Talk:The Real Anthony Fauci

This Article is Very Skewed Away From the Point of the Book

I read the book. The book does quote people on the crazy anti-vax side, but it does so as quotes of their opinions.

The book represents an excellent journalistic approach to what is going on in the world, with specific attention played to Anthony Fauci (director of the National Institutes of Health) and Bill Gates (co-director of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and their influence over vaccine research almost the world over.

Some of the facts in the book were so horrifying that I had to take a break from reading it more than once. These are facts backed up by references. The references are easily followed when reading an electronic copy of the book. I was unable to find a single case in the dozens of references I reviewed where Mr. Kennedy changed the facts. There were a couple of cases where he cherry-picked parts of what was said in research papers, but in general these were extracting the damning facts that were being whitewashed by researchers who were paid by pharmaceutical companies.

On my opinion, the article about the book misrepresents the book and should be rewritten to more accurately reflect the actual arguments made in the book.

At least the many people who have read the book know what is going on, although it is hard to follow, even for people with a strong non-professional background in the biological sciences. Todd Bezenek (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This article represents what reliable reviews say about the book. What those sources say about the book is what is represented here, as Wikipedia is not the place for original research on subjects. Silverseren^C 02:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments @Silver seren.

(Side note: I have read all of the articles concerning the intent of Wikipedia and one of my closest friends got his Ph.D. next to me and now is a major person at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not trying to be a crazy Wikipedia zealot, as I have seen many times reading the banning documents.)

That is a good point. Perhaps an excerpt from a news article about one of the horrific things discussed in the book?

The entire intent of this book is to discredit Anthony Fauci. I doubt any of the reviewers--unless they were medical people--would have been able to absorb the book. It took me about 80 hours to read it. How long does a book reviewer spend? Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How about one paragraph about researchers testing chemotherapy drugs that burn people form the inside out at clinics in the United States which have been subsequently shut down? Even worse, after they are shut down, the tests are then done on people in Africa who do not have the ability to consent because they do not even understand what is being tested on them. One paragraph with reference from the book, not references to the book? Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should write this article based on your comprehensive and credible but also not published assessment the topic, instead of what reliable sources said about the topic? CT55555(talk) 04:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. I was only trying to fix something I thought was wrong. No problem. I've got more important things to do. :) Todd Bezenek (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So you have some RS sayong what you say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If "RS sayong" means "reason for saying", then my reason is the book the article is written about is intended to do one thing, which is evidenced by its title. That is to show what has happened to a pillar of our scientific community (Dr Fauci) over time. 90% of the book is about that subject, which includes Bill Gates, because of the money Mr. Gates is putting into the global pharmaceutical industry using the World Health Organization (and other global health organizations like UNICEF) and Dr Fauci's organization (NIH) as spigots.

This issue is of particular importance to the health of the world's population and the United States indirectly, because of the upcoming presidential election in the US.

Robert Kennedy's respectability as a whistleblower on behalf of the health of the world's population (and not over ivermektin and hydroxychloroquine (I&H)) is going to be a major factor in whether or not he becomes the President of the USA in 2024.

I&H are not the main problem. The main problem is anti-viral medications, including the chemotherapy drugs which have been tested on children in US hospitals in the late 20th century and after that testing was discovered, moved overseas to the African continent. In a significant (5-20%) portion of test subjects, these drugs either burn the subject from the inside or cause renal or hepatic failure. These drugs are being given to the children of parents who are unable to conceive of proper consent because of the lack of knowledge about modern medical procedures in their society. They don't know how dangerous the drugs they are allowing doctors to test on their children are. THIS is the statement the book is making. It is a statement none of the reviewers caught. It also makes up a majority of the book.

The book has thousands of referenced peer-reviewed journal articles and news articles by respected news sources (not CNN/FOX/RT/pick your currently non-respected news outlet) supporting its contention that what I discuss above is happening. During the 60-80 hours I spent reading the book and chasing references online to verify the author was being truthful, I was made sick to my stomach and had to put the book down until at least the next day.

I am in no way associated with any political party nor am I paid by anyone involved in this debate. In fact, I am an unemployed engineer (electrical engineering and software engineering) living in Silicon Valley, USA.

I have to get back to studying for interviews. If you reply to this I will read it.

Cheers!

Todd Todd Bezenek (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

RS means WP:RS. Your contribution is based on a wrong assumption. (Several wrong assumptions, of course, for example the ridiculous one that Kennedy is a credible source.)

@Slatersteven: better use the link instead of just the abbreviation in the future. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional wrong assumptions:

• that a lawyer like Kennedy or an engineer like you is qualified to judge the content, result, quality and reliability of medical studies.
• that lawyers (like Kennedy) will impartially use any reliable source, instead of only those sources that sound like supporting their ideas.
• that quackery advocates (like Kennedy) will impartially use any reliable source, instead of only those sources that sound like supporting their ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hob: You do make a good point. I'm only an engineer.

