Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A predictably biased article, and why this should be concerning

I agree that this article is extremely biased and poorly presented. The problem seems to be a a failure to disentangle scientific methods from moral values. Science can help you predict what will happen, but what you want to happen depends on your moral outlook. The problem is, there are different moral outlooks / values and none of them are correct or incorrect, merely different. Failing to acknowledge this leads to the butting of heads and kneejerk reactions seen above in this talk page, where each party thinks the other is either evil or stupid, when they may just have a different set of moral values. For example, the appropriate balance between quality and quantity of life is not obvious, and yet we make this trade off in various decisions, for example when we decide on the speed limits for cars. The inability to instrospect by the mainstream view in this talk page should be concerning, because the proper debate of the GBD might have been beneficial to many (but alas, and this is why this is concerning - not so much for a typical person editing the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:B000:600:B0:0:0:0:F8C (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Excluding the references section, the article is currently 5,633 words. 2,687 of those words are in the "critical commentaries" selection alone. Most of the text in the "Sponsor" and "Signatories" section is also critical (making up another 390 words). And several of the same criticisms are repeated in other sections. By comparison, the sections describing the GBD and its authors are only 969 words total (and even more critical quotations are sprinkled throughout that). There is merit to including critical commentaries as appropriate context. But currently it's well over half of the entire article, creating an undue weight on criticism as per WP's NPOV. The result is a hopelessly biased and cluttered article that is also very difficult to obtain any useful information from, since it's basically just a long list of any and every attack on the GBD that has aggregated over the year. FranciscoWS (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sensible sources think the GBD is bollocks, so it's not surprising Wikipedia reflects that weighting. To be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Note the circularity of your argument. No_true_Scotsman. FranciscoWS (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is we have to go with the scientific consensus. Especially when we have such experts as "Prof Cominic Dummings" signing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

On a related note I currently count 11 different citations in this article to Nafeez Ahmed of the Byline Times. For those who don't remember him, Ahmed was a prominent figure in the 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory movement for almost two decades. And the Byline Times is a fringe website outlet that's also come under criticism for indulging in conspiracy theories. Is that what is considered a "sensible source" here? FranciscoWS (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It has not been discussed at RSN. But it seems to be a print newspaper. I am unsure so will raise it at RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And the smear of Nafeez Ahmed seems like a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My mistake it has been discussed, I am unsure there was a consensus about it really.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a "smear" of Nafeez Ahmed to say he was involved in 9/11 Truthers. His own personal website [1] gives credence to "controlled demolition" theories, favorably quotes well known conspiracy theorists such as Robert David Steele, suggests the 9/11 hijackers are still alive, etc. It seems relevant when evaluating a source's credibility to consider whether that source has a propensity for spreading other crazy conspiracy theories, no? FranciscoWS (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion ar RSN about this matter, make your case there [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to be careful about what you say here, BLP and all, our article on Nafeez Ahmed is not exactly reflecting your assertions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I am raising the issue on the talk page, as opposed to editing Nafeez Ahmed's WP bio. In reading that bio it appears to have neutrality problems of its own due to pro-Ahmed editors trying to downplay his history with conspiracy theory movements. Surely you'd agree that this article by Ahmed promotes several fringe claims about 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no? [3] Or here's Ahmed writing a glowing profile of Robert David Steele for the Guardian, which got him fired as a columnist there and caused him to move to the Byline Times [4]. FranciscoWS (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Then do not, as this is not the place to discuss his article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is why this is fringe there are 985,000 practicing physicians in the USA alone. This was signed by "40,000 medical practitioners" (note practitioners not just physicians). That means (and this assumes all "practitioners" were real and physicians) less than 5% (of American ones) signed this document. That is a fringe, even if we are very generous.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And since Cominic Dummings is very likely not an American, it is not only less, but far less than 5%. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like an arbitrary way to assess "fringe". What does this imply for the 270 'professionals, scientists and professors' who are worried about Joe Rogan's disinformation? SmolBrane (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We have a scientific consensus. The GBD signers disagree with it, and that is not enough to overturn the consensus. It does not really matter how many they are, since science is not done by signing declarations.

The GBD-opposition signers are just some people who agree with the consensus and are interested in fighting anti-science movements. They are not needed to reinforce the consensus - the consensus is based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals - so it matters even less how many they are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That there are a lot more in the USA alone who did not sign it, and yes that is how were determined Fringe, what percentage of experts agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• One does wonder why a corporate rights manifesto qualifies as a “declaration”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the original poster that science and morals are two different things. Scientific consensus on climate change#Policy points out the difference. However I think there does tend to be a general consensus amongst most people about morals though the degree to which money is valued more than lives varies from country to country - and unfortunately people who value money more tend to make extreme decisions the opposite way which can work out actually far worse from a money point of view. Valuing money more does not make people more rational and better at thinking. Different moral values are not completly right or wrong - but they most definitely are not just 'different'. If people in America had followed the Great Barrington Declaration and Trump and not taken any precautions we very possibly would be looking at three million dead instead of one, and with anyone else the figure very possibly would be half a million. They did not know enough and they made a money decision. NadVolum (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

the Telegraph and allegations of FRINGE

@Hob Gadling and X-Editor:I find it strange that the Telegraph would engage in FRINGE(and I worry about our characterization thereof) and I don't know how to reconcile the deprecation that Ioannidis received previously with this RS extending good faith to his ideas, namely by taking this report in question seriously.
It seems especially troubling that allegations of FRINGE are being used to exclude content that suggests that "signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were shunned by those in favor of the John Snow Memorandum as a fringe minority, the latter using their large numbers of followers on Twitter and other social media and op-eds to shape a scientific "groupthink" against the former who had less influence". Do we run the risk of being part of the groupthink here? Perhaps we can include conflicting POVs? SmolBrane (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we can include a conflicting POV in that section, since there are already sections containing endorsements of the declaration by certain people and groups. X-Editor (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Groupthink is the weapon of exactly the people who wrote the GBD, of climate change deniers, of COVID deniers, and so on. They have nothing else but huge numbers of people copying each other's opinion and bleating it everywhere.

It is, unfortunately, completely normal for media to write about some guy having an opinion without checking whether that opinion is worth mentioning. If you ask scientists about Ionannidis' use of the Kardashian index, they will say it is silly, not because of groupthink but because it is silly.

Wikipedia has high requirements for sources: We should not quote what a paper writes about a primary study. Let's wait until the primary study has been accepted by secondary studies. Using journalistic sources to get around that is not valid.

If you are troubled that fringe opinions are excluded because they are fringe, even when they complain that they are excluded because they are fringe, then you either need a harder skin or should choose a less strict website than Wikipedia to frequent. Ioannidis's fringe paper will not be included without a mainstream balance. It was your decision to delete the mainstream balance [5]. In combination with WP:FRINGE, that means Ioannidis had to be removed too. If you allow the mainstream balance, there is no problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(quote)If you ask scientists about Ionannidis' use of the Kardashian index, they will say it is silly, not because of groupthink but because it is silly

If scientists don't like the use of a given index, they should qualify why and then we can quote that, not just calling it a joke and bad methodology. The Kardashian index is not thoroughly deprecated as you suggest, although if you have more explicit comments by Gorski, perhaps they could be included.

