Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Controversial maybe false not

Most of the "fact check" site seem to also rely on opinion. I feel it would reduce the apparent bias against Bhakdi by calling his ideas controversial rather than false. False implies he is deliberately lying.

And I feel you should read WP:FRINGE and then come back with something useful. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Bhakdi's views in regard to COVID-19 may fall mainly within Alternative Theoretical Formulations, however he is orthodox in his explanations of how the the Immune System functions to the best of my knowledge. So it seems to be more his prognostications on COVID-19 that are open to question. However if we were to evaluate everyone on the same basis I think we would find many people's prognostications at the outset were incorrect to some degree. So I concur with the comment above that his ideas are controversial but not false, unless we cite specific claims that have been proved false, without prejudicing his pedigree in other respects as a researcher/microbiologist. Thanks.

Has he retracted his views?Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry there was an edit conflict: I think the matter under question in this section of the discussion page is whether Fringe = False according to Wikipedia and according WP:FRINGE it doesn't necessarily. Thanks

Irrelevant if he had not retracted his views after they were shown to be false, they are false.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The point is WP:FRINGE cannot be used to justify calling anyone's views false, as Wikipedia has a wide definition of what is fringe and it includes Alternative Theoretical Formulations. In the case of Bhakdi we are dealing with someone who subscribes to orthodox understandings of the immune system, and has otherwise been a respected microbiologist, based on the amount of citations attributed to him.

Well yes we can, if mainstream sources say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've listened to Bhakdi and it seems to be about continual re-vaccination - third, fourth, fifth jabs he is concerned about. I also think any conspiracy group can lift a few seconds from a clip of a well known scientist and take him out of context to suit their agenda. That has certainly happened with Bhakdi. So again I haven't heard him make the claim the vaccines will decimate the world's population, but he is expressing concerns in regard to people getting re-jabbed after already having had two doses. I think his comments are cautionary. In fact I'd like to know how his cautionary remarks differ substantially from those in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/

Also this PubMed article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33877041/

I think the Scientific American article and the above link show that concerns about COVID-19 Vaccines have been mainstream a good bit before Bhakdi expressed his concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We go with what wp:rs say, not our wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The cited (english) source only states that Bhakdi's views "run counter to the scientific consensus" - so did Galileo's at one time, remember - and the article is actually fact checking something put out by some group called Red Pill University, not Bhakdi. As I said, and will say again Bhakdi's concerns are about the speed of the development of the vaccines and about are about risks from repeated re-vaccination, and that should be made clear in the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

And when they no longer run counter to the scientific consensus we can re-write the article, but we can't do is take a chance that this is not just another N-Ray.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I will not be backing down on this important point of clarification - his (Bhakdi's) claim is about risks of re-vaccination, and the article needs to be changed to reflect that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

See wp:tenditious and wp:dropthestick. Provide an RS saying he did not mean the vacine will devisate the worlds popualtion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? - how about you take a look at those yourself!! I'm not the one who has been here for weeks like a dog with bone - I only seen the article two days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

Many editors have pages on their watch list, that is not being tendentious, refusing to accept clear consensus is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't see any clear consensus here - except three major talk page sections questioning the article's impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

The read the talk page. You have shifted position from your original point anyway. They all come down in favour of the current version.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, its four major sections, not three, questioning this article's neutrality. No clear consensus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

Time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bhakdi's said false things; decent sources called him out; Wikipedia reports it for NPOV; WP:PROFRINGE editors don't like it. Same ol' story. What we have is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll let my previous comments stand: I think the article needs a lot of work to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

You don't understand what NPOV means. You don't know that Wikipedia is supposed to be on the side of scientific consensus - see WP:YWAB. You don't know that everybody who wants to defend any idiotic idea will almost immediately use the Galileo gambit, and you don't know that it is utterly worthless as a reason for accepting any of those ideas. You don't even know how to WP:SIGN your contributions. You are a rookie, and you should adapt your height of your nose to your experience level. I added a template to your recent botched edits. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That's quite rude of you, I am not editing the article I am merely offering some passing comments on its talk page and I have not said anything to merit that sort of outburst. Leaving aside your rudeness for the moment. OK following your own argument Wikipedia is on the side of the scientific consensus, and Bhakdi's views run counter to the scientific consensus. Bhakdi has been a highly cited and respected Microbiologist, he is therefore part of the community of scientists. Sometimes a University may distance itself from a scientist, and that has happened with one university in regards to Bhakdi. Views that run counter to the scientific consensus are not always necessarily false. We should therefore simply say his views run counter to the current scientific consensus. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