I spent a long time writing this (over an hour), so please take 3-5 minutes to read it.

We need to find someone who is credible in the area of vaccination research. There is one. I can't remember his name but I can find him. He was a pillar in his area of research in the world and a faculty member at Berkeley. He criticised the idea that vaccines were the best solution for everything and his career was destroyed.

There are people at the top of their game who disagree all the time, but people don't feel the need to destroy their career to shut them up. For this I'll address something for which I am an expert. You can look at the Wikipedia article describing the DeWitt Clause. This was caused when David Dewitt (an acquaintance of mine) published a paper showing that Oracle's database was slower than the competition. Larry Ellison (the guy who started Oracle) still hates David DeWitt, but nobody lost their career over anything. Today, David is the head of the Jim Gray Microsoft Research Lab, which does cutting edge database/cloud computing research. Back to the book.

The argument here is not that vaccines have no place. It is that the mechanism for driving medical research has been hijacked by patentable medicines. It works this way: a company takes an old, discarded chemotherapy drug. They repackage it as a different mixture (more saline or whatever stabilizing agent they have to use to preserve it until it burns its way into the patient) which makes it sellable for $10,000 per treatment. Then, in order to get it approved, they test it on children in Africa.

There is nothing written in the above that has to do with vaccines, other than the fact that the money to be made from perfectly good vaccine research led to this terrible use of children to test chemotherapy drugs which are known to be highly dangerous on perfectly healthy children in Africa. And, the papers that were published state the fact--all but how many people died.

So, there is a leap-of-faith that has to be taken here. We have to believe that a chemotherapy drug which was shown to cause renal/hepatic failure in 5-10% of adults when they were given it before it was withdrawn from the market decades ago for safety concerns will actually kill children if it is given to them today. It will. There is no leap-of-faith.

A reasonable person would say, "Isn't it fine to give adults these drugs because they are going to die from cancer?" I'll say, yes! Give the adults the drug because they are going to die and they can make the choice. But, do not give the drug to children in New Jersey--which caused deaths proven by children's bodies piled in a mass grave--or to children in Africa who are being experimented on because of consent given to doctors in exchange for basic medical care by parents who do not understand how dangerous these drugs can be.

If it is not possible to convince a Wikipedia editor to do a little reading to save a bunch of children, then there is no point. I did what I could.

Cheers!

Todd

p.s. I would be perfectly happy if you said you see how the premise of the book is believable, but Robert Kennedy's credibility has already been destroyed by his earlier public statements. That is a good reason to not put the information out there. The only thing that has me upset is I saw terrible things in this book and when I say there are terrible things in the book I like to be acknowledged. I studied how to research ideas to get to the bottom of what is true and I did so under the guidance of many of the most recognized researchers on the U. of Wisconsin, one of the most recognized research institutions in the world.

One of the people I studied under won the billion-dollar lawsuit against Intel. I studied and learned for 16 years. Doing good research is the same whether it is in the computer sciences, electrical engineering, artificial intelligence, or in deducing whether or not someone likely experimented on children. One of the keys is recognizing when a person does not understand something. So, a person must read enough to be absolutely certain. In the case of the chemotherapy drugs I am certain. I am in no other case. But, the whole book leads up to that one, sickening case. I'll never forget it. Mengele did worse, but not by much.

The doctors who did the study should be ashamed of themselves. Just like the people who listened to Hitler and killed all those nice people back in the 1930s and 1940s, they followed the money and did what they did. And, I am not Jewish, Romany, homosexual, mentally handicapped, or suffering from any of the other things that caused Hitler to want them killed.

I wish Robert Kennedy had titled the book, "What went wrong with the global health system" and only written about the chemotherapy drug studies. But, he had to tie everything to the stupid anti-vax movement.

Robert Kennedy might be a hard-working lawyer fighting for people who have been damaged by environmental contamination, but he will always be an anti-vaxxer. I'd rather have an anti-vaxxer who has never hurt anyone in his life running things than any alternative.

You are right. I just want to see a decent person running what is still the most powerful country in the world for a while. China has a supercomputer that uses 15,000,000KW!) I was in the audience when the researcher from China presented the "God" processor paper detailing the design. It was designed to be able to be used to build the fastest fixed-point supercomputer in the world--and China did it. This makes me afraid for my descendants. And yours. And everyone's.

Whew! He kicks the soapbox to the side and tries to get a couple of hours sleep before the day starts. :) Thank you for reading. Todd Bezenek (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX is exactly the right word. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum. It is not for walls of text: I stopped reading after a few sentences.