I am not trying to 'get around' sourcing, nor am I troubled about fringe opinions; I am concerned about selectively deprecating specific articles on specific POVs when we have little indication to do so, and given that our job is to inform our readers. I therefore think that deprecation of a perennial non-opinion RS should be difficult, and I don't believe that threshold has been met. The Politico source I mentioned above states that "To see how politics can turn a proposed cure into a poisonous squabble, look no further than the Great Barrington Declaration" and “The well-established authors of the Great Barrington Declaration wanted to create space for discussion”. I regard articles from both Politico and the Telegraph as mainstream perspectives. SmolBrane (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

they should qualify why The source you deleted, Gorski, did that. Just read it. Rebecca Watson also shredded it - that blog does probably not count as a reliable source for formal reasons - but maybe it helps you understand that the Ioannidis paper is bad and should never have been published. Even if it does not, your failure to understand that should not be an obstacle to keeping that crap out of Wikipedia except on the page about Ioannidis.

If those "specific POVs" are fringe POVs, then we damn well should treat them according to WP:FRINGE. That is a Wikipedia guideline, not a Politico guideline, so we have to follow it and Politico does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The source should have been better cited then, was my point. The Kardashian index is interesting since Gorski did rebuke it here, Neil Hall the creator did call it satire on twitter(perhaps worth mentioning), and it is written somewhat humorously, but reading the academic citations of the Hall paper [6] show that many papers did indeed use it seriously, but some appear critical. It's a complicated issue, so I'll leave it up to you if you want to include the whole section, then. SmolBrane (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Including it would not improve the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't find it strange at all. The Telegraph often fails to properly distinguish its editorial and news coverage, and often takes fairly strident positions. This is especially true on anything related to the specific sorts of culture-wars this piece touches on - emotive table-thumping appeals that repeatedly fixate on neologisms like groupthink are not at all unusual there, as are themes of Righteous People Being Shunned. While WP:BIASED sources can be used, I think we have to consider their bias when evaluating due weight - the Telegraph feeling that someone is being silenced doesn't carry much weight, because they believe that about everyone and everything. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I just found it strange that the Telegraph is sometimes useless and sometimes great. It makes our job much harder. To be clear though, the WHO and others like Fauci have pretty much invited strident positions with the strident positions of their own, as noted by the sources I've already mentioned, and by this opinion column [7] from yesterday(not suggesting inclusion here, although statnews does enjoy some citation on english wiki, and is not deprecated):

In March 2020, not long after Covid-19 was declared a global public health emergency, prominent experts predicted that the pandemic would eventually end via herd immunity. Infectious disease epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, who advised President Biden, opined in the Washington Post that even without a vaccine, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, would eventually “burn itself out as the spread of infection comes to confer a form of herd immunity.” The best strategy, he reasoned, was to “gradually build up immunity” by letting “those at low risk for serious disease continue to work” while higher-risk people sheltered and scientists developed treatments and, hopefully, vaccines.

...

Rather than engaging with the substance of these proposals(the gbd), major public health figures dismissed the declaration. Fauci called it “ridiculous” and “total nonsense.” It was later revealed that he and Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, privately discussed launching a “quick and devastating published take down” of the declaration. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus labeled it “unethical.” The WHO even changed its online definition of herd immunity, temporarily erasing reference to immunity from infection. A letter signed by many prominent scientists published in The Lancet declared: “Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for Covid-19 is flawed.”

...

“It’s not possible to stop everybody getting it,” Vallance cautioned the U.K. in mid-March 2020. As countries from Iceland to Australia are recognizing, he was correct. Yet in all of the confusion and false promises of elimination that followed his warning, public health strategies lost sight of how to leverage our herd immunity to protect vulnerable people, with or without a vaccine.

Definitely worthwhile to keep an eye on this matter and the POVs of our reliable sources. SmolBrane (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Related to this discussion: I removed the Gorski reference from the Ioannidis article. It was a bug, Gorski's critique had been inserted apropos of an entirely different paper. I could have added Ioannidis's weird popularity-paper (instead of removing its critique). But Ioannidis hadn't written a paper about Covid or public health, he was dissing his colleagues with the equivalent of a meaningless twitter spat. The spat, then, seemed non-notable. But other people may reasonably disagree. -- M.boli (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right. I do not know how this happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Herd immunity – Watch this space, POV

Herd immunity as a strategy is getting a pretty bad rap on this article; please note that Iceland's Ministry of Health has now explicitly endorsed herd immunity as a strategy, saying:

"Widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic” and "to achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness”.

I have mentioned this POV issue emerging more broadly over on the noticeboard[8], although I have not had time to really follow up on this. Please consider these RSes for inclusion and POV matters relating to the consideration of herd immunity as a viable strategy.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/iceland-lift-all-covid-19-restrictions-friday-media-reports-2022-02-23/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-covid-lift-restrictions-b2021547.html

- SmolBrane (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that herd immunity makes sense at this stage -- in a way that didn't make sense at an earlier stage. If conditions have changed and it now makes sense from a scientific point of view, then of course we can update the article accordingly. It doesn't vindicate earlier nonsense, so it will have to be handled carefully. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Also it would need to be the case that RS say (in effect) "the Great Barrington Declaration was right, about herd immunity over lockdowns", After all (as the above seem to almost say) It is part of a package, rather than the whole solution.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to wait for RSes to mention the GBD specifically, we can observe this POV fork in RSes ourselves and edit appropriately. This is part of the issue: divergence between and within RSes. I agree that this is not a wholesale endorsement of the strategy. SmolBrane (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is another example of you doing WP:OR like you were at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Circumstances change. The people pushing the Great Barrington Declaration were idiots or psychos, but nowadays there is a much better case to be made for following a herd immunity path. It is a real pity the anti-vaxxers have made it impossible to achieve just using vaccines but at least it's the anti-vaxxers who will be mainly affected, and I agree with people being allowed to make stupid decisions and take the consequences if they don't affect others too much, and there is much better treatment and the main variant isn't so dangerous. You should try and be a bit greyer in your thinking rather than saying herd immunity is once and for all a good or bad idea and then you'd have an easiertime with the sources that you currently see as contradictory.. NadVolum (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that things have probably changed over time and that's a big factor here. Regardless, it is likely inappropriate for us to say that herd immunity is unethical(as suggested by the WHO) when we have an entire country diverging with this suggestion. I don't see any issues of OR, just pointing out conflicting material in our RSes here. SmolBrane (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If the sources do not mention the GBD, then there is no conflict; after all, arguing that the two points you have raised are connected (people discussing the GBD and a country changing its policy years later) requires in-depth interpretation and analysis to establish that the contexts are related and that the two have significance to each other. Without a source unambiguously making the argument that you're pushing here, it is just your personal feelings and opinions, and cannot be added to the article in any form. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, we absolutely need sources that mention the GBD specifically. Without that it would be straightforward OR. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And I'd like to reiterate that, as I said at the NPOV noticeboard if a source does not mention the topic then trying to use it is a very good indication of WP:Original research. NadVolum (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As I've said already, there is divergence in RSes producing a POV fork with the informed decision made by Iceland. Please see my reply at the noticeboard. SmolBrane (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And as people both here and at the noticeboard have said, anything that's can be put into an article has to be backed up by a reliable source that basically says it. If you don't have a reliable source connecting the decision in Iceland and the Great Barrington Declaration then nothing can be said about any such connection in the article. NadVolum (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Herd immunity" isn't a policy. It isn't a "strategy." The GBD defines herd immunity as the point when infection rates stabilize because enough of the population has immunity, which it acknowledges would be assisted by vaccination. The policy prescription---the point of the GBD---was to use "focused protection" rather than wait for a vaccine.

The GBD's assertion is that closing schools and businesses would have more deleterious effects on much of the population, both morbidity and mortality, than letting the virus run its course would. It creates this idea of "focused protection" for the more vulnerable. By way of example, it suggests that "nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity" and "retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered." But in all it says very little about how focused protection could be accomplished.

