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.
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
I felt like this topic needed a little more background, so I expanded the middle part of the article. However, I'm not used to editing WP:MEDRS articles and I have mixed feelings about mentioning the study by Seneff and McCullough, who are both nutjobs. I think it is useful to have specifics on one "study" to show why it's junk, but I don't want to give false balance. If someone could modify my text to make the fringe angle clearer I would appreciate it. Or if what I did violates MEDRS please delete my edits and notify me. I'm still relatively new and a bit shaky. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some quack web portal. You can read about the actual company activities from their press releases about the acquisition (without the quackery), or some reputable news coverage. Bon courage (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very forward-thinking of them to acquire a company that's been investigating cancer cures since 1997, just before the pandemic hit, knowing they were about to create turbo cancer.
The mRNA vaccine side effects are still being studied. I believe you are too early in trying to debunk something that has yet to be thoroughly studied and either bunked or debunked by actual scientists merely by mentioning whatever early studies support your theory. 47.202.59.160 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't do debunking. It follows good quality sources. And they're calling out this whackadoodle quackery for what it is. Bon courage (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC just released data showing a 143,233% INCREASE in fatal cancers among vaccinated citizens. Please explain how this is not germane to your conversation and how it supports your thoughts that mRNA vaccines do not cause turbo cancers. 47.202.59.160 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, we would need a reliable source, like a peer-reviewed article in a medical journal. This looks like some shitty low-rent news source which is so bad the aggregator has slapped this disclaimer on it: "this story is only being covered by one news source that has a ‘low factuality’ rating, which means the outlet has a history of poor reporting practices." Basically, Wikipedia doesn't do bullshit. Bon courage (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See below. It comes from a VAERS dumpster dive. In related news, Someone analysed the locations of VAERS reports and correlated with political district lean.
You'll be shocked - shocked! - to learn that Republican districts (less likely to vaccinate and more likely to die of COVID) submit higher than average numbers of VAERS reports, of greater severity.
All of which seems to me to be a further data point in identifying the true cause of turbo cancer and mass death: antivaxer proximity syndrome (AVPS). Anecdotal evidence indicates that AVPS is now the leading cause of fictional death in the world, overtaking both assassination by Big Pharma and even medical error. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The base rate of cancer diagnosis in the US from 2016-2020 was 442.3 diagnoses per 100,000, and the death rate was 358.3 per 100,000. The population is 81% vaccinated. A 143,233% increase in diagnosis in the 81% would add up to 513,150.8 new neoplasms per 100,000 of the population - every vaccinated person would be diagnosed with over five new cancers per year. Five new cases, per person, of "turbo cancer" that kills you in months. And even if we assume the usual progression rate for old-school normally aspirated cancer, every single vaccinated person has now died. Twice.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add a statement and reference:
However, despite the conspiracy theories, of which many turn out to be true, Pfizer has shocked many with the purchase of a failing cancer drugmaker company, paying $43billion. Seagen is a leading developer of medicine called antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, which are designed to kill cancer cells and spare healthy ones.
An Angus Dalgleish authored article published in a fringe publication (e.g. The Daily Sceptic), known to publish false and misleading information about mRNA vaccines, is not a reliable source.
Oh, really? 'Is known' to who exactly and what false information are you claiming they published?
The brunt of false and misleading information came from the goverments, health experts' and big pharma, like 'safe end effective' or 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' ... for a vaxx that does not stop transmission.
For a Wikipedia page, this article something you’d read on Facebook and NOT a fact based site. There was no evidence provided to contradict a scientific and accepted study. What are the authors credentials to dispute such a study other than pure opinion and conjecture. This page is NOT Wikipedia worthy as it is written now. 2603:7081:3A00:F8B3:E994:6DE7:9C34:9004 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there is reasonable sourcing, as already cited. Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a cancer epidemic going on since 2021, with doctors 'baffled'.
So, you saying, you dont know the reason, but you are sure it's not the experimental c19-vaccine where studies on side effects still going on?
I'm not even gunna touch the Daily Mail sources, but the Telegraph one just shows two different potential reasons for such an upwards trend;
Genetics and an increase in cancer survival rates, which would naturally increase the chance of one having a genetic predisposition to get cancer
A change in the composition of gut bacteria. I didn't read much into this one.
It also included a study from 1993–2019 in Northern Ireland that saw a 20.5% upwards trend in cancer patients. 2019.Before any COVID vaccines came out. This is not some sudden change like going from 11:59 to 12, this is over several decades.