If you want to research what is true by diving into sources or to confirm certain beliefs by sniffing out someone with the belief you want to confirm, you are in the totally wrong place. Wikipedia is for exactly reproducing what reliable sources say, and nothing else. As far as this page is concerned, we check what experts publish about this book, and that's it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse, @Hob. You just said two things:

1. [We] reproduce what reliable sources say.

2. [W]e check what experts publish about this book.

So, are book reviewers experts? If so, how do you determine a book reviewer is an expert? Is it if they publish in one of the reliable sources listed on Wikipedia's reliable sources list? If I have this correct, then I understand. Please confirm.

Cheers!

Todd Todd Bezenek (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

are book reviewers experts? Not necessarily. how do you determine a book reviewer is an expert? There is no simple recipe anyone can apply; WP:CIR. s it if they publish in one of the reliable sources listed on Wikipedia's reliable sources list? Not necessarily. A reliable source is reliable within a certain scope. If the subject is stocks, Wall Street Journal is probably a RS; if the subject is climate change, they are not.

Explaining the basics does not belong on this page; there should be a place where it is appropriate but I cannot think of it at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Thank you for sticking with the discussion. I appreciate it! I don't know Wikipedia markdown, so most of the stuff below is raw text.

Below, "FaucI Article" refers to the article this talk is about. Each of my conclusions is in bold. If you don't read anything else, please read the bold parts.

I believe we are getting to the root of the issue! Stick with me please. Here I am addressing each of the issues you mentioned, in order:

o WP:CIR refers to the competence of the person adding to Wikipedia. I'm competent, so this is not relevant based on what you said.

o You are saying that even if someone publishes in a "reliable source", they are NOT reliable unless they are an expert. Book reviewers are experts on books. Does this make them an expert on all books? No. So what to do? Find a reviewer who is an expert at medicine? Yes! None of the reviewers mentioned in the Fauci Article fit this case, so most of the stuff in it is non-reliable. This is a fact based on what you said.

o You are an expert on Science and Pseudoscience. I know it because you say this on your Wikipedia Talk page.

o I believe we have already covered the basics. That is why you don't know where to look. You are obviously an expert at Wikipedia, so if you don't know where to look, it means it is not there.

What to do next? From what I see, we either have to wipe most of the Fauci Article or find someone who is better expert on Science/Pseudo Science. Looking on Wikipedia (my root of knowledge), Dehart Hurd, Paul is an expert on Pseudoscience and Science. We need to talk with him to resolve this.

Who are the real experts on Wikipedia? We need to find one to help out with this. One way to find experts is to see who is willing to let you know who they are. I need to add contact information to my Talk page. The only reliable contact information today is a person's phone number. I'm putting my phone number on my Wikipedia talk page right after I send this.

Any thoughts?

Thank you for sticking with this. That is how progress is made.

Cheers! Todd Bezenek (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I should have said User:User Page, not User:User Talk page. Todd Bezenek (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In summary, you don't think the people who wrote the sources are qualified. Including author and medical doctor Theodore Dalrymple and science communicator Dan Wilson (biologist). Instead you'd like the invite comment from a specific scientist. That is not how Wikipedia works. CT55555(talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I read the bolded parts, and they do not make sense. One particularly egregious piece: Wikipedia pages are not based on talking with people, it is based on published sources. You keep disregarding the purpose of this page, and you keep spreading fringe nonsense and relying on clearly bad sources. Stop it. The longer you do it, the more likely you are to be banned. Also, do not ping me. I have a watchlist. This pseudo-discussion is over as far as I am concerned. Do your off-topic chatting somewhere else where it is on topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Is there a tool where I can quickly check my sources against Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list? Or do I have to check them all by hand to find out if they are "green"? Todd Bezenek (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Look here WP:RSPSS CT55555(talk) 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I see now that you know that exists. I am not aware of any simpler process than looking at the list. CT55555(talk) 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Where is the Search Engine I Can Use to Check Sources on the Fauci Book

If I want to check sources on this book about Fauci (and maybe the other book about Fauci), where is the search engine which will search only the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Web sites?

If you do not know where this is, where can I go to get permission to build it. I don't mean permission as in anyone can build it, I mean permission as in PERMISSION to build it, i.e., a meeting with someone important enough to discuss building it.

Cheers! Todd Todd Bezenek (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make a new search engine that includes only what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, I don't think you need anyone's permission to do that.

The list of Reliable sources and Perennial sources is here WP:RSPSS CT55555(talk) 18:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you are missing my point. I couldn't do that legally.

I want to make something legal.

I asked my CTO to post to here so we could get through, but I didn't need to. :)

Can you help? Do you want to discuss this over a medium where I can be sure my idea is protected from prying eyes? Doug Burger is the person who told me to bring this up. There is also a place on the Web where he talks about how the NYT is wrong. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/podcast/clouds-catapults-life-end-moores-law-dr-doug-burger/?ocid=msr_podcast_dburger_profile.

