Jump to content

Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bensin (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 7 September 2024 (Statement on johnsnowmemo.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Author comments

Perhaps of relevance: One of the original authors has written about the GBD and the courts: The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won. | The Free Press (thefp.com) 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:C94F:538E:ED1A:5365 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit cringe, considering the circumstances, but OK. Polygnotus (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Service: [1]
As a source for the article, not OK. It's just a pseudoscientist putting his spin on his own story. "Wah, wah, we are being suppressed"? The GBD was everywhere, and still is. Suppression is something else. Get a better source if you want this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Free Press has an AllSides media bias rating of center. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/the-free-press-media-bias. As for calling someone a "pseudo-scientist" a "pseudo-intellectual" might find that appropriate language, I do not. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying to a nearly six-month-old conversation, but lest it go unsaid: there are a number of problems with this. First, I don't know why we should particularly care what "allsides.com" says about a site. Second, if we did, the rating is of "low or initial confidence." Third, a website being "center-leaning" does not have any relevance to whether it's a reliable source or not, and previous discussion on Wikipedia certainly leans towards "unreliable". But fourth and most importantly, what one of the authors of the GBD has to say about the thing they authored is *never* going to be a reliable source for anything like the claims in the article, because it is inherently going to be a non-independent source. TL;DR: Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, the opinion that Wikipedia has of a source is irrelevant to the content that source is relating in any particular instance of reporting. In this case, there are important links to primary documents one of which follows. For example, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf#p=23 is the court judgement that the government's opinion, which agrees with the opinion in this Wikipedia article, is incorrect. That this is not often reported fits with the mission statement of The Free Press (thefp.com), which is to relate otherwise ignored and/or censored news. That this provokes a negative opinion from Wikipedia's Editors is not germane and not relevant, some facts are just hard to accept for those with inflexible preconceptions. Hiding behind opinions about opinion makers rather than dealing with the facts at hand is just so much smoke. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. This is a Wikipedia article Talk page, and its goal is to improve the article. The article can only be improved with reliable sources, and the reliability of a source may be irrelevant to you but it is the only relevant thing for this page. If you have nothing useful to contribute, then you have no business here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States District Court is a valid source. The content includes sanctions against the defendants Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; Vivek H. Murthy; Xavier Becerra; Department of Health & Human Services; Anthony Fauci; Et al., for conduct that aligns with the specific text, and methods of censure used on this website in this specific article. That injunction appears to apply to the text herein. What about that information do you consider "irrelevant?" You cannot hid behind a smoke screen and claim irrelevant process on this one, this is a legal decision which you ignore only by incurring unnecessary risk. Please consider this as a cease and desist. This article should either be drastically altered or deleted entirely. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use court documents as sources, so it is not a 'valid source', no. Any in any case nothing determined by that ruling would have any effect on Wikipedia's article whatsoever. Courts don't get to decide science. MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the link is deprecated, primary sources on Wikipedia have been known to include "historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, (sic, bold font is mine) or interviews" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia#Types_of_primary_sources. Your claim is that courts do not get to decide science. But, rightly or wrongly they do, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Darrow#Scopes_Trial Moreover, they have the force of law, and Scopes was fined $100, and the conviction was overturned on a technicality. As shown by the Scopes trial, the law, and your risks under it, are not related to your opinion of jurisprudence, where jurisprudence is the philosophy or science of law. For example, many jurisdictions would consider drunk driving punishable regardless of your opinion about drunk driving. Finally, this article does not follow science at all. Science is predicated upon the falsification of a falsifiable hypothesis, AKA test of hypothesis. This article does not entertain the proposition that the GBD is a hypothesis to be tested; rather this article presumes the GBD to be false and then seeks to demonstrate that it is false, which is called 'proving that an assumption was made,' i.e., very unscientific, and as above, unlawfully so. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are noted, but there are no risks under it to speak of, and vague legal threats will not get this article changed. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, this article has changed considerably, but still either has a long way to go to become rational, or should be deleted entirely to prevent further harm to Wikipedia's reputation and its readers. No vague legal threat intended, if I strongly suggest that you do not drive (or write) drunk, consider me to be your friend with the car keys, not your enemy. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think nothing about the GBD or any scientific controversy was adjudicated by the court.