I read it and decided to add it for a complete picture and spare us the 'but the rise started before C' discussion. We know that. The point is the sudden spike since 2019/2020, as shown by data from Cancer Research UK and others which is obviously getting widespread attention since the Kate Middleton statement.
Here's another one:
Cuomo: "Cancer is on the rise in young adults - why? What's the cause? Why the spike since 2019? Dr. Hyman came on to explain what he knows."
interesting quotes: 'we are seeing all sorts of things, we did not see before. so I agree, Chris, there' something cooking in the soup'. or at 2:10: 'so hypothetically if the covid vacc ... ahhh .. disease created persistent inflammation in the body ... it drives inflammation which then drives cancer.' BlueSky2012 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear unknown user: What part of ' 'so hypothetically if the covid vacc ... ahhh .. disease created persistent inflammation in the body ... it drives inflammation which then drives cancer.' do you not understand.
Not sure why you dont see 'Cancer Research UK' as a legitimate source.
The telegraph is not to establish a definitive link to the vacc, but to show that there is indeed an cancer epidemic with cause 'unknown'. As long as the source of the spike is not found, the vaxx-possibility cannot be ruled out as simple myth, since there is a strinking timely correlation. (and yes we know c!=c). BlueSky2012 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Cannot be ruled out as simple myth" doesn't cut it. Peer-reviewed study in a non-pay-to-play journal showing an unexplained jump between 2019 and the present, or it didn't happen. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is so stupid my brain hurts. How can a "spike" in 2019 (let's assume there is one) be down to a vaccine that wasn't deployed in any numbers until 2021? Unless the vaccine really does have time-travel powers like Naomi Wolf said[2] ! Anyway this is all irrelevant to this article, which is about a dumb antivaxx conspiracy theory, not real-world biomedicine, Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a decades-long trend of increasing cancer diagnoses in under-50s. Looking at the claims about "turbo cancer", what you see is incidences of cancers that are often indolent for long periods (prostate, for example) or are so aggressive that by the time they become symptomatic, it's too late (e.g. pituitary, bile duct). The exploitation of lack of knowledge by charlatans is not new, but the degree of ghouling by the "turbo cancer" and "lied suddenly" crowds is repugnant. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A 73-year-old female with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and renal angiomyolipoma status post resection in 2019 presented with worsening right upper arm swelling for the past two weeks. She noticed the swelling two to four days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine within 1 cm from the prior injection site. She was diagnosed as having grade 3, stage IIIA undifferentiated, pleomorphic high-grade sarcoma." Encompassmed (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind defining "turbo cancer"? The word "turbo" typically means fast and the sarcoma was said to have developed rapidly. My understanding is that a sarcoma is a type of cancer hence why I thought it was a relevant study. Very interested in your thoughts on this. Encompassmed (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the paper: Currently, it is unclear whether there is a true association between novel vaccinations and the development of malignancy. A review of the literature does not show any other case reports demonstrating malignancy after receiving the Moderna vaccine. This should be further investigated to see if there is an association and, if so, the mechanism thereof. People didn’t start getting rapidly developing sarcomas left and right during vaccine rollouts so this screams “freak accident that coincidentally resembles so-called ‘turbo cancer’”. Open and shut, nothing more to do. Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to a passage in this review providing evidence that those vaccinated against COVID are "suffering from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers", as the article says? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Substack post from 2022 has something to say about an article published in 2024? How stupid do you think I am? BTW, did you look at the graphs? The rise in malignancies begins around New Year's 2019-2020, a year before vaccines became available (assuming these data are accurate at all). Try again. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Study: "The possible co-occurrence of high BRCA1 demand to repair DNA damage caused by activated transcription via ERα bound with S-protein along with dysfunction of BRCA1 sequestrated by S-protein raises concerns about increased cancer risk in ERα-sensitive cells in mRNA-LNP SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients."
"As mentioned above, there is also great concern about the risk of dysfunction in the crucial cancer suppressor genes, brca2 and P53, as well as BRCA1, through mechanisms involving downregulation of IRF9 through interference by specific miRNA in exosomes [26] and the possible sequestration by the S2 subunit of S-protein in the vaccine [91]. Impaired BRCA1 activity is associated with higher risk of breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, as well as moderately higher risk of pancreatic cancer in both men and women [92]. BRCA2-associated cancers include breast and ovarian cancer in women, prostate and breast cancer in men, and acute myeloid leukemia in children [26]. These findings are highly consistent with our results."