This is getting fun. I may blow off looking for work today. :) Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't want to help you with this project. CT55555(talk) 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make it clear. This project will benefit Wikipedia. Well, actually, the Wikimedia Foundation, which will benefit all of the projects under its umbrella, including Wikipedia. :)

Is there SSO available for Wikimedia yet? Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck. CT55555(talk) 19:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Taken higher up the food chain. Todd Bezenek (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific book"

[1] David Gorski calls it a "conspiracy book" here and here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

...and? Miner Editor (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am just saying that although we do not seem to have sources for calling it a pseudoscientific book, we do have a source for calling it a conspiracy book. Draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Then just say what you want and leave my revert (which was required by policy and which I stand by) out of it. Miner Editor (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is weird. I already said what I wanted: to give a source, to be used or not depending on what other users prefer. You seem to see a link to your revert as an attack or something. It was not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We can call it both. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in the first sentence of the lead we can't, and not without a sourceMiner Editor (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why not, does it no postulate a conspiracy? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it does have a source, in the OP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This article describes and repeats Kennedy's hooey with very little contextualization. The lede treats the book as a serious work, ending with a tepid "uproven" and "described as 'controversial'."

Main ideas from Kennedy's firehose of crap are then repeated for the Wikipedia reader. Until way down in the Reception section, at the end of a paragraph about the book's popularity, we finally see AP pointed out FDA's 3 phases of testing. Followed by some paragraphs of criticism.

In a climate denier's page you can't simply describe their view: so-and-so claims climate alarmism is leftist scientists' plan for global domination. No matter how ridiculous the statement, somebody will delete it with the edit summary WP:UNDUE. The page has to read so-and-so falsely asserts... Fact-checks from Snopes and AP show this is false.[2][3]

But the standard against repeating unconextualized hooey has not applied here.

Properly the lede sentences should inform the reader that the book is full of nonsensical conspiracy theories, disproven claims, and pseudoscience. It should link to COVID-19 misinformation and HIV/AIDS denialism. (The latter is indeed linked from this article.) As long as the body of the article covers the book properly the lede can merely summarize what the article says. It doesn't need a cite on the specific phrase "pseudoscientific book" -- M.boli (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this and what was said by Hob and Slatersteven. Miner, youre in the wrong here. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is also a matter of WP:WEIGHT. If absolutely no one on the internet is referring to it as a "pseudoscientific" book, our calling it so in the first sentence of the lead before even the name of the author is obviously undue weight. Miner Editor (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The book is comprised of false conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism, and Covid-19 misinformation. The problem is this article too much pretends the book is a serious work, and the lede follows the body of the article. There is no "undue weight" problem with accurately describing the book. I think the phrase "pseudo-scientific book" is bad because it is awkward and generic. It would be better for the lede two sentences to describe the book as conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism, and Covid misinformation. -- M.boli (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The body contains sources for all of those, and they definitely belong in the lede. The milquetoast "controversial" is expendable, it adds nothing because a book full of misinformation will obviously be controversial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia

This topic went off the rails a while ago. This topic is about the book. Nothing else. Personal opinions can be left on separate pages talking about "conspiracy" or "opinions".

No different that the 911 or JFK Conspiracy pages. The "official" narrative on the main page. People's opinions on another.

This topic should be about the book and what it reported. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Anything else, is just plain wrong. Lkandia (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That would violate WP:FRINGE. Kennedy is spreading disinformation in the book, and we need to give that context or violate the guideline. If you want to change that Wikipedia guideline and make Wikipedia less reliable by allowing any random bullshit to stand without refutation, Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories is the right place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"make Wikipedia less reliable by allowing any random bullshit to stand" That would be Wikipedia according to the ideas of Larry Sanger, instead of Jimmy Wales. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding bestselling into the intro

The book is a best seller. I put that into the intro and it was reverted.

Hence the talk note. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced content will be removed. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it, source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two sources currently in the article, down in the "reception" section. The Hawes historical list of NYT Best Sellers shows the book had been on the best seller list for 12 weeks as of February 20, 2022. -- M.boli (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No reviews by major publications

The links make clear that the words "controversial" and "inflammatory" are not part of reviews by the Guardian, Newsweek and Publishers weekly.

I added this information into the article and it was reverted.

Suggest that this context is added as follows.

Both The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as controversial in articles on other topics. Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in an article about Norman Mailer changing publisher.

Or perhaps bring to the front the lack of reviews by major media organisations

There were no reviews by major media organisations. The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as "controversial" in articles on other topics while Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in a similar side note. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding your view here. There's no expectation that reliably sourced descriptions of books should come from full reviews. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Or indeed from reviews. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The text that was inserted had the effect of undermining or deprecating the published assessments by RS. We don't do that, per NPOV and V. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The publisher Tony Lyons complained that the legitimate media would not touch his book, they didn't want to review or mention it. Lyons also said tech platforms wouldn't accept advertising. He found a sympathetic ear at the Washington Times (naturally). My guess is that the legit media were practicing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE -- they didn't want to lend legitimacy to this fetid pile of feces, especially in the middle of the pandemic when amplifying Jr's views would arguably be killing people.