True, but when RS say they are false, so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry which point were you saying was true? I agree we should go with reliable sources, as I pointed out someone could be miscontexted. So lets break this down: Is so called 'Red Pill University' a reliable source for presenting scientist's views? For myself I don't think it is, and the fact check is more about Red Pill University claims. Bhakdi's comments regarding "third, fourth and fifth" re-vaccinations are made following scientific studies from Denmark and while I don't agree with Bhakdi in everything he says, but I appreciate him for offering a calm, cautious counterpoint regarding vaccination based on a scientifically orthodox understanding of the human immune system. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

It is true that "Views that run counter to the scientific consensus are not always necessarily false", but (as far as I know) we are not using 'Red Pill University' as a source for any claim about Bhakdi. Nor do we use only one source for claims he has presented falsehoods related to Covid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The USA Today article uses Red Pill University (hereafter RPU for convenience) website as a source to criticise Bhakdi, its not using a reliable source either. We wouldn't use RPU website as a source for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

We do not reject an RS for using an unreliable source, we assume they also did their own checking (its why they are an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you saying Red Pill University website is a unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

No I am saying WE do not use it, and USA Today is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• A lot of people like conspiracy theories, racism etc.[1] Wikipedia however takes a robust view of WP:FRINGE topics, whereby they are contextualized by respectable, mainstream sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

If a website is not used it has to be either because its a unreliable source, or its just editor preference not to use it which won't carry on these talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

Yes, and?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I thought that would be obvious, I asked you if RPU website was unreliable and you said "No...WE do not use it" - if you don't deem it as unreliable why do you not use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

What? As we do not use it is does not matter if it is not an RS, as...we are not using it. I did not say it was an RS, as it is irrelevant as we are not arguing for its inclusion. But fine, it is not an RS, now what?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok don't use it yourself, I won't be using it either as I don't like it. But you see when it comes to a source being removed there has to be a reason other that "WE - do not use it" - a source is not used, until it is used - then there has to be a reason for removing it. I suppose someone could just remove it, but that is liable to be reverted if no good reason such as a better source is available or a more reliable source. So "WE don't use it" does not ammount to a reason.

So Red Pill University website is not a reliable source not a RS for presenting Bhakdi's views is what I would conclude. I'll do a bit more checking online however to see how things stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.23.174 (talk • contribs)

No Red Pill University website is not a reliable source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should stop responding to this person. As you can see from their refusal to WP:SIGN their contributions, they are not even trying to understand how Wikipedia works in very simple aspects. The same applies to WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. When you try to tell them, they don't listen, they just whine and double down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

With their latest reply, I have to agree. I am not even sure what they are now saying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For the Record: Hob Gadling you made a rather derogatory and wholly unprovoked Personal Attack on me in your earlier reply in this section, not worthy of anyone who claims to be an experienced editor - you should have addressed the points I was making - I remind you of WP:PA I won't let the matter pass without seeking intervention if it happens again. I recommend you to read WP:POVRAILROAD 82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it would have been better if I'd signed my posts. I had forgotten the shortcut for doing that. Should not be taken as an excuse to call someone making some passing comments on the talk page "a rookie".82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are not a rookie, you should log in to your user account instead of editing as an IP. And you should apply all the experience you have gathered since the time long ago when you were a rookie, and routinely sign all your posts as well as refrain from pretending that the rules mean something else than their actual meaning, which you are already familiar with for that long time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we please take all comments about users to either their talk page or wp:ani, wp:talk is clear we discuss content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I had acknowledged that it had been a while since I edited, I forgot the shortcut to use and that it would have been better to sign which I now do. I don't really see any point to the "rookie" comment I'd sooner say something like: "You seem to be new here - do bear in mind that it good practice to sign your posts." I agree this is the place to discuss the article which I had been doing. 82.8.23.174 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

change antisemtic to antisemitic:

In 2021 Bhakdi's publisher broke off relations following the appearance of an online video in which Bhakdi made antisemtic comments.[6] Teiloton (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

“False”

Can we present this article with political unbias please?

