Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 5

This entry violates Wikipedia biographies of living persons
This entry violates Wikipedia biographies of living persons: "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period."

Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell. The Wikipedia entry:

"John Lorimer Campbell[3] is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell. Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. "

Wikipedia was asked repeatedly to remove the statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation" but refuses to do so. The statement is defamatory of Dr. Campbell's character and can affect negatively his reputation, career and financial well-being. And yet, the statement has no place in a Wikipedia entry. Keeping that statement would mean, every Wikipedia entry about someone who has posted videos would most probably require that same statement. Wikipedia entries on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, etc., as these companies, at one time or another, whether on purpose or inadvertently, have posted videos which contain misinformation. And yet we do not have that statement on their entries.

Second, the so-called rationale for saying his videos contain misinformation, i.e., "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" -- may not be "misinformation" as the full picture/complete data on those matters have not been gathered. It's very possible that some or all of those are proven true. For example, for the first statement "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted", hospitals in the Philippines, during the pandemic, would be able to charge more, i.e., earn more profits from health insurance companies or government health care reimbursement, if they claim the patient had COVID-19 rather than another ailment like pneumonia or lung cancer, etc., and so, many of them erroneously list death is by COVID-19, thus upping the death-by-COVID-19 count.

Third, his videos are usually about Dr. Campbell reporting on studies or report. He does not actually create the studies or reports. If these studies or reports give results and conclusions contrary to what the Wikipedia reviewer would like to hear, they shouldn't be immediately marked as "misinformation." Dr. Campbell reviews them and explains the key points in an understandable way.

In conclusion, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. John Campbell must remove the unnecessary, defamatory, unproven, controversial statement. It does not add illumination to the entry, but merely gaslights and defames the subject without clear, unquestionable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelobe (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We are discussing all this above (but see wp:legal) and no more can be added than what you have already been told. Having another thread on the same topic will not make your case stonger. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of intro paragraph
The intro paragraph of this article currently reads 'Some of his videos contain misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.' After reviewing the videos, I have found that all of the sources and studies referenced are included in the description boxes with these videos. Although many of these studies may derive different results than the ones listed under 'Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus' in this talk page. This means that the information he is sharing from those studies that have been labelled 'false claims', are not necessarily false, but are simply study results that may not be completely in agreement with other reliable sources.

In order to continue to further scientific understanding, it is important to review various studies that may have different conclusions. In Dr. Campbell's videos, he is simply sharing the results of various scientific studies.

As a result, I suggest that this article should be modified to consider that various studies may be in opposition, and simply state the objective facts. For example, the statement could be rephrased to say: 'Some of his videos contain information from studies that differ from many other reliable sources {insert sources here}, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated {remove 'false'} claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and {remove 'misleading'} commentary about vaccine safety.' The validity of studies should be up to the readers to determine based on the merits, and Wikipedia should not claim as fact which studies are false or misinformation. Scientific knowledge is updated regularly based on the continual study and challenging previously held notions (i.e. masking was originally said to be ineffective to protect against COVID-19). As this page stands right now, it borders on commentary, instead of an encyclopedia.

In conclusion, I think it would be appropriate to remove the terms "misinformation", "false" and "misleading" from the article, as they are subjective and not reflective of the ongoing scientific studies and statistics that Dr. Campbell shares in his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, and the reliable sources are pretty clear that he has spread misinformation. And they're right: presenting data and then giving a misleading interpretation of that data is in fact spreading misinformation. I don't think he's evil or anything, just prone to mistakes because he's giving his spin on things when he's not really an expert. As to how neutral this is, have a look at WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality doesn't mean pretending that every viewpoint has equal validity with any other. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was some confusion on my part, my mistake. I had confused one of the references with another, and thus thought that "misinformation", "false" and "misleading" were labels not derived from a RS, but an editor's opinion. Sorry. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * However I would argue still that the wording used is quite harsh against Dr. Campbell, that make him sound like he's 'misleading' his viewers. And there's no mention of anything other than the potentially false information in his videos. Such as the fact that he would, nearly every day, talk about the most recent COVID trends and statistics around the world. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Gosh. The wording makes it sound like he's 'misleading' his viewers. That is because he is misleading his viewers. That is the point made by reliable sources that we are reporting. All his fanbois complaining here need to correct him, not us, or the reliable sources that we report that point out his misinformation. Simples. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 09:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are so many Wikipedia editors so unprofessional. 'fanbois '? Are you kidding me? I don't even watch the guy regularly. I knew I was wasting my time here, everyone seems so dense.
 * Don't bother replying to this, I'm not going to check this page any longer. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again we go with what RS say, if Mr Campbell is unhappy with what we say he needs to get RS to correct themselves. Now you may have a point about his mentioned videos (which in fact we do say with "who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell."), so suggest some text and we can see if it does not violate wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What is RS? Odonanmarg (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A "reliable source" as defined by WP:RS -Roxy the bad tempered dog 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022
Dr. John Campbell is NOT spreading mis infirmation ! Wikepedia is in this case! 83.81.130.118 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * please read the umpteen threads above as to what we can't do this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Odonanmarg agrees with the opening statement. He has never spread misinformation. He has ALWAYS said that COVID-19 deaths are UNDERcounted. This article seems to have been created by “admins” (whatever they are) who are opposed to Dr. Campbell’ s views. Dr. Campbell often points out that he is expressing his own views, and that individuals should consult with their own physicians. Because the creators of the article have admin(?) status, they seem to have a “lock”🔒on this mis-informative article. Odonanmarg (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article, but I'm not an admin. - Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 05:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get your MIS-information from then? Odonanmarg (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 08:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022
Egregious typos in the lede section:
 * posted YouTube video => posted YouTube videos
 * Whilst, initialy => Whilst, initially