I agree with OP that reviews from reliable sources would we be helpful. It is hard to find good quotes discussing the book in any depth. Although Science-Based Medicine have covered RFK Jr.'s activities and some other anti-vax works, even they did not write an article specifically addressing the book.

Possiby a useful reference: an article in Business Insider blasted Tucker Carlson for an interview with Jr. promoting the book.

But generally speaking, finding RS articles which directly address this book and its claims would be a benefit to this article. -- M.boli (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"amplifying Jr's views would arguably be killing people." Journalists and media people have ethics and an aversion to killing? I am genuinely surprised. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation

To state this at almost the start of the article is a disgrace. The book is well referenced and fact based. Unlike this idiotic critique. 2A00:23C6:56E0:3601:CDD8:455F:1B2D:157B (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is an article in the NYTimes that says I was in a gunfight and shot a man to death. It contains my real name and previous home address. Guess what? I did not shoot a man to death.

NYTimes is not a reliable source.

Maybe you still think Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Because NYTimes said so?

Is Wikipedia just a collection of the writings of ill-informed journalists?

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In essence yes, but the NYT is not the only souced we use. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no citation for this claim of disinformation. If you want that claim in the article, you should cite a source for it. Hooky6 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Exact it is a well written book of people well educated 95.193.177.40 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edits regarding NPOV

I'd like to hear from @Slatersteven, @Hob Gadling and @M.Boli why they think it's fine to state that this book is "misinformation" without any citation whatsoever, and why it's not okay to mention the book is a New York Times bestseller in the lead of the article. I made an insignificant change to this article to make it less biased and more in harmony with WP:NPOV but apparently this is problematic? Why? Hooky6 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced, read the body of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't.

For example, the lead says this:

"In the book, Kennedy offers disinformation about Fauci's role during the HIV epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and HIV/AIDS denialism."

There's no citation for this claim of "disinformation." Hooky6 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your problem seems to be that you only read the lead, which summarizes the article. The lead therefore does not need citations, they are further down. See WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

AS I told them already, so I am going to ask them to read wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

This edit removes sourced content, instead:

• RFK Jr's disinformation is merely his "interpretation" of Fauci
• Removing Jr's notability as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist
• Letting stand the FRINGE notion hydroxychloroquine is effective drug against Covid (and Fauci killed people by suppressing it).

I claim this is vandalism and removed it. But nope. So rather than continuing edit war I'm leaving it at m:The wrong version and invite other editors to handle this. M.boli (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, @M.boli. My edit was certainly not intended as vandalism. Here is my rationale.

1) It's not encyclopedically appropriate to characterize an entire 480 page work as "disinformation", in Wikivoice, because "factcheck.org" and a handful of doctors have taken issue with specific aspects of the book. It's much more appropriate, in my view, to simply present the book as RFK's subjective interpretations, rather than using Wikivoice to offer commentary about those interpretations. Characterization and interpretation of Kennedy's arguments should be left to third parties, and the "critical reception" section provides sufficient commentary on the book.

"Disinformation", specifically, implies intentional fabrication, as opposed to "misinformation", so BLP issues also arise when we throw this label around in general terms, without directly attributing it. By using Wikivoice to call Kennedy's writings "disinformation", Wikipedia is not merely summarizing sources, it is affirmatively taking the position that RFK is a conscious, deliberate liar and manipulator . That's not a good idea, especially for a living person.

2) RFK could be characterized a number of ways. "Politician", "environmental lawyer", "activist", "presidential candidate", "vaccine skeptic", "conspiracy theorist", "member of the Kennedy family", "spreader of disinformation", and so on. In a simple, declaratory sentence like "this book was written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.", no additional characterization or framing is necessary.

If the reader wants to know more about contemporary media commentary about RFK, they can find it at the Wikipedia article about him. The choice to frame him, not as an environmental activist, a member of the Kennedy family, or a politician, but as an "anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist" is not only unnecessary, it's a pretty blatant insertion of a cherry-picked POV, one that is intended to sway the reader's feelings about the subject, rather than presenting factual information about the book. Perhaps that would be a fine way to write a persuasive/argumentative essay in school, but it's not a fine way to write an encyclopedia entry.

3) It doesn't matter whether or not Kennedy's views on hydroxychloroquine are "fringe". In the article about hydroxychloroquine, your point would be appropriate - undue weight should not be given to Kennedy's views on the subject. But this article is specifically about his book, so it should focus on presenting information about the contents of the book. The "critical reception" section already makes it clear how several other scientists have reacted to the book. We don't need to use this article to play referee, or to defend Anthony Fauci's reputation. That may be appropriate in other contexts, but not here - here, the statement I removed is unnecessary, and it introduces a POV, even if it's technically a true statement.

