Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

I'm suggesting a change to the description of ivernectin against COVID-19 as new research and papers have been released. One of which is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ 92.237.245.156 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: not new, likely a crap analysis/crap data as per the Expression of Concern from that journal's editor Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Mr. Andrew Bryant and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research"

An expression of concern is not the "debunking" of a study. Not only that, your conclusion of "crap analysis/crap data" is unsubstantiated, versus the opinion of a systematic review and meta-analysis from multiple PHDs. You would have to provide better sources/substantiation as to why that study is moot. 2001:818:E94C:D00:18FA:F52F:6A38:DF39 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We just say "no" and move on. The Wikipedia is not a platform for your antivaxxer agenda. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I could demonstrate the fallacy of this argument "well I am not saying you do eat dogs for breakfast, but it would be a question worth asking", is not a valid question and is ("pun" fully intended) dog-whistling. Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Woah, is there anyone else who could jump in and analyse this toxic and rude interaction? Or has WP become the StackOverflow of information?

Same for the buddy below, that "go take your business elsewhere" attitude kinda brings back memories of times that were not so good for freedom of information. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree the interaction is toxic and disappointing. It's clear to see why wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information. The page written about Dr John is biased and misleading and does not give a genuine summary of his efforts. Which seems to be the author(s) intention. 89.14.77.248 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref 19b potentially misleading due to timestamp

This regards ref 19, which at the time of writing is:

- Vadon R (October 4, 2023). "Vaccine claims, Alzheimer's treatment and Tim's Parkrun times". More or Less: Behind the Stats (Radio programme). 2 minutes in. BBC. Radio 4.

There is nothing wrong with the reference itself, but I found the "2 minutes in" to be potentially misleading. Since this reference, a radio programme, is used twice on the page to refer to two different parts of the programme.

Ref 19 is cited for the first time in the third paragraph under under "COVID-19 pandemic", providing a source for the paragraph's claims, which centre on comments from Richard Vadon, a guest in the programme. Vadon's comments arise at around 2 minutes into the programme, so the "2 minutes in" is helpful here.

The second time Ref 19 is used -- in the second paragraph under "Death count" -- it is to provide a source for the sentence, "Campbell took down his video after being contacted by the programme, telling them that he was not a statistician." The part of the programme discussing this happens at about 10:40-11:00. So, it's not accurate to use ref 19 here, since it implies that one should go "2 minutes in" to hear the source for the sentence.

However, I am not familiar enough with best practices here to know what's the right way to correct this. Is it just as simple as creating a new reference where it mentions "10:40 minutes in" and have it replace ref 19b? Also note that this same radio programme is used as reference 34, just without the timestamp. Would appreciate input, thank you. Sic veresco (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this article WP:MEDRS compliant?

After scanning through the references I'm seeing a lot of Politifact, AFP FactCheck, Atlantic, Guardian, BBC, and so on, but not a lot of WP:MEDRS sources, which is arguably required for over half of this article. Perhaps WP:PARITY is relevant here, but probably a lot of these references should be replaced with references to the medical research cited in each fact-check. The sources in the "Current Consensus" template at the top of this page are good examples. 0xchase (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think then issue is, that as nothing he says is, we do not really need any to refute it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes the sourcing is fine for what it is especially given the need for WP:PARITY, but there'd be no harm in 'pulling up' some of the underlying references assuming WP:SYNTH can be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)