Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi

Lot of citations needed. Article needs rewording and changes.
Quite some of the statements in this Wikipedia article are worded in a way that is very biased towards an unpopular opinion that is partly plain wrong and partly fairly dubious, which is just strengthened by the fact that this article is worded like it's an article made by Bild, and on top of that locked for corrections.

He was not a source of misinformation, but rather an independent source of research just as other independent researchers and sources such as Dr. Botha.

Also his antisemitic statements were not antisemitic whatsoever and is just plain wrong. 46.128.215.37 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * an independent source of research What research is that? In which peer-reviewed scientific journal did he publish it? If he did not, it is not research but opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Research isn't research until a gatekeeper provides a stamp of approval. AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the nature of science. One person cannot do science; someone else has to check it. Your point was? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That one is far less likely to be published if holding a heterodox opinion. No one said anything about "one person."  Your point was? AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was to ask what your point was. Your point seems to be that Bhakdi's ideas are unlikely to be published in a scientific journal because they are "heterodox". (Actually, they are heterodox because he has no good justification for them, and they are unlikely to be published in a scientific journal because he has no good justification for them.)
 * This page is not a forum but only for improving the article, see WP:NOTFORUM. The only fact relevant here is that he has not published. Why he has not done that - your "gatekeeper"/"heterodox" speculation - does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical "(even though Germany typically has more deaths due to pollution than Italy)" definitely needs a citation. I have no argument as whether or not it is true, but, if true, it should be fairly easy for whoever wrote this to find a statistic from a reputable source that could be cited. AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Was found not guilty
He was found not guilty, maybe you can clean up the smearing… 2A02:A03F:6946:2A00:4D24:1431:38A3:EF98 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing was changed? Why? The term misinformation is not appropriate. 2603:7080:D53B:B3B8:2011:E519:63D2:6485 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you even on about? Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hatchet job description
The description is extremely biased misinformation that takes away credibility of the site. Real science welcomes debate and discussion. 96.48.125.176 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that confirm that the article contains misinformation, bring them, Until then, we prefer the reliable sources we already use to your unfounded opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased and most of the "fact check" citations are opinion or three years old. Much newer information regarding Dr Bhakdi's coment have come about. One is the "vaccines" are indeed killing people. The Us National Academy of Science has stated that any myocarditis after "vaccination" is caused by the "vaccine". That's essentially killing people. It is biased articles like this that caused me to stop being a donor for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are invalid. COVID causes severe myocarditis that actually kills people. The vaccine causes mild myocarditis that does not. You should inform yourself at more reliable places.
 * Even if your conclusions were valid, we would not be able to use them because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on the opinions of random people on the internet.
 * Also, Wikipedia does not take bribes in exchange for modifying articles in a direction the briber likes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Source please (and read wp:rs)? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)