Thanks. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I tried but was conflicted. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 00:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * They're just typos, nothing "egregious", let's not hyperventilate too much about it. I trimmed the "whilst" as well, as we're not exactly Downton Abbey. Zaathras (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they were in a pretty visible spot in the article; but, fair point, "egregious" may have been too strong of a word. Thanks for fixing them. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

DOB
Dr Campbell's date of birth can be improved with reference to UK Gov Companies House register of directors, https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/caiVOU_nx3L97MptSiezuq2lT-Y/appointments which confirms he was born in May 1957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patxi1204 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Though I don't believe there's a template to support month/year DOBs. Alexbrn (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit per WP:DOB. The source falls afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. – 2 . O . Boxing  11:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really, since it just augments the known year with a date (May). Campbell will have provided the DOB himself when registering as a director so it's really WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think there are reasonable grounds to doubt it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely not WP:ABOUTSELF and definitely is WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's a public document that hasn't been discussed by reliable sources, and the source itself is not linked with the subject, so it cannot be reasonably inferred that he doesn't object. And it doesn't actually augment the secondary source as the secondary source doesn't give a date of birth, just an age. – 2 . O . Boxing  12:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed his DOB as it seems to be based on OR, if a date is not given we leave it out, not try to guesstimate it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See the last para of WP:DOB. If somebody makes their DOB public directly or indirectly it may be used if there is no reason do doubt it. Here we're talking about public information published on the open web and originated from Campbell himself. Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but others disagree. So lets leave it out until we have an agreement. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's no biggie, but insistence that policy is "definitely" one way on this is odd. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of WP:DOB definitely does not say that. Please read it again. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The text in WP:BLPPRIMARY seems unambiguous to me. Official records should not be used as sources for dates of birth.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn and possibly others also seem confused about BLPDOB. The point of BLPDOB is when people intentionally and knowingly make the information public, such as when the post it on social media or their own website, talk about it in videos or podcasts they make, mention it in interviews or completely public talks, voluntarily provide it for a profile on them they know is going to be made public etc. In such cases, the person is directly and voluntarily providing the information with the understanding it's going to be made public. We do not consider someone providing the information when legally required to, nor taking part in activities where they know they'll legally be required to provide the information as voluntarily making the information public. I'd go so far as to say that actually goes explicitly against the point of BLPDOB. Even when there might have been ways the person could have participated in activity without making the information public e.g. by using trusts or other more complicated legal arrangements, we do not consider their failure to do so as an indication they do not care that the information was made public since arrangements can be difficult or expensive and a lot of people do not really understand or appreciate the implications of public record laws. (I'd note that in some countries provided some initial information is known, it's possible to obtain someone's birth certificate. I assume we all agree this doesn't remotely come close to covering BLPDOB since someone doesn't choose where they were born nor generally the laws of such. Although there might be some cases where the person could have prevented the information from being made public. Indeed taken to the extreme, an MP who has never proposed a law to prevent such things and especially one who has opposed a law which would have stopped it could be said to have indirectly provided the information but that surely makes no sense.) While this isn't such a big concern with DOBs, it's actually a major concern with real names since some people who intentionally conceal their names e.g. actors in adult films register companies or trademarks using their real names, often without realising the implications of this including how desperate some people are to uncover their identities. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution of misinformation
Jimmy Dore is not John Campbell. This article seems to be quite confused by this issue. The politifact article cited is fact-checking a claim made by Jimmy Dore, not by Dr John Campbell. Campbell is mentioned in the article because it was one of his videos that was misrepresented by Dore. Given the extra care that is supposed to be taken according to Biographies policy, this is really not acceptable. Claims that Campbell has spread misinformation need to be supported by articles that directly state that he has done so. I've not yet checked any of the others claims of misinformation spreading in this article, but it's clear that the sources do not support this particular one. 86.174.10.156 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The KGTV source makes clear that it's Campbell's assertion: "'I think most people in the UK and the United States are giving the vaccines wrongly,' said Dr. John Campbell, a retired nurse lecturer in the UK who advocates for aspiration, in a YouTube video viewed more than 335,000 times." —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough what I was referring to. I'm talking about this "misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted,".  None of the sources state that Campbell said that deaths have been overcounted. 86.174.10.156 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't "say" deaths had been overcounted (though actually he did just that in the follow up video); as with most of the misinformation he puts out it is via a strong implication and a significant look at the camera. As the BBC correctly reports, Campbell released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Wikipedia reflects such reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source that directly says Dr John Campbell spread misinformation regarding deaths. It is not acceptable for editors to make their own inferences. 86.174.10.156 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a source that Campbell's claim was "pants on fire", would you rather we quote that? Or that it was a "misleading interpretation of the data.", would you rather say it was misleading? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed yes, I would rather wikipedia say he said it was "pants on fire" and that it was a misleading interpretation of the data. It would illustrate more clearly and directly how wrong he is. I think wikipedia should also note that after all this time he has not acknowledged how wrong he is. Perhaps his teaching Doctrate has affected his thinking in a sort of way illustrated by David Dunning. I dunno. - Roxy the English speaking dog 18:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a source that says Jimmy Dore's claim was "pants on fire". This is the problem.  Jimmmy Dore is not John Campbell 86.174.10.156 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source discusses the claim they both make. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, what we have is exactly right per the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I urge you to carefully read it again, because the politifact article does not state that John Campbell's video made false claims on deaths. The only reference to John Campbell comes from Jimmy Dore misrepresenting what was in his video.  The politifact article says this fairly clearly:  Firstly it talks about the official figures of deaths SOLELY attributed to covid and Campbell reporting these.  (From the source:  "According to the data Campbell shows in his Jan. 20 video, in 2020 and the first three quarters of 2021, there were 17,371 deaths in England and Wales where the SOLE cause of death listed on death certificates was COVID-19. "   Then it references Jimmy Dore incorrectly inferring that these are TOTAL covid deaths. (From the source: " "So you mean all the stuff that they’ve been saying for two years straight about the death rate has been bull—-?" said Dore, who said Americans have been "victims of a scaremongering campaign."
 * No, that’s not what the numbers mean. According to the report cited in the video, there were 131,641 COVID-19 deaths overall in England and Wales at the time it was published and 140,776 in the most recent report. The numbers Campbell cites are those whose SOLE cause of death was listed as COVID-19. But that does not mean the other deaths attributed to the virus aren’t also legitimate — they simply show people whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19 and other conditions at the same time.")
 * I have capitalised the words SOLE and SOLELY so it is clear that the article does not dispute the reporting of figures in Campbells video. As per the article, Campbell stated they were figures for sole cause of death.
 * "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article" 86.174.10.156 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that he "released a video describing the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60145237, so even if we accept one source is used incorrectly (that is open to debate), we have others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The IP evidently does not understand how cause of death is counted, and everybody understands what Campbell was saying. Even Campbell who, in his next video, said "I do hope you got a chance to look at that video which shows that by some calculations we're over-counting deaths by a factor of seven, eight or nine". Alexbrn (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If this carries on I will ask for a close, it has run its course, please WP:JUSTDROPIT. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022
Suggestion:

Remove "Monkeypox parallels" section entirely

Reason:

The assertions made in the Monkeypox parallels section are vague, bizarre and inaccurate. The youtube video created by John from which these claims are sourced isn't referenced and refutes the assertions in any case. Kellerto (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We go by what secondary sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to said source or souces? Novice editor here, not trying to be rude... Kellerto (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You will find the citation in the article, in the John_Campbell_(YouTuber) section. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

rumble
he is on rumble now Dr. John Campbell (rumble.com) 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:A4A1:D9AC:53F8:7A49 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice this. But no good sources are commenting on it. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * says john campbell youtuber. if they have multiple platforms where a person releases their content. it should be changed to john campbell (vlogger) 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:3DC0:3FE5:FB38:64E6 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We call them by what they are most notable for, according to wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the fact that Campbell often teaches in African countries. 204.11.186.190 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tone of article
The majority of this biographical article has a very predisposed and opinionated tone. This is unfortunate, for both the subject of the article, and the Wikipedia community as a whole. --Zamdrist (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second this opinion. Presenting papers from the scientific community should not be considered spreading of misinformation. His selection of papers may be biased and debatable, but at least he tries to be a reference point for research results, that are usually neglected by other media sources and thus wouldn't make it into any discussion. 158.181.68.158 (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects reputable reliable sources. By them, this Youtube guy is a "total COVID crank" spreading misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's assume for a second that the accusations in this article against Mr. Campbell are correct. Then still all his other hundreds of videos are considered a source of information, not misinformation. So can we consider Mr. Campbell a spreader of information then as well? Or is there an official wikipedia threshold, above which one might consider anyone a source of misinformation and which would allow tagging other people's entries in a similar fashion? 158.181.68.158 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a summary of what's published in reliable sources. That's all. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I would like to know that reliable source, that quotes Mr. Campbell to have "veered into misinformation." I don't see a citation for that, rendering this phrase to be an interpretation of a wikipedia author. 158.181.68.158 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of the article, but see the WP:SBM source which refers to:
 * Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So because a single member of the scientific community is speaking out about Campbell in a despicable manner, it justifies including this assessment in the summary? I would have expected a little more subtlety, to say the least. 158.181.70.14 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact many scientists have "spoken out", and no reliable source has supported the BS coming from this channel. WP:SBM is a generally reliable source, especially for fringe medicine, medical misinformation, grift and quackery. So most apt here. If you want the article to change you need to produce new, high-quality sources. (But you almost certainly won't because believe me the 100+ editors of this article have looked very hard). Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We do mention that at one point he received "praise early in the pandemic", but we must also reflect what he is NOw known for. As has been said many many times, if you want to add information about praise for him, find RS praising him. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Career -> Covid 19 Pandemic -> Misinformation -> Vaccines
The third paragraph currently states: "In July 2022, Campbell gave an error-filled account of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and falsely claimed that it showed the risk to children from COVID-19 vaccination was much greater than the risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 itself. The video received over 700,000 views. The article actually showed that COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of children getting seriously ill from COVID-19.[21]"

Cite 21 suggests that the study gives "hospitalizations" and "serious adverse events" as direct comparison. It goes on to claim that Dr. Campbell's use of only children hospitalized with oxygen rather than the full gamut of adverse events is misinformation. It then admits that, quote: "... the study itself does not say that the other 283 admissions were non-serious or “precautionary” cases."