The court case alleges various government actors improperly censored content on various online platforms (by intimidating the companies), violating the complainants' speech rights. Here is one news source for this judgement: Times of India. The district and appellate courts found in the complainants favor.
So what is the proposed modification to this article? Perhaps we could include a paragraph describing the court case. I think it might fit in the Reception section.
Regarding some specific complaints by the IP editor:
  • conduct that aligns with the specific text, and methods of censure used on this website in this specific article amounts to a claim that the government has threatened and intimidated Wikipedia into removing content.
  • court judgement that the government's opinion, which agrees with the opinion in this Wikipedia article, is incorrect amounts to a claim that the court has affirmed the GBD authors were right and the reliable sources describing the GBD and its place in the pandemic were wrong. The court did no such thing.
There is nothing we can do in response to these two complaints, as there is nothing to support them. --
-- M.boli (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scopes? Just because idiot politicians make idiot anti-science laws courts have to enforce, neither facts nor science will change, and Wikipedia will not pretend it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of science in this article. All we are offered are secondary or tertiary opinions which amount to gibberish. I frankly don't care about what the editors hold as 'science' whilst they quote off-the-cuff rehashed journalistic opinion from the extreme left. Science relates data and draws opinions from significant findings that arise from it. Where is the data to support any of the opinions in this article? 216.197.221.61 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that any reliable sources used in the article are not reliable, name them and give your reasoning. Pro tip: Claims that the sources are "extreme left" need to be relative to experts, not relative to your own position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many bogus claims that it is like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose. How's this for biased, under "Signatories" ...More than 100 ... non-relevant people were found to be signatories (Sic, to the GBD) from "Coronavirus: 'Dr Johnny Bananas' and 'Dr Person Fakename' among medical signatories on herd immunity open letter" on Sky News, or should I call it "The sky is falling news" by Chicken little? Name me any comparison online site with currently 940,000+ signatories that does not have 100 fake names on it. Typically, to make a claim of any significance, one would make a statistical test for significant difference. That was not done. I don't know how familiar you are with plebiscites, but typically people collect 10% or 15% more signatures than necessary because when those signatures are inspected many are discarded. For example the recall effort for Gascon (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-15/recall-effort-la-district-attorney-george-gascon-fails) claims to have seen a 27% rate of discard. Whereas, originally the L.A Times stated there were 715,833 signatures turned in (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-09/715-833-signatures-turned-in-to-recall-los-angeles-county-da-gascon-election-officials-say), in their later article (first reference above) they say "approximately 715 k" truncating rather than the generally accepted rounding to "approximately 716 k," which shows the L.A. Times intent to minimize, wherein 566,857 valid signatures were required, after jaundiced inspection only 520,000 were considered valid, therefore with magic sauce deletion of massive voting, Gascon kept his disastrous position intact. Now, I should not have to tell you that there is a difference between 100/940,000 or 0.01% and (715,000-520,000)/715,000 or 26.9%. So what your source didn't do is (1) say how many names he looked at to find 100 he didn't like, so as to substantiate his claim (2) say why he doesn't like "... over 100 therapists" and ridiculed a "sound therapist" on the basis of racial discrimination by identifying that person as a "Mongolian Khöömii Singer," which last I have heard does not disqualify anyone from having an opinion and (3) Make a comparison to any other online signature vote for comparison of difference. Thus, the article is unscientific gibberish, yet somehow worthy of inclusion in this article, which article is also unscientific gibberish. Want more examples?
