Talk:Robert W. Malone

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of California Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page is within the scope of the UC Davis task force. New members are always welcome!
	This page is within the scope of the UC San Diego task force. New members are always welcome!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, 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.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 3.5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Some claims in regards to "misinformation" shall be reviewed and updated accordingly to the latest findings[edit]

The claim that the spike protein from the vaccine isn't toxic is wrong! The spike toxicity from the vaccine is one of the biggest issues causing long-term vaccine injury and autoimmunity. This statement is backed up by following review paper [1]https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

There might be not everything wrong about the critical statements from an experienced medical doctor who has concerns about a new medication. Please note that there was a lot of political and medial pressure. Therefore a structured and dry re-review is required to remove pre-set biases. FatiguePhysics (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources directly calling Malone's statements misinformation. Any sources replying to that must be directly on-point - they must address Malone specifically. You cannot use other sources to try to argue that Malone was right after all, that would be original research, forbidden by Wikipedia's policies as explained at WP:OR. Even if you could do that, the citation you have given above does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for biomedical information as explained at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite these sources please. 121.202.127.46 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already do. The sentence Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. has five sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the "five sources" is seriously libelous and I'm surprised that you're either unaware or indifferent. Or both. Source (5), for example, by France 24 does NOT say "Malone promoted misinformation", and it's deceptive for someone to say that it does. That "source" should be removed, and the other possibly libelous information should be examined carefully by someone knowledgeable about libel and slander issues in Wikipedia. Henrilebec (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable sources, and Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We cannot just ignore them just because someone does not like them and calls them "libellous". See WP:NLT.

The France24 source talks about a bad paper which contained misinformation and was retracted, and says that Malone tweeted about that paper, which means that he spread the misinformation. But that connection is a bit shaky - he did not know that it would be retracted later, and he later deleted the tweet - so, yes, it should probably be removed as source for the statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update the summary - it looks like Wagonlit propaganda and censorship[edit]

“during the COVID-19 pandemic, was one of the scientists that were not in favor of vaccines but due to censorship from the global organizations , governments and mídia his views were censored preventing the world population to have a different view of it hence destitute the world population to have informed decisions about vaccination “

this is important! We should never let censorship to control our world he might be right or wrong, for the individuals to análise and take their own decisions 2804:7F0:B080:539F:C4C1:50C5:89CA:8FAE (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. (I had to look up what "Wagonlit" is, and does not even seem to make sense.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not factual, it is yet another character assassination[edit]

It is quite clear that Wikipedia entries on Covid-19 related subjects have been hijacked by corrupt and very single-minded entities, who are determined to assassinate the characters of anyone who threatens their profits from what appear to be useless and contaminated experimental medical products. If that is what Wikipedia stands for these days, then the Wikipedia project itself is dead.Excalibur (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific problem with the article, for which you can suggest a fix? Otherwise this is not a forum, and you can air your grievances elsewhere. Kimen8 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Robert Malone does not promote misinformation. He investigates and tells others the facts. 166.196.65.4 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“ Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.” Is an opinion. Peoples political opinion should not be stated as fact. By making this an uneditable part of the page it shows Wikipedia bias opinion Nballstar (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Wikipedia follows reliable sources. This is not an opinion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]