Despite the aspersions it casts, cite 21 plainly states that the HSA paper's comparison is no more scientifically rigorous than Dr. Campbell's own claim.

Cite 21 then continues, quote: “The same HSA document says: It is important to note that the [adverse events] reported do not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused these [adverse events]"

This is not a valid scientific claim. It is logically consistent with the following statement: "I may pay you somewhere between 0 dollars and 288 dollars."

Luckily for us, several studies have been conducted on VAERS accuracy. Every study I've reviewed has found that total adverse events are under-reported, sometimes dramatically. Here is one such study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20312548?via%3Dihub

Furthermore, the following study found that vaccine adverse events are far more likely to be reported if they are serious: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X13004283

This stands in stark contrast to reporting of disease-related hospitalizations. Positive cases are typically counted as a hospitalization regardless of whether that case is necessarily a causative factor. Additionally, severe cases are often only a small fraction of those admitted. Here is a study to scientifically corroborate my preceding claims: https://publications.aap.org/hospitalpediatrics/article/11/8/e151/179740/For-COVID-or-With-COVID-Classification-of-SARS-CoV?autologincheck=redirected

As such, cite 21's broad condemnations apparently arise from multiple corruptions of nonspecific claims within the HSA paper. Finally, the footer of cite 21 says, quote: "The risks to children, both from Covid and from Covid vaccines, are very low. They are also hard to estimate precisely." I think advocating for weighing risk and benefit is exactly what should be done when the evidence is so admittedly thin.

In short, while Dr. Campbell is not making claims having p=0.05 accuracy, it appears the science stands firmly on his side. Cite 21 thus seems to be either a biased misinterpretation of a flawed scientific paper or an attempted character assassination.

Are we okay with propagating such false and damaging accusations? Cite 21 is not merely harming Dr. Campbell's reputation; it's also espousing anti-science sentiment. I believe honesty and propriety behoove us to check scientific sources more rigorously. 24.61.163.167 (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation and false claims
Who are these users and what Phd do they have to throw opinions about what is misinformation in Dr. Campbell channel? Gigi.chelu (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the references backing those assertions. If most reliable sources say that Campbell spreads misinformation, then Wikipedia will summarize what those sources say. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Turning yourself into a judge and drowning conclusions about ongoing scientific debates, based on other professionals, more or less, opinions, is not what Wikipedia should be about. A professional opinion that is not agreed by all professionals today, is not misinformation. Tomorrow it may be proven true. Misinformation is spread by nonprofessionals like you, whom opinions based on biased sources judge others and tell others what should be the source of the truth. Gigi.chelu (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:FLAT. Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the talk page archives about this. But wp:crystal comes into it, yes it might none day be proven true, but then it might also be proven false. So we go with what the current scholarly consensus is, according to people qualified in the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The accusation of misinformation is misguided.
The accusation of misinformation is misguided and should be removed or changed to: Dr John Campbell uncovers demonstrable acts of misinformation. 2A00:23A8:8F3:C401:6945:4DB:D6FC:3FD (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the references backing those assertions. If most reliable sources say that Campbell spreads misinformation, then Wikipedia will summarize what those sources say. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "If most reliable sources say that Campbell spreads misinformation"
 * So-called 'Factcheck.org' are not a "reliable source". They receive funding from the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation" (https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/). Robert Wood Johnson co-founded vaccine manufacturer Johnson & Johnson (https://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/our-founder.html), who are manufacturers of the SARS-CoV-2 shots of which John Campbell criticises.
 * What's particularly hypocritical about Wikipedia's criticism of John Campbell in declaring he "quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract", is they've quoted from a non-medical, non-expert media outlet that also isn't a peer-review journal, so by their own standards they themselves are spreading misinformation. The double-standards are overwhelmingly hypocritical.
 * In-fact, nothing the medically trained John Campbell has said is controversial, as Norway, Sweden and Finland have already suspended Moderna SARS-CoV-2 shots on the grounds they cause myocarditis and pericarditis ('heart problems'), something the peer-review medical journal the BMJ have covered:
 * https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477
 * Further, there is an absolute landslide of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 shots do in-fact cause "heart problems", as Wikipedia vaguely allures to. For example, myocarditis and pericarditis, which is well documented, something Wikipedia oddly avoids.
 * For convenience I will supply all the myocarditis related peer-reviewed studies because it is evident Wikipedia is not capable of doing basic research, and perhaps they can correct the record to show that what John Campbell is saying is not, actually, misinformation (the onus is on Wikipedia to do their own homework, not on John Campbell to spoonfed them evidence meeting arbitrarily imposed definitions they don't apply to themselves):