That's it. At this point in history, we have vaccines. All developed countries elected to practice public health restrictions contrary to the GBD's suggestions. A notable fraction of people have achieved some immunity either by vaccine or being infected. Nothing can turn back the clock to the before-era when it was possible to consider the GBD's course of action. -- M.boli (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the nuance here but Tedros did not apply such nuance, he does acknowledge that herd immunity is a strategy when he declares it a bad one: “Tedros said that trying to achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread unchecked would be "scientifically and ethically problematic", especially given that the long-term effects of the disease are still not fully understood.[9][12] He said that though "there has been some discussion recently about the concept of reaching so-called 'herd immunity' by letting the virus spread", "never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic."[9][12][44]

And I will again quote the Independent on the Iceland strategy:

“Iceland’s health ministry has said it wants “as many people as possible” to be infected with coronavirus to achieve “widespread societal resistance.”

The comments come as the nation prepares to lift all of its remaining Covid-19 restrictions on Friday, including a 200-person indoor gathering limit and restricted opening hours for bars.

“Widespread societal resistance to Covid-19 is the main route out of the epidemic,” the health ministry said in a statement, citing infectious disease authorities.

It added that to achieve widespread societal resistance, which is also referred to as “herd immunity,” “as many people as possible needed to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness”.”

And from Queensland, and the material on the COVID in Australia page: “Queensland's Chief Health Officer John Gerrard said that spreading COVID-19 is “necessary” in order to transition from the “pandemic stage to an endemic stage”, noting that people can develop immunity by being vaccinated or getting infected.”

Ultimately, herd immunity is herd immunity, broadly defined, until otherwise contextualized by sources(not by editors), and these sources are conflicting not only on herd immunity but also on the sentiment of letting the virus spread. Sure, there's a historical clarity that makes this more clear retroactively, but we cannot ignore POV forks in our own content. This article still badly needs an update, or a banner saying it needs an update. Sources are almost exclusively from 2020. Indeed, as the article gets updated to current date it should reflect some of these recursive considerations. Please note that your deference to vaccines is also not demonstrated by sources here, although nearly everyone would agree they have played a positive role. SmolBrane (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Except you have provided no sources, and your personal reasoning is faulty from end to end. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my additions by the more recent sources: Politico, Telegraph from December and February, respectively. If current coverage by RSes diverges with historical commentary it should be considered that POVs may have changed, and what was historically fringe(as per your reversion) may no longer be. The article still needs non-opinion RS updates. SmolBrane (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that the evolving understanding of Covid is that vaccination by itself will not end the pandemic, because in many individuals vaccination reduces the severity of the disease rather than preventing it. But the GBD's perscription is as wrong as it ever was. Viz: let the virus spread in an unvaccinated population using "focused protection" to mitigate the damage, because public health measures cause higher mortality than the original Covid does. Nothing about the current understanding supports that. I have seen no reliable sources saying it would have been safer to let the virus run wild. “Widespread societal resistance to Covid-19 is the main route out of the epidemic” can be read as endorsement of GBD by only slicing it completely from any context. And absent any workable example "focused protection" remains pseudoscience. -- M.boli (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the collegial tone, I would encourage editors including yourself to read the Politico article, it does a great job of outlining some of the nuance here. The bluntness of this article in its current state, and its lack of updates make me more skeptical that it is an accurate portrayal of sentiments in sources. Readers should not have to leave Wikipedia to find current and alternative POVs from our own reliable sources. Anyway I'll stop beating this dead horse for the time being, until newer sources materialize. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC) SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Readers should not have to leave Wikipedia to find current and alternative POVs from our own reliable sources" ← oh yes they should. Fringe POVs are only included in Wikipedia when properly framed as fringe in relation to the mainstream. That's NPOV and it's a feature not a bug. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This line of reasoning would be more persuasive if RSes such as the wsj didn't keep featuring opinion articles favorable to the GBD(in chronological order) and from yesterday . Thanks to X-Editor for the efforts of updating the article. SmolBrane (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC) SmolBrane (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Science-denying news source denies science shock! Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would expect a science-denying source that spreads fringe misinformation to be deprecated, why are all these RSes engaging in fringe when they are not deprecated? I would expect a note similar to your objection on the perennial source page, but I don't see it there. SmolBrane (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What you miss is that sources that might be okay for some things (stock markets) might be junk for other things (climate change science). And vice versa. The dumb fallacy that "RS" is a global binary is one of the blights on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting--I feel somewhat similar about the global binary on what is and is not fringe, given divergence in the non-deprecated sources like the Telegraph, Politico and now Nick Gillespie of Reason asking "whether the public health establishment can ever recover from ongoing revelations of incompetence, malfeasance, and politically motivated decision-making". SmolBrane (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE editors push sources which promote fringe views, instead of finding the good sources. It's always been true. Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This article is incredibly biased and reads more like an attack piece than an actual fair and balanced assessment of what the authors advocated. Describing their policy proposals as “pseudoscience” is a level of editorializing that Wikipedia should avoid. 171.66.12.122 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and makes special effort to make sure pseudosciences (like "focused protection") and branded as such. As has been said, it's like promoting the idea of a "no-pee lane" in a swimming pool. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that the adoption of infection derived herd immunity by Iceland (and the effective same decision by Queensland, AU) is pretty explicit evidence that what constitutes 'psuedoscience' on articles such as this does not reflect all authoritative sources, wouldn't you agree? I mean, unless Iceland is fringe. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Iceland situation; I don't think you've shared them yet and I know you are a prolific and rigorous editor. SmolBrane (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The GBD prescribed a notion they invented called "focused protection." In lieu of trying to generally adopt strong public health measures, they claim a better economic vs. health trade-off would be to let the disease run its course and (in a manner they don't specify) protect a vulnerable subset.

Iceland did the opposite. It took very strong public health measures, with very good results reducing infections and especially deaths. That enabled them to wait for the vaccine and fully vaccinate 3/4 of the population. Only now, with the population mostly vaccinated and a less dangerous but more contagious strain prevalent, they choose to let the virus run its course. Iceland's authorities note that in the future a more dangerous version may come back, so letting the current weak virus infect a population with high levels of immunity will have a lower rate of bad effects and generally boost people's immunity.

My understanding is the GBD plan is called pseudoscience mostly because "focused protection" had no factual basis: no evidence that it is do-able. Yet the authors chose prescribe a course of action based on their modeling of a fantasy. In any case, Iceland in no way did what the GBD's authors described.

Quoting the article describing Iceland's policy, which repudiates the GBD idea: The phrase herd immunity is controversial in itself. It has no set definition, but is often associated with allowing the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus to spread while vulnerable people shield. When the virus has infected most of the population, the hope is that outbreaks would fizzle out. Almost all experts agree this definition of herd immunity cannot be achieved. (emphasis added) -- M.boli (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your characterizations are quite accurate. Currently there are wholesale declarations around misinformation that seem to directly contradict some of the decisions by other authorities(Iceland) and the contradictions are being noted at least in part by the RSes that I have cited further up the page, and remain allegedly fringe. Please read the first paragraph of Critical commentaries on this article to see how wholesale these criticisms are.

Iceland was pursuing herd immunity six months after the WHO said it was unethical(COVID-19_vaccination_in_Iceland#First_administrations), when vaccination rates were only 30% and they accordingly changed their vaccination protocols to randomize. Sensibly the 80+ cohort already achieved a near-100% vax rate. The vaccination efforts in Iceland were considered completed at the end of June last year, their lockdowns ended at a 60% vax rate. One might almost consider these ideas a form of protection that is focused(not suggesting inclusion, just my opinion). They recorded no 'delta' deaths between May and August. This is all from the wikipage above.

