Talk:Robert W. Malone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

references

Footnote 9 ( Perlman, William (March 8, 2016). "Zika Countermeasure Options Explore) links to an article about malaria vaccine plans of Biontech and not to the Perlman. article--Claude J (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you have to update this reference (Contagion newsletter), Malone is not even mentioned on the linked page, maybe on the old version.--Claude J (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Claude J: Thanks for bringing this to attention. The reference to Perlman 2016 has been corrected to link to the intended article --Animalparty! (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Dr Malone invented a new way to delivery a vaccine which is known as mRNA. the is from Dr. Fauci, who as young Dr was defined by his superiors as a "imbecile"!l so the misinformation is from Dr Fauci. What other vaccine do you get WHERE you still get the disease! 2601:980:8000:7D1E:5CB2:CF5:193E:EC86 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And to answer your last question: flu, shingles, and pneumonia are some examples. Schazjmd (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Publications

Our List of Works MOS in combination with our verifiability policy suggests that a complete author bibliography can't be excluded (though need not necessarily be included) in articles. In the absence of anyone being willing to transcribe a full list (I, at least, am not), which publications should be included?
-Option A: Anything where authorship is reliably sourced (no changes to current list, in other words)
-Option B: Articles with a high impact factor only (i.e. omit articles with fewer than 50 citations)
-Option C: Articles in notable journals only (i.e. omit articles to journals with no WP entries)
-Option D: Something else entirely
Here are a few examples of how this is treated for other persons in this category: Brian R. Murphy, Dharam Ablashi, Fadila Bouamr, Roselyn J. Eisenberg. Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC); edited 17:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option C: Articles in notable journals only which will require deleting some content currently in the article. The current list is arbitrary and, in the absence of a full list, could contribute to puffery. Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• WP:VNOT. Omit anything that doesn't get coverage in high-quality sources, this conferring weight. A list of patent is particularly egregious, especially since apparently the article subject is deploying patents as evidence in some patent-trolling legal dispute about mRNA. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Omit anything that doesn't get coverage in high-quality sources, this conferring weight." This would be a more permissive standard than anything proposed other than Option A. Scholarly journals are the highest quality sources we have. Ergo, a peer-reviewed journal cited in just two indexed journals would crest this threshold. " list of patent is particularly egregious, especially since apparently the article subject is deploying patents as evidence in some patent-trolling legal dispute about mRNA." In general, we should not seek to make edits designed to either assist or derail the real-life adventures of our BLPs. Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• By "coverage", I mean discussion of the publication, be it in a review, news coverage, historical overview etc. Scholarly journals are not "the highest quality sources we have", a lot of them are low-quality and a lot of research is wrong - secondary sources in reputable high-quality journals are, on the other hand, good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• By "coverage", I mean discussion of the publication With the exception of drive-by citing, that's usually what occurs when an article cites extant research. Right now, everything listed here is cited (or "discussed") in at least a couple first or second quartile journals. If we apply your standard, this list will balloon quickly. Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• You are eliding "citing" with "discussion of the publication". They're not the same thing. Discussion of the publication would look like "In a landmark 1989 paper, Malone ...." or somesuch. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I assure you I am not. I've spot-checked most of these and don't find any examples of drive-by citing. While that's not unusual in social sciences and humanities articles, where these papers are cited, it's done discursively. By your highly permissive standard, this list will balloon quickly. I oppose an arbitrary expansion of this list. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know quite what "drive-by citing" means, but you are still eliding "discussing the publication" with "citing the research". To repeat: discussion of the publication would look like "In a landmark 1989 paper, Malone ...." or somesuch. Research citing research is just a commonplace. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• "To repeat: discussion of the publication would look like "In a landmark 1989 paper, Malone ...." or somesuch." To repeat: where these papers are cited, it's done discursively. Chetsford (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Alexbrn. Simply listing someone's publications without any kind of context isn't helpful. Especially if they're not a particularly prominent person. Papers that have gotten significant coverage in other sources are fine, (There's a difference between the trivial, common-place in-text citation "Malone et al. found that X" and the less frequent "The landmark paper by Malone et al. provides a common reference point for further investigations into this topic, and [...]") but there's no point listing someone's publications otherwise, in a field were publications in journals are a run-of-the-mill occurence. WP:NOTDATABASE. I've removed the patents, since that is entirely unprecedented, and doesn't feature (in list-like format) even on the pages of prominent inventors like Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• No objection to removing the patents, however, saying their inclusion is "unprecedented" is a false claim. We have hundreds of scientist BLPs where patent lists are included: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. etc. I do, though, object to removing the list of publications. This is a convention in scientist BLPs. To omit them here would violate WP:NPOV by selectively omitting verifiable information about a quack that we otherwise customarily include for non-quacks. It's not our job to protect the public from their own intellectual failings, or to signal the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any specific person by massaging our standards from article to article. Chetsford (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

