Talk:Judy Mikovits/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is she really a Virologist?

The Infobox shows her Occupation as "Virologist" and that is authenticated via a footnote. However, at least one other source explicitly doubts that she is really a virologist. Thoughts? Mksword (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Which source says she is not one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

She certainly used to be a virologist. I don't know if once a virologist always a virologist. Infoboxing is not good for subtlety. jps (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that she probably makes most of her money via book sales these days. I added something to that effect. jps (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

One of Mikovits's sources of income is a consultancy that attempts to justify dubious claims of harm from vaccines. A history of this consultancy was described in a 2018 decision by Special Master Christian J. Moran. Moran states "Ms. Mikovits has not held a research position since 2012." and "Her reports were riddled with errors, exaggerations, and false statements." Mikovits was involved in a number of NVICP cases including one discussed by law professor Dorit Reiss. ScienceFlyer (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. We can't use court records for this purpose, unfortunately, but the Dorit Reiss source is fairly close to being something that we can use to identify this Wakefield-esque turn towards making money off of the anti-vax junket. jps (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s a tough call and depends on how strictly we define virologist. In the most basic sense, the term refers simply to someone who studies viruses, but IMO that definition is way too broad for application in this context (i.e., as an occupational title). There are some universities that offer PhDs in virology;[1] others that have a virology track as part of a microbiology program, so a PhD in microbiology could also qualify someone as a virologist. However, Mikovits’ PhD is in biochem/molecular biology. I would also consider someone who held an official job title that includes the term “virology” (e.g., researcher in the Dept. of Virology at U of X, Professor of Virology, etc.). I would argue that the best (most accurate) way to describe Mikovits would be as a molecular biologist/biochemist who has studied the molecular biology of viruses.

Also, the article currently reads as follows: “Mikovits was a postdoctoral scholar in molecular virology at the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, under David Derse”. However, I think that inclusion of “scholar in molecular virology” is a fudge, since post-doctoral fellowships aren’t specific to an academic subspecialty like PhDs are (i.e., you don’t get a post-doctoral “degree” in “molecular virology”, and I see no evidence that the NCI Lab of Genomic Diversity had any kind of “official” program, department, or division of “molecular virology”,[2] nor do Mikovits’ publications during the presumed time of her post-doc list the term “virology” in her institutional affiliation. Rather, they list her affiliation, as per this example, as the NCI “Biological Carcinogenesis Development Program”.[3]I think perhaps some published sources merely picked up this “molecular virology” detail from Mikovits’ CV and ran with it, despite it being inaccurate or unofficial.

Lastly, the article is missing key chronological details about her postdoctoral work: i.e., there are no dates listed for her postdoc fellowship with Derse, and the article states that she was a postdoctoral researcher with Ruscetti at NCI, which is either a mistake (Rosceti was in fact her PhD supervisor), or she did a second post-doc with Roscetti after her stint with Derse. More details on the chronology and official titles/departments would be helpful. And the Ruscetti postdoc should be listed in the article before the Derse postdoc (it is currently listed after). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting follow-up. Her archived NCI bio page from 1998 lists her post-doc with Derse but mentions nothing about postdoc research with Ruscetti (which supposedly took place before the Derse postdoc) -- an odd omission -- nor does it mention “virology” or “virologist”.[4] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The noun to use after "postdoc" varies by funding. "Postdoctoral researcher" is probably most neutral. As for "virology", I think it is worth mentioning that it was in the context of studying viruses. I defer to others to decide how best to put that. Most people I know who have postdocs usually identify them by institution and lab and not subfield, but in the context of an encyclopedia article I can see that it might be better to identify subfield. I am also interested in her consulting work for NVIC cases, but there aren't really good sources about this for us to include. Hopefully there are some crack journalists on the case even now. jps (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wakefield connection?

Dr. Mikovitz is a virologist, she is not anti vaccine, just bad vaccines (ex: Al adjuvant), and Fauci has a hx and is the one to investigate.You need to stop watching TV cause you will not find the truth there. Do your due diligence, pay attention and stop hampering the good people who are risking everything to help. I am removing my funding of this site if you dont stop your assault on Dr. Mikovitz. Help People to help people,not help people to help themselves. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, first time editor, any questions email me. Be safe. Brian— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.205.241 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with RS, not threats.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, also, aluminium is the new mercury as far as the evil-vaccine tropes go. Having run out of ways to pretend that thimerosal has any effect at all, given the obvious lack of any correlation between complete removal from the childhood vaccine schedule, and either incidence or diagnosis of autism, they have switched to aluminium, paying Exley especially but also Shaw and Tomljenovic for a whole pile of policy-based evidence making that (amazingly) doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Guy (help!) 13:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

She doesn't appear to be working as a virologist at the moment, and last worked as such for the WPI, nine, count them, years ago. Think about it; if she applied for a position in this field, what would her track record mean? Does the Sheldrake effect apply? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, not even the Sheldrake effect. At least Sheldrake wasn't fired for publishing fraudulent research. This is more Wakefield-y. Guy (help!) 14:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there are sources in the article which make the Wakefield connection. jps (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

Add {{Disputed}} to this Article without linking to a specific discussion as it seems we have multiple discussions going on at the same time. --2003:CC:3711:4958:7CA1:3061:ED87:F6E (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Actionable and active disputes evidenced by specific issues on the talkpage deserve such tags. However, currently editing seems pretty cordial and collaborative. It doesn't look like there is much more than casual complaints which are all being answered calmly and without controversy. jps (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