 * https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab989/6445179
 * https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeab230/6421640
 * https://academic.oup.com/ehjcr/article/5/8/ytab319/6339567
 * https://academic.oup.com/ehjqcco/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab090/6442104
 * https://academic.oup.com/jpids/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jpids/piab060/6329543
 * https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-021-02183-3
 * https://ecevr.org/DOIx.php?id=10.7774/cevr.2021.10.2.196
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781600
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781602
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052
 * https://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12968-021-00795-4
 * https://jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e169
 * https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13256-022-03438-z
 * https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/Abstract/2021/11000/Myocarditis_Following_mRNA_COVID_19_Vaccine.9.aspx
 * https://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/association-of-myocarditis-with-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-in-children/
 * https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/148/3/e2021052478
 * https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/5/e2021053427/181357/COVID-19-Vaccination-Associated-Myocarditis-in
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33994339/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34118375/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133885/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34166671/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34180390/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34229940/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236331/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246566/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246585/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246586/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34268277/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34277198/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34308326/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34312010/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34333695/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334935/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34340927/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34367386/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396358/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34399967/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402228/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402230/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416319/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34428917/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447639/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487236/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34514078/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34515024/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546329/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34586408/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601566/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34605853/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614328/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614329/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34664804/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696294/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34704459/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34709227/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712497/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712717/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734821/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34744118/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34746968/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34756746/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34778411/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840235/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34848416/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851078/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34856634/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34865500/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866122/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866957/
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35860438/
 * https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021211430
 * https://science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_98291.html
 * https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.013236
 * https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056038
 * https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.122.026873
 * https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine/article/abs/vaccineinduced-myocarditis-in-two-intern-doctors-in-the-same-night-shift/424B4F5A018AD882BFA4721392F609E3
 * https://www.clinicalimaging.org/article/S0899-7071(21)00265-5/fulltext
 * https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/clinical-guidance-for-youth-with-myocarditis-and-pericarditis
 * https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(21)01477-7/fulltext
 * https://www.jni-journal.com/article/S0165-5728(22)00078-9/fulltext
 * https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/internalmedicine/advpub/0/advpub_9800-22/_article
 * https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7503/13/3/61
 * https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/11/11/1106
 * https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v2
 * https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8587334/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8599115/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8639400/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34025885
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34092429
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34237049
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34270752
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34281357
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34341797
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34356586
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34375696
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34389692
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34393110
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34420869
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34463755
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34463770
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34535317
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34544112
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660088
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34668687
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34734240
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34907393
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34916217
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34931681
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34933012
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34934954
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34955479
 * https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2109975
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0248866321007098
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002253
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921001530 91.125.247.140

(talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which all say this Youtuber is spreading misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

PP
Are we going to have to ask for talk page protection to stop the raft of wp:spa edit requests that cannot be actioned? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is semi'd so the potential for damage is limited. This uptick is because some other misinformation channel on YT has issued a call to arms. It'll blow over soon I should think. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:canvas. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously his fan club has had their collective bonnets infested with bees today, probably a new Tweet or youtube video dropped. I doubt semi-protection would be granted for a talk page, so IMO everything from "Tone of article" should be manually archived this once (since replies have been given), and subsequent ones from either IPs, newly-registered accounts or suddenly-active once-dormant accounts should just be reverted. Zaathras (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems a very reasonable plan of attack.
 * -- Looks like a nail?
 * -- No. it's a Tack. haha. - Roxy the dog 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Encouraging viewers to do their own research
I believe this should be added to the intro. “To minimize his own biases, and fight the spread of misinformation, John Campbell displays the URL’s for the articles he sites, describes where they were published, and encourages viewers to “not take my word for it” but to read the article for themselves.”

John Campbell tries hard to remain unbiased, and site his sources. He usually states when something is his opinion when not citing a source. He also often states that this is how he interprets the data but that viewers should read the articles for themselves. I feel this Wiki page should reflect his efforts to remain unbiased and encourage further research by his viewers. 76.126.130.128 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything to say based on wikipedia policy and guidelines that will help us improve the page? Just writing what you believe, without some sort of evidence, will not help us. - Roxy the dog 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting, as the author of the John Larimer Campbell (youtuber) has written what s/he believes with no proof. Well, unless you count the opinion of a pharmaceutical company invester or a TV comedian. Emm3773 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% agree Emm3773 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023
Change “misinformation” to “stating facts backed up by sources that are peer reviewed” You have called Dr. John Campbell a miss information spreader which is actually misinformation. You are the misinformation spreader! Amazing that this is allowed by any means. All his videos are backed up by scientific journals that are peer reviewed. He is not giving an opinion but merely stating facts and you call that misinformation because you have an agenda to protect mRNA vaccines intellectual properties!

1 in 800 adverse events and the vaccine is still being promoted! Please let real scientist describe who or what Dr. Campbell is!