THe WP:OSE argument is really unconvincing. Stop giving me more articles to go through and look if additional clean-up might be required... I generally object to list of publications, unless there's something to write a prose paragraph out of (Charles Darwin), or the individual elements are notable themselves (Karl Marx). That fact that many borderline notable modern scientists (WP:RECENTISM) have those on their otherwise short articles to lengthen it a bit doesn't mean that it's a good idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not really an OSE argument. You made the claim that inclusion was "entirely unprecedented" and I was merely providing a few of hundreds of examples that this was a demonstrably false claim; that, in fact, there was precedent. And claiming Ashish Kishore Lele, or any of the other examples given, are "borderline notable" is also a false statement. The existence of MOS:BIB presupposes that lists of works will be included in articles and, in fact, they are: Craig E. Manning, Azra Ghani, Cyril V. Pink, Frank Wokes, Raymond Butt, Bertrand P. Allinson, Colin Groves, Chris Whitty, J. L. Buttner, George H. Heilmeier, and 10,000 other examples I can provide. That's not OSE, that's citing a guideline and providing examples of that guideline's application in practice. Chetsford (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS

DFTT still applies RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: I am reverting the removal of the follow exchange, because it is a valid criticism which was removed under false pretenses of a "personal attack" when no one was targeted. I hope the partisan hacks who call themselves editors here stop for two seconds to consider that this article elevates "fact checks" by JOURNALISTS above the INFORMED SPECULATION of a literal leading expert. This page is pure propaganda hiding behind WP:RS, which seems to be the theme on wikipedia. Further, to label rational, scientifically motivated speculation (and calls for caution and further safety analysis) as misinformation is blatant character assasination. Malone never once asserted that any of his speculations were anything more than prudent questions regarding widespread application of a novel technology, based on his own original research. It's shameful to see how far wikipedia has fallen to blatant political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editonemore (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC) That's super. From what can be seen the "Fact Checks" are being done by journalists in coordination with scientists. For instance on Cytotoxicty alone the response is supported by Meedan Digital Health Lab, Pharmacologist Sabina Vohra-Miller, Anna Durbin, Professor of International Health at Johns Hopkins. Can you point at any reliable sources to add content, or challenge content. Koncorde (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC) It doesn't matter how many scientists the journalists cherry pick to construct their narrative. The fact is that the lack of published evidence regarding cytotoxicity of spike protein during a real time event is NOT enough evidence to rule out the possibility, and therefore opening the article with accusations of "spreading misinformation" is slanderous politicking. There is not enough information out right now to confirm or deny the speculation of cytotoxic spike proteins - especially when claims and evidence (like autopsies) from established, respected clinicians and researchers, are being ignored. I can't stop you people from using this page to continue your assault on dissent, but there is no rational justification for opening the article with "During the COVID-19 pandemic he was criticized for promoting misinformation". And it's sad to see how wikipedia's commenting guideline are so regularly and trivially used to censor dissent with removal of critical comments like mine. There is a severe problem with editor bullying and bias on wikipedia - and right on cue the usual dedicated soldiers from other related pages (e.g. HCQ and ivermectin) have arrived on this talk page to abuse the good faith image of wikipedia to push their political ideology under the guise of "neutrality". Editonemore (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC) If there isn't enough evidence, then why does he claim that "The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic. That is a fact. Who says so? Multiple peer reviewed references. The Salk Institute. It is the responsibility of the vaccine developers to demonstrate that their expressed version is not toxic. Show us." while quoting this article which states "Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself." I am not sure if you see the problem there at all, but to spell it out: Malone states the spike proteins are cytotoxic as evidenced by the paper quoted, and by extension says the vaccine producers need to prove that theirs are not, while quoting an article that states that the vaccine spikes are not. Everything else is just WP:SOAP. Koncorde (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Read wp:npa and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk)

New in-depth source

• Bartlett, Tom (August 12, 2021). "The Vaccine Scientist Spreading Vaccine Misinformation". The Atlantic.

This is probably the single most in-depth article about Malone to date, giving much more nuance and context than isolated fact-checks. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Animalparty. I quote from this article : "Stan Gromkowski, a cellular immunologist who did work on mRNA vaccines in the early 1990s and views Malone as an underappreciated pioneer, put it this way: “He’s fucking up his chances for a Nobel Prize." I assume he's not ironic.

In the current polarisation of ideas, the possibility that a Nobel Prize candidate sees his chances removed because he's expressing doubts about our government's decisions is pretty disquieting. --S.vecchiato (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

See wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Slatersteven, should I remove my comment ?--S.vecchiato (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We all do it, so its up to you if you remove it, just a reminder.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Who decided that dr. Robert Malone is spreading disinformation? If he is a professional in his field doesn't that mean that he speaks facts about information in his field. 74.51.50.34 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the article says, "During the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.". I looked and I see no references that support him giving misinformation in the article. Apologies if the support for this statement is there and I can't see it. Claiming that someone is spreading misinformation is a pretty heavy accusation ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:D44:4968:419F:390F:AA03:5C3E (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Those references are provided in the body of the article. If you can't scroll down, that is not really Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I see them now. I am an idiot. Would be better to put them at the top, right next to the claim though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:D44:4968:B8B9:BBFF:3FA8:B6DD (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Not according to wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines."

Accusations of misinformation should be detailed and scientificly funded, with references, which person / organisation has proven that misinformation has been spread. General accusations without proof should not find their way into Wikipedia.

