Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 6

More dubious claims
One of his YouTube videos this week discussed a study of approx 50,000 people and noted a correlation between vaccine uptake and contracting covid. It contained numerous instances of poor reasoning, overblown claims, and even conspiratorial dogwhistling. It garnered significant criticism and has since disappeared. 2A00:23C8:1783:B501:C984:93DE:86F9:362D (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can only report what is published in reliable sources. A lot of Campbell's output gets no such coverage. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the above, we go by what RS say, not wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But they are not his claims. They are the claims of the study he was discussing, thus you are misinforming about him, in that you are applying claims made by the scientific published paper he is discussing not to the paper- but to him- which is deliberate misrepresentation. Your complaints are completely subjective anyhow. Define Completely overblown- what does that mean? Making wild claims that some papers claims are wild claims and then ascribing the claims to someone whom is not the author- is about as misinforming as it gets. If your gonna criticize someone’s claims- best to know what they are first. 2600:100A:B03C:C8D6:48C7:6E51:172E:CF91 (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the "but I was just retweeting!" defense, and it doesn't work here either. If Campbell promotes and supports someone else's bad science, then he becomes a purveyor of misinformation. Zaathras (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. The ideal Wikipedia article summarizes what makes a person notable on the basis of what other sources have to say about that person. The whole point of the Reliable Sources policy is to represent a consensus of the Wikipedia community about which "other sources" will be trusted. Wikipedia is not a news organization, nor a gossip forum. Dr. Campbell did some good things at the start of his YouTube career - hence reliable sources praised him. But somewhere he veered off the rails and started repeating what amounts to dangerous nonsense. The reliable sources are more focused on what he's doing now as opposed to what he did 3 years ago. As long as they keep discussing him, that makes him notable. But even if he says something worthwhile and sensible it's not going to be included in this article if reliable sources don't elevate what he says to the status of public interest. His notability is based on what ie being said about him - not on what he is saying.Michael Martinez (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to be gained by reasoning with partisans. I'm not Campbell's biggest fan by any means, but his Wikipedia page has been skewed in favour of narratives that are sometimes little better (or suspect). Unfortunately, those who insist that they depend only on 'reliable sources' seem to be every bit as uncritical as anybody else. It seems to me that it will be years before we get any sort of unbiased/balanced treatment from either side. 14.201.98.20 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:npa and wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At the heart of science is a scientific investigation, which follows the scientific method by planning for asking questions, testing possible answers, and drawing a conclusion based on the results. At no point in Dr. Campbell's videos does he ever make dubious claims and always presents the information as released with no altercations. His motto is "follow the evidence... wherever it leads," and that principle makes good science.
 * Dr. Campbell offers his commentary based on his expertise, which is considerable given his history in the medical field. He's very keen on reminding viewers to read the sources (all available in each video's description).
 * More recently, Dr. Campbell has engaged in self-censorship according to YouTube's rules regarding COVID-19 misinformation unless the content discussed is recognized as official and publicly available (generally from authority sources). Most of his videos look for discrepancies between authorities like Finland, Australia, the UK, and the United States.
 * As a long-time active contributor to Wikipedia, it saddens me to see how far this platform has descended into overt slander. -- Gorba (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * At no point in Dr. Campbell's videos does he ever make dubious claims, since we follow reliable sources in the Wikipedia, this statement is wholly fictitious. Zaathras (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide one example where Dr. Campbell made dubious claims that cannot be confused with drawing a conclusion based on the evidence and data he's reviewing. Thank you. -- Gorba (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We dont have to, we just have to poitn you to RS that do (please read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother! Dfwlms 22:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwlms (talk • contribs)