The heavy deprecation of herd immunity on this article(where the phrase appears sixty-two times) suggests that this article is not giving a fair shake to what amounts to a difference of professional opinion rather than a matter of fact. Vaccination has certainly played a positive role here. It will be difficult to contextualize but I think objections here are warranted. SmolBrane (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The only relevant question is whether this article is biased in (approximately) the same way that mainstream media and scientific sources are biased. If what you read here is (more or less) what you read from Associated Press, CNN, Nature, etc., then it's good enough.

The "I found a country that did something that might be like part of what might have been meant by this vague document" thing is really not something for Wikipedians to be concerned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't reflect policies on POV. I will remind you that the Icelandic Health authority stated that "widespread societal resistance to COVID-19 is the main route out of the epidemic," and "to achieve this, as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough, even though they provide good protection against serious illness". Noting the outlier decision by Iceland is encyclopedic and conflicts with the tone on this article, but I've made that case already. Our job is to inform our readers, definitely including outlier decisions. And the tone on this article does not treat the GBD as vague. I'm sure our readers would be puzzled by the conflict in POVs here, but that's why it's notable! SmolBrane (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

So, of all possible sources, you picked the Icelandic Health authority, which happens to agree with the GBD. That method is not how serious information gathering works. Instead of choosing the result you want beforehand and then trying to find a source that gets you that result, you should check what the leading authorities say. That is what our article is doing. The leading authorities are not some administrative body of some random country. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I've been clear that I believe there are POV issues in this area, and yes Iceland is an outlier, and an excellent rigorous and competent jurisdiction. It's definitely not a coincidence that I keep mentioning it. It's important to remember that encyclopedias are intended to be informative. And when a competent jurisdiction does the unethical thing, we need to consider the implications as editors: is the jurisdiction unethical, or is the characterization incorrect? How do we best manage this unique circumstance for the benefit of our readers? SmolBrane (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The GBD posited that except for ill-defined "focused protection" it was better to not respond to the original more deadly strain in an unprotected population. Iceland did none of that. Iceland took the same sorts of public health measures as other countries. After they vaccinated over half the population, after a much milder strain of Covid became prevalent, they decided the public health measures were less needed. Absent any serious articles where Iceland's public health authorities say we should have followed the GBD when we had the chance it will be hard to cite Iceland. -- M.boli (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The difficulty here might be that newer editors think that their interpretation of the facts matter. It doesn't matter if tomorrow the whole of Iceland were to show up and say "Hi, we're an island with 1/23,000th of the world's population, and we did something that could be construed as something that might have been partly what the GBD recommended, kinda, if you squint hard, so that totally proves Wikipedia should say that GBD was a good idea". That's just not how this works. If we want to say that GBD works (or anything else; e.g., if you believe it's appropriate to say that GBD contains a particularly good recipe for dinner, or that the signatures were written in an especially lovely shade of invisible ink), we need reliable sources that say this. We need those "serious articles" that M.boli mentioned, which AFAICT don't really exist. The ideal reliable source either would be an accepted mainstream source (e.g., the Associated Press) or would credibly use words like "The mainstream view of GBD is...". The worst possible source is some random guy on the internet posting on a talk page here to say "I've been poking around social media and various odd websites, and I've personally decided that Iceland did something like this, so my interpretation of Iceland's experience should overrule all those published sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The Iceland issue is mostly an aside for this article, no doubt, but the difference in professional opinions here is stark and will eventually produce inclusive editing likely on other articles. Unless Iceland becomes deprecated as a health authority, editors should acknowledge this as a difference in POV. Professional differences in POV are encyclopedic and DUE as such. The sourcing will definitely do our jobs for us here, eventually--I suspect Iceland will comment on the relative successes of their policies in the next couple months. I'll be sure to keep you updated! SmolBrane (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Since two people have already explained this to you, and you did not listen to them, you will probably not listen to a third, but anyway, here goes.

Because Iceland did not say that other, more densely populated countries should also use their strategy, and because they introduced that strategy when the dominant strain was Omicron, and because the GBD people did not qualify their recommendations, back then, by saying, "hey, this is what a country such as Iceland should do as soon as there is a milder strain", there is no reason to assume that the Iceland decision makes GBD any more professional or any less pseudoscientific. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, lets put is another way. Do any RS say that Iceland demonstrates the GBD is good science? Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, sources are not so explicit yet--to include Iceland and the GBD, aside from the well written opinion article I mentioned above. The RSes I mentioned above that are sympathetic to the GBD are being excluded from this page due to allegations of fringe(which I regard as a circular logic). It's more of a POV fork/deductive issue. Iceland does not engage in unethical practices, perennial non-opinion RSes do not engage in fringe unless proven, and to imply this to readers is sort of like synth through omission. Iceland adopted herd immunity as a protocol twenty days after the WHO reiterated their stance at this event: . Please see the lasting content over at COVID-19_pandemic_in_Iceland#Herd_immunity_through_infection. Herd immunity in COVID cannot both be "unethical" and "the main route out of the pandemic". As I am an inexperienced editor, I don't have much knowledge on how to manage this POV fork given the severity of the issue and the relative lack of acknowledgement by some sources. SmolBrane (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

We still need RS saying this proved the GBD was valid. MAybe you need to listen to more experienced editors who are telling you you are wrong? Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

The article stated, "It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the pseudoscientific notion of "focused protection"". I have no opinion on whether or not focused protection is pseudoscientific, but this is definitely a contentious claim (ie, the authors of the GBD, which include professors at Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard, would say that focused protection is not pseduoscientific). As such, I think that the claim that focused protection is pseudoscience should be backed up with reliable sources. I added a Citation Needed tag, and until reliable sources are cited, the tag should stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.184 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"I have no opinion on whether or not focused protection is pseudoscientific, but this is definitely a contentious claim" ← the second half of this sentence contradicts the first; let's just reflect what experts say without the POV. Nobody sensible is saying this is not pseudoscience. The pseudoscience aspect is covered in the article and the lede is just a summary. Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"let's just reflect what experts say without the POV. Nobody sensible is saying this is not pseudoscience." Where are the citations for "sensible" saying this is pseudoscience? Why should the basis be it IS pseudoscience when there is no citation for it? And why is the Citation Needed Tag gone? Perhaps bias? Bradford Caslon (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Even Gupta (an author) said the mainstream viewed this stuff as fringe/pseudoscience, as we mention. When both the authors of the paper and scientists critics agree on this, it's not for Wikipedia editors to interpose their own POV. The lede summarizes the body. Alexbrn (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreeing with Bradford here. If this is one man's generalized opinion, it should be included as such, wikivoice here would be inappropriate unless the citations support the alleged unanimity of this characterization(as pseudoscience). What are the other citations, other than Gupta, that support this statement? SmolBrane (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I see now that Osterholm also made this statement further down the page. Could still use more citation here, for the purposes of wikivoice. Attribution of this contentious claim is warranted. SmolBrane (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not contentious. Nobody sane thinks otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please AGF. I encourage you to provide better sourcing here if possible, the opinions of Gupta and Osterholm are not adequate to support wikivoice here. SmolBrane (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Also https://bylinetimes.com/2021/04/21/scientist-linked-to-great-barrington-declaration-embroiled-in-world-health-organization-conflict-of-interest/ which says "All three of Heneghan’s colleagues are founders and named authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), a pseudoscientific document whose proposed strategy of letting the virus run has been widely criticised by public health scientists" and https://bylinetimes.com/2021/05/07/top-world-health-organization-covid-19-advisor-bankrolled-by-great-barrington-declaration-successor-organisation/ which says "The GBD is a discredited pseudoscientific document sponsored by a Koch-backed climate science denial network that advocates ‘herd immunity’ by natural infection, rejected by over 7,000 public health experts."