Chris Hostettler 193.116.64.122 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: References are provided further down in the article. — LauritzT (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for adding an inline citation to lead

It seems that the have been multiple cases of people thinking that the claim about COVID-19 misinformation in the lead section is unreferenced. Perhaps it would be appropriate to add a single inline citation referencing the other inline citations? I know this is not usually done, but it seems like it would be beneficial. — LauritzT (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

We do not cite the lede, the sources are in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE states The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus, and specifically mentions that controversial subjects may require many citations. And, regardless of whether it would normally be appropriate to add citations in the lead, it seems that the is an actual need for it, so I believe it's a good idea to at least consider it per ignore all rules. — LauritzT (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

And we have one line, well-cited in the body. All we will be doing is duplicating cites.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Duplicating citations ... do you mean we would be writing the citation out twice? Ah no. In some cases it is fine for citations to be in the lead, it's generally not done, but just look at homeopathy. Citations 3 21 and 22 are supporting the words quackery and fraud. Contentious articles often have citations in the lead, it saves editors time from having to deal with people who do not go into the body of the article to see the cite. I agree with Lauritz, go ahead and put the citation in the lead as per much more vetted Wikipedia pages such as homeopathy, Mormonism, Scientology and Jesus Christ. Sgerbic (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

OK fine there you go.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

change "he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines" to "he has been criticized for promoting information about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines." Deenibeeni (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. Plenty of sources supporting current wording Cannolis (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (2)

Instead of misinformation you should change it to other points of view and stop your malicious censorship. Thanks! 2600:8804:881:BF00:996C:15D1:F05E:C102 (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. Thanks! Cannolis (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the COVID-19 section WP:DUE?

When I created this article I wanted to ensure there was adequate coverage of the criticism Malone has received for his claims. That said, a BLP is not intended to be a parade of horribles so a blow-by-blow was not included. Having 50% of the article on a 70 year old man covering a nine-month period of his life appears to be WP:UNDUE. I'd suggest trimming it a bit to hit the key points. Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand the argument, and I've tried to keep that section compact, without superfluous details. In a larger text, those seven sentences would not look out of place. But the article was created now because he just became notable, and that's because he recently became controversial - so it makes sense the controversies would take up some space. Robincantin (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

He meets our inherent notability standards for his H-Index by itself. And yet, currently one-third of this article is on a single paper in Frontiers sourced to two short articles. This can be culled to three sentences and still be holistic. Secondly, WP:NOCRIT suggests criticism be seamlessly integrated into a biography, and not have a standalone section. The mere fact the last section is titled "COVID-19" instead of "Criticism" doesn't change the fact it's a criticism section. Our NPOV obligations preclude us from crusading to call-out quacks. He's received sufficient criticism that it can be adequately explained for our readers without pounding them over the head to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to trimming the section, I'll see what I can do and others can chip in. I do think section headers help the reader, I'll be sorry to see it go - I can take it out and we'll bring it back later if more material comes up, wether its criticism or professional accomplishments.Robincantin (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

What about making it a second level header nested under Career instead of a first level header? Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I should have thought about that. Looks right, I think. What's your comfort level with the text now?Robincantin (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that looks great! My only contention is with the LinkedIn account. We don't have a source that says Malone's account was suspended or that it was suspended "for spreading misinformation". Our only RS says that Malone claimed it was suspended and he claimed it was suspended due to posts he made regarding the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, but there is not independent corroboration that it was suspended at all or the reason for its suspension. Right now the article is making an unsourced assumption that it was suspended and that it was suspended "for spreading misinformation". We should either revert to clarify that "Malone claimed ..." (so that it's not in WP's voice) and then state exactly what he claimed, or, we should remove it altogether. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, one other thing. The word "convinced" doesn't appear in any of the sources and suggests something nefarious or underhanded. To use "convinced" - unless the sources say it - is just one level above saying "Malone bamboozled Frontiers in Pharma into running a special issue". Perhaps we should stick to what the source says and say "successfully proposed"? Chetsford (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, done. Cheers!Robincantin (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like "although credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements" should be "although credit for the distinction is more often given[by whom?] to later advancements" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigra (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nature news feature on mRNA vaccines, Malone, etc.

See: Dolgin, Elie (16 September 2021). "The tangled history of mRNA vaccines". Nature. 597 (7876): 318–324. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02483-w. Like the Atlantic piece, this provides more in-depth context and a broader overview than isolated, reactionary fact-checks and daily news, if anyone would like to improve the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add category "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" to this article

As the title says, please add the [[Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists]] to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexvoda (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" specifically describes someone who promotes conspiracy theories. It's not a catchall term for anyone with fringe beliefs. Please read the categorization criteria at Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• He should obviously be in that category. Malone does nothing but promote COVID conspiracy theories. The Malone has also been criticized for falsely claiming that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021. has been enough on its own to add other people to that category. I can only describe as "conspiracy theory" his claims that various people are trying to keep him down because of his views on COVID. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