There have indeed been studies that have brought hydroxychloroquine's efficacy into question, but scientific study and debate on the issue is far from definitive, as this meta-analysis & other studies suggest. Regardless of your personal feelings about the hydroxychloroquine debate, inserting a POV about the topic into this article is not appropriate or encyclopedic. Let the reader read about the book, then let them read how other third parties have reacted to the book, and let the reader make up their mind. Jamming the "official Wikipedia position" down the reader's throat every other sentence is tacky and unprofessional.

I hope that you now understand why I made the edits in question. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The book is a book of conspiracy theories and incorrect medical information. To your points:

1. Saying the book is full of disinformation is not a stretch, it is congruent with what reliable medically-informed sources tell us. Perhaps an argument could be made for "misinformation" as opposed to "disinformation". But calling RFK Jr.'s book an "interpretation" is contrary to reliable sources and thus a disservice to our readers.
2. ID-ing RFK Jr. as a notable anti-vax conspiracy theorist is congruent with the book and his biography. If it were a book about environmental issues, then this article would ID him as an environmental lawyer or activist. If it were a biography of the Kennedy family or a history of Democratic politics it would ID him as a member of the famous political family. But it is a book making vaccine and conspiracy claims, written by a person notable for anti-vax conspiracy theories.
3. Stripping out the facts about hydroxychloroquine leaves a paragraph where RFK Jr. accuses somebody of causing a lot of death by discouraging the use of the drug. The pragmatic implicature of the text is: the drug is an anti-Covid boon to humankind. Reliable sources tell us it isn't. WP:FRINGE applies because we can't leave the user with that inference. I think we could also add a reference to the study which estimated that using the drug caused about 11,000 more deaths. The opposite of RFK Jr'.s disinformation book.

That is all. -- M.boli (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have very strong personal feelings about both RFK Jr. and the book. While I think being passionate about politics and having strong, deeply-held convictions is generally laudable, I'm not so sure that it's an asset in this sort of situation. When we're writing an encyclopedia, we must take great care to inform, rather than attempting to persuade. I'm concerned that your argument blurs the lines between those two activities.

Although I can certainly respond to & dissect your counter-points, I'm not sure if that's the most productive way to move the conversation forward. If other editors uncritically accept your arguments, I will write a response to them. But first, I think we should see what less-impassioned editors have to say about the topic.

I appreciate you opening the discussion, and I look forward to fleshing the issue out in more detail. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:WEASEL. "Some studies" is objectively worse than "studies". If you have other studies that contradict those studies, name them and we can evaluate whether they are legitimate or whether they have been done the those frauds the scientifically illiterate Kennedy loves to quote, like Andrew Wakefield. But it would be even better if you had material that is consistent with WP:MEDRS. And you should not try to blame the fact that you are reverted on "personal feelings" of those who happen to revert you (everybody who has experience with WP:FRINGE would have reverted it). Instead of forcing M.boli to come here, you should have started a discussion immediately after the first revert. See WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have stricken the clear personal attacks above by Philomathes2357, starting with the words "You clearly have very strong personal...". Don't personalize this. Comment on content, not editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You'd better also strike Hob Gadling's personal attacks against me, please. If you choose not to - noted, I can strike them myself.

This is ridiculous. Go ahead and take me to ANI. I'm sick of seeing blatant POV insertion and having to try to pretend that it's something else. At a certain point, a spade needs to be called a spade. This needs to be brought to the attention of a broader swath of uninvolved editors. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out your bad reasoning is not a "personal attack". You need to brush up on your logic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: ANI is for reporting editor behavior. For content, the relevant notice boards for this dispute would be WP:FTN, WP:BLPN, and WP:NPOVN. As I noted in the edit summary, reliable sources say "misinformation" at least as much as "disinformation". I didn't see support for describing the book as a subjective interpretation from RFK, or the other changes. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Studies have shown

@Valjean, @M.boli, @Ixocactus, and others:

In the "Synopsis" subsection, multiple editors have insisted upon keeping the following phrase:

"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19"

There are a lot of problems with this. I thought they were self-evident and had simply been overlooked, but apparently, the phrase is seen as not only correct, but an essential part of the "synopsis".

Problem 1: "Factcheck.org" is not an appropriate source for making scientific statements of fact in Wikivoice. Duh.