Finally, yes I have a biased opinion. Yes, I am also an expert, those two things are not mutually exclusive, and experts do not only come in vanilla flavors, there is also chocolate, strawberry and lots more, just ask the wingnuts at Baskin-Robbins how many. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name me one that is taken seriously? Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By whom? You, perhaps? If so, answer your own question. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are listing statements that disagree with your opinion. Those are not reasons to regard the source of those statements as unreliable. You should read WP:RS for actual reasons for unreliability. ANd you are using your own reasoning, which is illegal here. Read WP:OR.
And "I am an expert" chest-beating will not convince anybody except extremely naive laypeople who believe that this is how scientific discussions work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RS one reads "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This article does not embrace popular opinion, epidemiological opinion or really anything worth quoting. Not using one's own reasoning is a rediculous demand; Even citing someone else's opinion requires judgement. Concerning WP:OR, reading what is cited in an article to see if it makes any sense is not original anything. If it is gibberish, as is the case here, it should be discarded.
You, yes you, wrote 'Claims that the sources are "extreme left" need to be relative to experts, not relative to your own position'. Thus, it is up to you to show that I am not an expert, which you have not done, and your quip was ad homineum, which is not nice and is not logical. You brought the discussion into the gutter. Keep it clean fella. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares if you're an expert or not, the point is the article will not be altered based on your personal opinions or your unsupported assertions that the sources are unreliable because you happen to disagree with those sources. That simply is not how Wikipedia works. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, we're looking for WP:Published experts, where only experts with expertise in the relevant field count. To give a made-up example, a medical doctor could be a published expert on which patients will benefit from aspirin but not a published expert on where, on the American Left–right political spectrum a given newspaper tends to fall, so such an expert would be relevant for discussions about aspirin but not considered an expert on whether a given newspaper is on the "extreme left". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not using one's own reasoning is a rediculous demand If you do not like the rules of Wikipedia, which include WP:OR, then you are welcome to visit other parts of the internet instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Pro tip: Claims that the sources are "extreme left" need to be relative to experts, not relative to your own position. --Hob Gadling (talk)" So, according to you, whether I am an expert or not is your red herring. In addition, you expect to use "reasoning" but would deny that to anyone else. That is called "being argumentative." Wikipedia is left wing biased for current events. A litany of these expert accusations is found on https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia articles tend to become less biased than Britannica articles on the same topic as they become substantially revised, and the bias on a per word basis hardly differs between the sources." Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a tendency for Wikipedia's vocal left to be trounced by reality as time elapses. In this article, the damage has already been done to the body public. Consider the stated linkage between "climate" and "Covid." Both are/were irresponsibly portrayed as cause for panic. This is a leftist linkage projected by the left as "reactionary" right wing mentation. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum, and your wishful thinking which contradicts the facts about climate as well as about COVID is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I meant "experts as published in reliable sources". Whether AllSides is a reliable source is to be determined on a case-by-case basis - see WP:ALLSIDES - and the author does not seem to be an expert. But actually, it does not matter. Though the AllSides article does list such accusations, it concludes that Wikipedia is "center". When your own links contradict what you say, you should not call others "argumentative". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AllSides changed its view of Wikipedia from "center" to "unrated" because of the complaints of leftist bias for current events. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If their ratings can be moved by sufficient complaining, that's a point against paying attention to their ratings. MrOllie (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. AllSides pays attention to but is not guided by public opinion. Wikipedia is guided by activist opinion for current events without regard to factual content. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author is still not an expert, so the case loses the case-by-case decision. But this whole tangent is irrelevant because your trying to proven that "Wikipedia is left-wing" does not influence the facts regarding this article. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not current. Current news holds a view counter to the propaganda included here. Search for yourself. 216.197.221.61 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we don't have a problem with that. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even if we had problem with it, Search for yourself would be a useless statement. Sure, we can find such opinions on fake-news websites if we search for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Focused protection – fringe?

