Jump to content

Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 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
  • 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)

NPOV - "dubious conclusions"

This seemed like a clear cut edit in favor of NPOV, but I was invited to discuss it here. To my eye, "controversial studies with dubious conclusions" is clearly a POV statement -- especially the assessment of dubiousness in Wiki voice. If people identify something as dubious, we should identify who they are saying so, not adopt that point of view ourselves. "Controversial studies" I can live with if it is supported in the text, as the statement in Wiki voice that it caused controversy does not support one side or the other. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The example given is climate change denial, are you saying that is not dubious? Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
It does not matter what I personally think. This is a question about what should be presented in Wiki voice. If you can find a source (of encylopedic note, etc.) saying "Whatsis Org publishes dubious climate change denial papers", fine, put that in. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
What's the problem with the existing two sources? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Probably that they do not use the exact word "dubious". As if paraphrasing were not allowed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
No, that is not the problem. The problem is that the position is adopted as if it was universal, and it is not; it should be attributed no matter what words you use to label the critique. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem: your opinion that it is not. Within science, it is. And science is what counts. Wikipedia will not pretend that your position, the denialist one, is the correct one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hob, I think you've misread the situation here. Wikipedia should not describe anything as "controversial studies with dubious conclusions". That's a judgemental, opinion-laden statement. Even if it was a flat Earth organization, we still wouldn't use that wording. In cases like this, we need sources that explicitly say that this specific organization publishes false statements, and then we need to explicitly say that it explicitly publishes false statements. We can't go:
  1. The source says that they're skeptical of climate change's severity
  2. In our opinion, climate skepticism is just another word for pseudo-scientific climate change denial
  3. We'll decide ourselves that they're climate change deniers
  4. Rather than say that explicitly, we'll use a more subjective phrase like "controversial studies with dubious conclusions" to really drive the point home
It doesn't work that way. When a source says something, we have to say the same thing in our own words without introducing our own ideas or interpretations. And when the source makes an interpretation, then even that interpretation needs to be attributed. Sources have been found below that more directly address the falsehood of AIER's positions, so now it's just a matter of writing it in neutral wording that doesn't suggest we're judging them for it. In failing to do this, you've just accused another member of the community of being a climate change denier. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
My main issue was with Bri's reasoning. is clearly a POV statement is wrong. AIER's reasoning is factually dubious.
The sourcing is a different issue. Yes, we should have sources about the GBD that explicitly call AIER denialist. Surprise: we already do. [11] The AIER itself is no stranger to such denialism. The logic you describe above is not the logic of Wikipedia editors, it comes from reliable sources.
Why did you not check the sources before accusing me of not having them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I did, in some detail. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
So you missed the sentence The AIER itself is no stranger to such denialism, which makes your reasoning obsolete?
"Climate change skepticism" and "climate realism" are euphemisms for climate change denialism, but we do not even need to replace any of them since we have a source that uses the honest term itself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Byline Times is an incredibly poor source for such a contentious claim. And how you interpret these terms doesn't matter; we cannot say in wikivoice that skepticism about the effects of climate change is the same thing as total denial of climate change. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
incredibly poor source Now that is better reasoning than the strawman above We'll decide ourselves that they're climate change deniers.
According to [12], Naomi Oreskes writes in AIER "promotes anti-scientific discussion of climate change, much of which promotes the familiar canard that climate change will be minor and manageable." I do not have that book, but Oreskes is a very good source.
DeSmog writes: An open letter that emerged earlier this month opposing COVID-19 shutdowns and calling for a “herd immunity” approach to addressing the coronavirus — which already has claimed over 220,000 American lives — is one of the latest examples of how right-wing ideology and think tanks that have long cultivated climate science denial are now engaging in COVID disinformation and promoting messaging dangerous to public health. [13] Also a good source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Climate change denial is WP:FRINGE. Pretending that it may not be dubious is WP:FALSEBALANCE. You are pushing the denialist position, which is that climate change may have no merit. Doubt is Their Product. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
You're trying to pivot this to my position by smearing it as "pushing a denialist position" and so forth. Think about the article instead. Here's a list of places where "dubious" does not appear:
I think that's proper. The subject matter speaks for itself. Why does this need to be different? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
We're supposed to paraphrase. That different articles paraphrase in different ways isn't a problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think I see dubious reasoning indeed!
  • Energy medicine -> "pseudo-scientific belief"
  • Flat Earth conspiracy -> "contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus"
  • Scientology -> "The Church of Scientology has been described by government inquiries, international parliamentary bodies, scholars, law lords, and numerous superior court judgments as both a dangerous cult and a manipulative profit-making business" True, the article doesn't say "dubious" or describe Scientology beliefs as nonsense.
  • List of cannabis hoaxes -> most are labeled "hoax" and the truth of most are explicitly denied in this list
So the point is that a bunch of fringe drivel is described as fringe drivel in a variety of way not using the word "dubious. Therefore it would be unfair to describe climate change denialist positions as "dubious." -- M.boli (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • We could definitely use a stronger word than "dubious" (similar to the articles linked above.) I would suggest AIER has published studies that promote discredited scientific positions, or AIER has published studies that contained scientific misinformation, or AIER has published studies with discredited scientific positions and scientific misinformation, all per [14]. I also feel we should probably go into a bit more detail about AIER in the lead, since such a huge amount of academic coverage focuses on that part. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    Agree. "Misinformation" is better than "dubious". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The bigger issue is that, at least as the article is currently written, it isn't relevant. COVID policy is unrelated to climate change, and it isn't clear why that would be mentioned, and not, for example, their opposition to price controls or support of holding interest rates steady.
I propose just cutting the reference to climate change and punting the discussion to AIER's page, where their views on a variety of topics would actually be relevant. Techieman (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It's relevant because, like climate change and unlike price controls or interest rates, COVID is a scientific subject, not an economic one, and AIER has a history of promoting junk "science" that furthers its own economic/political agenda. Reliable sources deem this to be relevant and important context, and so we can and do, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
My problem with "dubious" in wikivoice is that it's a wishy-washy term that implies inaccuracy but doesn't state it outright. So regardless of whether the findings are good or bad, I wouldn't use dubious. I question whether this section needs to be here at all, as it's bordering on WP:COATRACK. But assuming it stays, we're going to need some strong sourcing to comment on whether a political organization's ideas are dubious or any other degree of wrongness.
For the climate change portion: Byline Times appears to be an alternative newspaper with a strong political slant, and The Berkshire Edge is a local publication. I'm not satisfied with either of these as sources for this purpose. That leaves what appears to be a high quality source from Energy Research & Social Science. The relevant passage:

The Koch funded institute created the Great Barrington Declaration, similar to the OSIM’s Petition Project, and includes climate sceptic authors Dr Jay Bhattacharya and Sunetra Gupta promoted by the counter-movement organisation the Heartland Institute.

That's it. We can say that AIER includes "climate sceptic authors". Anything beyond that would be original research unless there's a source applying a fact to GBD or AIER.
Now let's look at the sweatshop example. The first is labeled opinion, so I'm dismissing it out of hand. The second is a newspaper article, which isn't ideal but it's a good enough foundation. Here's the relevant passage:

The meeting was at the libertarian American Institute for Economic Research which is committed to “pure freedom” (whatever that entails) and wants the role of government “sharply confined”. It also has a history of funding controversial research, downplaying the environmental crisis, as well as pushing the upside of Asian sweatshops supplying multinational companies.

So we can say that it said that there exists an "upside of Asian sweatshops supplying multinational companies."
After looking at these sources, I have to seriously question whether the person who added them actually read them. Most are not high quality, and the ones that are of even decent quality don't support the claims being made. I propose the following text: The declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a libertarian free market think tank based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts which has employed writers skeptical of climate change and has touted benefits of sweatshops. And that's my suggested compromise wording, because it gets rid of the OR issues, but it still leaves a lingering WP:COATRACK issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
No comment on specific wording at the moment, but I propose the sourcing for the climate issue be replaced with Lewandowsky et al.'s (2022) "When science becomes embroiled in conflict: Recognizing the public’s need for debate while combating conspiracies and misinformation." in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 700(1), which says a libertarian free-market think tank that has a history of bogus argumentation about climate change (e.g., by denying the scientific consensus) and that has recently engaged in similarly misleading argumentation about COVID-19 and Oreskes (2021) Why Trust Science? with promotes anti-scientific discussion of climate change, much of which promotes the familiar canard that climate change will be minor and manageable. (unless better sources are found; my search is hardly exhaustive). Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree we need more robust sourcing and more robust wording, for NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Support more robust wording, lets not weasel word the criticisms in the name of false balance. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, these look like the sort of sources that would resolve the OR issues (and the types of sources that should have been used in the first place for a claim like this). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Was trying to find a source or two on the sweatshops as well but it seems that there is simply very little third-party coverage of the organisation and its activities. There is, of course, our article on it but that was sourced pretty much exclusively to ABOUTSELF up until this.
In any case, I would favour rolling it up into the previous sentence with ...which has a history of promoting [or, just "promotes" could work too] climate change denial [with or without wikilink] and the upside of Asian sweatshops
I'll probably raise the issue of the article on the think tank itself later, likely at AfD as a CONRED. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

AIER appears twice in LEDE

.... it was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), a conservative think tank,.....