Problem 2: "Factcheck.org"'s source for the claim is...factcheck.org! Nice! Specifically, this article, which was published all the way back in July of 2021. The article is a story about a scientific debate that was taking place at the time, between some scientists who were skeptical of hydroxychloroquine's efficacy and at least one scientist who stated "that the question on whether the drugs can provide a benefit for early treatment or prevention “remains open.”" In the article, the scientists' hypotheses, tentative conclusions, and critiques of each other's studies are presented in narrative form. It does not demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine is "ineffective", it merely presents that as a view that are held by some (but not all) scientists in the context of an ongoing debate.

Problem 3: A lot of research has taken place regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 since July 2021. A sample:

• Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients - published in New Microbes and New Infections in October 2023. The abstract states "Many studies have evaluated the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. Most retrospective observational studies demonstrate a benefit of using HCQ on mortality, but not most randomized clinical trials.", and the conclusion states "Analysis of this large online database showed that HCQ-AZ was consistently associated with the lowest mortality."

• Drugs and natural products for the treatment of COVID-19 during 2020, the first year of the pandemic. Published by the journal El Boletin Medico del Hospital Infantil de Mexico in 2024. It states "The natural products colchicine and Vitamin D3 were only effective in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, as was hydroxychloroquine." - in other words, the authors judge that hydroxychloroquine is effective in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

• Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 story: is the low-dose treatment the missing link? A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Published in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology in August 2023. It says "When pooling both observational and RCTs, low-dose HCQ was associated with decreased mortality (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: [0.55–0.97], I2 = 58%)".

Problem 4: As these studies demonstrate, there remains a lively, ongoing debate regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19, surrounding dosage, severity of infection, and the relative merits of observational studies versus RCTs.

There are a lot of other studies like these from 2022-2024.

Problem 5: The phrase, besides being misleading and poorly sourced, is completely irrelevant to a "synopsis" of the book, which is the name of the section. There is already a "critical reception" section, where we provide third-party commentary about the book. The synopsis is for accurately summarizing the book in question, not for sloppily and inaccurately summarizing the current state of hydroxychloroquine research in order to further a narrative.

Problem 6: The only reason to include the phrase is to frame Kennedy's book in the context of a political narrative regarding Anthony Fauci, RFK, and others. It is a textbook example of POV pushing and the politicization of science.

Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demand that the phrase be removed entirely. A compromise might be to accurately describe the state of hydroxychloroquine-COVID research, but I still think it would be undue here, and the energy needed to do so would be better spent updating the out-of-date article about the subject.

I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible, so that the reader understands that they are supposed to dislike him. But please, let's not politicize science in order to push that POV. It's tacky, unencyclopedic, and misleading.

The fact that bringing this into question has led to me being accused of being a "vandal" and a "weasel" further suggests that emotions are at play, rather than neutral analysis.

You are all smart folks. Let's do better. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is about the book TRAF, it needs sources that talk about TRAF. Scientific studies typically do not mention such crappy books by uninformed laypeople. Factchecks do, that is why we use those as a source for this article. But we also have a wikilink to the relevant article, which contains better sources about exactly this subject and eliminates the problem that factchecks are weak sources.

Thank you for equating your opinion with truth in phrases like Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demands and You are all smart folks. Let's do better as if the conclusion from those were to agree with you. That way, everybody can see that you think you know better than everybody else.

Thank you also for accusing everybody who disagrees with you of a specific agenda. That way, everybody can see that your way of thinking runs along the lines of hidden agendas and not along the lines of cooperatively writing good articles.

Thank you also for interpreting the WP:WEASEL link as calling you a weasel. That way, everybody can see that they have to explain even the simplest things to you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not about the book TRAF. The sentence characterizes the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. Therefore, the sentence is technically subject to the guidelines of MEDRS, which says "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article".

I guess that's problem #7. That pretty much means we have no choice but to either remove the sentence or to invoke IAR to keep it as-is.

I did not accuse "everybody" who disagrees with me of anything. Thanks for the personal attack.

Thanks also for the condescending "everybody can see that they have to explain even the simplest things to you." I find that especially compelling. As I said: let's do better. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the book, so all sources have to be about the book. See WP:SYNTH. Linking to an article that is based on WP:MEDRS sources is enough; sources that are about a crappy book and fulfil MEDRS do not exist, therefore the demand for such sources is unreasonable.

I did not accuse Really? I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible is a pretty clear case of poisoning the well. It implicitly accuses everybody who contradicts you of having a hidden agenda.

Thanks also for the condescending Don't make such stupid mistakes (or intentional misrepresentations? Who knows) as confusing a wikilink with calling you a weasel, and people will not treat you like someone who makes stupid mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If all sources have to be about the book, all claims made in the article should have to be about the book. The claim I am taking issue with has nothing to do with the book, which is why it should be removed. If it is not removed, it needs to at least be cited sufficiently, and treated as a claim subject to MEDRS, not a claim about the book.