References

For the purposes of categorization, WP:CATDEF, WP:BLPCAT, WP:COPDEF and WP:OPINIONCAT mean not simply verifiable ("X has called him a conspiracy theorist"), but that the label is commonly and consistently applied to the subject. And even being known for making false claims does not necessarily mean conspiracy theorist, otherwise all politicians would be conspiracy theorists. And regarding other pages in the category: what the amateur scribes of Wikipedia (I'm one of them) do in other articles is not very relevant per WP:OTHERCONTENT: the default assumption should be that most articles have some problems, and controversial topics almost always do. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Footnote 23 containing misleading information

Ivermectin is not only used as a horse dewormer, it even has a relevant Wikipedia page. This is misleading. 2A02:908:15A6:EF80:2D16:F354:4E81:F358 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no footnote 23. Source 23 is only used to source the statement "using interviews on mass media to popularize self-medication with ivermectin".Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, its the title of the newspaper article, we cannot change it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Updating with recent high-level references would help with neutrality

In order that the article on Dr. Robert W. Malone achieve balance, timeliness and neutrality, it would greatly benefit from high-level current sourcing.

I have proposed edits to the accusation that Dr. Malone is spreading misinformation by documenting that the two-word phrase "full approval" has undergone a recent legal change in normal meaning with respect to the Comirnaty vaccine, such that a federal district court has intervened and the FDA itself has issued a recent set of clarifications that probably few have had the time over the holidays to read carefully. The meanings of words and phrases are everything when one is talking about a shield from litigation under the EUA affecting the public's right and need for recourse, which has been documented as being a good-faith concern of Dr. Malone's. To leave the single lone sentence stating without further discussion that Dr. Malone is spreading misinformation is to avoid the difficult work of clarification of words, which in this case has required legal intervention.

Granted it is a touchy subject in present time, but we are instructed by Wikipedia itself to be bold in our edits, and fair toward living persons about whom we write.

108.52.34.161 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't include the edits you're trying to make because they are not about Malone - if you want to make statements here, on Malone's article, about things that he said, the sources have to specifically address that. We can't use sources about definitions made in unrelated court cases, because it requires a logical leap to connect those cases to Malone's statements, and Wikipedia's policies forbid us to make that leap. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the court case and the FDA updates address words that Dr. Malone has been accused of misusing, it seems that the relevance would be plain, and further that our society is deeply divided right now over careless definitions of words. This will be sorted out in the courts eventually, perhaps as soon as January 7. 108.52.34.161 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure definitions are the issue with regards to Malones documented disinformation, not least while he is sharing definitions ma Bhakdi/Kirsch nonsense. Koncorde (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That was a repeated WP:LEGAL threat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We go woth what RS say, so find an RS that supports your edit (read wp:or and wp:synthesis).Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Malone claims"

The article currently says "Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA technology" but the sources only say he has been introduced in videos as "the inventor of mRNA technology" and seem to stop short of asserting he's self-credited, unless I'm missing something. (Now, of course, IRL we know Malone claims to the father of mRNA since he has that slapped across his Google Scholar profile, but I don't think we have RS that say so.) Should this be corrected so it's true to source? Simply saying "some have claimed" doesn't really legitimize the claim since, in the same sentence, we acknowledge there are superior claims to the Malone claim ("more often given to later advancements by ..."). Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

He goes quite a bit further in his own bio and we can use his personal claims about himself all day long (per WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS). He has been covered in some smaller sources where he has provided other definitions of his own achievements.

His own bio: "Dr. Malone is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and the inventor of mRNA vaccines"

His statement: "Malone reached out to Logically, stating that he did not invent the mRNA vaccines, but instead the "vaccine technology platform."

His twitter: "Inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA as a drug"

Several other sources continue with other assertions[8][9][10]

Total health: "The original inventor of the mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology"

Washington Examiner: "The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines"

European Medical Writers Association: "His research contributions include being the original inventor of mRNA and DNA vaccination technologies"

The only question is under WP:BLPSELFPUB would this all count as unduly self serving (per item 1) and a variety of other issues with regards to promotion of crank theories etc from a relatively niche scientist. Koncorde (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Source #1 (the official bio) seems good; thanks for finding it, Koncorde. If there are no objections, I'll add it. The last three sources, however, now raise the issue if this should be modified to "Malone and others claim" but, for now, I'm satisfied. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally think someone from one of the main science of medical admin boards on wikipedia should be oversighting this article because of how narrow the sourcing is for any claims (i.e. it is either him and supporters, or debunker rather than actual sources discussing his real achievements in context). Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I know, it's too complicated for me at the moment to weigh in. Though I'm following all the discussions. I think that we will have better sources soon one way or another. Sgerbic (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Malone's claims regarding invention of mRNA vaccine technology are not supported by any indepenedent, objective evidence. It's about time this was put to bed. Malone has no patents or publications that support his claim, and it would be best just to say that whatever claim he has made is not supported by any evidence. Vectronn

