Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Sterilizing immunity

The Great Barrington Declaration does not assume long-lasting sterilizing immunity, as is clear from actually reading the declaration. In addition, see their own website: [https://gbdeclaration.org/frequently-asked-questions/] "If the virus is like other corona viruses in its immune response, recovery from infection will provide lasting protection against reinfection, either complete immunity or protection that makes a severe reinfection less likely." Bueller 007 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that we could probably reword this slightly rather than deleting it. How about changing 'that any infection would confer long term sterilizing immunity' to

'that any infection would confer long term protection from reinfection' MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"or" Bueller 007 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

One includes the other. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This heading should change per WP:TALKHEADPOV. Llll5032 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly an...interesting way to frame OP removing a line that has been in the article for more than 8 months. Obviously I'm open to discussion about rewording it, but after reading through the GDB, I don't see anything that supports OP's claims about it, whereas the cited sources *do* support the line as is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we have to reflect the analysis of secondary sources rather than your personal opinions on what you think the GBD "really" said. If you have a secondary source contradicting the ones currently in the article, go ahead and present it - given their high profile and the highly controversial nature of the subject, if your gut feeling that they got it wrong was correct, there would certainly be secondary sources saying so - but without that it's inappropriate to prioritize your personal interpretations and opinions about a primary document over summaries of high-quality secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Describing the principles of the GBD as a "fringe notion" is inaccurate.

This statement ("It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection...") should be reworded to remove the word "fringe" since neither the concept of 'focused protection' nor the scientists involved are "fringe" in any manner. Alternatively, the term "fringe" could be linked to the source that claims it, such as "According to the Guardian" or "The Guardian regards it as a fringe notion" rather than how it stands now.

See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116 Riverbend21 (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We follow what the best available sources do, and they have rejected these ideas. They are indeed fringe. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: "Fringe" does not mean "only very few people accept it", it means "only very few competent people accept it".

The opinions of Republican politicians and others who do not care about people but only about markets do not count here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Hob Gadling's Republican politician comment. It is probably true that a Republican politician's opinion carries no weight here, and would be quickly deleted. It's nice that you think you 'care' but you are very biased and it would be my hope Wikipedia would disallow such obviously partisan bias.207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your indentation made it look as if the following contribution was a response to your contribution. I corrected that.

The point is that Republican politicians, just like other politicians, carpet sellers, stockbrokers, and butlers, are not qualified to give a citeworthy comment on scientific matters (unless they are also scientists with the right specialty). Unlike the others in that short list, Republican politicians tend to be ignorant loudmouths who do comment on them. That is why one has to reject what they say more often than what butlers say. That is not "bias", it is competence. But this page is for improving the article, so please refrain from such chatroom posts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The comment singling out Republican politicians was biased and I object to that bias, it is against the rules for contribution on this site. Moreover, judging a book by its cover, people by their skin colour, education, national origin, sex, and so forth is biased. I object to your support of bias. Please follow the rules for contribution. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

See The Republican War on Science. Even disregarding COVID, most of those scientifically illiterate clowns reject global warming, and a lot even reject evolution. As I said, taking that into account that is not bias but competence. Therefore we should reject sources that treat their opinions on science as if they were meaningful beyond determining their incompetence. The WSJ is also not a reliable source on science.

But this is an article Talk page, and you are still using it for something other than its purpose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What policy does it brek? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in isolation, Grey geese fly is not a fringe theory, elephants are grey is not a fringe theory, elephants fly because they are grey is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The word violates WP:NPOV without attribution at the very least, and on the same grounds is inappropriate for the lead section in any event. Mentioning about some sources claiming 'fringe' (namely Guardian), which "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics.", if you look at the RS list. This does not show consensus. It looks like Riverbend21 already demonstrated countervailing thought to boot. Furthermore, this view might once have been seen as "fringe", however many other sources, that just being one, have corrected for their account of the events since the start of the pandemic and subsequently have largely vindicated the GBD as no longer fringe. The article ought to be updated accordingly, or at the very least, this singular word of fringe must be removed from the lead section. In the interest of BRD, I'll see where the most appropriate location int he article might be if it were to be retained at all, with attribution, and periodic context to the earlier months of the pandemic when it was in fact part of the thinking by some reliable sources (that GBD was "fringe"). — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An editorial in a conservative newspaper doesn't establish that a fringe medical claim is 'vindicated'. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be the WP:PROFRINGE ploy du jour to try and water down knowledge by attributing it when it butts up against nonsense like this focused protection BS. If anything calling it mildly "fringe" is POV in the other direction. Something like "bullshit", "calculated falsehood", "nonsense" or "false promise" might be better, as at the Martin Kulldorff article. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Reason piece currently cited [1] doesn't characterize the GBD as fringe, and warrants better integration accordingly. A Politico article did not characterize the GBD as fringe[2], and the Telegraph as well[3] neither currently cited on the article, both reverted as fringe [4]. An RSOPINION sympathetic to the GBD is currently not cited on the article.[5] I agree that fringe should be attributed at least. POV on this article is not neutral. SmolBrane (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that, the attribution should move to lower in the body and be removed from the lead section per WP:LEAD.