You have sources that are being depicted as "FACT" but by their own admission, they are only "OPINIONS" with NO factual backup to support their "opinion" in their own periodicals. This is falsely characterizing the person that is the primary subject. This creates a negative view of the person that is the primary subject, which is not right. Start with Reference #2, Gorski, David. #3, 4, 5, 6, ... Opinion pieces with some having only "partial" information slanting their "opinions". Wikipedia is a great source for FACTS, not opinions, not slander, not politicizing. I'm very disappointed. I sure hope you look into this and make the appropriate corrections. Please, no politics!!! George 2600:1700:FD41:650:99C3:9C25:6CB1:5A14 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to propose specific edits with reliable sources in order for this request to be actionable. Simply complaining about the sources in the article is not a proposal for an edit. jps (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Actally it looks to me like cite #2 (respectfulinsolence.com) is a self-published source. Any objections to me removing it? DarthFlappy (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object. David Gorski is about as reliable they come when dealing with matters such as these. jps (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:sps, we can use sps if they are acknowledged experts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not when they are about a living person other than the author of the SPS, though. - Bilby (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

True, so which source is an SPS? as cite 2 is to https://www.sciencemag.org/ and appears to be a new item by Jon Cohen who as far as I can tell neither edits nor owns sciencemag.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It was the David Gorski one that was at issue, but that has since been replaced. It is used elsewhere, but now it is only being used as a source for Gorski's own views, and that is ok. - Bilby (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, problem solved.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Bilby is Wikipedia's leading defender of antivaxers from excessive reality, especially Gorski and Barratt. Guy (help!) 12:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP still applies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I'm going to have to start treating these as personal attacks. - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, I'd rather you treated them as an indication that you may be leaning too far in your defence of antivaxers. Guy (help!) 17:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It would work so much better if you actually paid attention to my edits, rather than dropping false accusations. Replacing sources that fail BLP with ones that don't is not defending antri-vaxxers, in spite of your claims to the contrary. - 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we not turn this into a surrogate ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientific misconduct

Scientific misconduct is linked from this page, but I'm not sure our sources are quite there. I believe the reference is to the retraction and while I think there is fairly good evidence that sloppy protocols and motivated reasoning occurred: [5] (which is surely scientific misconduct), she also was involved in the study that later convincingly showed that the retracted paper was not correct. As is said in a number of sources, back in 2012 it looked like it could go either way: normal scientific process of identifying mistakes, learning from them, and moving on... but of course she went off the deep end. The similarities to Wakefield are there except Wakefield is documented to have a profit motive that Mikovits seems to have only developed after her firing (although she was involved in some anti-vax adjacent advocacy as far back as 2009 -- I don't think there is evidence that she was setting herself up for consultancy or book-writing to cash in on that at the time -- please let me know otherwise). All this is to say that I think we should try to figure out how best to summarize this for readers who need to get a cliff-notes version of this story and don't have time to wade through the extensive profiles, etc. Whaddya all think? jps (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As charges were dropped I am not sure we can say for certain this was Scientific misconduct, Scientific incompetence or just straight up theft (or total innocence). On balance this should not be here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the scientific misconduct is about the criminal charges/arrest, but if that was the intention behind that then, yes, I totally agree scientific misconduct is not warranted. However, it may be referring to the charges of sloppy lab work and motivated reasoning that led to the retraction of the Science paper which would be misconduct (but is not criminal, obviously). jps (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. MonsieurD (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict. At the time of the WPI affair, and the poor work from her lab, we had no idea that she was antivaxxing too. She appeared to be a straightforward researcher who had got the practicalities of the science wrong, and couldn't admit it to herself, with the result that she doubled down on her backing up of the lab, her team etc. Her outragious statements at the time regarding the murine leukaemia virus, and the state of its spread through blood products were quite at odds with the facts! The thing is that CFS/ME groups were just realising the power of the Internetz to organise and support, and some of them really really loved Judy, and thought she was the next best thing to the second coming. I speculate that this adulation has got to her, but as I have said somewhere, I forgot about her when she was fired, until earlier this week. Orac has covered here in SBM today btw, -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That reads about right. The question is how do we quickly and accurately summarize this. Some of this is still somewhat speculative. We aren't exactly sure when she started cozying up to antivaxxers. It seems pretty clear that it was before 2014, but I'm not sure the evidence that she was full-bore in 2009 is quite there and the statement she made that the virus-CFS connection was definitively resolved by the paper that found no connection in 2012 seems that she was at least "feet-in-both-worlds"ing it. A lot of this is dangerously WP:ORy, however. jps (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is she was not the sole author, and we cannot say it was her sole (or even non organisational) misconduct.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The lab work was all from her lab. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So whose misconduct was it, hers or the people who failed to check yet put their names to it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Even though there are other authors, she is fairly convincingly and without much controversy implicated in the retraction saga as the researcher who was responsible for the problems. I linked to the retractionwatch discussion above. The other authors were the reason that the retraction went through, apparently. jps (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course she is, the question is was it misconduct on her part, the people she worked for, or even misconduct (as opposed to a mistake)? Do RS say she was guilty of misconduct?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the people she worked for are implicated at all... but it is reasonable to ask whether the paper was just mistakenly sloppy or whether it was motivated reasoning. We cannot know this for certain and no sources make this claim with certainty. This is rather different from the Wakefield case where the retraction happened and it became clear Wakefield faked the data because he wanted to sell his version of a vaccine. In the case here, it looks a lot more like sloppiness. Incidentally, it is fair to say that sloppiness is a form of "scientific misconduct", but some readers may confuse such a statement for health fraud which sloppiness is not. So the question, again, is how we should summarize this the best. jps (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