Please see my comments about Cureus, above (note link). Furthermore, the article does not make any effort to compare cancer rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, only notes an age-adjusted increase in cancer mortality in Japan over time. You guys are always going off about how vaccines haven't been compared to a placebo, yet you're convinced by increases in death rates among people who may not have even been vaccinated? Sad. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its peer reviewed and what has your opinion about Cureus have to do with it? What is 'above (note link)' -
"After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose" implied vaccinated, does it not?
" yet you're convinced by increases in death rates among people who may not have even been vaccinated? Sad."
"As of February 27, 2023, around 77.5 percent of the population in Japan received the second dose of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination."
So, most are vaxxed, that's the really sad part. You trying to dismiss all this: Sad
"Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development."
Model...suggesting...could. Once again, find a peer-reviewed study in a non-pay-to-play journal showing that aggressive cancer rates actually have increased between 2019 and the present or you're connecting nonexistent dots and wasting everyone's time. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Angus Dalgleish about IGG class 4 and T cell suppression
Professor Angus Dalgleish, (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, Fellow of Medical Science.) Professor Dalgleish is a highly experienced doctor, physician, medical teacher, medical author and researcher with over 500 primary research publications. BlueSky2012 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should try to publish his opinion in a peer-reviewed journal instead of YouTube. It would be the minimum requirement for making it useable in Wikipedia medical articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your appeal to authority is noted. Now, when you ask 100 engineers if a bridge is safe to cross, and 99 say yes, but the one who makes money by telling people that tales of bridges being safe are a conspiracy by Big Engineering says it's not, do you cross? Because that's what's going on here. A tiny handful of social media grifters, mainly non-experts, promote the turbo cancer conspiracy theory (and often other Lied Suddenly talking points along with it), and the reality-based mainstream just doesn't see it. Every now and then they torture some data into confessing, but analysis of the data by actual experts never actually supports their conclusions. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what's going on here is, that 99 went with the big pharma narrative - these were the ones who made real money.
Calling Angus Dalgleish a grifter is a bold move - wonder what he has to say about that ...
"This is getting more visible by the day" is WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia's goal isn't to predict what will be the news in the next month/year. Also, as a rule of thumb, if a news outlet has its political orientation in the title, it is rarely of the most reliable kind. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also oppose a merge at this time. This is a major antivax and alt-med talking point right now, and has been covered in reliable sources. Five years from now, when the pandemic seems less recent and the antivaxers have moved on to something else, we maybe could merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, that's not how this works. We decide whether or not to merge based on timeless factors like length, overlap with existing articles, or whether broader context would be beneficial. We don't temporarily split content because it is a "major talking point right now". – Teratix₵03:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is more than enough promotion of this lie by ANTIVA to justify a separate article, and the sourcing establishes notability. I'm not sure the proposer actually understands policies - fewer than 20 edits over five years doesn't speak to a great deal of experience. Just as we don't mirror Snopes, we don't take our content directions from Scott Adams. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be a statement of fact. Reality is not a political construct. You've made that exact statement several times which only proves that YOU have a liberal bias, not that Reality has one. Mkstokes (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What it "seems" to be to you is not something I am concerned with. The term we are discussing exists and has been used frequently by the far-right to advance their antivaxx propaganda. The sources used are reliable. If you don't like that, that sounds like a "you" problem. Zaathras (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you should be concerned with anything I say. In fact, given your proud bias I'd be shocked if you could be objective about anything. I'm merely stating a fact. Saying "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is prima facie evidence that you have a liberal bias and isn't an objective or even provable statement about Reality. What I like or don't like is irrelevant. Mkstokes (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, “reality has a well-known liberal bias” simply means liberals are usually right because conservatives and other rightists are more likely to embrace fringe views or ideas that eventually become discredited (like scientific racism) Dronebogus (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That hypothesis is impossible to prove, thus it is a statement of opinion, not fact. Anyone insisting it's a statement of fact is actually expressing their own political bias, just as if anyone saying "Reality has a well-known conservative bias" is basically saying "I'm a conservative." It doesn't bode well for a encyclopedia that's supposed to have a WP:NPOV. Mkstokes (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see no point in escalating it. As @JzG pointed out this is my first time trying to do a merge proposal and it looks like I got it wrong. Traz64 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I looked through the sources and didn't notice anything wrong with them. One source was rather trivial but the others were a dozen paragraphs (or longer), and in most cases were solely about the subject ("turbo cancer"). All signs point towards there being significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources to justify a standalone article. Woodroar (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we don’t merge articles on notable topics because we think the topic is too stupid to even deserve an independent article. That’s the vibe I’m getting from Tonymetz, the only vocal supporter of this idea. Dronebogus (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be accusing everyone you disagree with of bias, especially without evidence. It can unnecessarily antagonize people, and isn't generally helpful in a discussion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not bias it's just natural Stewardship or shepherding of an article or group of related articles may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or in a cause or organization related to it.