I would like to write a Wikipedia page to describe how you are the miss information spreader! 213.213.202.118 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENC. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022
The change I suggest is you get your facts right before maligning a person disgracefully like this, yes YOU Wikipedia 86.1.232.46 (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing done, -Roxy the dog 09:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why "Nothing Done"? Afraid the truth might come out? Wikipedia, who I used to give money to every year, $50, no less. I stopped when the bias and total BS started showing up. This article needs a complete and accurate rewrite. I am happy to do it, but not if it is going to be a waste of time. If you will seriously update the page with the accurate, sourced and cited info I provide back, I will rewrite it and submit in total for review. There was recently a video put out on this article and its horrific portrayal of this wonderful and knowledgeable man. So best we fix this now. Thanks, Tiffany Harrison 2600:1010:B173:995:16:8ABC:CD4F:5B82 (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed one of his videos
One January 5 Dr. Campbell uploaded a video claiming that the risk of a getting infected with Covid rises after every dose of Covid vaccine. Later he removed that video from YouTube, which he also confirmed on his Twitter account, but the same video is still online at Rumble. He did not give a reason for removing his video from YouTube, but it obviously violates Google's guidelines against vaccine misinformation. So he very likely got a warning from YouTube. If he thought that his video is false, he would also have deleted it from Rumble. In some of his latest videos he indicated that his channel might be banned soon. In the next video ("Swindon data") he apologized three times for the removal of the other video, but he still did not give a reason. Skyscraperfan (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the above, we go by what RS say, not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * His own Twitter account should be a reliable source. Of course he has no reliable sources that prove the claims of his video. So of course Wikipedia can't repeat those claims. The fact though that he removed a video that was shared a lot of times is significant. The article could mention that without quoting the claims. The fact that he apologized for deleting the video and at the same time uploaded it to another platform (that of course should not be mentioned by name) shows that for some reason that video can't be on YouTube, but at the same time he still stands by his claims. Wikipedia can't speculate what that reason is, but the deletion is worth mentioning. Skyscraperfan (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Bon courage (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As saiid this might well violate undue as if no one else cared about it why should we. Also if he did not give a reason what would we say "One January 5 Campbell uploaded a video claiming that the risk of getting infected with Covid rises after every dose of Covid vaccine. Later he removed that video from YouTube", what exactly does that add or tell us?. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article of Dr. Campbell is full of claims of Dr. Campbell about needle aspiration, vaccines, Ivermectin or the Covid death count. With the claims of his deleted video he may have hit a new low. I was another ridiculous claim against vaccines. Wikipedia might not be the place to speculate about what that tells us, but a reader could form his own opinion. That deleted video is still online and shared in the usual circles of Covid deniers and conspiracy theorists. The problem is that even on YouTube many other channels share his wrong facts. That's why people visiting his Wikipedia page should learn that the video was already deleted.
 * It might also we worth mentioning that after he uploaded another video about the "Swindon data" and admitted that his first video contained completely wrong data, but he still did not delete or even just edit the video with the wrong data, although he knows and admitted that the data was wrong. The original video with the wrong data still is viewed more often than the video with the correction. It seems he really only deleted a video after getting a warning by YouTube. Skyscraperfan (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We need RS to show that this is not wp:undue or wp:or. Our policies on wp:cite apply just as much to negative content about him about him. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. We are not RationalWiki. Bon courage (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023
Please can you edit this part: „Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation“

It is incorrect to state that the videos veered into misinformation. The line above clearly states the authors view that the videos created were based on misinformation - however all content shared by John Campbell is linked to his source of data 2003:CD:E73E:F285:B14F:9057:9548:1EC5 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See all the talk page comments above about this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually ... on review ... this suggested change, (remove the sentence), is a fine idea!!! What do others think? -Roxy the dog 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the "flip" from staid and low-audience, to grift and fandom (and £££), is quite an important part of the story as brought out in the Gorski source for example. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add FAQ?
I've noticed that there is a lot of responses along the lines of "We go off based on what WP:RS says" when replying to requests regarding the "tone" of the article. Might it be worth adding a FAQ to this talk page, similar to ? I think it might be worth it considering that the same thing is happening on the page this is from.

158.94.122.191 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * HAs some merit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore
Dr. Campbell has not made any reference himself to Jimmy Dore, nor referred to him directly in any way. So it does not make sense that the actions of Jimmy Dore be referenced in an article about Dr. Campbell, except by a limited single comment like "Comedian Jimmy Dore has cited Campbell on multiple occasions" when discussing the popularity of Dr. Campbell. The numerous irrelevant and unnecessary references to Dore implies a false sense of collaboration between the two, when there clearly is not. Qed (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The point, as the sources make plain, is the danger and damage of Campbell's spread of misinformation. Zaathras (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct title “Dr”
If John Campbell has a PhD as claimed in the article then he should be referred to at least Dr John Campbell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * IS that a rule, because I can think of plenty of people who have PHD's who are not named Dr. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't do that here: MOS:DOCTOR MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes if one get awarded a PHD they are entitled to call themselves Doctor. However, they then might become a professor thus use an even more prestigious title.

Who is we? How does your one opinion represent the whole of Wikipedia and fly against social convention. Even if you disagree with a person’s views, please be respectful of qualifications they have received at legitimate universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.0 (talk • contribs)