More conflict. WPI were not implicated in the misconduct at the time, and I was never aware of any speculation to that effect. Judy was the only holdout of the paper's authors who refused to retract. She hasn't been up before the beak like wakefield, so no real analysis of her conduct is extant imo. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Discredited research.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Only problem is that we use the word "discredited" so much already. I'm struggling with synonyms. But you're right that this term is much more accurate and closer to sources. jps (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientific incompetence?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

But we don't actually know it was incompetence either. It could have actually been intentional. We don't know either way. jps (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

True, its a though one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The misconduct issue centers around the use of faked images in her publication, which seems to be attributed to her directly. Image manipulation is a form of scientific misconduct -- the kind that gets scientists into very hot water (e.g. the case of Bharat Aggarwal). There seems to me to be sufficient documentation in WP:RS to support inclusion of scientific misconduct in this bio page, as per the examples below:

• Plandemic interviews a scientist who was appropriately discredited for scientific misconduct and fraud.[6]
• The scientist behind a study[1] that linked chronic fatigue syndrome to a virus has lost her job and is now facing accusations that she has misrepresented data…The following day, in what seems to be a separate development, a blogger posted a figure from a 2009 paper1 that Mikovits co-authored in Science alongside one that Mitkovits used in a recent presentation. The two figures, which are used to describe different results, look identical, except for the labelling… Such discrepancies are difficult to cast as unintentional errors, says Jonathan Stoye, head of virology at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in London… Those who have been critical of the Science article[1] say all of this simply strengthens the argument in favour of retracting the entire paper.[7]
• As is standard practice in science, other researchers tried to replicate the finding. They couldn't, and it started to look like the virus was a contaminant, and had nothing to do with the disease at all. But was it a mistake or true misconduct? Science blogger Abbie Smith wrote a post exposing what looks like the latter, detailing how a graph in the original paper is not what it was claimed to be. This is very serious and should have prompted an investigation. There's a big difference between being wrong in science and being dishonest, and it's important for the ultimate truth of this matter to come to light….Those who have been critical of the Science article[1] say all of this simply strengthens the argument in favour of retracting the entire paper.[8]
• After enduring more than 2 years of criticism that included evidence of contamination and misrepresentation of data, a Science paper that linked a mouse retrovirus to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) today received its last rites: Editor-in-Chief Bruce Alberts issued a full retraction.[9]
• Mikovits's collaborator, Francis Ruscetti of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Frederick, Maryland, who ran all of the Western blots, confirms that the Ottawa slide uses the same image that appears in Lombardi et al. Ruscetti and Mikovits, in a joint e-mail to Science for this article, said many patients and their doctor, Daniel Peterson (who since has had a falling out with WPI), knew the original coded numbers, so the researchers changed them for the Science publication to "protect the patient privacy." Ruscetti says it was a mistake for Mikovits to have used the original patient codes in Ottawa. "We were under so much pressure, we missed it," says Ruscetti.[10]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Can you put in some sources behind the linked term? jps (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@DocJames: have a look at this and let us know if Scientific Misconduct has been met for this WP:BLP. Seems like a pretty serious claim. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

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.

---

Take out discredited scientist. You don't know this is the case & you are bowing down to big business and those in power in the US. 134.41.108.154 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GB, no way! It's an absolutely accurate description to say discredited scientist. It will stay. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's literally how she is described by the press -- "discredited scientist".[11][12] Describing her as such in the bio is consistent with WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What a surprise! And why do you think they do harass her? Try to develop the different perspectives of a conflict of interests. I told you already yesterday! Platonykiss (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the rules: WP:RS, WP:OR. They forbid User:Rhode Island Red to develop anything. We look at the reliable sources and write what they say, and that's it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "harassment" happening here. Wikipedia has a reality-based article that cites reliable sources instead of promoting nonsensical and harmful conspiracy theories and misinformation. The community is aware that you are suffering from a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Platony. But, that's your bias. You fail to acknowledge your own bias while hurling accusations of bias at others. Now that's biased (we all have bias, for what it's worth). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that is a good example, the word conspiracy theory, for instance, has no place here, except it is within a quotation whose author has been quoted properly. The word has been widely abused during the last weeks, and I just ask you to change it now, and not two months later, when you might get yourself the feeling that it was used in an inappropriate way. Platonykiss (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the rules: WP:RS, WP:OR. They forbid Tyler Durden to change the article based on what you think his feelings may be in two months. Instead, we follow the reliable sources, which call it a conspiracy theory.

Go away. You will not succeed. The answer will always be the same, unless you give us so many reliable sources that say the opposite of what our current reliable sources say, that the current reliable sources are WP:UNDUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum or soapbox. If you are not happy with how Wikipedia does things take it to wP:villagepump and get community consensus to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2020 (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.

This is a hastily assembled hit-job

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 article reads like a hit piece designed to discredit Dr Judy Mikovits and her claims by stating they are conspiracy theories. This is extremely weak. Given world-wide lockdown, you authors and wikipedia editors need to either back up your claims in detail or stop writing biased pieces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk • contribs)

I can't stop laughing at this comment. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, it's been here more than ten years. Guy (help!) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Check the WaPo article mentioned above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. 95% of the Talk is from the last 3 days. That looks hasty to me. 2. Keep on laughing Roxy, you effin dog... 3. The WaPo is not a credible source. Eg: they pushed (debunked) Russia collusion and are owned by Bezos. 4. Wikipedia people, stop writing biased articles, sourcing to MSM propaganda. Address the science or shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk • contribs)

