Talk:Vernon Coleman

Books

 * The Medicine Men (1975)
 * Paper Doctors (1976)
 * Stress Control (1978)
 * Tunnel (1980)
 * The Good Medicine Guide (1982)
 * Bodypower (1983)
 * Thomas Winsden's Cricketing Almanac (1983)
 * Bodysense (1984)
 * Life Without Tranquillisers (1985)
 * Mindpower (1986)
 * Know Yourself (1988)
 * Alice's Diary (1989)
 * Village Cricket Tour (1990)
 * Eat Green Lose Weight (1990)
 * Why Animal Experiments Must Stop (1991)
 * Alice's Adventures(1992)
 * Bilbury Chronicles (1992)
 * Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War (1993)
 * Betrayal of Trust (1994)
 * Food for Thought (1994, 2000)
 * The Man Who Inherited a Golf Course (1995)
 * How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You (1996, new edn 2003)
 * Paris in My Springtime (2002)
 * How To Conquer Health Problems Between Ages 50 and 120 (2003, with Donna Antoinette Coleman)
 * Rogue Nation (2003)
 * Confronting The Global Bully (2004)
 * Health Secrets Doctors Share With Their Families (2005, with Donna Antoinette Coleman)
 * Too Many Clubs and Not Enough Balls (2005)
 * Animal Experiments Simple Truths (2006)
 * How to Protect and Preserve Your Freedom, Identity and Privacy (2006)
 * Gordon is a Moron: the Definitive and Objective Analysis of Gordon Brown's Decade as Chancellor of the Exchequer (2007)
 * Coleman's Laws (2007)
 * Oil Apocalypse (2007)
 * Mr Henry Mulligan (2007)
 * The OFPIS File (2008)
 * Cat Tales (2008)
 * What Happens Next? (2009)
 * Moneypower (2009)
 * Bloodless Revolution (2009)
 * 101 Things I Have Learned (2010)
 * 100 Greatest Englishmen and Englishwomen (#2010)
 * 2020 (2010)
 * Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying. Here's The Proof. (2011)
 * Diary of a Disgruntled Man (2011)
 * Do Doctors And Nurses Kill More People Than Cancer? (2011)
 * Stuffed (2012)
 * The Truth Kills (2014)
 * Is this what really happened (2014)
 * Just another bloody year (2014)
 * Bugger off and leave me alone (2015)
 * Doctor in Paris (2015)
 * Balancing the Books (2015)
 * Stories with a Twist (2015)
 * One thing after Another (2015)
 * Psychiatry (2015)
 * Are You Living with a Psychopath?: The 39 simple ways you can diagnose a psychopath (2015)
 * Cheese rolling (2015)
 * Bilbury Tonic (2016)
 * Return of the Disgruntled man (2016)
 * Millions of Alzheimer Patients (2016)
 * Bilbury Relish (2016)
 * Life on the Edge (2017)
 * Bilbury Mixture (2017)
 * Bilbury Delights (2017)
 * Bilbury Joys (2017)
 * Climbing Trees at 112 (2017)
 * Is Your Health Written in the Stars? (2017)
 * Kick-Ass A-Z for Over 60s (2017)
 * The Game's Afoot (2018)
 * Mrs Caldicot's Oyster Parade (2018)
 * Briefs Encounter (2018)
 * Bilbury Tales (2018)
 * Bilbury Days (2018)
 * Mrs Caldicot's Turkish Delight (2018)
 * Bilbury Memories (2018)
 * Tickety Tonk (2019)
 * The Benzos Story (2019)
 * The Shocking History of the EU (2019)
 * Dementia Myth (2019)
 * Dr Bullock's Annals (2020)
 * Coming Apocalypse (2020) validation = https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apocalypse-Vernon-Coleman/dp/B087SCH8Q6/
 * Endgame: The Hidden Agenda 21 (2021) validation = https://www.amazon.com/Endgame-Hidden-Agenda-Vernon-Coleman/dp/B08Z5LSKVH/
 * Covid-19: the Greatest Hoax in History (2022) validation = https://www.amazon.com/Covid-19-Greatest-History-Vernon-Coleman/dp/8793987404
 * Covid-19: Exposing the Lies (2022) validation = https://www.amazon.com/Covid-19-Exposing-Lies-Vernon-Coleman/dp/879398717X