Vaccines
I see you added a paragraph about "nanomedicine specialist Susan Oliver published a Youtube video debunking false information Campbell has posted". Maybe would be fair to give the same credit about professor Robert Clancy, who agrees with John Campbell on many topics related to covid vaccines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYkN7Gdpl8w Gigi.chelu (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be Robert Clancy (doctor). Another junky Youtube channel. Bon courage (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be the "professor Robert Clancy". I do not know how you can not consider this as a reliable source, but Susan Oliver is? 89.238.227.100 (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oliver is not cited. The Atlantic is. Bon courage (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation."
This bit seems not to be in the style of an encyclopedia. "received praise" is too vague and passive (received praise from whom?) - and the two parts of the statement are not disjoint or opposing. The citation in[2] is itself an opinion piece and so it could be given as an example of one set of coverage of JC but not as a source showing that sentence to be "true". My suggestion would be to remove this part. And to report on the public or media opinion in favour and against JC at more of a distance. Helenzie (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The details of "who" said this are covered in the body; the lede is just a summary. Wikipedia doesn't do The Truth&trade; but reflects accepted, mainstream knowledge as found in good sources, and has a special requirement to be explicit about when such sources say something is cranky. So what we have is good. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * to say he has engaged in "misinformation" is an opinion. None of the material presented was developed by him. They are all published, reviewed papers generally from the government, manufacturers or agencies. All science is based on"Misinformation". Eventually someone comes along and had a better explanation or question. Too many of those involved jumped on the bandwagon of popular sentiment and that led to egregious mistakes. The vaccine did not stop transmission. Masks did not stop transmission. PPE was universally improperly used and ineffective. mRNA was not adequately tested and reviewed. The who, CDC and ama have repeatedly changed the narrative, offered faint apologies for their mistakes. You may say that some of his material was accused of being misinformation by those later proved wrong. But he never developed it. Get a PhD in nursing and how to read a scientific paper and you'll be better prepared to make a determination. 65.183.216.242 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't watched many of Dr. Campbell's videos but I watched a few. He's a very warm-hearted, personable man who legitimately wants to help people. Unfortunately, he wasn't as critical about vetting his sources of information as he should have been. I watched him read one paper from an "open source" journal of highly questionable reputation. He should have been aware that he was reading an unreliable paper to his viewers. In any event, Wikipedia's guidelines are clear about what can be included in the article. The information presented in Dr. Campbell's biography must be credited to reliable sources that are deemed so because they meet specific criteria. It's as simple as that. When those kinds of sources support Dr. Campbell's statements, the article will reflect those perspectives. There's no point in complaining about what the article says. Michael Martinez (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Government excess death figures reported by national health plans do not lie.  Suggestions that this is some form of dis-information smacks of financially motivated bias. 36.37.169.160 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They can be presented in dishonest ways to fool the unwary. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And 10 minutes listening to Dr Campbell can tell most people his intention is not to "fool the unwary". The man's as honest as they come & some of the attempts to discredit him here are disgusting. 2A00:23C8:7323:8001:F9F8:3414:3BCF:6EDE (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is saying his intentions aren't good. Plenty of well-intentioned people spread misinformation for various reasons. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And might I enquire as to your medical background MrOllie? I'll almost guarantee Dr Campbell is better qualified to judge these things than you. I sometimes wonder how widespread & well funded your disinformation campaigns are 🤨 2A00:23C8:7323:8001:D086:D64A:5A88:6C0A (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We go by what RS say. RS say it was misinformation, his motives are irrelevant. BY the way Mr Camble is not an MD. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the CDC an RS? Because they said if you take this vaccine you will not get infected. Many of your RS's have been proven wrong over the course of time. To continually parrot that line shows your limited understanding of what is a complex and constantly changing issue. Everyone's probably been wrong about facts or beliefs at some point in this last few years. Dr Campbell has a medical background, clearly understands these things well & most importantly DOESN'T JUST PARROT INDUSTRY FUNDED SCIENCE! I look forward to a speedy response from your group of big pharma employees. 2A00:23C8:7323:8001:1D4B:5345:4E32:619A (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What is his date of birth
How old is Campbell? 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CB6:80B1:67C1:76A8 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not know, do you have any sources that give it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a 2020 article in the Daily Mirror which says he was 62 then so he would be about 65 now, I think. The Mirror is not regarded as a reliable source on here, so a link to it would enable those with an agenda (of whatever flavor) to delete this whole section.2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CB6:80B1:67C1:76A8 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't extrapolate a DOB from a source saying how old he is. Was he exactly 62, 62 in 1 day, or were they rounding up? Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See . Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it actually important? - Roxy the dog 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well yes, I saw it, and I noted the big fuss being made; hence my “so he would be about 65 now”, above. Cheers! 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9CB6:80B1:67C1:76A8 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Bias
I am watching Jimmy Wales conversation with Lex Fridman. Facinating. Then I refer to the first paragraph of this wikipedia page and John Campbell's character is roundly assassinated in a few words. That's not right. I have followed him for several years and, while I may not agree with everything he says, I do not agree with wikipedia consigning him to the rubbish tip. You claim to use only good sources and yet these can be the very sources John Campbell is calling to account and in great explained detail. Remote criticsm and judgement seems to be the way of the internet, but it is not what I expect from Wikipedia. Disagree by all means, discuss by all means, but expound negative judgement without any due process? No. So what I see is groupthink bias in action. This is my first input ever. RRSDBSA (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The article follows how the subject is covered in reliable sources. That's all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. I disagree. RRSDBSA (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * here is one reason why, sources being Oxford University and similar. My opinion is the wiki article sources are selective and driven by vested interests, taking advantage of wikipedia's desire to be fair and so subverting this objective. So from the man himself I find youtube is blacklisted. As such I refer to his recording dated "8 months ago" (so that must be November 2022) "Ivermectin Clarification". Incidentally I have no view about that drug, except that debate should not be stifled by the status quo. RRSDBSA (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on following sources, that is its core policy. We're not going to change that or ignore it for this one article. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