Just because he has differing opinions doesn’t make him wrong. This is clear censorship. NascarJunk (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

See the welcome on your Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "political"? His false statements were about science. And, since you do not seem like the word "false": how can adding words be censorship? You seem very, very confused. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NO, but if the bulk of experts say he is wrong...we say it (see wp:fringe and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a great statement. So when the bulk of experts in retrospect turns out to be wrong, Wikipedia will have been wrong with them. One might live with that. I also noticed that the same editors work on topics like "Bret Weinstein", "Ivermectin" and now Bhakdi. It could raise some suspicion and is probably another inherent Wiki-problem. The "uncool" wording of a few, their obvious anger, and in some cases, as can easily be found out, personal experience with a limited effectiveness of the vaccine probably play a role here, too. In the end Wiki is not able to read between the lines and thus will never get a bigger picture. The main things that Bhakdi or Yeadon said are confirmed: virus will become less deadly (in relation to infected), vaccine will cause additional deaths due to blood clots, autoimmune overreaction etc. (Yeadon gave a time frame of 2 years, so that has to be seen), masks will not prevent infection effectively enough, certain pcr tests are too faulty etc. Yeadon's rant from his garage is still on Youtube, and if you know what Bhakdi says, you do not need a source anymore to expicitly point out that there are some scientists in different parts of the world who basically said the same, independent of each other. I know what you want to write now: The "expert" who said there will be no second wave. Right. A "wave" is not defined clearly enough, it is rather a peak, and those were created by different mutants that caused different symptoms and were treated differently. One could argue; to count "waves" here would be the same as saying the next flu epidemic, based on a different mutant of a virus than the last one, is the 157th or so "wave". There is no wave of Corona alpha mutant anymore, so they were right. Sticking to the word "wave" is part of a rhetoric strategy. Otaku00 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any point to this that has anything to do with improving the article? If no, you are in the wrong place. Complaints about users go to WP:VANDAL or something like that. Chatting about masks and vaccinations and so on goes to Facebook, YouTube, or wherever. Not Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Then we change it when they turn out to be wrong according to the bulk of RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I did not edit those articles, but thanks for the heads up they may also have issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Illiteracy and eagerness to rebuke contrary viewpoints both shun quality content. Keep that in mind folks before editing pages on debatable scientific topics.Altamir.gomes (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that the original article made no mention of Dr Bhakdi being "known in retirement for spreading conspiracy theories and antisemitic polemic." I guess he must've jumped into that at about the same time he started criticizing various nation's covid responses. Original article for reference. https://web.archive.org/web/20201015065757/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucharit_Bhakdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.172.123 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Change "known in retirement for spreading conspiracy theories and antisemitic polemic.[1] In 2020 and 2021 Bhakdi became a prominent source of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that the pandemic was "fake" and that COVID-19 vaccines were going to decimate the world's population.[3][2]

He was a professor at the University of Mainz, where from 1991 to 2012 he was head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene.[4] The university subsequently disassociated itself from Bhakdi's views on the Coronavirus pandemic.[5] In 2021 Bhakdi's publisher broke off relations following the appearance of an online video in which Bhakdi made antisemitic comments.[6]"

to " His ideas and statements about Covid-19 have created a lot of debates worldwide. Because of his statements the University of Mainz subsequently, in which he was a professor from 1991 to 2012 and head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene [4], disassociated itself from Bhakdi's views on the Coronavirus pandemic.[5] " Sonia13768 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, see discussions above and in archive. FDW777 (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Hallo, just to let you know of an inaccuracy in this article. The problem is with the first source. The end of the very first sentence states “known in retirement for spreading conspiracy theories and anti Semitic polemic” then the first source is listed. The source listed is a letter in German of questions the professor wrote concerning coronavirus and the German authorities response to it. There is nothing anti Semitic in it, indeed, there is no references to Jews at all. Therefore, it is not a source for his views on this subject and either a new source needs to be found or the sentence changed. Also, a better source is really needed for conspiracy theories since there is little to nothing of that in the letter either. Thanks very much :)2001:44B8:2D3:8A00:D2F:AD6D:6A04:3764 (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC) 2001:44B8:2D3:8A00:D2F:AD6D:6A04:3764 (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bhakdi vaccines Claim"

Bad source for claim: "Bhakdi has claimed that the pandemic was "fake" and that COVID-19 vaccines were going to decimate the world's population" and used this source for this:

source: "website called Red Pill University (a reference to the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory) wrote that COVID-19 vaccines “will decimate world’s population.” As evidence, it cites a video featuring Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi."

But as can be seen by the source, it wasn't bhakdi that made this claim, it was "red pill university". So you can't say it was bhakdi who made the claim until you find a source showing Bhakdi himself said that. All this source has shown is that some random people watched "a video" featuring Bhakdi.

- source 3: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/30/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-dont-cause-death-wont-depopulate-planet/7411271002 Gd123lbp (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Over the course of the 40-minute clip, Bhakdi calls the pandemic “a fake,” " yes the source says she said it was fake. If that is incorrect taker it up with USA Today and get them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference says “Guys, don’t get a third or fourth or fifth (shot), because if you do that, you are going to contribute to the decimation of the world’s population,” he says later. and Over the course of the 40-minute clip, Bhakdi calls the pandemic “a fake,” says wearing masks and quarantining is “absolutely ridiculous nonsense,” and coronavirus tests don’t work.