That is because until recently the article was fairly quite. The sources address the chicness (not just MSM) and they rubbish her "theories". As to wp:npa Read it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would 95% of the talk page not be from the last 3 days? Nobody knew her before then. Also, Wikipedia is built on reliable sources (many of which have "addressed the science", and virtually all of which have found her "scientific claims" to be laughably false). If you want to see all the problems with her documentary, I suggest you go to the Plandemic page, which very quickly explains how virtually no one takes her or her claims seriously, because they're built on faulty science or are flat-out false. Stavd3 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

-

-->Stavd3, I looked at the Plandemic page. It is actually worse garbage. It claims that vaccines either do not make money or cannot cause harm and to think otherwise is a "conspiracist claim". Actually vaccines make money and can cause harm. This is established and no-one contests it, except your Plandemic page. How can you guys write SUCH SLOPPY STUFF? It quotes from a very poor Nature paper (I have read it) a sentence that is not proven by their study. (Techniques to evolve viruses so they don't look engineered have been around since at least 2003). Also tons of studies and clinical practice show HCQ effective. The NIH study was deeply flawed in its control selection. That's just 3 things. I could go on. Pointing to another crap Wikipedia article is not going to get you off the hook here. You have a clear disinformation campaign going here and you know it. Mikovits is a reputable scientist who did important work. She is respected by many in her field. What we have here is clearly just yet another example of amateur and scientifically unqualified disinformation operatives trying to stop uncomfortable truths from going public. And to cap it all, we cannot edit the page. What Wikipedia has become is a complete disgrace, and the public is waking up to this. Luckily you aid in this process by being so freaking obvious, like some Pravda staff writers, as the other (interspersing) commentator here writes below. - Tony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"It claims that vaccines either do not make money or cannot cause harm and to think otherwise is a 'conspiracist claim'." No, it says that saying that "vaccines are a money-making enterprise that causes medical harm" is a conspiracy theorist position. As in, it is addressing that specific joint statement, not both statements made separately. The point you address was also sourced to a TechCrunch article, so your complaint about the Nature study is invalid. I also happened to read the Nature study, BTW, and the statement that "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus" is very much supported by the article.

"Techniques to evolve viruses so they don't look engineered have been around since at least 2003." Citation needed.

"The NIH study was deeply flawed in its control selection." In what way?

"Mikovits is a reputable scientist who did important work." But she isn't though? The one study that she keeps talking about, the one on chronic fatigue, got retracted, And NPR talked with two prominent AIDS researchers and neither of them knew who she was. In addition, none of her papers ever got enough citations for the grandiose claims about how impactful her research has been to be true. It's pretty clear that she was nowhere near as influential a scientist as she claims, and that this is the first time many AIDS researchers have heard of her, even though her work was supposedly revolutionary.

"we cannot edit the page" Because if protection was lifted, there would be a 100 pro-Mikovits IPs ready to vandalize the page. Stavd3 (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

− − No seriously this is a hastily made hit job. I've been watching the edits and reviewing the edit history since her book and video came out. Political editors are in overdrive! Hilarious to watch, but it is a shame the Wikipedia will fail because of political editors. Wikipediocracy at its finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.170.157 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if you have any wp:rs that dispute what we say here please present it so we can have a more balanced picture.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been told for well over a decade how we will fail because of our bias towards the mainstream (i.e. opposite-of-fringe). That's why so many people have set up competitors that are so much more successful. Citizendium, for example, and InfoGalactic. Guy (help!) 18:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No-one, Guy, anywhere in the world, has been paid to rewrite Wikipedia articles to support Establishment Orthodoxy? WP may succeed, but that will fail. We're onto them.

I'm not going to dispute anything. Like I said this is fun to watch. You all know exactly what your doing (although I doubt you realize how transparent and entertaining it is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.170.157 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If they have, the bastards haven't given me a penny of it. The only evidence I see of an obvious financial stake in Wikipedia content is spammers, politicians and quacks. Especially quacks. Guy (help!) 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Then stop posting, this is not a forum for your amusement, its for discussing how to improve the article (by the way, its less than 50% of total talk page traffic).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly it is, and you just added to it, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.170.157 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly it is, and you just added to it, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B142:AD76:B5E5:61D7:FBB5:722B (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To the IP addresses, please see WP:TPNO. These IP addresses are some of the worst examples of confirmation bias I have ever seen. If you don't have a concrete suggestion for improving the article, such as I propose _____ be changed to ____, then you're not using the talk page for its intended purpose. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is a American ex-research scientist[2][3][10][11][12] who is known for her vaccination activism, (REMOVE THE WORD 'ANTI'DR MIKOVITS IS NOT AN ANTI) [12][13] (REMOVE 'DISCREDITED' THIS IS INCORRECT BIAS INFORMATION).

promotion of conspiracy theories, and scientific misconduct. [6][7][8][9] She has made several false claims about vaccines, COVID-19, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).[10][11][14] (REMOVE ALL THIS IS SLANDER)

As research director of CFS research organization Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) from 2006 to 2011, Mikovits led an effort that reported in 2009 that a retrovirus known as xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) was associated with CFS and may have had a causal role. However, the paper came under fire,[6] leading to a retraction on December 22, 2011, by the journal Science.[8][15] In November 2011, she was arrested and held on charges that she stole lab notebooks and a computer from WPI, but she was released after five days and the charges were later dropped.[16]

In 2020, Mikovits promoted conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic via the internet video Plandemic,[10] which made claims that are either false or not based on scientific evidence.[17][18][19] (REMOVE ALL THIS IS SLANDER) 139.216.214.23 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RS say she is discredited, RS say she is an anti-vaxer. That is good enough for me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia articles are based on material written in reliable sources. The OP has not shown that the article content is not supported by the cited sources. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, all of the information in the article is accurate and well-sourced. It is not slanderous and the information will stay. To the OP, writing in all caps does not make your point any more compelling. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Leded