Mis information
There is deliberately biased mis information here about J. Campbell. Not correcting this will further degrade public confidence or trust in Wikipedia. Wiki should be about truth and not be used as a mouthpiece for vested interests. 2A01:CB19:8B3E:5A00:4DDC:3178:9A13:3B26 (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:VNT. Bon courage (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See talk page archive. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have watched Dr Campbell for 2 years and his presentations are very much evidence based quoted directly from renowned resources, particularly research papers including clinical studies and peered reviewed papers. He also looks at data from governments around the world. At the start of the pandemic he only had government advice to go on and completely towed the official line on covid and vaccines. Slowly, as research papers and official data came to light that implied prior information about covid and the vaccines may not be wholly correct, Dr Campbell followed the science as it was presented in dozens of papers.
 * Science is about keeping an open mind and reviewing new data as it becomes available. Maintaining the same opinion based only on what was known in 2020 and 2021 and ignoring all new data and research published in subsequent years is not how science is done. Dr Campbell had religiously followed the science over the last few years and reports on what qualified researchers (doctors, professors and other academics) have studied and published. He has been completely open about his sources and gives references to each and every one.
 * When I first read this Wikipedia article about Dr Campbell it instantly came across as a blatant attempt to discredit him using unkind and questionable language that's uncharacteristic of Wikipedia. The tone is heavily biased against him and does not give any alternative views. It is an unbalanced article that initially reads more like an opinion piece from a newspaper column. For the first time in 20 years it makes me question the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole given how protective it has become of defending the tone and wording of this article.
 * One must decide how reliable Wikipedia can be on subjects that are closely associated with their leading donors. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are one of their donors whose business is vaccinations. It would be interesting to research the full list if anyone has the time. I have defended Wikipedia in the past from accusations of bias and inaccuracies but this article and talk has shattered my long standing confidence. Gazzaf (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And qualified researchers have said he is wrong, and as such so do we. When (and if) he is proven right then RS will say "and his videos did not contain misinformation", do they? Plrease p[roivde the RS that back your claim that RS have supported Him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In every video he quotes a reliable source and links to it. That's the basis of each video. There are 100's of his videos we could examine but let's take a recent one titled "Reanalysis of mRNA trial data". Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYR1wz-Cf_M
 * Dr Campbell refers heavily to a paper published in the National Library of Medicine here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/
 * The paper is written by highly qualified people with PhDs in the relevant field.
 * He also refers to a more informal article here https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/why-we-question-the-safety-of-covid written by two of the authors of the paper.
 * Dr Campbell is not presenting any ideas or conclusions that he made up by himself, he's reporting on a paper written by highly qualified professionals in the field of medicine, biology and statistics. As I said, this is just one example.
 * How can someone be labelled as a spreader of misinformation if they are quoting research from highly qualified experts? If Dr Campbell was relying on unqualified commentators such as Russel Brand or Tucker Carlson as his source then that's a different matter (I'm not saying that these men are wrong, just that they have no medical qualifications), but given that Dr Campbell always cites work from qualified experts he cannot be labelled as a spreader of misinformation. If you believe it is misinformation then it must be made clear that it is not Dr Campbell's misinformation, and it would be more credible in the article if it explained why all of the doctors and professors cited by Dr Campbell are fundamentally wrong in their research. Gazzaf (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023
I suggest changing this: "repeating false claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing misleading commentary"

To: repeating claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing commentary"

Reason: an encyclopedia should never present information using bias, biases, or biased, slanderous language. It is insulting to a reader, researcher, and even worse, teaches young students that bias in journalism is acceptable. Just state the facts; to say someone is "misled" or "false" is always going to be read by a reader as the author's opinion, forces a reader to take sides with no justification, and those particular words are not fact until proven in a court of law. The public's opinion is not law, and if it is, then Wikipedia is a contributor to society's descent into anarchy. Call me an intellectual, but to publicly claim someone is false or a conspirator (as in other influencers' Wiki profiles) is highly lacking in integrity, and is the reason I will not financially support Wikipedia; if Wikipedia does the right thing someday, and eliminates all personal words of malice against all individuals, I'll be happy to contribute my time and financial resources. Dkuha (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge. What is there now is absolutely correct and well-sourced. Bon courage (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Monkeypox
John Campbell makes the assertion that monkeypox research was occurring at Wuhan in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E6cD-VWhQY. He bases that claim on a published article here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995820X22000414 which clearly demonstrates from the title that it is a monkeypox study (Efficient assembly of a large fragment of monkeypox virus genome as a qPCR template using dual-selection based transformation-associated recombination).

The refuting article claiming this to be misinformation (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/conspiracy-theories-about-monkeypox/) would have to demonstrate that either:

1. The study in question is bogus. 2. The research did not take place in Wuhan.

of which it does neither. This is the para dedicated to why the author thinks this is misinformation:

"I looked up the study, and—surprise!—it shows nothing like what Dore and Campbell claim that it shows. First of all, the scientists didn’t create a whole monkeypox genome, only a portion of it and then only to use to test a method known as “transformation-associated recombination”, which is used to assemble large pieces of DNA. Also, the monkeypox sequence used to assemble the partial genome is different from that of the monkeypox virus now circulating. The current outbreak is due to the West African clade virus while the viral sequence used in the research belongs to the Congo Basin clade."

As can be seen clearly, the author in fact affirms that monkeypox research did in fact take place, which is what Campbell claimed in the first place.

The article in no way rebuts the assertion that monkeypox research did take place at Wuhan. I petition for either:

1. This source to be replaced with something that actually fact checks Campbell. 2. The removal of the line "but later veered into misinformation" from the introduction.