The notion of focused protection was essentially Swedish national policy throughout the pandemic. Is this compatible with being a "fringe notion"? –—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a word: yes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. There are a lot of myths about Sweden.[2] Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me talk about "myths". I'm Swedish, and I know what restrictions we had. They were quite compatible with the declaration.
Schools and universities should be open: Elementary schools were open, high schools and universities periodically and partially closed.
Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed: Activities for youth were prioritized and mostly open.
Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home: People were generally allowed to work on-site.
Restaurants and other businesses should open: They were, although suffering from various restrictions.
Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume: Cinemas, churches, etc. were open, but with varying restrictions on the number of people who could gather at the same time.
—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources call it fringe, and so we do too. Your personal experiences are interesting, but not useful for this article as original research. And regardless, a single country's government subscribing to a particular scientific position doesn't make it non-fringe; as an example, South Africa or the US and HIV/AIDS denialism. This has been discussed extensively in previous talk page discussions; feel free to review those discussions for the rationales, and if you have a significant quantity of reliable sources that describe focused protection as non-fringe, feel free to present them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And was COVID encouraged to 'sweep through' the population resulting in herd immunity in a few weeks? We have excellent sources for this being bullshit. If you have counter-sources, produce them. Your personal takes are of no use for writing the article. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And where is any mention about "herd immunity in a few weeks"?
The official Swedish regulations and recommendations at different stages of the pandemic are not classified. What might or might not exist is an explicit published comparison to the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). In any case, the similarities, together with the fact that Sweden is doing rather well in retrospective comparative evaluations of pandemic policy, could at least indicate some POV problems here.
The sources calling it "fringe" seem to be mainly from late 2020. My impression is that this article is not very up-to-date. –—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, feel free to present reliable sources to the contrary. Without such sources, this article is as up-to-date as it needs to be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excellent update we could usefully draw on.[3] Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above piece from David Gorski seems rather informal and combative. Here's a comparison between GBD and a paper by Donald Henderson, who led the eradication of smallpox. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, WP:SBM is an excellent source for fringe science. You seemed to link to something by a contrarian business journalist? Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, a contrarian business journalist writing for a questionable-at-best publication. I don't see any mention of the GBD in the portion of the article I have access to, though I suppose it's not the whole thing. Regardless, that's not going to fly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with the policies argued in the paper by Henderson seems correct. I can hardly believe that Henderson was a fringe epidemiologist in 2006. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Henderson died in 2016, it seems a bit fringey to invoke him in relation to a virus which didn't exist until 3 years later. Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to your own article, Henderson died in 2016, three years before COVID-19 even existed. Without an actually reliable source (not just one that "seems correct" according to you), he is entirely irrelevant to this article. See also WP:SYNTH. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning is backwards. Since Henderson wrote things with apparent relevance to subsequent events (as anyone can see), hopefully there are or will be reliable sources to this effect. I'm sorry that you regard the level-headed piece on Henderson as appearing in a "questionable-at-best publication". I guess time will tell. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time has told. GBD was always a fringe idea and has settled into becoming the province of cranks, contrarians and grifters. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice talking to you, too. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hopefully there are or will be reliable sources to this effect: if and when there are, you can link them, and we can discuss the potential relevance of this whole line of reasoning to the article. Not before then. The burden of proof is on you to provide these sources; until you've done so, there's nothing really to discuss. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve the right to start a discussion without having an array of sources in my back pocket to prove a predetermined point. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 18:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but without those sources, such a talk page discussion will never lead to changes in the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore, WP:NOTFORUM applies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nice pile. What it communicates: Never raised a percieved issue, based on limited knowledge, without an absolutely watertight case. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:CTOP (you have now been alerted) and Talk pages should be used to improve the article, not for general discussion. If somebody has an actual proposal (with source) please make it. But Wikipedia has a duty to call out fringe notions for what they (according to quality sources) are. So that won't be changing unless the sourcing changes. Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sweden: what horse manure. First, how Swedish authorities handled the epidemic in the first 3/4 year was winging it, there is no tie-in to a strategy called "focused protection." Second, by the end of 2020 the mortality and morbidity rates were higher than in similarly situated countries and the health system was overwhelmed. The authorities then adopted many of the same measures as in other countries, including much more masking and vaccination requirements. I'm always amused when commenters show and start throwing the word "Sweden" around as if it meant something. -- M.boli (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned these sources before but they are relevant to your objections and might warrant consideration. Why these articles are not integrated into the article should give editors pause. The statnews sources suggests what you describe here regarding Sweden. I find these articles have more dispassionate commentary. [4] [5] [6]. SmolBrane (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But think pieces by journalists and students are precisely the kind of rubbish sources that relevant experts have complained about for creating a false balance in the lay discourse (as discussed for example in PMID:36962077), and of course this is not something Wikipedia is going to indulge in. GBD isn't going away as it's become part of the standard issue COVID crank toolkit, alongside ivermectin, anti-vaxx, and lab leak. Retrospective pieces (like the SBM one linked above) are useful and in time it's likely scholars will analyze more how GBD fits into the antiscience scene. J Howard's book, We Want Them Infected (which we cite) also offers a useful retrospective. Bon courage (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a guideline to the effect that secondary, reputable sources often are preferable to primary? Is Stat News well regarded? The author of the piece is a doctoral candidate in History of Science. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not prefer secondary news sources to peer-reviewed articles, no. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the policy I was thinking of: WP:PSTS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 09:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Stat source is a novel opinion piece (primary source) from a student, and lay press is not reliable for WP:BMI. So double no. Bon courage (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, if "lay press" applies to Stat News, then it would surely also apply to articles by Gorski in the Science-Based Medicine group blog, which is mentioned approvingly above and is cited in the article presently (although not extensively). Do his articles on there receive any kind of editorial review? Probably not. And even if they did, he's an oncologist and surgeon, not an epidemiologist, in the field of public health, or other directly relevant field. So such a source isn't great either. Really, I'd hope to see more focus on peer-reviewed commentary in the scientific press, which there should be more of by now relative to late 2020 when a lot of the material in the article was written. Crossroads -talk- 00:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SBM. Scientific journals rarely engage with fringe ideas, so, specialists for fringe ideas, like Gorski, are unusally the best we can get. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@St.nerol of course is not "fringe". Someone needs to investigate how Wikipedia really works. 2604:B000:A218:41A:6340:676A:EF9A:26CE (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well lets see, how many countries (in Scandinavia) adopted the Swedish model? If it is less than half that makes it a Fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is your friend. Spot checking examples,"focused protection" in the scientific literature always references the GBD. The term is novel, it did not exist as a separate named idea before the GBD. (It also occurs as a common collocation, e.g."biodiversity-focused protection of the seabed".) When you look for studies of this novel idea, it seems that many studies say it is not a good idea. Here is one.[1]