She is best known for her XMRV claims, which have since been discredited naturally, but not so much for her other varieties of battiness. I'm going to refactor the leded so that it reflects what she is known for in the virology community better. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fraud

And we have this [[13]], a doctor no less.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Passages of this article reads like a harrassment of an individuum living in the United States — in favour of the current government. I recommend to quote also sources with the version of the person in question.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a cabinet of Mr Fauci! --Platonykiss (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources are not government controlled.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have any "government-controlled" sources in the article, actually. jps (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I was being generous.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to be much more specific than this if you think there is "harassment". I have no idea what you mean by "cabinet of Mr Fauci", for example. jps (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I report here, the neutrality template inserted by me, was removed by User:ජපස. This article is a disgrace for an encyclopedia and I will report it. Platonykiss (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Who to? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I encourage you to report it as I would like to see how that works. jps (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do, and mention my name while your at it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ "you are" or "You're" -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true I removed the template. I am glad that you are at least engaging on the talkpage, but I still do not understand what your specific complaint with the article is. You haven't even proposed a single edit that would indicate there is a dispute beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. jps (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not worth such an effort, because already going through the summaries of certain edits, it is pretty evident to everyone. Platonykiss (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone? I assume that includes me. But I still don't know what you're talking about. jps (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Its called "cognitive argument", you make a case you convince me. "Do it or I set the internet on you!" is not a reasoned argument that is going to win me over.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't you worry. I am part of a commission against government censorship. --Platonykiss (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm quaking in all four of my boots. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not A government.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you? I wonder... Would you like that somebody write a similar article about you employing certain rhethorics which have no place here? --Platonykiss (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What "rhethorics"? Please be specific. jps (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do, I suspect the AFD hammer would be wielded, but please do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Steven Slater is a Wikipdia editor who dared me to write this article about him....jps (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not an article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

She is anti-vaccine? Funny stuff you write here. Her job was making vaccines. [14] But wikipedia since 2006 just become a MSM extension full of .... 178.221.185.75 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes was, that does not mean she cannot change her mind.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

watch her interview. She is absolutely pro vaccines! DNA ones, not RNA ones... 178.221.185.88 (talk)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And they uniformly say she is anti-vaccine, because she is, no matter how much you don't like it, 178. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"who is known for her 2009 discredited claim that murine endogenous retroviruses are linked to chronic fatigue syndrome"

I might have missed something on the talk page, but this doesn't seem to be the thing she's really "known for", so it's confusing to me why it's in the lead as the thing she's known for. Many RS indicate that she's known primarily for the Plandemic video, and this would seem to line up with plenty of other evidence. Yes, that claim was notable enough that it got her a Wiki article in the first place, but it's certainly not the leading reason for why she's well-known, and I don't think it's accurate to put it as the first thing mentioned about her, rather than her authorship her being the subject of the conspiracy documentary, which by all accounts is what's boosted her to minor fame. Stavd3 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Has a germ of truth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It is what makes her notable. Without the XMRV farce, she wouldn't be doubling down on all her poor work, or making stuff up on Covid. I also dont believe that she is the author of the film. I have seen nothing to suggest she is. Also note that nobody has been able to replicate the germ of truth that Steven refers to. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually suspect she is more widely known for her anti-vax stance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

She fell off my radar after all the CFS/ME WPI stuff ended with her poor science there for all to see. Her anti-vaxx activity till a week ago was minor enough to count only as background noise. She might as well have locked herself away until a week or so ago, so no, she isn't widely known for anything, and her original notability stems from her crap science and little mice leukaemia retro-viri. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect we wouldn't be able to use/cite it in the article, but if we're talking about what she's known for, both in the general public and in the media, I would suggest you look at Google Trends or the pageviews for this article, which (in my view) make it very clear that her being the subject of Plandemic has garnered her maybe 1000x more coverage than anything else she's ever done. According to Google Trends, for instance, the amount of searches she's gotten this month are so superior to anything she got in 2009 that comparatively they don't even register as a non-zero number on the chart. I would also venture to guess that this trend is the same for reliable sources as well. I'm not arguing that the 2009 CFS claim isn't what originally made her notable, but to me, it doesn't make sense to put that as the thing she's "known for" in the lead when, to the vast majority of the general public, the media, and many medical researchers themselves, that's not how they know her. If you wanted I could probably find many RS backing this up as well. Stavd3 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to pick a thing she is "known for". Lots of articles about people do not use that phrase. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because I actually agree. I'm just pointing out that A) this article uses that phrase and B) it's not really the thing that she's "known for". Stavd3 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Replying to you, not contradicting you. Just adding an aspect. If you like that aspect, fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

While well cited, the article contains very vague claims. The article should not use secondary sources to cite political positions (i.e. Judy answered "No" to the question "Are you an anti-vaxer?" in the "Plandemic" interview). Articles should not use redundant language for effect, as facts remain facts whether stated once or stated twice (i.e. "discredited research scientist" implies no longer a research scientist, thus making "ex-" in "ex-research scientist" only there for emphasis, diminishing encyclopedic tone). Judy Mikovits makes many claims in the "Plandemic" video which quick searches find backing from very reliable sources (i.e. the claim flu vaccines increase risk of infection by other respiratory viruses [15]), so by dealing exclusively with false claims the article weakens the readers faith that false claims would actually turn out false. From an ethical standpoint, even if neutrality were not a pillar of wikipedia, WP:IAR would mean if we want people to survive the COVID-19 epidemic, we want them to have faith in the credibility of factual information. Quite frankly, no one predisposed to believing Judy Mikovits would have any inclination to believe this article, simply for the fact the article does not include and pro-actively fact check primary sources. Fact checking primary sources is not WP:OR, because we still only add information to an article provided by a source unaffiliated with the wikipedia article's authorship. Wikinews allows original research in the form of interviews by wikinews editors. Do not conflate research with original research. Anonymouse 15:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.59.187 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

actually "discredited research scientist" does not imply she no longer is one, its not like e medical doctor where you are stuck off, but I agree it does read a bit weird.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