Just went over to the Martin Kulldorff article, and I do not see the lead section use any of the terms Bon Courage refers to, rather it says, The declaration was widely rejected, and was criticized as being unethical and infeasible by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization. In other words, clear attribution is provided. Attribution I mentioned above that this article lacks, if the subsequently vindicated and reversed position were to be historically documented, it could possibly make sense lower in the body of the article as part of the history. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

For specific use of words. How do we attribute 15 sources? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A start could be to cite the reliable sources. Namely, those not listed as yellow or that don't have issues raised on this page. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Also relevance based on updated information is the most key element to this discussion. Much of what was believed in the early days of the pandemic has been revised according to more recent studies or as the data developed. This was widely acknowledged across many sources that stated one thing, and then updated their opinion to the fact that there were more pressing issues to solve for in the present time as risk factors changed and more was learned. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I second this. There are no reliable sources, except "The Guardian", which calls focused protection a "fringe notion". @Slatersteven@Moops

Riverbend21 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Spiked has run several sympathetic articles as well [6] [7] [8]. SmolBrane (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean the conservative outlet that was running pieces by fake journalists? - MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a relevant discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard? I couldn't find one. SmolBrane (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's one. Aside from one...questionable contribution, the consensus seems to be that Spiked is an opinion outlet, not reliable for anything but its own opinion. Which, y'know, definitely tracks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

3 editors don't like Spiked in that section, one does. Hardly consensus or large enough sample to wholesale deprecate. Spiked citations have increased to 300 since that discussion, two years ago. SmolBrane (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

And looking at the website itself, it doesn't appear to have gotten any better. If you're adding myself and MrOllie, it looks like it's now 5 against (I guess) 2. I don't think that's anywhere close the support you'd need to use Spiked as a reliable source on this article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Spiked!? Seriously? It's a fucking joke. Bon courage (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

not sure it's funny, but that's 6. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

From the Kulldorff lede:

In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to develop herd immunity through infection, while promoting the false promise that vulnerable people could be protected from the virus.

Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I think the duck test is a good guide and if they went out of their way to ignore scientific argument to work with a Koch think tank. What they said was very dangerous and they had too little time and seemingly no desire to check alternatives. In any case even without vaccines it was better to try and cut down on the speed of transmission to avoid hospitals being overwhelmed. And they'd enough people saying it was rubbish to try and discuss more before pandering to industrialists who could pay over the odds for their own treatment or isolate themselves. So fringe it is as far as I'm concerned. NadVolum (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

More to the point, it's a fair (if mild) summary of what the relevant sources say. Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am fairly new to all this, but I was under the impression that "Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view" (Wikipedia:Systemic bias). Allowing for the word "fringe," which has a negative connotation, will jeopardize Wikipedia's neutral point of view as it will show that there is a bias against the point of view that it is calling fringe. Please correct me if I am incorrect about this. Thank you all. Firefly115 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means following good sources. New editors often confuse it with WP:FALSEBALANCE like what you've just done. Bon courage (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The only purpose of using the word "fringe" is to stigmatize a difference of scientific opinion. That particular opinion was expressed by the authors of GBD and numerous signatories, who DO have the appropriate scientific background, experience and standing. By keeping the word "fringe", Wikipedia is employing the principles of Lysenkoism. And, by the way, the excess mortality data now tell that the focused protection strategy (simply speaking - protection of vulnerable groups) was correct - Sweden, having employed the focused protection strategy, has the lowest excess mortality. See https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sweden-covid-and-excess-deaths-a-look-at-the-data/. Pczyryca (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

who DO have the appropriate scientific background Oh right, Dr. Person Fakename's background is spotless.