  1. The GBD authors made it up,
  2. few articles the field like it,
  3. the term is always referenced back to the GBD and the same few people.

The reliable sources say focused proteciton is fringe, and a little searching of the scholarly sources confirm that it smells fringy as hell. -- M.boli (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been observed it's basically eugenics. The idea is rich (white) people retreat to their gated mansions while the not so rich and white worker economy is left to face the virus and hopefully thinned out a bit. Some useful idiots bought into the idea without realising this. Bon courage (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTFORUM. Your mildly offensive remark adds nothing to the discussion about improving the article. 31.52.162.146 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the eugenics angle is covered in RS[7] so is of course appropriate for Wikipedia to cover too. I guess if eugenics-fans feel offended then that is just tough. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the notorious white supremacists Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff. Or perhaps the authors are the useful idiots? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The useful idiots angle is covered in our article too. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the word choice: I wonder whether choosing the word "fringe" in the lead could be an example of wikijargon creeping into the article. Perhaps it would be more informative to substitute a brief definition? Fringe science begins with "Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted". Fringe theory says "A fringe theory is an idea or a viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship of the time within its field". I believe that dictionary definitions tend to say something like "outside the mainstream view". Perhaps an explanation along those lines could be used, so that people unfamiliar with the jargon would be more likely to understand what's meant.
(Of course, that might result in more complaints along the lines of "How dare you say 'rejected by basically all scholars, as well as anyone who thought through the logistics for more than two minutes, because low-risk people bring germs home from school and work, and share them with high-risk people at home'!, but you'd at least get some variety in the complaints.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think tis picks up on the headline here.[8] so is not the peculiar wiki-use. I think "nonsensical" would be maybe a better word. Bon courage (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there actually any peer-reviewed scientific sources drawing a connection between the Swedish approach and GBD's "focused protection"? If so, they could be mentioned. However, the lack of use of "focused protection" in the literature instead leans strongly that it is indeed a fringe concept, and therefore the GBD with it. It should be noted that a softer approach relative to some other nations did not necessarily mean that they supported a GBD-esque approach in general, as sometimes certain things were lifted because other measures substituted, or case or hospitalization numbers were low; as the article itself notes, "By October 2020, many of these things had already happened in some parts of the world". Crossroads -talk- 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Cameron A.; Yates, Christian A.; Ashby, Ben (2022-04-26). "Critical weaknesses in shielding strategies for COVID-19". PLOS Global Public Health. 2 (4): e0000298. doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000298. ISSN 2767-3375. PMC 10021285. PMID 36962415.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

