and how much damage did it cause during the pandamic. The changes that Philo is pushing are decidedly fringe.
I agree with Slatersteven it is time to close the discussion. Furthermore people might put the hydroxychloroquine articles on their watchlists. The articles possibly could use updating, but not with fringe notions. -- M.boli ( talk) 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
WHO is an eminently reliable MEDRS.
WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19." This statement is hyperlinked to a page that isn't very well maintained. There is better evidence out there. The following website has links to 410 HCQ Covid studies - the vast majority of them indicate improvement:
"Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization." HCQ for COVID-19 https://c19hcq.org/meta.html 2001:569:5045:500:7D62:2B88:E5FE:E65C ( talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Synopsis doesn’t reflect any content in the book 172.58.142.200 ( talk) 10:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
RFK Jr would’ve been sued into oblivion if any of his claims were false. No such claims have or ever will be made. Chew on that… 174.29.178.113 ( talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)