....was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free-market think tank associated with climate change denial....

Why do we use the word think tank anyway? Ain't that a WP:WEASEL word for spindoctors/propagandists? Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I merged the two mentions. No opinion on the rest. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view

Has run its course. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article starts off with "...lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection"..." Many epidemiologists would not consider focused protection to be a 'fringe notion.' What it is not a neutral point of view. Then, we are treated to somebody being financed by somebody else who supports 'climate change denial.' Linking the opinion of a trio of epidemiologists to opinions about climate change is a far fetched conspiracy theory. Frankly, if a communist government financed by medical education, that would not make me a communist. (In my case, it had the opposite effect.) Ask the authors of the GBD if you actually want to know, but presenting circumstantial evidence of such tenuous type gives not only the impression of bias but the type of bias that would make for Great Satire like https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-touts-productive-climate-change-meeting-with-french-leader-napoleon-bonaparte Such would not be admissible as evidence for Allsides or other legitimate fact checking source. What it does do is confirm for the reader just how rediculous this article is. I could go on and on, but I'll cut it short by saying that anyone who is centrist would discard this article as pathetically biased. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:2813:2E15:9BC1:DF0 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, WP:NPOV means that we follow the POV of mainstream reliable sources. It does not mean false balance. MrOllie (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Name one "balanced" source for this article. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:2D67:650:9DE6:8B8F (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
False balance is about how WE present sources, sources themselves to not have to be balanced. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but disallowing balanced mainstream media by projecting animus has lead to inappropriate animus in this article; the arguments are flawed, weak and unconvincing and it needs cleanup, for example, guilt by association is suspect, and climate change has no relationship to the GBD, just like Stalin's daughter was not a mass murderer. Another example, the John Snow Memorandum, read it yourself, is a tainted opinion piece, not a scientific report https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/john-snow-memo.html Moreover, the journal in which it was published, The Lancet, has a disturbing tendency for animus against individual researchers, and is very unscientific at times. This Wikipedia article is unconvincing, it needs work. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:2D67:650:9DE6:8B8F (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
What balanced mainstream media have we forbidden? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Many, and when I have cited them, they have been promptly deleted. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:541C:360A:B9B7:A4F4 (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This is your only edit, perhaps it would be easier for you to give some exampleS. Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
See WP:5P2 "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." You need to point actual relevant citations for what you want to say rather than go on about climate change and animus in the Lancet. NadVolum (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
When I have provided relevant citations, they have been deleted using one excuse or another. Look, as it stands now this article is frankly rediculous. I could help you but it is nearly impossible to do so when the citations are removed because of editorial zeal for a particular narrative to the exclusion of others. Here is one such "Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy" https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/2/e052891.full.pdf?with-ds=yes Furthermore, as the fact checkers from the left were all over this the author(s) had to defend themselves. I have a great deal of respect for BMJ, and have published in it myself. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:541C:360A:B9B7:A4F4 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
If citations are removed, it is because they do not meet basic sourcing standards as given in WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRIND. Your link there is a good example of something that doesn't meet FRIND. It is quite far from the 'balanced mainstream media' you were suggesting we were missing. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
You are paying attention to who says something and disregarding what is being said. The article cited is unbiased and not WP:FRIND. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:541C:360A:B9B7:A4F4 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
"Paying attention to who says something" is the very cornerstone of reliable sourcing, verifiability, and Wikipedia itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Suppose that if persons A and B say the same thing, and A is someone you like, but B is not, you then conclude that what A said was true, and what B said is false, even though they agree. That is nonsense. True enough, it is who you know and not what you know that gets you privilege, but that is corrupt. Seek truth, not tribalism. This is the second time just such a fallacy was exposed in this talk page. Above, in the House of Representatives Covid hearing section, two sources cited the same video, one was considered "bad", and the other "good" but were otherwise identical. Look at content to determine truth, not reputation. Reputation, is an ad hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem argument, widely recognized as illogical, here on Wikipedia as elsewhere. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:C41E:7E07:193F:DC72 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to think that Wikipedia's content policies are nonsense, but we're still going to follow them. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are not nonsense, but using them to present falsehoods as truth is. Clearly this is a matter of interpretation. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:C41E:7E07:193F:DC72 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