There is no basis for Hob Gadling's revert of edit (April 22, 2024) that merely added footnote to the actual Declaration, that was described in the sentence. Citation to an original document does not violate original research policy and is helpful to people actually wanting to learn about a subject and verify sources for themselves. EABSE (talk) EABSE 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There surely is such a basis. On Wikipedia it is preferred to report what reliable secondary sources have to say rather then use primary sources - that is, Wikipedia is interested in what others say about a subject, not what the subject has to say about itself. Also - your edit did more than merely added footnote to the actual Declaration MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entry on the American Declaration of Independence links to a copy of the Declaration of American Independence; The entry on the Port Huron Statement links to a copy of the Port Huron Statement; The entry on the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls Convention links to a copy of the Declaration--indeed, it is reprinted in the body of the entry; The entry on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution links to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; etc. This is perfectly appropriate, especially when dealing with a subject on the "contentious topics" list, where the problem is editors attempting to fob off opinion as fact or bias the entry through loaded language. EABSE (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EABSE what are you talking about? The link to the text is very visibly present on the infobox of the article. Looks like you could not be bothered to read the article. I suggest that you apologize to the other editors that you falsely accused. --McSly (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? It
  1. The GBD article features two links to the document website: one in the {{infobox document}} at the head of the article, one in the External Links section at the end. Your premise is false.
  2. Your proffered example United States Declaration of Independence article similarly features links in the external links section. It does not contain what you are trying to add, viz: an inline-cite to the text of the declaration in the lede paragraph. So your example does not support your edit, your example supports the revert to current text.
  3. I note the Port Huron Statement does have a citation link like you describe, but also note it lacks a document infobox.
It looks like you failed to give even cursory looks at the article you are trying to edit.
-- M.boli (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hob Gadling didn't revert you. What are you talking about? MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Bhattacharya. Wrong talk page, different edit, similar problem, same response. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been added to the NPOV noticeboard

Link: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Great Barrington Declaration