The problem being ANY claim or disproof of such claim should be based on reliable secondary sources, for which there is an absolute dearth. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that he is not, by any reasonable measure of the term, the inventor of mRNA technology. That said, however, there is no body that determines who is the inventor of X or Y. To say it is "not supported by any evidence" would require a RS that said this, not our independent evaluation. This is one of those situations where there is just enough ambiguity on a point that it can slip under the door; for instance, he is one of the credited authors on a paper that Nature called "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA" [11]. Does that make him the "inventor" of mRNA technology? Doubtfully. But, any more definitive statement by us will either require WP:OR or a solid RS that clearly states this. Those we have merely dance around the subject. I agree with Sgerbic that, if we wait long enough, sources will eventually emerge that make the definitive statement he is not the inventor, which we can then add. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If you agree, as I do, that he's not the inventor even if we acknolodge that the term is squishy for some multi-layered technologies like mNRA vaccines, surely we should protect the readers of Wikipedia who not have such a nuanced understanding, no? I would not want a less educated person to over weight his claims because of a mostly false belief that that person invented the very technology under question. zachaysan (parley) 07:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's complicated, and ambiguous, and the truth lies probably somewhere in a grey zone (or depends on how you look at it). It's clear that he was involved in some early (pioneering?) mRNA transfer technology (chiefly Malone et al. 1989 and Wolff et al 1990, as well as some earlier research in 1989) that led to modern RNA vaccines. I don't think he's ever claimed to have invented the COVID-19 vaccine, which the Visão "fact-check" conflates in its conclusion. Malone's CV lists several patents dating to the 1980s. As excerpted from Wikipedia's RNA vaccine: The first successful transfection of mRNA packaged within a liposomal nanoparticle into a cell was published in 1989. "Naked" (or unprotected) mRNA was injected a year later into the muscle of mice. These studies were the first evidence that in vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver the genetic information to produce proteins within living cell tissue

From a 2021 review: mRNA vaccine is a newly developed technology with a combination of molecular biology and immunology. The technology is closely related to gene therapy. The foreign mRNAs encoding antigens are introduced into somatic cells to synthesize antigens by the expression system [6]. The synthetic antigens can induce the immune response [7]. As early as the year 1990, scientists used mRNA expression vectors to inject mRNAs into mouse somatic cells in vivo to express luciferase, beta-galactosidase and chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (Wolff et al. 1990)

Jon A. Wolff himself wrote in 1999: After the demonstration that cationic lipids can mediate the efficient transfer of genes into cells in culture (Feigner et al. 1987), I initiated a collaboration with Phillip Feigner to evaluate the ability of cationic lipids to mediate direct gene transfer into animals. Phillip Williams, a technician in my laboratory (University of Wisconsin-Madison), injected intraparenchymally several tissues with in-vitro-transcribed mRNA (prepared by Robert Malone, who initially suggested its use) either complexed with cationic lipids or naked as a control (Wolff et al. 1990).

A decent encyclopedia article would note these contributions, and for the purpose of a WP:BLP it may not even yet be worth mentioning any self-claims or denials of inventions until the issue is more resolved, or until after the reactionary and myopic media gives way to more informed --Animalparty! (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I literally quoted his biography at the top where he does specifically claim to have invented mRNA vaccines - and was doing so until relatively recently more broadly in videos and interviews (and being promoted as such by those interviewing him). This is made super obvious when you see criticism of him has been specifically about his claims of invention.

He has since made his claims slightly more nuanced since then, describing himself as the inventor of the "vaccine technology platform" or similar uncorroborated claims. Koncorde (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Then we need to change the source to one where he does say it, and re-write it to reflect this "new" position.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Already has been done. Chetsford (I think) added his bio as source for the claim and I amended the language to match his actual claim a day or so ago. Koncorde (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved then.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between claims of inventing RNA vaccines or technology, which Malone still does, and claims of inventing something like the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, which to my knowledge Malone has not explicitly made. This is why the Visão fact-check is misleading, checking claims apparently never made ("Malone did not invent the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine") and using a narrower definition of: "The discovery of RNA transfer without it causing inflammatory reactions... in humans" to attribute achievements by Karikó, Weissman, and Rossi. The inventor of the iPhone doesn't affect the status of Alexander Graham Bell or the inventor of rechargeable batteries. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Except he is claiming to be the "father" of all mRNA vaccines. There's no nuance in his claim. It is also what his claims have been extrapolated to mean because that is how he has been repeatedly presented as a result of his claims. Koncorde (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A 2021 issue of the journal Nature Medicine [12] describes the 1990 paper on which Jon A. Wolff was corresponding author (and Malone was a listed author) as "the first step toward making a vaccine from mRNA". I guess I wouldn't object to including something along the line of what you're discussing but that's a huge leap to go from a co-author of a paper that was "the first step towards" and being "the inventor" (singular) of something. That said, I fear even this is getting close to WP:SYNTH because the Nature article doesn't mention Malone by name, even if he's heavily inferred. The passage from the book by Wolff would probably be more appropriate to include generally, though - there again - Wolff doesn't really credit Malone as the inventor of anything. But as a general point - separate from the question of invention - I don't object to including it; seems fine. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If the source does not say he claimed it neither can we, so rather we should say the person who made the video claims it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Update

Trying to avoid forum talk, but as the Logically.AI source is mentioned above would like to know it known Malone appears to be engaging in some kind of dispute with the source as a result of him being suspended from Linkedin (since reinstated). Unclear what is going on. Koncorde (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Spike Cytotoxicity Claims

Hey I'm not a frequent Wiki user so forgive me if I'm posting in the wrong place. I found it hard to believe that Dr Malone would make "unsupported claims" of spike cytotoxicity. I did see there were multiple media sources that "fact checked" against the claim, but no evidence of where the claim came from, if it is unsupported. I found Dr Malone's Twitter post that said "The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic. That is a fact. Who says so? Multiple peer reviewed references. The Salk Institute. It is the responsibility of the vaccine developers to demonstrate that their expressed version is not toxic. Show us."