I suggest reading your own references more carefully in future. FDW777 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

As the title says, please add the [[Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists]] to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexvoda (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentirosa busca interesses próprios divulgadora de fake news lamentável

Wikipedia mentirosa busca interesses próprios divulgadora de fake news prejudicando os verdadeiros médicos, lamentável. 2804:431:E7CF:E659:1066:3186:7668:96A0 (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anti-vaccination activists

Surely he qualifies for this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-vaccination_activists 111.220.83.242 (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

Dr Bhakdi is an American Thai, he has announced this himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.163.179 (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. --Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022‎ (UTC)

Everyone that doesn't agree with a narrative is suddenly s conspiracy theorists, why?

Propaganda? 87.49.45.154 (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

wp:RS say so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No, everyone who replaces the "narrative" with a conspiracy theory narrative is a conspiracy theorist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps there could be maybe a better way of addressing this issue. A few of the comments Bhakdi made at times were misjudged, on the other hand at least some of what Bhakdi was saying when he said it now seems to have been prescient. We have no way of judging some of the other things he said, however I would think if someone was really a "source of misinformation" he or she would be on the list of the big twelve sources of misinformation in regard to COVID that was published, but Bhakdi doesn't even feature there. I did a search not only is he not one of the twelve he isn't mentioned once in a 40 page report! So I think to refer to him as either a major or prominent source of misinformation cannot be substantiated. I suppose that maybe a few may still disagree, but we should try and sort this problem out.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/17/covid-misinformation-conspiracy-theories-ccdh-report

As he has been a highly respected figure in his field of micro-biology, we cannot single out merely one or two things he said or because some other conspiracy theorists cited him - that doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. And when he is talking on the immune system and how it functions there is nothing wrong to my knowledge with what he is saying. 82.8.23.174 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong.

Neither was Bhakdi a "highly respected figure" in his field (and even if, that was 40 years ago). Nor does the missing of Bhakdi's name in that report proves that he is not a conspiracy theorist. Everything he stated during the Covid-19 pandemic was utter trash and is reflected in the article.

Stop wasting our time with such kind of discussions you have been warned. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Because RS say so. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page. I think your reply will be very telling to anyone reading it: "...and even if..." He is the most highly cited microbiologist in German academic history. I have no need to argue this as it i a fact out there so to speak in objective reality. There is no point denying it. Even if you do, it remains a fact. There is nothing about a conspiracy involved here, this is the POINT OF FACT: There is not a single mention of Bhakdi in the report about COVID misinformation. Thankyou for your time and attention. Goodbye 82.8.23.174 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Most" does not mean "all, and we have multiple sources for the claim he spread misinformation. So all this could be used for is to say that not all Covid misinformation comes from Bhakdi, but as we do not say he is it's irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a single mention of Bhakdi in an official 40 page report about sources of COVID Misinformation. Thankyou for your time and attention. Good Day 82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What official report? Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CCDH Report on twelve sources of COVID misinformation.82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Care to link? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the Guardian Newspaper report link I posted above. You can search the report. I should have said the CCDH is an NGO.82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

YOu mean the report that say "Majority of Covid misinformation came from 12 people, report finds", not all, majority. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This is now time wasting, drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry your last comment didn't make any sense. Maybe you could try that again? 82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You asked me for a link, when I had already provided one, so really is you who is taking up my time.82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The CCDH report on COVID Misinformation was cited by the White House.

I think there is a way round this problem: we could state what the single source we have says about his alleged misinformation, without any embellishment, but also note that Bhakdi was not listed amongst the 12 Biggest Sources of COVID Misinformation according to the CCHD Report. 82.8.23.174 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Bhakdi is mainly active in Germany, there is no reason why he should appear in some foreign list. His absence there means absolutely nothing. de:Sucharit Bhakdi has plenty of sources saying he spreads misinformation.

And when you use the word "microbiologist", you hide the fact that he is a bacteriologist who may well know next to nothing about viruses. Bacterial epidemics do not become pandemics since the discovery of antibiotics, so he probably knows next to nothing about pandemics either.

BTW, when people ask for a link, you just supply it, not describe where someone can search for it. So, as Slatersteven said, stop wasting our time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"Minikama" -> Mimikama

Prominence during COVID-19 pandemic; Responses ...: there is a red internal link to "Minikama". The correct name is Mimikama. --89.204.137.64 (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Opinion and directed arguments!

Relating COVID-19 Stuff.