The article seems to be clearly biased at this point, with a few editors actively suppressing edits from other editors. Additional administrator attention will be requested.

~~~~ Saltsjöbaden (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories

Saltsjöbaden, why should the first few signatories be listed? Is it common in secondary sources to see a sample pulled out? Can we lean solely on a primary source that has a provably inaccurate list of signatories? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a list of signatories is going to open a whole can of worms. What would be the selection criteria to list some and not others? Would we list the ones that have been determined elsewhere to be fake? If we give a number of signatories, would we relate that to the total number of people who could have signed but didn't, as many secondary sources do? It is better to leave it out, especially since that is what WP:NOT would require us to do. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that only focusing on the inaccurate signatories while ignoring the clearly very relevant signatories will cause the article to be biased and not adhere to WP:NPOV guidelines. As it stands right now, without mentioning any notable signatories, the Signatories section is only focused on the criticism part. The Signatories section currently talks about "mongolian throat-singers", but includes no mention of clearly relevant signatories. Examples:
~~~~ Saltsjöbaden (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these 'clearly relevant'? Do the secondary sources call these names out specifically? NPOV means that we follow what the sources do, not that we search for some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant, because they are among the key 43 signatories. And the current article seems to have no issue with mentioning signatories for the opposing declaration (John Snow Memorandum). Why is listing key signatories allowed for JSM, but not for GBD? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Counter_memorandum Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the John Snow section is supported by numerous independent, secondary sources. My point is that on Wikipedia, information is 'relevant' because we find it in secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE: your latest addition, John Ioannidis and his views are already covered in the article (based on what the secondary sources have to say, as it should be). Starting a second section on the same stuff isn't helpful. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that you just reverted tried to add at least some balance to the Signatories section, by referencing a published research article on PubMed. This is again a clear example of NPOV violations on this article, where for some reason only critical items are allowed on the Signatories section. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ioannidis article has been discussed ad nauseam on this talk page; feel free to search the archives to find out why we will not use it in this way. Also, lest it go unsaid, we already discuss that very paper in the article, in the last paragraph of the "Counter memorandum" section. Take a look at it and you will see why this is not a reliable source in itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the Wikipedia community has specifically rejected the idea that articles should be 'balanced', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE is a straw man argument in this context. WP:FALSEBALANCE mentions topics like the earth being flat, moon landings being false, etc. In this instance we are dealing with credible, top-cited key signatories from key institutions. WP:FALSEBALANCE does not apply here. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific mainstream is quite clear that 'focused protection' does belong on that list. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what source are you claiming that? Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones cited in the article, as well as ones that can be found in the talk page archives. - MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to be unwilling to link to sources supporting your claim of "focused protection" / GBD being somehow fringe or not a credible scientific topic, I'm happy to provide an opposing source from my end. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10399217/ comparing the outcomes of the Swedish approach against the outcomes of other countries. "... the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks." I can agree that the topic is somewhat controversial (obviously), but I don't see any sources supporting the claim that it's fringe, that there is clear academic consensus against it, or somehow belongs under WP:FALSEBALANCE. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in the article, as I said. You can read them there. The differences between what Sweden did and that the GBD called for have also been discussed extensively, you can find explanation in the talk page archives. Your link here is rather irrelevant - even if it weren't from a questionable publisher like Frontiers Media. MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly quite trivial to find enough credible sources in academic journals discussing the topic of focused protection. Example 1; Example 2 ; Example 3 ; Example 4 . The claim that this topic is somehow "fringe" or suitable as a WP:FALSEBALANCE example is false. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is trivial to cherry-pick unreliable articles, just as I could come up with several articles that would explain in detail that the Earth is flat. But that's not going to move the needle here. WP:FALSEBALANCE absolutely does apply here - in fact it applies everywhere on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are the examples I provided unreliable? Specifically, what makes Example 4 unreliable? I'm providing a source published in Nature. Whereas the currently live wiki article seems to have no issues using media tabloids as some of its sources. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific reports isn't Nature. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes that source unreliable? Saltsjöbaden (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the journal that published a paper claiming that using a cell phone too much could make you grow a horn on the back of your neck. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten off track, so I'm starting this again from the original topic. Key Signatories should be added to the article. The original declaration has 43 key signatories. Given the notability of the topic, I would find it reasonable to add the list of these signatories in a simple table format to the article. Saltsjöbaden (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which secondary sources emphasize this aspect of the topic? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should not be deciding which signatories are "key" or "significant" on the basis of their own original research. Doing so, on a controversial topic, is a violation of OR/SYNTH (and in this case an apparent violation of WP:NPOV as well). Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning of Stefan Baral

I am Stefan Baral and can say that I did not participate in the development of the GBD as this article suggests. As I have said several times, I was invited to participate in a training for journalists that were reporting on COVID-19. I joined remotely for about 45 minutes (and then had to take my kiddo to soccer class as it was Saturday morning), and shared some perspectives on the use of models during emergencies, the role of serological assays, some core public health principles, and beyond and then dropped off. On Sunday evening, I was shared the text of the GBD but it did not include several elements that I considered crucial. I was told it was too late to edit the document and thus did not sign. Importantly, I shared many of the concerns of the authors of this including the lack of equity applied during the COVID-19 responses, the use of police in public health, and beyond. I have written extensively on all of this. But the article as written is incorrect and should be fixed. Sdbaral (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage, do you still have access to Howard's book? Could you quote the portion that references Baral (presumably on p. 105)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not immediately; it's in a different city to where I am. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of your ridiculous fact check (Howard's book... 🤡) is there somebody to write to at Wikipedia to get lies removed? Sdbaral (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "lie" exactly? If Baral was in the mix with the people originating the document, was given the option (!) to add their name to it as an author, but declined since they had qualms – what are the sources detailing what happened? From a quick look I see the NYT says[9] that

Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, attended part of the Great Barrington, Mass., meeting and said he was sympathetic to the effort.