Wikipedia is employing the principles of Lysenkoism Bullshit. Lysenko did not call his opponents "fringe", he had them jailed. He used his political connections instead of facts, because he had none. In this case, the GBD folks are the ones without facts but with loads of misinformation.

Sweden, having employed the focused protection strategy Your Spectator link looks at the total sum of excess deaths instead of differentiating between the time when they still followed the GBD and the time after that, after they noticed that the GBD strategy was killing off their people, and switched to a much better one. This article on Science-Based Medicine does it better. So, your source does not support your claim.

More important, your source does not mention the GBD. That means it is not a useable source for this article, and you are misusing this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Quick replies are broken above so I'll put this here, another opinion RS sympathetic to the GBD, and to Moops point w/r/t revised pandemic beliefs:

"Now, three years after the pandemic began, the human wreckage caused by unnecessary lockdowns is undeniable, vindicating the declaration. But, as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of its main authors, tells guest host Brian Lilley, authorities refuse to admit their mistakes."[9].

I would hope that the groupthink(The Telegraph) and authorities specified here wouldn't also include the content on this article. It's a risk we have to be continually aware of as per NPOV. SmolBrane (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A silly comment piece in lay press is not RS for anything in this space (other than its own silliness). See WP:POVSOURCING. We have excellent sources on this so why scrape-up dross? Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, it's not new or surprising that one of the co-authors of the GBD thinks the GBD was correct. Why would that be reliable or interesting in any way? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

We've got a new back-and-forth going on whether "fringe" should be included. I never weighed in here, but I'm a "definitely yes". Pinging Eric, who opposes on the grounds that the descriptor is editorializing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the "fringe" concept may have arisen in an email

"From: Francis Collins (NIH/OD) to Tony Fauci (NIH/NIAID) Thursday, Oct,8 2020 at 2:31 PM

Cc: Tabak, Lawrence (NIH/OD)

Subject: The Great Barrington Declaration

Hi Tony and Cliff,

See https://gbdeclaration.org/ This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention - and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises. I don't see anything like that on line yet - is it underway?

Francis"

Wikipedia took part in meetings with the government and other media collaborators, e.g., The New York Times

to suppress all sorts of true information, it would appear that happened here too.

Source: Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, House Judiciary Committee, March 10, 2023 See it at the 2:40:00 time mark on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etvy-38jq3s

FYI, Tony Fauci is not an epidemiologist, and the GBD actually expresses mainstream epidemiological opinion that can be summarized as follows: "quarantine doesn't work," in fact this is a core principle of epidemiology and the first one usually cited in texts on the subject. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia may have, I did not, so when I make as edit its not because of any meeting I had with any government agency, or instructions issued by any member of the Wikipedia board. And read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

the GBD actually expresses mainstream epidemiological opinion that can be summarized as follows: "quarantine doesn't work,"

Wow, I would absolutely not characterize that as the mainstream epidemiological opinion. Do you have a WP:MEDRS on that?

According to these multiple experts, the GBD is absolutely not expressing mainstream topic-relevant expert opinion:

• This declaration prioritises just one aspect of a sensible strategy – protecting the vulnerable – and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking....This declaration is therefore not a helpful contribution to the debate. - Rupert Beale, Group Leader, Cell Biology of Infection Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute

• The Barrington Declaration is based upon a false premise...It is a very bad idea....Independent SAGE are among the many scientists who have eloquently pointed out1 the many reasons why these initiatives are ultimately harmful and misleading as to the scientific evidence base....Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health. - Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton

• Scientifically, no evidence from our current understanding of this virus and how we respond to it in any way suggests that herd immunity would be achievable... - Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds

• There is no current evidence about COVID-19 to suggest that a long-term passive approach has any merit. - Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading

• It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does. - James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Director of the Rosalind Franklin Institute, and University of Oxford

• the proposed declaration is both unlikely to succeed and puts the long-term health of many at risk. - Jeremy Rossman, Honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology, University of Kent

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

American English over British English

In perhaps a more trivial discussion than that going on above, I noticed that there is a tag stating that this article is written in British English, as opposed to American English. Why? I believe the authors that penned the GBD and much of the original support came from scientists from within the United States, though with the support as broad as it later became, it surely reached an international audience later on. Regardless of what one thinks of the GBD, its support (or lack thereof) or anything else, I would like to propose that American English spelling be used for this article and the relevant minor spelling changes be made to suit. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 23:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy for the whole business to be associated with America rather than Britain 😁😂🤣 NadVolum (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't change per MOS:RETAIN. One of the authors is British, one Swedish. Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Published out of AIER, the libertarian-American think tank though. Largely publicized first in American, then only later caught on with the Guardian (British news sheet) or other foreign press. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

House of Representatives Covid hearing.