That Tweet links to an article entitled, "SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2".

It seems like what he is saying is that the viral spike is cytotoxic, and that the presumption should be that the synthetic vaccine version would be too, until proven otherwise.

I don't think it's fair to say he has made "unsupported claims" about the spike protein in vaccines. I think it's fair to say he has claimed that viral spike proteins are cytotoxic, and questioned whether synthetic spike proteins would be also. Cdnshipsnote (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter if you believe it or not, or if you think it is fair. If reliable sources say it, that's what Wikipedia says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the point Cdnshipsnote is trying to make is that Malone's claim in question is supported. His claim is that "The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic."(backed by the above-referenced article.), not that the vaccine itself is cytotoxic. He then goes on to express his opinion that the developers should demonstrate that there is no toxicity. Therefore, he never claimed that the vaccine itself is toxic. Therefore, saying that he made unsupported claims that the vaccine is toxic is incorrect. --Vixerunt69 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Still, the study quoted is WP:PRIMARY, not WP:MEDRS, and useless as a Wikipedia source. Sources we can use say it is "unsupported", so, as I said, that's what Wikipedia says. See WP:NOTTRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. --Vixerunt69 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How does someone who makes later advancements to an invention get credit for the invention they advanced? Nobody would claim Elon Musk invented the automobile because he made advancements to Carl Benz’s original invention. Below is an article by the Atlantic. Below that are links to two articles that seem to at least back up Robert Malone’s claims that he invented mRNA vaccines. 1.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ 2.https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/16/6077.full.pdf 3.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1690918 WhowinsIwins (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In much the same way that Johann Philipp Reis invented part of a telephone, inventing a necessary component of a thing is not the same as inventing the whole thing. - MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above sources he is the inventor of mRNA transfection by liposomes. This is the mechanism the major vaccines use. He is the mechanism's inventor, but not the vaccine's. He pointed to research showing cytotoxic properties of the virus' S-protein. As the vaccines are based on the S-protein, it has to be sufficiently altered to avoid the original's cytotxicity. No peer-reviewed studies show that this has been accomplished. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Particularly source #30. It isn't a source. It's a biased opinion piece. 68.206.5.153 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it is still a source, but it may not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

So a random blog post claiming to have received an email from Twitter, but not actually providing evidence, is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? Darenwelsh (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable Counterpoints Not Represented

TRUE 'he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines' He is also advocating not to take the vaccine which indicates that he has a personal bias. But, he is also asking for statistical study to find fact. He is saying that he does not know, and we don't know the statistical reality.

"Is there information or patterns that can be found, such as the recent finding of the cardiomyopathy signals, or the latent virus reactivation signals? We should be enlisting the best biostatistics and machine learning experts to examine these data, and the results should- no must- be made available to the public promptly".

"my concern is that I know that there are risks. But we don't have access to the data and the data haven't been captured rigorously enough so that we can accurately assess those risks – And therefore … we don't really have the information that we need to make a reasonable decision."

What he is consistently saying is the stock argument for taking a vaccine! You would take a polio vaccine because the downside of getting polio vastly outweighs the risks of the polio vaccine itself. Some known amount of people that take the polio vaccine have serious side effects. The risk benefit of the Covid vaccine is not yet quantified.

"there is no substantive risk-benefit analysis being applied to the vaccines;" he later opines that younger people may be placed at unnecessary risk to obtain an unknown-unquantified benefit.

Personally, having two base shots I was reticent to get an additional booster because I did not know the risk reward. I got the third booster anyway. There are questions to efficacy regarding the latest variant; and there is lots of opinion but very little fact.

That is the nature of the unknown, that it is unknown and uncertain. This was the case with Covid as it is/was an unknown; logically you would gather more information and adjust. Factually, and unlike the Polio vaccine, the Covid vaccine has unknowns. He is very political and biased because he is basically saying that (due to conspiracy and lack of political acumen and grey matter) our nation will be incapable of adjusting.

MY point is that it would be reasonable to represent the reasonable counterpoints he makes in this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs)

We have to say what RS say, so unless you have some RS saying his views are reasonable we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

those are numerous sources which speak to the aforenoted main point including the articles most critical of him "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with ..the system for tracking adverse reactions. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/mrna-inventor-says-young-adults-shouldnt-have-to-get-covid-vaccine/ar-AALnhq5 This includes the Atlantic article which is a screed. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ There is no commitment to be fair and neutral on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Remove the comments about promoting covid misinformation. This is not factually true and is a political point not a scientific one. 2A00:23C6:4199:C100:68E5:737F:EBE0:8D49 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RS say it is true, we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources linked for Roberts education are not proper sources and do not prove his education.