It doesn't appear to be an especially unusual description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, inclusion of a source like this would be helpful, although I would point out that Byline Times has received some questioning on the noticeboard for its credibility. SmolBrane (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Its a valid point, if only one person says it we must attribute it, or find more sources saying it (As per WhatamIdoing's post above). Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We already have more than one source. But if RS asserts something and no sources counter it, then it's a fact in Wikipedia terms and should just be WP:ASSERTed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration related links and sources

I share the disgust expressed by others at this blatantly biased nature of this screed of an article. I don't have patience to get into edit wars or the like. I will leave relevant links/ quotes here and others may do with it as they wish.

WSJ: How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116

Newsweek: Dr. Fauci and the Coronavirus Policy Blame Game

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-coronavirus-policy-blame-game-opinion-1673977 At a recent Senate hearing, Dr. Anthony Fauci did not even attempt to defend his policies. Instead, he insisted that: "Everything that I have said has been in support of the CDC guidelines."

.... In October 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration criticized Fauci's lockdown strategy, calling for focused protection of high-risk older people while letting children go to school and young adults live near-normal lives. A few days later, Collins—a geneticist with little public health experience—wrote an email to Fauci suggesting a "take down" of the declaration, and characterizing its Harvard, Oxford and Stanford authors as "fringe epidemiologists." Fauci agreed with his boss, but when asked about the incident at the recent Senate hearing, he responded that it "was an email from Dr. Collins to me." In other words, Fauci himself was just following orders. As public health scientists and coauthors of the Great Barrington Declaration, we have been critical of the pandemic strategy championed by Drs. Collins, Redfield and Walensky. As human beings, we can only feel sympathy for the trio as Dr. Fauci seeks to deflect blame onto them. At the Senate hearing, Dr. Fauci did not engage in a substantive public health discussion to defend the pandemic strategy—as one might have expected from its principal architect and salesman. Understandably, politicians, journalists, academics and the public trusted Dr. Fauci. Why should they now shoulder the blame? Dr. Fauci also defended himself by saying he has received death threats from "crazies." It is tragic that scientists have to deal with such threats, a testament to the lack of civil scientific discourse during the pandemic. But Fauci is not alone in that respect. The organized "take down" that he and Collins orchestrated, with their grave mischaracterization of focused protection as a let-it-rip strategy, resulted in death threats and racist attacks against the Great Barrington Declaration authors. As Dr. Vinay Prasad of the University of California, San Francisco pointed out, the NIH director's "job is to foster dialogue among scientists and acknowledge uncertainty. Instead, [Collins] attempted to suppress legitimate debate with petty, ad hominem attacks." Strangely, the Senate is the only venue where Dr. Fauci has faced scientific scrutiny. That important role fell on Dr. Rand Paul, one of the few senators with medical training. America would have been better served if Dr. Fauci had engaged public health scientists with divergent views in civilized debates outside the political environment of the Senate chamber. If Dr. Fauci had embraced open and civil discussion, the public may have benefited from better pandemic policies..."

BMJ: Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy

Ioannidis JP Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy BMJ Open 2022;12:e052891. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052891

"An analysis of citation and social media impact of GBD and JSM signatories shows that both documents have been signed by many leading stellar scientists with very high citation impact in the scientific literature. Random sample data on the longer list of signatories suggest that, expectedly, the longer lists are less thickly populated with extremely highly cited scientists. The total number of top-cited scientists cannot be compared for the two documents because the GBD site does not provide details on all the signatories and signatures are still verified and vetted. Thus, it is unclear whether the much larger total number of signatures in GBD would also translate to a substantially larger total number of top-cited scientists endorsing it as compared with JSM. Regardless, GBD is clearly not a fringe minority report compared with JSM, as many social media and media allude.6–9 GBD may be a more commonly espoused narrative than the JSM narrative among most cited scientists. Acknowledging uncertainty given the fragmentary nature of the presented names of signatories, it is safe to conclude that both documents have been endorsed by many scientists who are very influential in the scientific literature.

Conversely, the two cohorts of key signatories have a stark difference in Twitter follower counts. The majority of key GBD signatories have no personal Twitter account that could be readily identified. While it is possible that some accounts might have been missed (eg, if not directly named after the individual scientist’s names), the difference is so major that it is very unlikely to be a data retrieval artefact. Even among those GBD signatories who do have Twitter accounts, very few have a high number of followers. The key JSM signatories have a very large number of followers in highly active personal Twitter accounts. The most visible Twitter owners include some of the most cited scientists in the analysed cohorts (Trisha Greenhalgh, Marc Lipsitch, Florian Krammer, Rochelle Walensky, Michael Levitt, Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya) and others who have little or no impact in the scientific literature, but are highly remarkable and laudable for their enthusiastic activism (eg, Dominic Pimenta)."

I may add more material in this space as I come across it. Costatitanica (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions the email: "In a private email to Fauci, Collins called the authors of the declaration "fringe epidemiologists" who deserved to be the subject of a media "takedown."" I've also added info about The BMJ study, including a response from The BMJ. As for the Newsweek citation, it is written by the authors of the Declaration, which is a primary source. Because this topic is controversial, the article needs to rely on secondary sources. X-Editor (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ioannidis' paper is generally regarded as a bad joke by scientists. He is trying to play the person instead of the ball because the ball is out of reach. In other words, the data support John Snow and not the GBD, so Ioannidis tries to dig up dirt about the Snow authors. It's the same thing Trump does to journalists who question his lies, his Invasion of the Body Snatchers Donald Sutherland finger pointing pose, only in Latin words and wearing a lab coat. That is not how science is done, and we will not quote that crap unless there are secondary scientific sources endorsing it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Turns out we are already quoting it. But with refutations. Is that OK like that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be okay because it mentions how he is an opponent of prolonged lockdowns and includes a response, meaning it does not give completely UNDUE weight to the study. X-Editor (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

The article currently calls the declaration "pseudoscientific". But most sources do not describe the declaration as such. X-Editor (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It does, where? I can only find two mentions of pseudoscience, both quotes. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, we did not say it was, we said "focused protection" was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience and has been identified as such, therefore Wikipedia must mention that prominently. The "most sources" argument is meaningless; what would count are sources that consider the pseudoscience aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The GBD is well-founded, based on textbooks, and scientific analyses of multiple epidemics for many decades. Frankly, I could care less what some partisan journalist without scientific training says in some "secondary source" that does not perform unbiased data analysis, explain their opinion other than quoting similar opinions not based upon any data, nor analysis, nor indeed anything other than wish fulfillment. How can one define pseudoscience other than wish fulfillment without evidence? What evidence is presented here? I see only opinion, no data, no facts, shear cloth speculation based on hot air from sources of hot air.207.47.175.199 (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay boomer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Fringe

@65.175.199.251: can you please build consensus for your change here instead of edit warring. You just broke the WP:3RR rule, and I urge you to self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The claim is that the word fringe applies to the academic positions of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration within the public health and epidemiological fields of academia. In fact, "focused protection" is merely what public health fields haav advocated for since it's earliest inception. The concept was so non-controversial that it only needed the term "focused protection" in light of the sweeping and near universal lock down mandates. Martin Kulldorf explains this in many places, perhaps most recently, in his writing at the Brownstone Institute: https://brownstone.org/articles/the-collins-and-fauci-attack-on-traditional-public-health/

Addressing all concerns on my edit that people cited the undo they did on the proposed change:

"Seems well-sourced; even the authors' acknowledge it's fringe" from @Alexbrn

This is flatly false, Martin Kulldorf laments his being called fringe in his above article. The quote on the Wikipedia page itself from Santra Gupta: "repeatedly dismissed as fringe or pseudoscience" is also meant in the context of her lamenting the way she feels she has been attacked in the media; probably even referring the the Guardian coverage. And Jay Bhattacharya has at the very least not contradicted either of them in their position and I bet even affirmed he does not see the GBD as fringe to the relevant academic scientific communities.