”Discredited” means “loss or lack of reputation or respect”; inclusion of the term is accurate and supported by WP:RS. It doesn’t imply that she is no longer a research scientist, although it’s also true that she is no longer a research scientist. The point about not using WP:SECONDARY seems inconsistent with WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It also doesn't matter whether Mikovits did not label herself as an "anti-vaxxer". That doesn't make it so. Lots of people who are anti-vaccine claim not to be but still are. It's a common and ridiculous anti-vaccine trope to label oneself as "pro-safe vaccine" when they are really anti-vaccine. What matters is what the reliable sources say, and they say she is anti-vaccine (because she is). Once again, the reliable sources got it right. Mikovits' claims in the video have been fact-checked by numerous reliable sources and found to be categorically false or wrong. Anyone who is predisposed to believe Mikovits, as you say, is not under any obligation to believe what is written here. It is their choice whether to believe reality or not, but that is the choice they're making since this is a reality-based article and they're choosing to believe an obvious propaganda video replete with nonsense, lies, and obvious falsehoods. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy also claims not to be an antivaxer. So does Andy Wakefield. It's almopst as if they know that being anti-vax is bad. Guy (help!) 19:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources offer objectivity to action and consequence. Primary sources have intention. If an authoritative primary source gave cause to question Judy Mikovits' sincerity (hypothetically, such as a conflict-of-interest or ulterior motive), we would not prefer a primary source. However due to the conflicting nature of the subject's life (former notable virologist, gratuitously criticizing virology) secondary sources require much more data to rationalize the subject's decisions than we might expect from even the most intrusive investigative journalist. So, regarding opinions held by Judy Mikovits, only information where secondary and primary sources (not necessarily Judy Mikovits, but, potentially, colleagues) agree, so as not to misleadingly omit nuance (hypothetically such as if Judy supports vaccination but not certain manufacturing methods; not to imply that would have any relevance to other aspects of Judy Mikovits' personality), should qualify as just reliable enough for an encyclopedia. Anonymouse 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.59.187 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you are arguing for. Maybe try using the format "change text X to text Y" and provide a rationale. If the issue is about the use of the term "anti-vax", she meets the definition fully and it is consistent with WP:RS. If she denies that she is anti-vax, it's immaterial, just as it would be if someone who is widely held as a practitioner of pseudoscience denied that what they practice is pseudoscience. It's not their call to make; for that we rely on WP:RS. Also please sign your posts using 4 tildes (see WP:SIG) going forward. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Rhode Island Red, JzG, and TylerDurden8823: I agree Mikovits is discredited, and that the claims she's making are wrong, confused, misleading, and arguably even dangerous. That being said, I think it's appropriate that we call her a "former research scientist" in the first line of her bio, and not use the term discredited twice there. I've made an edit to that effect here: [16]. There is something to be said about writing in the style of an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with that suggestion, thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a specific issue with using the term former research scientist. I do think the term discredited should stay. If it's used twice, it seems reasonable to me to say it once to get the point across. I don't think repetition enhances that point though it may deserve repeating in the body of the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, yeah, "former" rather implies retired, without the rather important factor of that "retirement" being involuntary. Guy (help!) 20:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Former just means previously to me. I think as long as the proper context is explicit in the article, that she was forced to retire due to the events that transpired around her retractions, data manipulation, stealing things from the lab, etc., then I wouldn't vigorously object. I think that would prevent any ambiguity about what former means. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Argument

A simple anecdotal note: as someone who watched "Plandemic" without any prior knowledge, Judy Mikovits' seems to focus on claims of widespread misconduct rather than a deliberate conspiracy, while convey through subtext hints of a conspiracy. To say "Judy Mikovits' promotes conspiracy theories" seems less accurate than say "Judy Mikovits' has" "inspired" or "energized" "conspiracy theories". While that might make Judy come off more salacious, the most notable video created by this person comes off very obviously theatrical. That fact might make Judy Mikovits a salacious person, which says little about moral character. Immediately subsequent to stating a pleasurable feeling derived from the way Judy Mikovits conveys claims, we should cite a source to explain the moral consequence from people believing such claims. Otherwise, we treat the reader as having no moral agency unable to think or choose for their self what to do, in which case no risk would come whatever they believed. Anonymouse 21:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.59.187 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We're reflecting what reliable sources say - as Douglas Adams said of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong." Moral agency is really not our problem, the only quesiotn for Wikipedia is how to reflect what independent sources say. Thus far, I have yet to find a single reliable source that is anything other than highly critical. Do you have any to offer? Guy (help!) 21:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No source qualifies as fullstop reliable. Different sources operate on different information providing reliable information based on different perspectives. While both equipped with internet access we might find our sources operating on no more information for a given conclusion than we ourselves. To assume our sources operate on untold information, should qualify as WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't simply and reliably copy a secondary source's language, if contradicting a primary source. A secondary source's biases should neither reflect reliability as a whole nor vice versa. We encounter a similar issue with editors reading intention into scientific climate or twin-towers research then citing those sources for conclusions the editor derived from the paper rather than conclusions stated in the paper. Until a court deems Judy Mikovits' testimony in admissible or an independent authority deems Judy Mikovits' statements deliberately false, Judy Mikovits qualifies as a perfectly valid primary source. Any self-thinking reader will look at the sheer volume of information corroborated in that documentary, then assume bias from any source focusing solely on discrediting the uncorroborated opinions of Judy Mikovits including Wikipedia. The danger/risk in believing those opinions presents due weight for prioritizing that, however gives no justification for purposefully omitting useful facts. A secondary or tertiary source can provide a fact-check to a primary source without knowing that primary source exists. In fact, a source which has no knowledge of Judy Mikovits is preferable for that purpose.