PhD thesis
Neither the current link https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.845689 works, nor does manually searching for the paper in any online scientific publications give any results, only results of papers citing the paper.

Should a new link not be discovered, this should be updated to [citation needed] as if the paper doesn't exist anymore, it then doesn't exist. Lafi90 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have the Wayback Machine for a reason. Link works just fine here. Silver  seren C 22:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Link works fine. Thesis is inaccessible though. Lafi90 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also checked their new website at https://iro.bl.uk/, and the thesis is nowhere to be found. Lafi90 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And a further ask, shouldn't your link be the one published, as opposed to the one to a website that no longer exists? Lafi90 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * One doesn't need to have links to sources, all that is required for Wikipedia is that they should be WP:PUBLISHED. Anybody can go to Bolton University library (where the thesis will be deposited) if they want. It is unlikely to to available in digital form, only hard copy. We don't even need to cite the thesis, because it is not being used to support anything in the article. Bon courage (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would then contest, and nominate this link, https://prism.librarymanagementcloud.co.uk/bolton-ac/items/172598, to be the one used in relation to Campbell's thesis (Replacing the one referring to the old link at EthOS) as it appears to be the only way of obtaining a copy. Any other ways indicating such are for lack of a better word, bullshit, because even the portal through which Silverseren provided a link won't work because to read the thesis from there requires a user logs in through a server that no longer exists, so any such attempts are completely fruitless.
 * I would say and hold the fact Campbell's thesis be accessible at all is a major point. If it were to disappear from public access, one could reasonably attain it'd been retracted, or otherwise purged for reasons unknown. Lafi90 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When you do a PhD thesis, you deposit a bound hard copy with your university library. That is how it works. So far as I am aware this item in Bolton is the only copy of the thesis that exists. If you go there, the librarian will fetch it from storage and you are allowed to read in in the library for two hours at a time, as this library record indicates. Adding the link to the library record to this article does no harm, but is not necessary. Bon courage (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like i'm headbutting a wall here.
 * The problem is the link known as citation 8 in the article is dead. It's not coming back.
 * I posted a link to the thesis via somewhere that's actually up, via a library when one can allegedly read the thesis, albeit only in person, but it's better than linking people into a black hole. Lafi90 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To repeat: "Adding the link to the library record to this article does no harm, but is not necessary". So add it if you want. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I should've checked for I didn't think I had enough recent activity to edit the article of a living person on the English Wiki.
 * I apologize for my tone earlier. I can't tell (properly) if I came off as rude or mildly unhinged, but it feels that way.
 * Anyway. I'm adding it. Lafi90 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"The video was referenced by American comedian Jimmy Dore"
This article oddly references "American comedian" and podcaster 4 times as having referenced a Campbell video to make unfounded claims. Aren't these issues better suited to an article about Jimmy Dore? If, as this article claims, Dore is making false claims, why does it belong here? Flat Earthers have used Flight Aware images to bolster their claims but Wikipedia doesn't include that in the FlightAware article.