Why this is written accompanying an opinion and supplied by arguments against him?

Can't you just be neutral about him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.33.116 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Also WP:CHARLATANS ans WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It reads like a hit piece. Which has become typical for wikipedia-articles about people the establishment doesn't like. --105.0.1.103 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but you need to read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

But still, even though the lie in Wikipedia is so fast, the truth will finally catch up! 2A02:A445:FBD4:1:D4DF:7CEC:5BCD:BDCC (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify It is not clear what edit you wish us to make. Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The claim that COVID19 would not cause more deaths than influenza in Germany

I saw Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi in a video. I am a researcher myself and I do not understand either how they have dealt with correlation, causality, predictions, etc. during the pandemic. To me, the science has been disastrous. In this sense, I want to focus on one sentence only to show that also in this Wikipedia entry the science is bad. The sentence in the main article, under Bhakdi's criticisms of the COVID-19 pandemic response, goes: "Posting videos on YouTube claiming, for example, that the government was overreacting because the virus posed no more threat than influenza"

I would like to see proof against the above statement that does not rely on unsound or extremely dubious assumptions. In its place I provide evidence that supports the above claim, namely, in Germany the waves of COVID19 have been similar to waves of influenza prior to vaccination and after vaccination. For evidence please check . The peaks of deaths for Germany do not show evidence of any sort of a COVID19 pandemic that could be distinguished from any typical influenza season. Saying otherwise implies making up arbitrary stories about the data. No statistician, nor a single data scientist that I would trust, could find a severe wave of deaths that would indicate that a viral pandemic, posing more threat than influenza, has taken place in Germany from 2020 to 2022. Any attempt to claim that this is the case because of 1) the vaccines, 2) the measures, must explain why the peak in spring 2020 was smaller than the peak in the winters of 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. Invoking common sense or obviousness, i.e., a blind belief in lock-downs and vaccines, is not enough to invoke causation.

For credibility I would write something like "The data for Germany during the 2020-2022 period however does not support the hypothesis that there has been an excess of deaths above what would be expected during a mild to severe influenza season".

In summary, I challenge anybody to find a wave significantly different from an influenza wave in Germany over the past years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm06ssh (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, English text is written from left to right and from top to bottom. I moved this section where it belongs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I also don't know how to add figures here. If I have time later I will try and learn to add one. Sm06ssh (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggest the removal of the term Misinformation

Dr Bhakdi presented an different viewpoint that predicted clotting issues which now are coming back into the mainstream after the FDA reported thromboses are caused by the vaccines. Calling his views misinformation shows a bias which Wikipedia shouldn't have. Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A bias towards reality as expressed in reliable sources is desirable. Bhakdi's misinformation will be labelled as such to be nautral. Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Would respectfully suggest adding reference to his letter to the European Medicines Agency raising concerns about these viral vector and mRNA vaccines mechanism of action having potential to cause blood clots. After his letter, Astra Zeneca adverse events came to attention of regulators and was halted in Europe. FDA has just published evidence showing link to blood clots in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. MkshtN (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not relay misinformation, so none of his "letters" are getting aired here. WP:MEDRS sources are required for biomedical information in general. Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Vax

Perhaps it’s time to revise this article, and remove the accusations put on him? It seems to me he was right. 81.231.239.146 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you think he was right, we go by what wp:rs say, not our wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The Andrew Wakefield article is more balanced than this article. He's someonone who has had several journal articles retracted for fraud re MMR vaccines. This article on Sucharit Bhakdi is very poorly done. MkshtN (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Please identify what we say that is not supported by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

Update first paragraph to because people can make predictions all they want:

Sucharit Bhakdi is a retired Thai-German microbiologist. In 2020 and 2021 Bhakdi became a prominent critic of the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that the pandemic was "fake" and that COVID-19 vaccines were going to decimate the world's population. Max Barrass (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for this change. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Applicability of the the term "misinformation" is non-absolute when full disclosure is not possible at the time

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

---

I mean by "full disclosure" simply that it was not possible to have the data all in at the time, but yet it was necessary for scientists such as Bhakdi to issue some prognostications as what might or might not happen.

Would it be fair to say, that in view of the time scale (in years) involved before being able to verify whether what Dr Bhakdi has said was prescient or not, the term "misinformation" isn't and cannot be absolute? Could the use of this term be footnoted to indicate it's use in this context does not imply he has been a source of misinformation absolutely, and that such attributions are dependent on how the scientific consensus continues to develop? 82.8.23.174 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that takes that naive relativist stance. Unitl then, it is just an idea by some random person on the internet, and we cannot use it. See WP:OR.

Also, English is written from top to bottom. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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