Not vying for bias. I only wish to reverse the doctrine "it's always reality that's got it wrong". You know, an unobservent fool might imagine that quoting Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy thusly puts Wikipedia in the place of the dispassionate bureaucracy which cares more about its own sustained existence than even the sustained existences of all. I know charming tongue-and-cheek well. I too, put my trust in lulz, but I've never been any good at irony.Anonymouse 15:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.59.187 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What does all that mean in English? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Irony there refers to dramatic irony as opposed to situational irony. Only a fool would view that relationship as situational irony. Anonymouse 16:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.59.187 (talk)

Learn to sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Roxy & Slater. 50, your posts are gibberish. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am not calling anyone here a fool.

I am just talking about one of my favourite books.

If one reads carefully, one might notice the dispassionate bureaucracy inspires (in the protagonist) a feeling of passion for the problems of all the people's around the galaxy. It stimulates empathy by creating problems shared by cultures so vastly different, none would have any ability to relate to each other if not for dealing with that unifying frustration. To me, Guy intended to share the sentiment of frustration with overly-simplistic views on the situation, but that, since the problems perpetuate throughout secondary sources and require no special facts to resolve in one's own mind, we should ignore them to require each person think for their self: "where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate." I have no offer. Not invested in this article. Only aiming to give some naive editors objective criticism. 50.233.59.187 (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's nice that you like Adams too, but you mistake this page for a forum, cluttering it up. See WP:TALK. Please stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Second the above, whilst a bit of humour and off topic banter is OK, its not when it seems to be the gist of your argument.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Use the Golgafrinchan solution. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ironically..., that is a general forum discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a explicit analogy for the state of the article.

I feel editors should practice self-awareness and sincerity.

I am bad with dramatic irony because I feel a deep sense of obligation to explain it.

But, what's the point if you don't read my post without the intention of destroying context?

I suppose WP:Wikilawyering forms a very common irony and sarcasm.

I see the request to stop posting here. I respect the request, but..

It just bothers me that what-if someone young reads our discussion then confuses your reason for a literal reason.

A dear friend taught me that irony isn't a communication style; irony is communication deficiency,

because for who misses that irony suffers misinformation (whether the intended recipient or not).

50.233.59.187 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:not, and wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph

I've attempted to indicate [17] that Mikovits is really known for her conspiracy theories — her earlier retracted research is meaningful and important but never got her notoriety. My edit is a suggestion, take it as you will.

I suggest we remove some of the redundancy of lead — I think the content of the last paragraph could, theoretically, be merged into the first. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed your edit, as she was most definately notable for her murine mess. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree she seems mainly notable for being a bit crap.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Notable, sure... but do you argue that her earlier notoriety can even remotely compare to her current pushing of conspiracy theories? That's what she's most known for and I think it deserves the most prominent place in the lead.

Also, you haven't addressed the issue of redundancy, which seems real. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree we do not need chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) mentioned twice. As for the rest, it was her paper on murine endogenous retroviruses that (effectively) ended her career as a main stream researcher. So yes I think it is the most prominent thing she has done, everything else really is an attempt to remain relevant, and an exercise in self justification.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the New York Times covers the career troubles of individual researchers unless the research involves an important study on an important topic. It's the conspiracy theory angle that's getting the press, as in "Virus Conspiracists Elevate a New Champion". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What the NYT says about the nonsense she's proliferating atm, bears little relationship to what she is notable for. Crap science. this antivaxx stuff is just an extension of the crappy science. If she had done good science, antivaxxers wouldnt have noticed her. Antivaxxers have found a new poster child is all. The OP's comment that her research is meaningful and important indicates to me that they dont know this topic enough to comment. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to a person is notable for whatever the most important sources say the person is notable for. If mainstream mass-market sources mainly describe the person as the poster child of whatever, then that's what the person is notable for. Whatever material might be found in scientific journals really can't compare. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Many papers are retracted. A relatively small number of researchers are jailed for misconduct. But I don't know if any of these people have achieved the notoriety of Mikovits by starring in a COVID-19 conspiracy film. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And she was notable before this, as the article was created 10 years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

New paper

Newly published paper is available here

And your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is for Darouet to read this paper carefully. It's a reasonable background to Mikovits and her fall from grace. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: a courtesy ping. This uninvolved party's opinion: you and Roxy the dog agree on the degree and amount of harm Mikovits has done. And contrary to the wording of the § First paragraph section, you both agree all of that are notable, should be covered in the article body, and summarized in the lede. The disagreement lies in how to organize the lede. That sound right? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

This article or section needs references that appear in an accredited publication. July 20, 2020

Mreyes1234 (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America.