But Dr. Baral, a Swedish citizen who supports that country’s approach, said he did not sign the declaration because it did not lay out a plan for workplace or housing accommodations for people at risk.

Perhaps this can be used to expand the article? The use of a clown emoji doesn't suggest a dispassionate engagement with what needs to be done. Wikipedia is merelty seeking to reflect what appropriate sources are saying about this. Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the interview with the NYT and it is appropriate while the wikipedia page as currently designated is not.
I participated remotely in a meeting that was taking place in Great Barrington, MA for about 45 minutes that had been developed as a training for journalists on public health-related issues. The recording of my involvement is still available online if needed. There had been no mention of a declaration being developed nor did I contribute to its development in any way. I was sent the declaration on the Sunday evening along with many others and offered to be one of the "original signers" but the declaration didn't include mention of many things that I considered important and I didn't agree with some of the premises. So I didn't sign. And thus this article suggesting that I contributed to this declaration is a lie. And while I am used to lies on the internet, I have long been a donor to wikimedia and expected better here. But so it goes.
I laid out reasons for this on twitter:
https://x.com/sdbaral/status/1317487377397518336
https://x.com/sdbaral/status/1316718877708095488
I also shared this story on twitter:
https://x.com/sdbaral/status/1328062103668862980
I also did a few interviews about this including the times piece you linked and also this.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3908
Hopefully this clarifies why this is a distruth as currently written. And yes, the Howard "book" is worthy of clown emoticons--and little else. Sdbaral (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to AIER's own[10] account,

On October 3, 2020, in the living room of the Stone House of the American Institute for Economic Research, top epidemiologists, economists, and journalists gathered to discuss the global emergency created by the unprecedented use of state compulsion in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. The result is The Great Barrington Declaration, which urges a “Focused Protection” strategy.

This film provides an inside look at the two hours of questions and answers in a private forum that takes place the morning prior to the drafting of the document. The participating scientists are:

  • Martin Kulldorff Professor, Medicine, Harvard Medical School
  • Jay Bhattacharya Professor, Medicine, Stanford University
  • Sunetra Gupta Professor, Theoretical Epidemiology, University of Oxford
  • Stefan Baral (remote) Assoc Professor, Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins
So by their account the GBD was "the result" of a meeting which had four named scientists. Of course AIER are not necessarily a reliable source; so is the contention that Baral was "present but not involved" ? Bon courage (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIER is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; they have every incentive of trying to make the GBD seem more supported than it was. Crossroads -talk- 17:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence temporarily. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There might even be an argument it's undue as it doesn't really tell us anything about the GBD itself. Bon courage (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
It is easy to confirm that I was not there -- as I was introduced as joining virtually and hang up after about 40 minutes (third video in this list as youtube links don't seem to work: https://gbdeclaration.org/video/)
If seen as relevant, it would be factually correct to say that I participated virtually in the above mentioned forum that took place the morning before the three ultimate authors drafted the GBD. That said, this also seems pretty tangential to the GBD since none of my well-established perspectives were included.
By that time, I had already published several peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19 including
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207121/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32493741/
There were about 30 COVID-19 related articles in 2020 that I co-authored and can easily be found on pubmed in case anyone cares.
But indeed, I did not contribute to the writing of the GBD. Sdbaral (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is their refusal to sign relevant? They do not appear to be mentioned as signatories by us. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above and especially on Baral's criticism (not support) of the GBD in this BMJ source, I would oppose restoring this sentence to the article. Crossroads -talk- 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on johnsnowmemo.com

The web page johnsnowmemo.com read "This website will soon be updated to act as an information repository, presenting the evidence and reasons why governments must do more to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus".[11] This is relevant to mention because as of today they have not presented said evidence and reasons there. --Bensin (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration&oldid=1244488908"