Do not edit the title again for the sedond time, the House of Representatives is not an "anti-vax source," misinformation, like much of what is in this article is fodder for anti-vax propaganda, and it is irresponsible to project that opinion, because it obfuscates the real problems such as the lack of death in children from SARS-CoV-2, the lack of any need to protect children from it, and the lack of any risk/benefit analysis in that age group. In that vein, to be clear, it is unlike all the other childhood vaccines which are needed and for which risk/benefit has been clearly established. That costly mistake is indeed dangerous to any vaccine drive.207.47.175.199 (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

the real problems such as the lack of death in children from SARS-CoV-2 -- the fact that not many children have died from covid is a "problem"?? Who knew... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

How can you misinterpret simple English? The fact that children are not at risk makes the benefit of vaccination empty, and in that regard it is so atypical for a childhood vaccine that the massive reports of side-effects from mRNA vaccines contributes to a public problem with all vaccines. It is problematic.207.47.175.199 (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Your "fact" is not a fact. See Science-Based Medicine: [10]. David Gorski is an actual expert, unlike the nincompoop politicians you get your disinformation from. And he can back up what he says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the David Gorski opinion is a minority one. The death rate according to the authors of the GBD is 1/1000 of the adult rate and not a single person at the hearing voice such an opinion. It was mentioned that some children did get sick, sometimes seriously, from the virus, but very few (if any) have died. The death statistics I could cite here from various gov't sources, but it doesn't matter because they wouldn't be fact checked by a disreputable firm paid for by vested interests. After all primary sources not allowed, only silly opinions from partisan sources.207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Unlike making outrageous claims on Wikipedia, lying during a US Congress hearing is punishable by imprisonment. The authors of the GBD presented the litany of misdeeds covering the content of this article before the House of Representatives Covid Committee with full and avid minority Democrat participation. You can hear and see the entirety of those presentations at this link https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/committee-hearing-examining-covid-policy-decisions/committee-hearing-examining-covid-policy-decisions/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=599847c2-132a-4d38-b81e-af6bd5811fe7 It would be silly to call this fake news, or complain about not having a journalistic interpretation to predigest what can be seen and heard in the first person. Moreover, as I have been repeating in endless deleted posts, this Wikipedia article has been harmful, authoritarian, and wrong on so many points that the entire thing should never have been written. As it stands now, it is a document that illustrates just how wrong Wikipedia articles can be when uninformed self-appointed editors try to assemble tainted third party propaganda instead of primary scientific review of specialist material such as epidemiology. Please learn from the mistakes made herein. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

When one goes to the circus one expects to see clowns. As ever, good sources (secondary, mainstream, reliable) are needed at base. Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, here is a better link https://oversight.house.gov/roundtable/preparing-for-the-future-by-learning-from-the-past-examining-covid-policy-decisions/ Which circus are you referring to, Wikipedia or the House of Representatives? I at least heard different opinions in the House hearing, I do not in this article. I also do not see much in the way of "good sources" here, but do see far-fetched ideation from politically biased unqualified people. For example, Tony Fauci, whose major research is on HIV, which as it attacks the immune system does not confer immunity, goes a long way to explain why he, the CDC and NIH made the mistake of autocratically declaring that SARS-CoV-2 does not confer natural immunity, which is only one of an entire suite of untruths that he created out of thin air. It's in the link above.207.47.175.199 (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Primary source. No good. Opinions are like WP:ARSEHOLES. Bon courage (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources are gossip, admissible here, but frankly I do not read journalists' opinions, just scientific papers that are peer reviewed, and formulate my opinions based on a great deal more insight than the Byzantine rules that are arbitrarily applied here to draw flaky opinions. Let's coin a new phrase, you are asking for "flake news."207.47.175.199 (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not everybody is qualified to understand and evaluate primary scientific sources. Books have been written about that, such as "How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine" by Trisha Greenhalgh and "Studies Show: A Popular Guide to Understanding Scientific Studies" by John Fennick. That is one of the reasons why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources written by scientists instead of primary ones. That has nothing to do with journalists' opinions. It is pointless to demand that we ignore Wikipedia rules on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