Recently Robert appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience claiming to be a DR and virologist who created MRNA vaccines and generally as a person who is throughly educated around COVID and virology in general. He might be those things BUT there is no proof of this available as a source on this Wiki page which claims "Robert Malone graduated from the University of California, Davis, and received his MD from Northwestern University.[5] He also completed a fellowship at Harvard Medical School as a global clinical research scholar.[6]"

Sources 5 and 6 do not prove any part of this statement to be true. Source 5 goes to a dead link and source 6 goes to some unrelated article which does not prove his education. As per Wikipedias rules below this section of the article should be removed until proper proof of education can be found.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]

Realmouthfull (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Source 5 is now fixed (the URL was missing a www prefix). The website doesn't have static webpages that point to each doctor, but searching Malone and the License Number present in the webpage title readily returns the information in the citation. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, I also added dates and majors to the section, and the institutional information from citation 5 agrees with the information it presents.

Concerning the failed verification, the article quotes states in the third paragraph: Robert Malone "spent a year in postdoctoral studies at Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training program." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is not the same as a "post-doctoral fellowship", and it does not say he completed any "Clinical Scholars Research Training program.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching for "Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training" yielded the link below. If that is the program mentioned in the Tennessee Star source and bearing in mind the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration of the program and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed, then we can infer a few things with the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed.

Searching Google for "Harvard Medical School Global Clinical Scholars Research Training" (taken verbatim from the Tennessee Star article) yielded this link. If that is the program mentioned in the Tennessee Star source and bearing in mind the caveat that the link describes the most recent iteration of the program and not the 2014 iteration that Dr. Malone allegedly completed, then we can infer a few things:

1) The program lasts one year, and Dr. Malone spent a year in the program. Maybe he completed it, maybe he just left.

2) Under "Who Should Apply," it states that "candidates holding and MD, PhD, MBBS, DMD, DDS, PharmD, DNP, or an equivalent degree should apply." Given that in 2014, Robert Malone had completed his MD from Northwestern, this would constitute postdoctoral work.

3) I agree, this program is not accurately described by the word fellowship. Certificate seems more appropriate as it is used on its own webpage. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And source five only supports "NORTHWESTERN UNIV MED SCH Graduation Year: 1991" the rest do not seem to be listed (though some post graduate courses are, but no qualifications).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE lists five criteria that need to be met to use a self-published source. Let me propose this source for supporting the claim of Dr. Malone's BSc, MSc, and MD. Of most interest is the fourth point concerning "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We would need to confirm this is his CV, how?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• While a primary source, his 1991 MD award and previous education is printed in the 1991 Northwestern University commencement program. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

His CV is partially described in the first few paragraphs of a NATURE article that investigated who invented the idea of the mRNA vaccine...if we can't find a source that says he graduated from college, do we have to assume he is inflating his credentials/lying and delete it? Lmao, literally headlines a Nature article about who invented one of the most important medical developments of the century...and here is Wikipedia, ready to delete his claim that he graduated from college, because we can't find third party proof... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep State Patriot (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is evidence of higher education, the reader can conclude the existence of a college graduation just as well as you can, so it is not needed in the article. No big deal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, impostors exist. They succeed for a while because of people with your attitude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If he has an MD from a US medical school, he has a college degree from somewhere, likely in the US. Nature says he was a graduate researcher at the Salk Institute. Since someone pulled up proof of his medical graduation, the only thing that is missing is proof of his degrees from the two UC schools. I'm not sure if you're calling me stupid or what with the statement about my "attitude", but I was merely pointing out how absurd it would be to inflate such trivial components of one's background (relative to the mRNA contributions, which seem to be akin to Doudna and Charpentier's contributions to the Crispr idea, prior to Zhang's improvements). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep State Patriot (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

here is Wikipedia, ready to delete his claim that he graduated from college, because we can't find third party proof and it is the right thing to do, because... I already explained why: the reader can conclude. Omitting it is not "inflating" anything, it is just omitting it. As I said: No big deal. No reason to kneel on the stage, throw the head back, open your mouth in horror, tear at your hair, and emit a loud wail. There is no problem with demanding independent confirmation, but there is a problem with not demanding it: as I said, impostors exist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The guy seems to be more of a Bobby "The real deal but bad at PR" Fischer character than an Al "No, I really invented the internet, people" Gore one. I agree though--the reader can infer--but what if we said "according to Malone's public CV"? Are self published sources allowed at all on wikipedia? I just want to be sure this is being applied consistently... Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A CV (by it's ver nature) is promotional. So it can be used for information that is not unduly self-serving only. I would argue that means things like date of birth, not information that a person may exaggerate for the purposes of employment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Would a guy like Malone really want to lie about going to...UC Davis? (Great school, by the way...) If personal sources aren't expressly forbidden, then what's the big deal? Given the scrutiny this guy is getting, I'm sure any of these institutions would've already flagged any false claims, and they haven't... Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

This claim is unsupported by the document given. Every restriction described by Malone in the excerpt of the Bannon interview is congruent with what's described on the FDA press release 8 days prior (August 23rd 2021)... The vaccine was issued on an emergency use authorisation and was restricted for use on anyone under 16.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

"Malone has also been criticized for falsely claiming that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021.[33]"

The word "falsely" should be supported by citation. If the claim is simply "Malone was criticised for saying X", citation works... but as to the criticisms basis in fact... we would need an article with evidence to that effect. EmptyAtoms (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Or we could use this as well and change it to misleadingly [[13]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe expand it to also include the false claim it lacked liability protection [[14]]..