Oppose. I have to disagree with the proposer when they say they don’t think this specific conspiracy theory really meets WP:N. There are reliable sources covering this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...does the article really need to repeat this at every conceivable opportunity? Let me go through the text to show you what I mean:
Turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination myth
Good start, appropriate to centre its status as myth in the first sentence because that's clearly what the sources are saying.
centred on the idea that people vaccinated against COVID-19, especially with mRNA vaccines, are suffering from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers.
Also good, now we have a clear understanding of what the claim actually is.
The myth,
Its status as myth was already mentioned in the first sentence, but OK.
has no factual basis
Now we're starting to get a bit repetitive. We already said it was a myth in this very sentence, and myths don't have a factual basis.
antivaccine doctors and social media personalities began circulating the unfounded idea
four times in three sentences...
These claims have tended to misrepresent single case reports or to speculate based on anecdotes
Five times. This is a bit better because it at least tells us about the nature of the claim's wrongness.
David Gorski summarized the "turbo cancer" phenomenon as "the usual misinformation techniques used by antivaxxers: Citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation."
Six times. The problem of "citing anecdotes" is repeated from the previous sentence. The other two are novel at least, even if "conflating correlation with causation" is not elaborated on elsewhere in the article. But to top it off we apparently need to be explicitly told these are "misinformation techniques".
According to the US National Cancer Institute, "[t]here is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression.
OK, so on top of the six times where we already give some variation on "the claim is false", we apparently need a seventh.
Furthermore, COVID-19 vaccines do not change your DNA"
Bit of a non sequitur? The idea that vaccines would change your DNA hasn't been mentioned at all up to this point, it just comes out of nowhere.
A paper by antivaccine activists Stephanie Seneff, Peter McCullough and others claimed suppression of type 1 interferon could result in immune suppression that could promote cancer proliferation.
OK, better, we are starting to talk about what precisely the claim is.
the study suggested hypothetically possible disease mechanisms using only anecdotal reports from VAERS as evidence, and was described as "shifting the burden of proof"
By who? And why? Probably the paper did shift the burden of proof somehow, but just from reading the article I have no idea what burden is said to have been shifted.
there are claims that a paper discussing a mouse dying of lymphoma "proves" the existence of turbo cancer.
OK, what is the nature of these claims? How on earth would this paper connect to turbo canc—
This is untrue.
—oh. Well, OK, no doubt they aren't true, but this is not a very informative explanation!
Look, don't get me wrong. The article should say "turbo cancer" isn't a thing; we shouldn't provide false balance.
But at the moment it's written as if we're paranoid that someone will accidentally come away with the perception "turbo cancer" is a thing, as if the primary purpose of the article is to explain the people who talk about "turbo cancer" are wrong, not to explain what "turbo cancer" actually refers to. – Teratix₵03:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and your edits have been an improvement. I really dislike the kind of "hyper-deboonk" style that some articles are written with, where every sentence needs to mention that something is debunked[1][2][3], untrue[2][3][4][5], disproven[1][3][4][5][6], discredited[1][2][3][4], untrue[1][2][3][4], baseless[2][5][6][8], incorrect[1][2][3][4] and false[1][2][3][4]. This seems to be done more out of a desire to own political opponents than to write encyclopedia articles, because it doesn't produce an informative article, and it doesn't even produce a persuasive one. I wish we would stop doing it -- it's essentially self-parody. jp×g🗯️03:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume editors do it out of a well-intentioned impulse not to give credence to nonsense. I am mystified as to a "political opponents" aspersion is being cast. What is "political" about turbo cancer and who is opposing whom? Bon courage (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with this. We already say it's considered untrue, there's no reason to repeat it again and again. Instead, detailing the arguments made by "turbo-cancer" proponents and explaining why they've been criticized/refuted is a much more productive way to give WP:DUE weight. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Teratix 100% with one additional comment. Some of the "reliable source" citations are actually self-published blogs that are not actually reliable. One openly admits their method "is often criticized by doctors and scientists, concerned that [Science-Based Medicine is an unnecessary challenge to the idealism of [Evidence-Based Medicine]." Thus they shouldn't be cited in the first paragraph. In addition, Turbo cancer need not be pejoratively referenced as a "myth" (i.e., "a widely held but false belief or idea"). These self-published citations include:
Good point indeed about the reliable sources. Looking at the RSN discussion, Science-Based Medicine should definitely not be given the prominence it currently has, and shouldn't be used as the source for "mainstream" views. However, I'd disagree with your criticism of referring to "turbo cancer" as a "myth". While the wording itself deserves to be adjusted (as it is in the domain of pseudoscience rather than mythology), we can and should definitely be labeling it as pseudoscientific per WP:FRINGE. A belief can be widespread among some people but still dismissed by a consensus of reliable sources, for example Young Earth creationism. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the word "myth" rather carefully: it is a myth of the kind we used to call urban legends or urban myths, but urban myth is too benign a phrase for the way it has been invented from whole cloth then weaponised by ANTIVA. Turbo cancer is, bluntly, a lie. But perhaps we should more properly characterise it as a conspiracy theory, since that is the world where it really resides (along with Lied Suddenly, Plandemic and the rest). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as we'd like to be blunt, I think it is best to be cautious and use the appropriate register of language for the encyclopedia. Calling it a "pseudoscientific belief" is better, as it doesn't have the unserious connotations of a myth, or the "government cover-up" aspect that characterizes conspiracy theories. As far as I know, the claims of turbo cancer being a thing don't necessarily imply that there is an active cover-up by pharmaceutical companies and/or governments to hide it, and such a conspiracy isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that observation about lies. Can you please provide the reliable source citation that details how the theory or research associated with "turbo cancer" was create as a "deliberate lie?" I definitely think that needs to be added to this Wikipedia article but I don't see it in any of the sources provided so far. Thank you in advance. Mkstokes (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the closest is this excellent SBM source.[4] Scroll down to the subhead “Turbo cancer”: The new wrinkle on the vaccine-cancer lie to get the knowledge ... Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting blog entry and reads more like an opinion piece in a newspaper rather than a detailed analysis of how the author determine that "antivaxxers" (a term he uses 27 times in the blog post) were proffering a "deliberate lie." He definitely uses phrases like "turned out not to have any good evidence to support it," "falsely claimed," "conspiracy theory," and "speculative 'theory'." But at best, he offers a loose opinion that the evidence for turbo cancer is "at best erroneous and at worst intentionally misleading." I don't get from this blog post a definitive analysis that proves this as a "deliberate lie." Does something exist or is that original research? Mkstokes (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SBM is a golden source when it comes to WP:FRINGE nonsenses like "turbo" cancer, and its knowledge may be asserted as fact here. Wikipedia does not use the phrase "deliberate lie" in its article so this discussion is rather moot considering WP:NOTFORUM. We could say its promotion is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading, I suppose? That seems neutral. Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:PARITY applies here (as it often does when citing SBM): In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Quack theories rarely get in-depth treatment in medical journals; the point of PARITY is that that isn't required in order to describe them as clearly fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turbo Cancer (Dr. Ute Krüger) and the First Histopathology Atlas of Covid-19 Vaccine Tissue and Organ Damage
German pathologist describes how she came to the conclusion that corona vaccination was associated with a new manifestation of cancer. Ute and Walter have published an atlas documenting vaccine damage BlueSky2012 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levels of evidence according to Procter & GambleSubstack is user-generated with no verification and very far from a reliable source. Even opinions and editorials written by experts are pretty low in the source quality hierarchy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of BlueSky2012’s edits in 2024 (that is to say, in the last 10 years) have been at this talk page. This is obviously getting into WP:SEALIONing/WP:NOTHERE territory. Does anyone else think I should contact an administrator to have them blocked from this page? Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but "death rates from malignant neoplasms without specification of site in 15-44 year olds"? Slice any dataset thinly enough and you'll find all kinds of spurious correlations. But the point is moot because Substack isn't a RS. If this analysis ever passes peer review, then we can talk. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"then we can talk"? You name is a sign, it seems!
But seriously: You are aware the
1) not every information here on wiki is peer-reviewed, right?
2) the peer-reviews process in itself is not a indicator for quality, right?
1) not every information here on wiki is peer-reviewed, right?
And this is why WP:MEDRS is a lot stricter than our usual quality requirements. We can't really expect peer-reviewed journal articles about, say, some local landmark, but medical articles (which can have real-life health consequences) have to be held to a stricter standard. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