About that WP:ARSEHOLES "draw material from primary opinion sources without passing it through the fact-checking mechanism of reliable secondary sources." what a crock! When I read a primary source, as I am published scientific author with a citation G-factor of 40, professional scientific reviewer for 20 some odd scientific journals and senior professor in two faculties (Medicine and also Pharmacy) I only write reliable secondary opinions, some of which actually appear as opinions in peer-reviewed journals, not your journalist infested rags. I am super qualified to do so, and what you claim to be reliable fact checkers are typically just flaky opinions written by people who are superficial to the point of tears.207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Meaningless chest beating. If you are qualified, then publish such a secondary paper, then we can use that publication. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you would not. Some left-wing nut would fact check it, and say "he misspelled a word," where in fact I was using a British spelling. What I am trying for is to get you to realise (<--note the spelling) just how much damage this hit job of a propaganda mill piece has done.207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You are speculating that propagating your opinion via Wikipedia is easier than propagating it via a scientific journal. You are wrong. You can rant and bluster and bitch as much as you want, we will not violate our rules. Period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What rules are those? You cite the GBD authors directly, so do I. The only difference is that you are making up rules and applying them to me and not yourself.207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the GBD, so quoting the authors is more acceptable than quoting some other fringe weirdos unrelated to the GBD who just happen to agree with it, but it may still be WP:UNDUE. The rule is WP:PRIMARY, and I did not check every existent sentence in the whole of Wikipedia for compliance with it. So, applying them to me and not yourself is bullshit: I did not write that, and I am not responsible for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, no offense meant, but who the authors are here is secret, and I guessed wrong. Fringe weirdos indeed! Like everyone at the House hearing? I related relevant primary information from the authors, and that has to be done with "care." I did not break any rules, certainly not as much as the flights of fancy in this article, which contains such gems as a link to "climate deniers," to fewer fake names in the GBD than on this talk page, and other silly stunts while ignoring that Fauci has more conflicts of interest than General Motors. When are you going to have any rules at all other than the one that says "left wing opinions only need apply." Beyond the politics is humanity, and many have suffered from really bad policy with no scientific studies to back them up. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This rant is already far into WP:FORUM territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, chest beating yes, but meaningless no, you missed it. That is, that scientific review by content experts is the only means we have for peer review, without which we would not have any checks on content. Now your answer effectively means that everyone contributing here is not a content expert, because Wikipedia says so, and that is false, which was why I sketched an abbreviated bio, not because I am so wonderful, and I would be last person to think that as I spend a lot of time wondering why I am so incredibly dumb that I cannot solve problems that no one has ever looked at without banging my head to make it work. The problem here is not me, it is Wikipedia's lawlessness.207.47.175.199 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"lawlessness"? if you think people are breaking the rules take it to wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

scientific review by content experts is the only means we have for peer review That is not how Wikipedia works. If all one had to do to make others agree to their wishes was wave alleged credentials around, Wikipedia would teem with nonsense believed by impostors. That consequence should be pretty obvious.

But all this is beside the point. The discussion has been going like this:

• You want to add something.
• People tell you it is against the rules.
• You try to convince people that the rules are bad.

But this is not the place to change the rules. If you want to change Wikipedia:Original research, you go to Wikipedia talk:Original research. But the probability of success is pretty low, because the people who wrote the rules have vastly more experience than you and have put a lot more thought into them than the three seconds you did.