"I submit that GBD's own website is not a reliable source for how many health experts have signed it. Regardless, you made a bold edit and it is evidently disputed." from @Firefangledfeathers

There is obviously an asymmetric standard of evidence that was being applied in this persons opinion. The original co-signers alone are enough to refute the undoer's opinion and every original co-signer can be looked up and verified which amounts to more than the guardian article. Plus, no academic has called "focused protection" fringe. Besides what is on the other side of this is citing the Guardian and on the other side is career scientists with there names on the line who claim they have been harassed and derided viciously and not without evidence: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-reveal-how-fauci-head-of-nih-colluded-to-try-to-smear-experts/ar-AARX837

Are there any other questions or concerns? The point made about not all signers being public yet is valid, however the same standard of evidence is not being applied to the Guardian article being used to claim the word "fringe" is a indeed appropriate.

And if you really want to add the word fringe, or explain people think it is fringe make an section explaining that and who exactly is saying that. Is their anything unreasonable about this? 65.175.199.251 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Gupta, one of the authors, said that no journal would publish ideas which were "repeatedly dismissed as fringe or pseudoscience". If something is spurned by academia so done as a website instead, that's canonically fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not true as it is taking her quote out of context and the article I posted from Brownstone is written by the other two authors of the GBD and they clearly contradict that interpretation of her quote.

If what you are saying were true she is obviously the only one of the three who thinks that way. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is Sunetra Gupta explaining how she sees herself in relation to the orthodoxy and it is clearly not fringe: https://brownstone.org/articles/a-pathogen-of-panic/ 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

She directly calls the Guardian's words "borderline defamatory". 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you making a point? 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It rare for fringers to admit it, but in this case it's been done. This is in any case obvious fringe/pseudoscience per independent sources and must be described as such. Science isn't done by "declaration". Sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

She directly calls the Guardian's words "borderline defamatory". 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This person has began not merely mistakenly taking things out of context but slandering myself and the authors as "fringers". I have been nothing but respectful what must be done to take this inaccurate word out? Are there any other objectors? 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For this to change, sources must change. The scientific establishment must decide that GBD was not, as it thought, a load of idiotic political bollocks, but good science after all, and then this change of position must be published. Come back when this happens. Until then, Wikipedia reflects the knowledge in good sources, including that GBD is fringe/pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been nothing but respectful and have now been called idiotic. @SunDawn does this not violate Wikipedia's standards? Are you going to allow this abusive behavior to need to continue?

I have provided sources from the scientists themselves explaining how @Alexbrn's interpretation was clearly taking Sunetra Gupta's words out of context and they stooped to insults. They have now removed themselve from the concensus pool according to wikipedia's own guidelines.

Are there any other objections? 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello 65.175.199.251! Hopefully you have a great day. Nobody is calling you idiotic, I think all of us are discussing this quite amicably. As for the material, I understand your concerns. For me personally, I agreed with the premise of the GBD, but the sources that are cited clearly stated that it is a fringe theory. If we wanted to remove that, we must have reliable sources that says that. As of now, I don't see any reliable sources per WP:RS that said that GBD is non-fringe. If future science vindicates that GBD is correct, it will be placed here. But for now, most sources are saying that GBD is fringe theory. If you have any questions, please do ask! And no, Alexbrn is not removing himself from the consensus pool. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about your personal beliefs.

When an Oxford, Stanford and Harvard professor write defending traditional public health theory, that is the definition of not fringe. Sunetra Gupta even stated these were slanderous remarks for public theater. In science, if their is no consensus on a topic you can't label people fringe if they are following the scientific method, that is just slander. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it is not personal belief is why I object your change. My personal belief is that I dislike lockdown like what had happened for the past 2 years. Right now, reliable sources shows that GBD is fringe. If science changed in the future, and it is shown that GBD is not fringe, it shall be reflected so on this article. This moment, only a few researchers believe that GBD is true, that is why it is called WP:FRINGE. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn That sounds kinda SYNTHY to me. Do we have reliable sources using the word "Fringe?" Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of two RSes that do NOT characterize GBD as fringe and indeed support at least the underlying efforts to varying degrees. And the WSJ of course, who has featured five or six articles in support. These sources have been alleged by other editors to be fringe, and have been reverted or opposed accordingly. I regard this as a POV problem--search my name on this talk page for more info. Note that inclusion of these sources would also help to update the article, something it badly needs—the vast majority of sources are well over a year old. SmolBrane (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of two RSes that do not even mention the GBD. So what? We write text because we have RS which support it, we do not delete text because someone finds sources that don't.

The WSJ is well-known for opposing science whenever its conclusions threaten profits: climate change, acid rain, COVID, tobacco. What the WSJ writes about science can be safely dismissed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello 65.175.199.251 it is pretty clear that there is no consensus to remove the word "fringe". Alexbrn has clearly expressed the word "fringe" must be kept in. I have to remind you as well that the onus is on you to prove that it is not fringe, not other editors, as you are the one that changed the status quo. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That burden has already been met, the Authors are from Harvard, Standford and Oxford and the original co-signers all have similarly impressive credentials from across the world in the appropriate respective academic fields. And I have refuted every argument of the people who claim it is fringe. If no else has any objections the word should now be removed. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the authors of the GBD will not have independent views towards the GBD. Like Alexbrn has pointed out, nobody will claim themselves wrong. The authority of the signers such as Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya has been fairly represented, and the numbers of the signee (and the problems with the number of the signee) has been fairly represented as well. Again, Alexbrn has stated that he/she disagreed with the removal, and you can't remove that. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn you are mis-stating Wikipedia policy. If something is untrue Wikipedia is obligated to take it down, the consensus rule need not apply.

It is untrue that these are fringe ideas. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You got it wrong, my friend. Wikipedia is focused on verifiability, not truth. Read about it on WP:TRUTH. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes but it is verifiable that the Gaurdian was slandering Sunetra Gupta. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Gupta the one that said Guardian slandering him? That's the point of WP:MANDY. Gupta's statement about Guardian's action toward him is not independent and not neutral. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to let you know that your argument has been refuted, and the word "fringe" will not be removed. Thanks though. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It has not been refuted. The word fringe is verifiable as inaccurate and consensus need not apply in this situation.

I have demonstrated the falsehood of this claim. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please elaborate, I have been nothing but respectful. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Elaboration - You have not demonstrated the falsehood of this claim. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to Address the claims that I have not demonstrated the falsehood on the claim the the Great Barrington Declaration (GDB) is fringe. After having been blocked for 24 hours I will do my best to assume the good faith in others objections. Here we go.

A summary of what has happened so far: I have proposed a compromise that qualifications be added to the GDB being called fringe, viz. add who is saying it and why. If so many people in the relevant policy and scientific fields are saying this, then their is no reason it should not be considered a reasonable step. All requests for this have been ignored which is making it hard for me to believe other editors are acting in good faith, so be it.

The word fringe should be removed from the description of "focused protection", at one point someone might have been able to mistake the GDB as "fringe" though it never was. Sweden implemented a pandemic policy similar to focused protection this as did so many other countries and regions some not in West. The argument that the authors of the GDB believed they themselves were fringe has been discredited by all the authors writings lamenting that criticism in the above links the published through the Brownstone Institute.

The New York Times published an article explaining that as late as 2006 and 2007, the idea of social distancing was "impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible." [1] So only in the past decade or so has this view changed. This is reflecting in one of Jay and Martin's co-authored article post writing the GDB explaining the complete lack of scientific consensus about the lock down and how it upend generations of public health theory. [2]

Here are the list of scientist and public health experts who have publicly endorsed the GDB who are not authors of the document:

Dr. John Ioannidis Stanford School of Medicine

Dr. Alexander Walker, principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England

Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England

Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada

Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Boris Kotchoubey, Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany

Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA

Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England

Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England

Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA

Dr. Florian Limbourg, physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany

Dr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland

Dr. Gerhard Krönke, physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Dr. Gesine Weckmann, professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany

Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany

Dr. Helen Colhoun, professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden

Dr. Karol Sikora, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA

Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England

Dr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England

Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England

Dr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.

Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England

Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India

Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA

Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA

Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England

Dr. Sylvia Fogel, autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA

Tom Nicholson, Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA

Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany

Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

People who have endorsed traditional public health policy include (meaning not lockdown and policies consistent with a focused protection policy):

Dr. David Bell, former head of the WHO's milaria and ferbile diseases

Dr Anders Tegnell, Swedish Health Agency's former chief epidemiologist who now serves at WHO

I could go on but I think I have made my point. At the very least there is not scientific consensus around lockdowns or strategies for social distancing. Therefore, it follows any attempt to label the original authors of the GDB as fringe is widely controversial in the scientific community and should be removed from the Wikipedia page or qualified with who exactly thinks this.

Also, the only reference for calling the GDB fringe is a Guardian article and some of the many lies spread by the Guardian in recent years can be found here [3]. The multiple lies they published about Julian Assange, the racist cartoon they published about Priti Patel and the list goes beyond what is on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#1972_to_2000

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/social-distancing-coronavirus.html

[2] https://brownstone.org/articles/the-collins-and-fauci-attack-on-traditional-public-health/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#1972_to_2000 65.175.199.251 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will remove the word fringe @SunDawn @Firefangledfeathers @Roxy the dog @Alexbrn. Please respond in a timely manor. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There obviously are. Do it, and your next block will likely be permanent. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we really assume good faith is what was just said? No objection was raised and a clear threat was made. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears you know of reliable, secondary sources that describe the declaration as fringe. You have presented no reliable, secondary sources that dispute that descriptor. I object to removing it. You'll know when you have consensus for the change when many editors voice affirmative support for it, not by setting arbitrary timeliness requirements for objections. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not an engagement. I declared the Guardian is not reliable and this was not addressed. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

And the New York Times did object to the policy being fringe by directly contradicting the Gurdian saying as late as 2006 and 2007, the idea of social distancing was "impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible." 65.175.199.251 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not feel that continued discussion with you will be productive. Please do not take my lack of response as silent agreement with any of your points. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not engaging with discussion is a violation of Wikipedia's editing policies and you will remove yourself from the consensus pool if you do not engage. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_a_failure_to_discuss#The_process

If you want to be in the consensus pool you are obligated to engage. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, you are obligated to assume good faith, which you are clearly not doing. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You linked to an essay, there. It is somebody's personal opinion, not a policy. No one is required to renew their objections on whatever timeline you want to set. There is no such concept as a 'consensus pool', and even if there were you cannot arbitrarily exclude people from it. If you want to make changes to this article, you must get actual agreement. Wikilawyering and trying to work the process will not help you. People have to actually agree with your points. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I am applying a policy and guideline that is consistent with the intention of the guideline. You must engage in the dialog in order to claim part of the consensus anything less is a lack of transparency. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood. People are not required to argue with you forever. See WP:TENDITIOUS, WP:SEALION, WP:DROPTHESTICK, etc. Arguing with the intent to wear down the majority opposition tends to lead to a block for disruption. - MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My arguments for removing "fringe" have not been addressed. This is not an intent to wear down majority opposition and you are not assuming good faith which is also a guideline violation. If you would like to bring up something about the points I have laid out regarding the Wikipedia entry, then please get back on topic. Points are at 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC), and at 19:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC). 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How much time have I got? I'm having a swim in the consensus pool at Doggy Manor atm. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what this means but the recommended time frame to wait for dissent is at least 1 week. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Where in our WP:PAG is that time frame recommended? Would it help if I told you that a consensus pool is like an infinity pool designed by a comittee? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is entirely unwelcome when the lockdown policies killed so many disenfranchised women and children. This is a serious topic and Wikipedia as it stands is giving off direct disinformation as legitimate. I have already addressed your concern in other places see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_a_failure_to_discuss#The_process

My arguments for removing "fringe" have not been addressed. If you would like to bring up something about the points I have laid out regarding the Wikipedia entry for GDB, then please get back on topic. Points are at 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC), and at 19:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC). I see no objections being made in good faith that I have not thoroughly addressed. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know the people arguing with me aware of the data released recently on the lockdown effects on the worlds poorest people? The death toll and other affects are stomach turning.

[1] https://www.globalfinancingfacility.org/emerging-data-estimates-each-covid-19-death-more-two-women-and-children-have-lost-their-lives-result

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-26/contraception-s-cost-teen-pregnancy-in-poor-countries-sets-back-gender-equality 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I would like to know if the people arguing with me are aware* 65.175.199.251 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless these sources describe the GBD as mainstream or non-fringe in some other way, I don't see how this changes anything. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The two articles from the Brownstone Institute from the authors of GDB claim the Guardian's label of fringe was wrong and an attack from the media [1][2].

The book The Great Covid Panic states on page 168 "[The Great Barrington Declaration] re-established the orthodoxy that had existed before March 2020, calling for public health policies to be based on an assessment of costs and benefits." It also says on page 227 "the system of deliberative framing of opponents was let loose on critical scientists, such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration of October 2020, they became subject to an enormous campaign of disinformation and accusation." This independently corroborates all three of the authors accounts that calling them fringe is merely a slander used to make them seem less credible and Wikipedia should either qualify the use of the word fringe with who is saying it in the Scientific Community (if anyone is) or remove it altogether. The authors of the Great Covid Panic are from the London School of Economics, the School of Economics at The University of New South Whales and an Australian policy journalist known for hist work at the BBC.

[1] https://brownstone.org/articles/the-collins-and-fauci-attack-on-traditional-public-health/

[2] https://brownstone.org/articles/a-pathogen-of-panic/

[3] Frijters, Paul, et al. The Great COVID Panic : What Happened, Why, and What to Do Next. Austin, Tx, Brownstone Institute, 2021. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I get a blank page when I try to access the Bloomberg link, so I won't comment on that one, but the GFF link doesn't mention the GBD or lockdowns as far as I can see. Squeakachu (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is the lockdown killed so many people it was clearly a disaster. I'm hoping it is enough for you to question your assumptions. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those articles say anything of the sort. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly what they say. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you even read it? "Emerging data estimates that for each COVID-19 death, more than two women and children have lost their lives as a result of disruptions to health systems since the start of the pandemic" 65.175.199.251 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that "disruptions to health systems" means lockdowns? Nothing in the article suggests that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The WHO's former head of Malaria and Ferbile Dr. David Bell diseases breaks down that term most succinctly here: https://twitter.com/dockaurG/status/1528808829533794304

I would have to collect upwards of 10 references to reference anything else other than this video. This info just came out. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that we remove the word fringe or qualify it with who exactly thinks that. This would be more accurate, balanced and encyclopedic. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't attribute facts in that manner, we're not going to pass the mainstream view off as if it is just somebody's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What is your standard of evidence for proving that the mainstream view is not that the GDB is fringe? I will demonstrate how that standard has been met or how an asymmetrical standard of evidence is being applied for this discussion that is flattering to your biases that I believe you may be bringing to this discussion in good faith. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You need reliable, high quality, independent sources, that are actually about the matter at hand. Not anything written by the people who wrote or signed it in the first place. Not the WSJ's opinion page. Not the collection of links you keep posting that don't mention the declaration at all. - MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

What makes the Guardian's page more reliable than the WSJ page?

Please name exact types of sources you would trust.