As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. soibangla (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Presumably this is about this edit. At a glance, it appears there are many better sources for this. Mother Jones is one potential example. This source specifically mentions that Media Matters was the first to report on this. It seems to me that using sources like these would solve this issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, MJ is also crap. Just sayin'. Guy (help!) 00:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And there's Politico. But Media Matters has the actual video and transcript. soibangla (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr Judy Mikovits

Why is her Wikipedia page locked and why is the information old and derogatory? It’s very biased. Abigailzm (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why portraits her as an Conspiracy theorist? She’s an scientist and researcher! 7an7an (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This page is obviously Intel-trolled or 'disintel' trolled. horrible framing and intellectual dishonesty. --Massintel (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, more like Wiki-smear, wikipedia is a joke, full of propaganda and misinformation. Sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.221.162 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested improvement?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Something was twisted here w.r.t. to Dr. Judy Mikowits professional curriculum. According to this wiki-article, she worked from 1986 -1987 for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals in Kalamazoo, but she already published with Francis Ruscetti in 1986 on HIV (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2422259/). The time between research, data-gathering and publication in those days (the 1980s) was at least 18-24 months, indicating she was in Ruscetti's lab since 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:de:c731:9239:4874:9ac9:f1df:bedd (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We go by the accounts in WP:RS, preferably WP:SECONDARY, or Mikovits' statements. Publication date of an article doesn't tell us anything tangible about term of employment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

...and? Are you going to try and do anything about it? Everything on this page is substantiated by current accurate information, and protected from unverified wackos that want to vandalize it. If you believe the information is defamatory or incorrect, make a proper account and dispute it in a civil manner backed with justifiable evidence. The Talk section of Wikipedia articles are for perpetuating a professional dialogue and discussing edits, not whining about the article being opposite of what you believe. Either find evidence contrary to Wikipedia's summation, or stop posting distracting and immature rhetoric. GyozaDumpling (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This item does not include the fact that her PhD paper is still available on the NIH website https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52730/ and https://www.pnas.org/content/88/21/9426 and https://retrovirology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12977-020-00522-4. This person made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge, in this case, the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and her views should be respected and discussed, not discounted as conspiracy theory as all the provided links seem to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.104.118 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We do not, RS do, we simply report that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep it nice people.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

November 5

This article should be considered libel against Judy Mikovits. This Wikepedia page is "semi-protected" (meaning it cannot be edited) until November 5, 2020. Well isn't THAT convenient. Our U.S. Presidential election is November 3, 2020. How ironic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.172.98 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Which part of this article would you consider to be false? Tavowit (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thne I susgest you get onto the RS we use and inform then its libel, and not us.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

75.190.50.205 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC) removal of word discredited.

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Discredited

"...who is known for her discredited medical claims" discredited by whom? (citation?) Until there's a citation then this is speculation that has no place on this page.

Anyone who doesn't know Judy Mikovits and is starting at this wiki page to research will simply arrive at the conclusion that she is a nut job 'Conspiracy theorist' because that is what the intention of this page is. It is utterly biased and slanted to further defame the subject. These pages should be totally free from author bias and intent and focus solely on reliable (and unbiased) sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.214.102 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources are in the body of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I could not agree more to what the 2nd comment above (by 86.169.214.102) says about the article. I was trying to research here because there is not German article, but what I find is devastatingly ridiculous. Instead of neutral descriptional informations you are already in the introduction confronted with unilateral verdicts, like you would have to believe them instead od making your own conclusions. This is not descriptive at all and thus worthless. It's not of interest, what one group of the scientific community wants to adjudicate, when you search for independent information. Obviously, wikipedia is losing control and becoming a mantra place for sect judgements and beliefs. How funny that the header above actually says you should pay for that. No thanks. - Moovie (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that we don't use German policy then, we like to describe things properly!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Moovie's opinion is not "German policy". There is no German version of this article. Actually, German Wikipedia is slightly more friendly to crackpots and quacks the the English one, but only slightly. Things like WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN are missing there, so the arguing is more work, but German Wikipedia is on the side of science. A Judy Mikovits article would not look much different there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar

I didn't think an explanation was necessary to remove the see also link: if it was very relevant it would be linked in the prose instead. We could arbitrarily add other items but "see also" sections are not for that. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If he were mentioned in the prose, he wouldn't be linked in the See also section, but since he's not in the prose, we link him in the See also section. That's how it works. He is a fellow traveler. We could list a couple more prominent antivaxxers, but one seems good enough for now. Why do you want to delete him? -- Valjean (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

"discredited medical claims" requires source. 208.85.181.115 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:LEADCITE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

This artical is spreading fake news 2A01:110F:1546:8D00:A922:CA85:81CA:B084 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think something is fake, you need to tell us what it is, otherwise we can do nothing. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

XMRV Section

Under the XMRV heading, we have the sentence, "By November 28, after negotiations with the WPI, some lab notes were returned." A reader might conclude that Judy returned the notebooks. Is that the case? If we can't get an RS to confirm this, then this line should be left out. As other editors have mentioned above, the article appears biased. Loose ends like this might be adding to that perception. MainePatriot (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "notebooks", perhaps you could tell us? The source tells us that the note books were returned, so the line should not be left out as you suggest. The source does not suggest that a portable microcomputer was returned. -Roxy the dog. wooF 06:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Reads like a hitpiece, strong bias

This article should be more objective. 124.169.130.33 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would care to produce some RS that contradicts anything way say here please do so. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

SHE WAS NOT PROVEN WRONG. 66.74.19.254 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Add her Phd to 'alma mater' in her infobox

Hello. Mikovits earned her PhD from George Washington University. Please add this to the infobox. Thanks. 2600:1003:B035:6D56:352A:424:D0F4:18AD (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)