Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

  1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
  2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
  3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Why does it only mention covid related, John was quite popular before covid.[edit]

Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important. This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of. I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief. He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do, its just that he became more notable afterward. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its "own belief" is to reflect the scholarly consensus, not to repeat cherry-picked opinions. Topologyrob (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus, scholarly or otherwise. What you support are cherry picked opinions. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please provide sources for his pre-covid notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newer sources[edit]

More misinformation from Campbell[1]. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024[edit]

Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have proof, RS do, as they claimed it, ask them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking description of a man who has dedicated his life to people's health and continues to examine scientific fact. There is no misinformation on his YouTube only critical examination. 92.26.93.203 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rs say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Dr John Campbell and his eminent guests give totally reliable information and so do consultants from all over the world who contact him for advice. Wilki is obviously run by the left who want to keep feeding us toxic, unproven, unlicensed vaccines such as the Covid vaccine. Dr Campbell never usually sums up, he just gives us the facts so we can make our own minds up. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I request an edit to this post. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what the cited sources have to say, not your personal impression of how reliable he is. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit your own post. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vax[edit]

Hello Wikipedia. Can you please source when John Campbell became anti-vax? It is one thing to analyze and critique a vaccine and another to write-off all vaccines. 24.203.188.202 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the sources. You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism; in fact most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine (but aren't). Bon courage (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't need to 'write-off all vaccines' to engage in Anti-vaccine activism;"
Yes you do. It's in the very essence of the term. For being a Science editor you should know better than this.
"most anti-vaxxers claim to be pro-vaccine"
Eh... no they don't. You're again missing the lexicological aspect of words. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the sources. Your opinion counts for nothing. "You should know better" is an empty bluff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are discussions often like that to improve Wikipedia articles? I honestly find this quite depressing. It's really unfortunate to see active contributors defending such fallacious claims on Wikipedia.
Claming someone who does not think they need a vaccine or do not recommend a specific vaccine as an antitax is totally illogical and irrational.
What is the procedure to escalate this kind of issue to prevent misinformation on Wikipedia? 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
someone who does not think they need a vaccine That is not what Campbell does. He spreads misinformation about vaccines that deludes people away from vaccinations and leads to epidemics. Please inform yourself from reliable sources instead of disinformation sites. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please inform yourself from from entire sentences instead of taking part of someone's post out of context. I also find the implication that Dr. John Campbell's pursuit of the truth leads to epidemics to be quite libellous. TheVBW (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the reliable sources. An argument for anything else is is an argument for original research TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a diversion with general information that brings nothing to this talk. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a helpful pointer for a rookie to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone obviously need to be against all vaccines to be an anti-vaxxer. With this fallacious reasoning, anyone who doesn't believe in a single religion, for instance, would be considered as anti-religion, right?
It is shameful that we need to discuss about obvious semantic logic like that with contributors who are defending false information that is causing diffamation.
People who considered they didn't need a vaccine who should be not be tagged as antivax. If this reasoning can drive the content of Wikipedia pages Wikipedia can not be considered as a reliable source anymore. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Wikipedia is built on the rule that all articles have to be based on reliable sources. What is "obvious" for you does not matter because of WP:OR. This page is for source-based discussions on how to improve the article based on sources. If you want to change the article about Campbell, you need sources talking about Campbell. If you do not like that, you are welcome to go to other websites where you can publish your opinion. This is not one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Cambell is not engages into anti-vaccine activism. This is a fallacious statement. He only questions the relevance and the risk benifit ratio of a specific vaccine. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Campbell actually had all his Covid jabs and is not an anti-Vader. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pointout where we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly shared his vaccination status in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ceurG7P89c 38.133.44.131 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we say he is Anti-Vax? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is he really anti-Vader, or just pro-Skywalker? Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This attitude is childish and counter productive. It is obvious it is just a typo and correcting disinformation is more important than joking. Dr Cambell often mentionned he had 2 doses of the vaccine during the pandemic and he is absolutly not an antivax. 38.133.44.131 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is absolutly[sic] not an antivax. Well, reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024[edit]

I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the Expression of Concern from that journal's editor Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"
An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. 2001:818:E94C:D00:18FA:F52F:6A38:DF39 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just say "no" and move on. The Wikipedia is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, is there anyone else who could jump in and analyse this toxic and rude interaction? Or has WP become the StackOverflow of information?
Same for the buddy below, that "go take your business elsewhere" attitude kinda brings back memories of times that were not so good for freedom of information. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re 1222341366[edit]

If "false claims" have been made and "misinformation" has been "veered into", would sources please be added to that section? Have you checked the citations? TheVBW (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well "factually incorrect" is already sourced, as is "spurious" "misleading" and "misinterprets", so it seems to be that misinformation sums this up well, but we can go for "factually incorrect". Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please copy these citations into the relevant area, because the current FactCheck citation is not relevant. TheVBW (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are, we don't generally cite the lede as it is only a summary of the body. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove. TheVBW (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not, you have not gotten a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I have now altred it to reflect the sources, and provided one. Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved one of the references and removed a duplicate which is only relevant later in the text TheVBW (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)&oldid=1223453066"