Tenured professors from X, WHO expert, World Bank Experts, Unicef Experts, I have all of these. Please name an few institutions you find trustworthy enough and I will get references showing you they eschew they idea that the concepts in the GDB, ie Focus Protection are fringe. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that would be false balance, unless you can provide reliable sources to support your views. Twitter is not reliable, nor are opinion pieces, nor are articles written by an organization whose avowed purpose is pushing this narrative. The only articles you've provided that have even approached reliability have not mentioned the Great Barrington Declaration, and have barely even discussed lockdowns, and certainly not in the apocalyptic tone you're using. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It was just a video of Dr. David Bell. I can go gather all the sources from that video, Bell's explanation is off topic anyhow, I'm telling you this so you can challenge the fundamental bias you are bringing to this discussion nothing more.

The only thing on point directly relating to this GDB article is: "The only articles you've provided that have even approached reliability have not mentioned the Great Barrington Declaration, and have barely even discussed lockdowns"

That statement is demonstrably false: which one of these references are unreliable and why?

(1) The over thirty endorsements from scientists listed above.

(2) https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116

(3) Frijters, Paul, et al. The Great COVID Panic : What Happened, Why, and What to Do Next. Austin, Tx, Brownstone Institute, 2021.

(4) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/social-distancing-coronavirus.html 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thirty people means absolutely nothing. We need sources, not a handful of names without any context. The WSJ article is an opinion piece, and is therefore not reliable. The Brownstone Institute is an organization dedicated to pushing this narrative; it is not even close to impartial, and is thus not reliable. The New York Times article does not mention the Great Barrington Declaration, and isn't even particularly critical of lockdowns: Early, aggressive action to limit social interaction using multiple measures like closing schools or shutting down public gatherings was vital to limiting the death toll, they found (which is discussing lockdowns in general from a study in 2007, there's very little discussion of the COVID lockdowns specifically at all). You'll need to do much, much better than that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"The WSJ article is an opinion piece, and is therefore not reliable." The Guardian piece is an opinion piece, too. Just because the author doesn't acknowledge that fact doesn't change the fact.

The WSJ literally addresses people who make the argument you just made by saying the following: "Their lack of self-understanding arises from the belief that the primary factor separating their side from the other side isn’t ideology, principle or moral vision but information—raw data requiring no interpretation and no argument over its importance. It is a hopelessly simpleminded worldview—no one apprehends reality without the aid of interpretive lenses. And it is a dangerous one."

Before we go any further, what, in fact, is your standard of evidence for removing the word fringe or adding the qualification for who is saying the GDB is fringe? 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"The point is the lockdown killed so many people it was clearly a disaster." I don't see how one would draw that conclusion from the articles you linked (sidenote:I can now read the Bloomberg piece. Like the GFF article, no mention of the GBD or lockdowns). Regarding The Great Covid Panic, the Brownstone institute is not an independent source on this point. Squeakachu (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My arguments for removing "fringe" have not been addressed. If you would like to bring up something about the points I have laid out regarding the Wikipedia entry, then please get back on topic. Points are at 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC), and at 19:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC). 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The authors of the Great Covid Panic are from the London School of Economics, the School of Economics at The University of New South Whales and an Australian policy journalist known for hist work at the BBC. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, The Brownstone Institute articles are from the authors of the GDB themselves: Dr. Martin Kuldorff, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

WSJ's Editorial Board endorsing that : "These researchers weren’t fringe and neither was their opposition to quarantining society." https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116 65.175.199.251 (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic cases will show you the numbers of deaths caused by the virus. Are there any reliable numbers on deaths caused by lockdown? Until there are, those "deaths" are just a phantom menace invented by economists who only care about markets and not about actual people. You are conjuring them by doing an exegesis of journalistic sources.

You do not understand how science is done. It is not done by dropping as many names as possible with "Dr." in front of them. That is an utterly naive and amateurish notion that will get only an eye-roll from scientists if actually attempted in their presence.

You also do not understand how Wikipedia works. People have shown you far too much patience, and you should have been banned indefinitely long ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

2 Women and Children Died from the lockdown for every one that died of Covid. Some of those people who died were friends and one was a family member of mine.

I'm so sick of humanities majors telling me about how science is done. I'm sure I have more scientific credentials than you. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You are just some random person on the internet and thus not a reliable source. Go publish that, convince the scientific community that it is true, wait until they say so, and then we can quote that.

I'm sure Being sure and being right are not correlated.

I have more scientific credentials than you Coming from someone who just invented out of thin air a "humanities major" for me (yuck!) and who has been amateurishly throwing credentials around as if they counted as scientific reasoning (snicker!), that extraordinary claim is neither credible nor relevant.

Please WP:FOCUS. Or, much better, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Come back when you have better arguments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Come back when you have better arguments."

Name a detailed standard of proof you will be convinced by and I will go get it for you. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You very-nice-people need to stop jumping into each others threads. @MrOllie if you are interested in hashing out the standard of proof you will be convinced by that lets do it in your thread. Otherwise, you just look like you are ganging up to intimidate, not forming genuine dissent for coherent discussion. 65.175.199.251 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

None of us own threads, and we can all comment wherever we please. MrOllie (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine, be that way, I don't think it will help anyone in coming to understand your position which I have to assume is not what you want but so it goes.

That is a very nice document you shared. I have met many standards laid out in that document. Is there one or a couple of standards in their that you would like to highlight that you would find to be a high enough burden of proof such that it would convince you? 65.175.199.251 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Then please show us that GBD is not-fringe is shown on high quality medical journals, such as those found in 2003 Brandon/Hill list per WP:MEDRS. Or core medical journals such as The Lancet or JAMA. Failing that, if any WP:MEDORG supported your assertion, that would also applies as WP:MEDRS. If you fail to show the evidence, we have to conclude that there is not reliable source to support the removal of the "fringe" word. Thank you.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note User 65.175.199.251 is currently blocked due to edit warring and generally disruptive behavior and cannot participate in this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Taking @65.175.199.251's poor netiquette into account, the conversation was no less advanced. @SunDawn let us not just drop the stick but put it away in a responsible way. That way when others can pick it up in the future, the many hours spent hashing things out this far need not be repeated as this could very well happen again. Would you be willing to say your standard for making the proposed changes is that when/if the GBD is seriously discussed in high quality medical journals, the quality of which you have referenced above, that is when you would be convinced the article should be changed to reflect either, as the OP said, to qualify who calls it fringe or remove the reference from the news outlets who label the GBD fringe? I only clarify this because it is highly unlikely that a medical journal will publish something like "therefore the gdb is not fringe" but if they publish something which takes the GBD seriously and it gets enough citations we can then conclude it is indeed not fringe for the purposes of this article?

@Alexbrn@Firefangledfeathers@Hob Gadling@MrOllie@Roxy the dog could you also get behind this?

There are obviously many editors who think this should be changed including @Zemaye1@X-Editor@Costatitanica, the many IP addresses that commented, and even you @SunDawn say you broadly think their are aspects of the article not reflecting what you perceive as the truth. JonTrossbach (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems likely that some block evasion is going on here. I have filed a SPI. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

not just drop the stick but put it away in a responsible way. That way when others can pick it up in the future You are aware that the WP:STICK in question is being used for beating a dead horse? It should not be picked up after dropping it. The horse has already been flogged ad nauseam in the archives, although not regarding the word "fringe" but other, similar wordings.

The hypothetical "seriously discussed" thing sounds like asking us to sign a blank sheet of paper. After all, Skeptical Inquirer contains "serious discussions" of alleged evidence for ghosts and concludes the evidence is bad, and ghosts are still fringe.

When you have those sources, we can discuss it. I won't hold my breath. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I thought we just deleted posts by block evaders? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

References