If the Campbell videos are misleading, then address them directly, not through a podcaster. The obsession with Jimmy Dore, whoever he(?) might be is bizarre. Jane Digby (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It is relevant to mention here, as reliable sources noted that Campbell was a source of covid misinformation that other well-known people spread further than Campbell would have been able to do on his own. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, relevant here. Could also be relevant to the Dore page? Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is this relevant, is mr Dore a qualified doctor? Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because Dore was the vector through which the misinformation reached a larger mass audience (or to give a narrower Wiki-answer, because RS focuses on this). Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unsure we need to single him out here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you propose how to unmention him without introducing other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon courage (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not have to unmention him, just mention him once, we do not need to give his views undue prominence. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a framing sentence to the 3rd paragraph of the Covid section. I've also added the following - "Others have expressed concern that Campbell's videos have been used by podcaster Jimmy Dore and others to support false claims against the Covid-19 vaccines." This captures the Jimmy Dore concerns while removing the repeated mentions of him. I don't see the need to exaggerate Dore's importance by giving him prominence in an article about someone who has probably never met him. Jane Digby (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Death Count
This assertion is poorly sourced: "A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been over-reported." One post by Poltifact is not definitive proof that this is a "misconception" - especially one published two years ago.

Alleged overcounting has been a source of debate and below are two mainstream US publications asserting that deaths were overcounted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/covid-pandemic-deaths-hospitalizations-overcounting/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/briefing/covid.html

I suggest that the opening line be deleted. The rest of the sub-section provides a counter to what Campbell said. Jane Digby (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Politifact/Poynter Institute is fine for this. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to appear contentious on this, but I fear we are ignoring a real debate - whether or not deaths were overcounted - in favor of a definitive assertion that, in the past 12 months has been openly debated on sites I believe most would consider mainstream. Jane Digby (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RE the NY times link, see this from Politico. For the Post, see the New Yorker, where Wen is called a "quintessential minimizer". You're always going to find a couple of people in the opinion section disagreeing with the mainstream, even in major newspapers. But that doesn't mean there is some kind of debate within the mainstream. MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Newer sources
More misinformation from Campbell. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does it only mention covid related, John was quite popular before covid.
Dr John was popular before covid and still posts on a lot of other health related topics that he feels important. This page reads like its a hate page and if you watch his videos he does not talk about things without links to reputable sources. If he makes a mistake he will also rectify it which i believe we need more of. I notice wiki is quickly losing what it was used for, as an information site. Now it seems to have its own belief. He used to advise on taking the vaccine, lockdown and mask wearing. It was only through medical research from highly regarded sources he changed. 212.86.59.222 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We do, its just that he became more notable afterward. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Its "own belief" is to reflect the scholarly consensus, not to repeat cherry-picked opinions. Topologyrob (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, scholarly or otherwise. What you support are cherry picked opinions. 178.78.100.94 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources state otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, please provide sources for his pre-covid notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024
Where is your proof of mis information. John always backs up everything with evidence. Please remove tge word misinformation. Billylove75 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have proof, RS do, as they claimed it, ask them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Shocking description of a man who has dedicated his life to people's health and continues to examine scientific fact. There is no misinformation on his YouTube only critical examination. 92.26.93.203 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * wp:rs say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have found Dr John Campbell and his eminent guests give totally reliable information and so do consultants from all over the world who contact him for advice. Wilki is obviously run by the left who want to keep feeding us toxic, unproven, unlicensed vaccines such as the Covid vaccine. Dr Campbell never usually sums up, he just gives us the facts so we can make our own minds up. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could I request an edit to this post. 2.96.250.228 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We follow what the cited sources have to say, not your personal impression of how reliable he is. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You can edit your own post. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)