If falsehoods and truth are a matter of interpretation, then we prefer the reliable sources' interpretation to yours because of Wikipedia's policies. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The evidence that the GBD is not-fringe is: a roundly debunked paper by John Ioannidis (a formerly respected researcher who devolved into COVID crank-titute) utilizing the Kardashian Index (a joke -- literally a joke). It doesn't get any funnier than this. -- M.boli (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Sarcasm is hardly proof of concept. There is a difference between claiming bias from a biased POV, and reputations from a biased POV and evidence of what is in the scientific literature. Research in a peer reviewed journal is more important for Wikipedians that a post on social media containing no analysis whatsoever in a comical presentation. Stop ignoring the facts just to protect your POV, please. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:541C:360A:B9B7:A4F4 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
John Ioannidis's most famous paper already had him tending towards attention seeking. What the title said was badly wrong. The paper did show that better standards were needed and it probably would not have had as much influence that way if it had been written without the hype, so there's a good argument for the hype. But that was not scientific. NadVolum (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Please explain why John Ioannidis's reputation has anything to do with the context here. In specific, what publication are you referring to, and what does his personality have to do with anything? 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:C41E:7E07:193F:DC72 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that John Ioannidis is the author of what I cited. I frankly don't care who he is. I do care what he said in that paper, "Both GBD and JSM include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative." I see nothing wrong with that particular opinion. With respect to some of his other opinions, I do not always agree, for example I do not agree with his sweeping statements about the use of statistics in medicine. Samuel Clemens said that "There are liars, dammed liars, and statisticians" and any set of rules can be abused. However, this most often, in my experience, boils down to which assumptions are made, for example, if we assume that "climate change is bad" and prove that we have assumed that "climate change is bad," then we have proved nothing. In those cases it really doesn't matter what statistics we have used. If, on the other hand, we assume that "climate change is good" and we show that is wrong then we have said something that is at least not self-referential. Pay attention to trying for a less self-referential article if you wish to write something convincing. As it stands now, there is too much hand waving to convince anyone of anything in this article. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:C41E:7E07:193F:DC72 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Fortunately, we are not attempting to convince anyone of anything with this article, or any other article on Wikipedia. Rather, we are trying to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. The paper you've linked is already discussed in the article, so you'll need more than that one link to demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources support your preferred opinion about the GBD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Very funny. I could provide many links, but the preponderance of bias in this article would not change appreciably, and no, this is not applicable to the preponderance of articles on Wikipedia. It only applies to current politics, not to statistics, math, physics, chemistry and indeed most topics. Consider please that when the bias is so thick that logic has been forsaken, all I can do is to implore you to think more carefully so as not to write text that is self-contradictory. 2607:FEA8:D661:6700:5168:D308:E5FD:ACB4 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great description of the GBD

Jonathan Howard on Science-Based Medicine: While “not vulnerable” people lived in a world of pure COVID, “vulnerable” people would be locked down in a world of zero COVID. The only tasks were identifying “vulnerable” and “not vulnerable” people and creating an impenetrable wall between them. [15] --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the crux of why the idea is BS; perhaps this needs to be brought out more? Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There was so many other things wrong with what they said! They knew it was a major killer, you'd want to slow it down generally so the hospitals wouldn't get broken and there is always the hope of better treatments being found with a delay even if one has no hope for a vaccine. There was no good reason to try make it worse than the 1918 flu. NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. 31.52.163.164 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the video of Matt Hancock in the right place in the text?

In the section regarding critical commentaries about the GBD, there is a dropbox containing a link to a video of Matt Hancock, a British government minister during the COVID-19 lockdowns, discussing the GBD. The text discusses the British government response to the GBD, in particular referring to Matt Hancock, in the first few paragraphs of the section. Yet the video of Matt Hancock speaking is placed several paragraphs later, at which point the article has moved on to discuss the response in other countries. I think the link to the Matt Hancock video should be moved within the text so that it is shown immediately next to the paragraphs discussing the British government reactions to the GBD. Cowingzitron (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration/Archive_8&oldid=1226642260"