Dorothea99 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Items up to and including Dr Bullock's Annals were copied and pasted from a previous wikipeda page that was deleted against community standards of transparency and factual accurancy. If any individual book titles are in dispute as to have been written by author Vernon Coleman, they must be highlighted individually not delete the whole section. That is valndalism and against Wikipedia's core values. Vernon is clearly an author, to not have a section on books he has written clouds Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy and Truth when ommission of very obvious facts constitutes lies. I have added 4 titles and their validation URLs to prove he did in fact write these so following Wikipedia's strict protocol of adherance to truth there is no justification for not including them on the grounds that they are not sourced. URLs to Amazon can be removed once the page is restored. I recommend editors to read these last 4 books for accuracy. There are a lot more juicy facts that could enrich the readership of this page as a whole.Dorothea99 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a strict protocol of adherance to truth, it has a strict protocol of adherance to verifiability. See WP:V. One reason for that is that there are different opinions on what constitutes truth. For example, reliable sources may think something is completely bonkers, and eccentric people like Coleman think it is "truth".
 * Also, according to Wikipedia rules, it is important to restrict articles to the relevant stuff. So this guy writes a lot of crap, and we do not need to list every single turd. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You think Wikipedia should only list things you particularly like? Is that healthy and balanced? that's a shed load of personal bias and judgemental opinion you dumped there Hob. "the relevant stuff" you write meaning things you personally agree with and by implication the "irrelevant stuff" being things you don't like or have not researched enough or even read? How many of Vernon's books have you actually read? I guess if you were a WP editor you'd have all the tracks by singers you don't like deleted and just list the songs you like or even delete the artists you don't like from the internet or remove anyone who is eccentric. Define eccentric. List the bonkers VC has written and we'll see how much research you can back it up with. Please stick to empirical data. abusive opinions and trolling don't cut it in 2023. In case you didn't know, Vernon Coleman has sold millions of books Worldwide over half a century. Respectfully Doro. Dorothea99 (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not read beyond the first sentence because that one is already dishonest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you will have no difficulty in supplying reliable sources, such as reviews in academic journals or major newspapers, for the books. The bonkers Coleman has written has already been described, with reliable sources, in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * today's nut is tomorrow's oak who stood it's ground. Dorothea99 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a variantion of the Galileo gambit. It is not valid reasoning. Most of today's nuts are tomorrow's nuts too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for inclusion in "Anti-vaccination and conspiracy theories" section
Include Vernon claimed that face masks are ineffective: * source A) Studies on the effectiveness of face masks So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.    1.    A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the US CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control. * Source https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article    2.    A WHO review of ten randomized controlled trials of face masks against influenza-like illness, published in September 2019, found no statistically significant benefit. * Source https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/non-pharmaceutical-public-health-measuresfor-mitigating-the-risk-and-impact-of-epidemic-and-pandemic-influenza    3.    A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting. * Source https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 4.   A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.” * Source https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240287 5.   A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence in favor of face masks and recommended their use only based on the ‘precautionary principle’. * Source https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf 6.   A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. * Source https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ 7.   A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. * Source https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses 8.   An August 2021 study published in the Int. Research Journal of Public Health found “no association between mask mandates or use and reduced COVID-19 spread in US states.” * Source https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/ 9.   An experimental study using virus aerosols, published in May 2022 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, found that only professionally fit-tested N95/FFP2 masks, but not surgical masks or non-fitted N95/FFP2 masks, reduced viral loads in nostrils. * Source https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/226/2/199/6582941 10.   A large Spanish school study, published in March 2022, found that “mask mandates in schools were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission.” * Source https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2022/08/23/archdischild-2022-324172 11.   A May 2020 article by researchers from Harvard Medical School, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that face masks offer “little, if any, protection”. * Source https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 12.   A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. * Source https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577 Dorothea99 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading through these sources makes it clear that the attached comments are clearly being taken out of context. A number of the studies find the obvious: nonpharmaceutical cloth (homemade) masks are not as effective as medical / (surgical) masks. They don't suggest that 'masks don't work'. Similarly, a number of the studies state that small sample groups resulted in inconclusive results due to missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests with little to no blinding, making the data unreliable, meaning a solid conclusion could not be drawn upon - counter to the comments made above. It's also hardly surprising that many studies suggested the general public struggled with mask fitting, giving millions couldn't even figure out how to wear them over their noses and instead used said masks as a chin warmer, and that repeated use of a single use item wasn't conducive to protection. The studies above make it clear - masks are like condoms - you shouldn't reuse them, and even if used properly there's still a chance of catching or producing something you weren't hoping for. MrEarlGray (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

AIDS denialism
Remove the aids denialism bit because you cannot give a date or year that Vernon Coleman wrote the article in the sun claiming aids is a hoax 2A00:23C7:E901:C001:ED9C:255F:EF3E:1188 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)