I suggest that if you want to contribute here, find a mentor first, show them this discussion, and let them point out the many rookie mistakes you made here. When you have learned to avoid those, come back here and you can give us a serious discussion instead of all that childish bologna. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"...Wikipedia would team with nonsense believed by impostors." In the Background and Content section, and you yourself have given a pass to the effect of lockdowns. The GBD says to limit the use of lockdowns to vulnerable subpopulations. Correct me if you think otherwise, but the main criticism of the GBD appears to be the role of lockdowns. There is evidence that not following the GBD advice has led to more deaths that SARS-CoV-2 itself. Consider, for example, the reporting done by "The Telegram," https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/29/disastrous-legacy-left-lockdown-non-covid-excess-deaths-overtake/ For example, "experts believe there is still too much attention being paid to the direct effects of Covid at the expense of the wider impacts." 207.47.175.199 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh riiiighhht -- we're going to go with The Telegraph for expertise on medical issues. Re Covid and lockdowns. No-one who isn't already in that bubble is going to take this seriously. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not acknowledge primary sources. The Telegram is a secondary one. The statistics are grim. The effects of lockdowns are negative and real. Devastating actually. For example, lots of excess dead on waiting lists in Canada, reduced life expectancy in the US in insurance company records, etc. Wikipedia only allows for partisan literature. I have also looked over primary data, and it is true that the cost of lockdowns was devastating. What sort of proof do you want to see if not those very few allowed by Wikipedia? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph is correct about the actual deaths, where it goes wrong is the reason. Both Labour and Conservative governments acknowledge that the NHS is expensive, in 2010 a plan was brought in by the Conservatives to 'Liberate the NHS', unfortunately instead of trying to go more with a European model with more direct contributons by wealthier people they are trying to turn it into the American model and force as many people as possible into private medicine. I guess the deaths would not have been so bad if Covid had not made a mess of everything but GPs have been leaving in droves to retire or private practice because of stress going over a tipping point - which of course stresses everyone left even more. The Telegraph is very partisan though I guess not a far as Fox News. NadVolum (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And by the way it is the Telegraph, not The Telegram. NadVolum (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yuh, OK, but the article is unusually factual with a lot less interpretation than what you are reading into it. The article does not appear to be charged, interpretive, partisan biased, or lacking in numerical evidence. This Wikipedia article, on the other hand, is partisan, uses charged language and is wildly speculative without numerical evidence. Lockdowns did not help doctors stay in government service. The cost of lockdowns did not figure into the policies espoused by those who did not support the principles of the GBD. That solitary confinement is harmless is not credible, so the question is not is it harmful, but rather how harmful was it? The numbers suggest rather much so. I await any numerical evidence to the contrary. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Children's Health Defense is an activist group mainly known for anti-vaccine propaganda and has been identified as one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines. Clowns, circus, indeed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So what? Someone sent the link to me. But it is problematic as the baud rate is limited, however, I also included another direct link to the House itself https://oversight.house.gov/roundtable/preparing-for-the-future-by-learning-from-the-past-examining-covid-policy-decisions/ which has about an hour of blank recording due to the late start of the meeting. Bit for bit they are the same recording and your objection to where I originally got the recording form is, I assure you, meaningless. Listen to the recording itself, please.207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What politicians say does not matter, even if it has not been filtered through a wackjob site. This is a scientific question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What those politicians had to say was interesting, a number of them were MD's with patient care experiance, but that is not the point, and again you are obfuscating---this is about the GBD whose authors gave testimony under pain of perjury. What they had to say relates directly to this article. If you are allowed to cite the GBD itself, then you are using a primary source. So, you can do that, but I cannot? 207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting for you, but not for Wikipedia. Reliable sources are not defined by having letters after the name, they are defined by a quality checking process. All the criteria you are using, starting from MD's with patient care experiance and ending with under pain of perjury, are ridiculously irrelevant. Why don't you start by familiarizing yourself with the Wikipedia rules, rookie? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Look with all do respect, we have had this conversation before. Fact checkers get it wrong more frequently than the primary sources do. One man's reliable is another's lies. I have given examples of this in the past. So who fact checks the fact checkers, and do your really believe what you are saying?207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Then take it to wp:rsn, and no we do not fact-check RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have bookmarked it. And yes, it is a very bad problem. Fact checkers are not qualified scientists and all they actually offer is opinion. That they are often employed on the left-side of the fence gives the impression that their opinions are flaky, worse, there is not a peer review process for fact checks. There is a peer review process for scientific writing in reputable journals, but opinion pieces is those same journals are not fact checked, and cannot be viewed as being reliable. Pardon me if I have some difficulties with the procedures here, they are a one-off and not generally accepted in scientific circles.207.47.175.199 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer review does not normally involve actual fact checking either, that's more where one suspects some fabrication. It is more a check that the person has kept up to standard in their procedures and writing up the results. The standard here is given by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for improving the encyclopaedia. NadVolum (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just in case anyone needs it: you do not need to keep responding on this matter, which is a non-starter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)