A reply from the moderators to the effect of "it is a reliable source" would be egregiously irresponsible to the point where I would question your motives, since I have clearly shown above that it is in fact not a reliable source, at the very least not in this particular incident. Ritwikvd (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and WP:SBM is one such. Wikipedia does not follow the WP:OR of its editors. Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I have hereby disputed the status of SBM as a reliable source, and I will bring it up as an RFC in the reliable sources noticeboard, the line in question should be temporarily suspended pending the resolution of the RFC.
 * Surely, the RFC would constitute quite a bit of red tape and the removal of a source from the reliable sources will undoubtedly take time. There should be a temporary stay on the line in question, particularly if my initial reasoning is adjudged to be sound. Ritwikvd (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCBEFORE would need to happen. Bottom line: a drive-by editor with wonky reasoning isn't going to overturn an established, reputable source which has impeccable reasoning. In any case, the source we cite for the monkeypox content is this, not WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller Bon courage has called me a drive-by editor with wonky reasoning. I hope this falls under your remit of personal attacks. I'm intrigued whether a similar notice to one issued to me is going to be given to them.
 * @Bon courage I see you describe the source as having impeccable reasoning, yet do not engage to elaborate on how that is the case and how mine is in turn "wonky".
 * Furthermore, I fail to see why the SBM article is linked as the source reference if the faccheck.org article is the actual source. Why is that not directly linked?
 * And I've gone thru the factcheck.org article as well. It does not target Campbell at all. It targets Jimmy Dore and his extrapolated claims based on Campbell's video. Campbell's initial claim and subsequent exposition of the paper in question remain unchallenged in any way.
 * In fact, this article is even less of a refutation of Campbell than the SBM one.
 * I would really have to demand the immediate expungement of that line from Campbell's introduction if these are the sources considered. The implications of Campbell spreading misinformation are clearly misguided when in fact it's Dore who is the contested party in question and Campbell is only involved as the provider of the underlying video. Ritwikvd (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are a drive-by editor, and your reasoning is wonky. Saying this is not a WP:PA. I will add you don't seem to understand how citations work or what sources say, since the cited source has: Bon courage (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I must say, I am shocked.
 * So, you're telling me that the reason John Campbell is disparagingly labelled as a purveyor of misinformation in his introduction is for THREE WORDS spoken in a video regarding the research of a virus in the proximity of an outbreak which literally mirrors sars cov 2's research leading up to the covid pandemic? both at the same location?
 * And the article itself calls it "misleading" not even blatant misinformation?
 * If this is the quality of Wikipedia's sourcing, then I don't think there's anything else left to say. Good day. Ritwikvd (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good job that isn't what he's telling you then, I suppose. However your lack of understanding of what he's saying is risible. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 11:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no moderators on Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 09:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We go by what wp:rs say, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Poor quality of the article
Wikipedia's job is not to judge people but to deliver facts, I think we all agree on that. In this article many accusations include that he said something might or could be, but that's the average job of a scientists: to formulate a hypothesis. If that is sufficient base for an accusation of spreading false information, then every existing scientist would have to be subjected to the same treatment, and every existing scientist would have to be called a liar. Once again I think we can agree that that would be highly irrational. That a hypothesis might be misleading to an uninformed viewer is true, but then again if that was a criteria then every scientists would be doomed to stay silent. Because no matter what you say, at least someone will misunderstand it.

As Dr. Campbell usually cites official sources, I see no reason why his scientific research should be worth less than that of anyone else. Every expert in this pandemic has at some point spread false or misleading information, because simply no one knew the facts. Countries even spent billions on enforcing regulations to protect the people based on the recommendations from experts, just to later learn that they were barely effective, and mostly just caused collateral damage.

This makes this article look like it was written with the political agenda to degrade Dr. Campbell, and that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I therefore recommend to lift the protection and rework this article using neutral speech. TwoThe (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources. If you don't like what reliable sources say about John Campbell there isn't much to be done. Speculation with "might" and "could" when there is no evidence, while at the same time (per the article) spreading basic misinformation means that most sites see those "mights" and "coulds" as part of a pattern of behaviour rather than good faith speculation. Koncorde (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The fact that he has a Wikipedia page at all is a sign that he's being taken seriously (and his opinion is not seen as "worth less than that of anyone else"). The fact that many of the things he says are wrong – and not just speculative or premature or made with incomplete information, but just outright wrong interpretations of existing data – is cited to reliable sources. Maybe the wording in a few places could be changed, but there's no political agenda here – to remove the criticism would be to serve an agenda, as it would be an attempt to impose false balance. Just because he cites official sources doesn't mean he's presenting the cited material accurately, which he has repeatedly failed to do.


 * I'd like to say that I used to watch Campbell's educational videos before COVID-19, long before he had the attention he has now, and I found him very reasonable and knowledgeable – in his area of expertise, which is precisely that: nurse education. It shouldn't come as a surprise that he makes many errors when it comes to topics with which he has only limited familiarity, like epidemiology, infectious disease, microbiology, immunology, statistics, and so on. I wish he would have stuck to what he knows, even if it had been garnering him limited acclaim and attention, because I believe he's the one – not Wikipedia, not the media – who has degraded himself and his reputation, and that is a shame. WP Ludicer (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You say he is not judged, yet the page doesn't even contain the quotes of what he supposedly said, not even the links to those videos where he said it, so it cannot be verified by the reader. That is very much below Wikipedia standards, and it would have been very easy to include at least the links to the videos. So this is a very one-sided article, and imo has little to do with simply stating facts in a neutral way, as Wikipedia should do. TwoThe (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not have to, we say what RS say. It is down to them to analyze what he said (see wp:v and wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not judge him RS do, some of which are far more qualified to make judgments on these subjects than he is (as they are medical doctors). 10:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)