Yes I think it needs expanding.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification and accuracy (without belaboring a point into pedantry) is always better than broad brush claims or weasel words, but keep in mind that not all verifiable criticism, or failed fact-checks necessarily must be included, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOTSUFF. I'm not saying anything needs to be omitted currently, but fact-checks by their nature tend to be very fleeting and myopically focused on a single tweet or sentence (as opposed to more long-form articles covering a career) and over-reliance on fact-checks can in theory distort the perception. Politifact has 7 false claims (including 1 Pants on Fire) by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, yet we need not include all such verifiable misinformation in her article (this is only an analogy: I realize the two have different reasons for notability and levels of press coverage) --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As I recall, in his eyes, "full approval" meant having safety follow-up studies years later, the ability to market, and other safety/teratogenicity/toxicity/etc. which is impossible of course, unless the virus and vaccines were being studied in a lab years prior to the pandemic...LOL JK ANYWAY...if there's a way to incorporate his more nuanced explanation that would be great. In his eyes, "full approval" might mean something different than "full approval under emergency use authorization" or whatever. He worked for a contract research organization prior to the pandemic and is well qualified to comment about the drug approval process and that the process was altered/rushed. If we're citing a blanket/blunt fact check that doesn't expand on what he actually said, I don't think it is fair. I am not sure if he is correct, as I'm not a drug approval expert, but it seems one-sided to just cite how the fact check characterized his claims, because it was more than just "there was no full approval". Sadly most of his rebuttals and claims, which are extremely cogent, are said on podcasts with hosts who aren't known for great histories in the "fact" universe, and likely won't be able to be cited here, right? Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why SPS should not be used for controversial or self-serving statements. Did he say at the time "according to how I interpret the rules" or was this only after his statements were fact-checked? Or did he say it as a fact?Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I will do a deep dive in the alternative and normie media universe, time permitting, and get back to you. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I an unsure that ALtrelantive media (or whatever Normie means) will pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

We must all ensure that disinformation is not allowed to be expressed here (no matter the source, and even a hint of it must not be tolerated, this is too important) - Many acceptable RS cited contain opinion and narrative, not fact. Since this is a biography of a living person primary source rebuttal needs to be part of the article. The subjects call for statistical study would provide balance and rebuttal. Reticence to provide counterbalance to a one sided analysis is misinformation! I don't know! or We don't know? that is what you would expect to be the correct answer about a new bio-technology or a new virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk • contribs)

We don't do false balance here. - MrOllie (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone saying there is not a finding of statistical fact is not false balance, Its simply a call for more fact finding. aka Neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation

Dr Malone is a credible authority on mRNA therapy and should not be labeled as spreading misinformation. Everything he has published is backed by the facts that are now understood to be true Yogajohnny007 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yogajohnny007: You are unlikely to be acknowledged without providing reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I will submit the supporting documentation Yogajohnny007 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Note wp:v, it must say his information was correct, it must not ber your interpretation of it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So where do I find the source material that shows he was spreading misinformation? Yogajohnny007 (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The ones we use for the claim. Read the article before complaining about it. With that I am out of this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I asked a question, I didn’t complain. The article is wrong and the willful blindness to the dangers of mRNA gene therapy is troubling. Truth is all that matters…not Pharmaceutical propaganda Yogajohnny007 (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The article contains little numbers at the ends of statements. Click on the numbers and you will jump to the References section at the bottom. For example, the sentence Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines has the references 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the moment. No. 1 is "Bartlett, Tom (August 12, 2021)." --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Yogajohnny007 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the ‘Dr’ title missing?

Sound like Wikipedia is full of Misinformation around the scamdemic.

How much did Pfizer donate? 🤔 82.19.18.168 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

read both wp:npa and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And MOS:CREDENTIAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There ought to be a section on the censorship of Robert Malone

"Censorship" is only mentioned once in the article within reference to something said by a relatively unknown politician Troy Nehls. A large part of the reputation of Robert Malone is the widespread censorship of him on social media. There are sources in the article titled ""YouTube takes down anti-vax Joe Rogan interview with Dr Robert Malone" but it is never mentioned in the article that Youtube took down or censored his Joe Rogan interview, as one example. It is mentioned that he was "suspended" and even "permanently suspended" (which seems to be an oxymoron) from Twitter, but there is no mention of censorship. There ought to be at least a paragraph on the censorship of his opinions.

Additionally This article is laden with evaluative phrases such as "falsely claimed" "falsely linked" "misinformation" "disinformation" "misleading" "unfounded claim" "unsupported claims" in what appears to be an exercise in reputation destruction more than a biography, let alone a biography of a living person which is meant to be held to a higher standard on Wikipedia.202.159.165.166 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources that say he is subject to censorship, bring them. We do have reliable sources for "falsely claimed" and so on. Your opinion that the first should be in the article and the second should not, is irrelevant. Only WP:RS count. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)