That's not an accusation. That's just an acknowledgement of an obvious fact that everyone sees. I'm not even necessarily saying that it's a bad thing - maybe there is a cognizable argument for doing so, in order to make sure the reader doesn't fall prey to "misinformation". That argument has not been made, though, and even if it were, I still think the sentence in question is improperly sourced, undue, and misleading.

As I said, I'm open to a reasonable compromise. "When they assessed clinical trial data in 2023, Catalina Jaramillo and Kate Yandell at factcheck.org wrote that several large randomized clinical trials had found no benefits of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients."

That sentence would probably still be undue, but it would be an improvement. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole push about whitewashing hydroxychloroquine here is a violation of WP:COATRACK. This article is about the book. Take it to the hydroxychloroquine article and settle it there. Then, and only then, could one maybe be justified in making extremely short mention here, in the context of how the book mentions it, not to promote it. If that were to happen, it should be in its historical context, showing that Kennedy promoted a drug, that at the time he was promoting it, was not accepted by the medical profession as effective for treating COVID-19, and that statistics had shown its use increased the number of deaths. That would be consistent with how we treat fringe subjects, and much about Kennedy is fringe. Then, if the scientific consensus changed, and several RS mentioned the book and Kennedy's claims as being prescient at the time, one could also mention (not instead of) that newer fact here using those RS.

We are FAR FROM ANYWHERE CLOSE TO ANY OF THAT NOW. Philomathes2357, you need to drop this if you wish to avoid returning to ANI and getting a topic ban or worse. (I don't recall right now, but aren't you editing under some type of topic ban or warnings already and need to be careful?) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You could only call this "whitewashing" if you ignored my initial comment about the 6 problems with the sentence, which I suspect is the case.

If we want to avoid WP:COATRACK, rather than misrepresenting the state of scientific research with an out-of-date, non-medical source, perhaps we just remove that sentence? It's the only sentence in the "synopsis" section that isn't about the book. It's a dishonest, intentionally misleading sentence. We could probably repurpose the source and use it in the "critical reception" section, but only to discuss the book, not to summarize the state of hydroxychloroquine research.

I'm frustrated, because what I'm saying should not be remotely controversial, much less trigger threats, personal attacks, and ALL CAPS RAGE. I feel like I'm living in upside-down world whenever I get on Wikipedia. Something's gone seriously wrong with the project. Maybe an RFC is in order here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, this is not about COVID it is about the book. Please read wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence has nothing to do with the book. The sentence makes a factual claim about the current state of scientific research about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. So, it must be held to the standard of MEDRS, as another editor mentioned above. The source currently cited is a non-medical source, and it's out of date. I've provided multiple medical sources from the past 12 months that contradict the claim that's made in the sentence. Hydroxychloroquine's efficacy should not be adjudicated here. The claim is misleading and should be removed. I agree with you, Slatersteven this article is about the book. So let's remove the sentence in question. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So lets use this source https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would we use a non-medical news article from July 2020, when research was in its infancy? Research on the topic is ongoing. Why not use one of the three sources I linked to above, all of which are from actual scientific publications, not news articles, and all of which are from the past 12 months? Better yet, why not just remove the sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You do know who, WHO is? Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course I do. The article you linked to is out-of-date, as I mentioned, and it is a press release, not an academic study. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So WHO does ow recommends it use, link please?

Also https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please look at my initial comment in this thread, under the subheading "Problem 3". There are several academic studies from the past 12 months that conclude that, within certain parameters, the drug is effective.

My point is not that hydroxychloroquine is effective. This article isn't the place to adjudicate that. My point is that research is ongoing, and academic literature from 2023 and 2024 demonstrates that the topic is not settled, so we should not be spreading medical misinformation in Wikivoice by stating, or implying, that it is settled. I can't think of a single good reason to do so. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OK so should we change it to "But there is not evidence proofing its efficacy"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? In the previous paragraph, the COVID vaccine is mentioned, but we don't go out of our way to jam in a sentence about the COVID vaccine being "safe and effective".

Why not just provide a "synopsis" of the book? There's already a section for reactions to the book. We can talk about hydroxychloroquine there, if you want.

Even if we re-worded the sentence, I think a better phrasing would be "research on the topic is ongoing and has shown mixed results". Your proposed wording is incorrect, as evidence of potential efficacy has been found in multiple studies - I only posted 3 of them, to make my point - there are others.

Why are we trying to weaponize and twist scientific research to try to frame RFK in a negative light? The rest of the article already goes out of its way to denigrate him to the point of absurdity - and I say that as someone who doesn't even like the guy. This is really strange. Let's just remove the darn sentence and move on with our lives. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it makes a claim, we can't just up in the claim read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"we can't just up in the claim"? Can you elaborate on that? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I was trying, you jumped in while I was editing it. We repeat a claim, we have to also put in any claims it is false or inaccurate, read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BLP. I'm not familiar with an injunction within BLP to use non-medical sources to spread medical misinformation, which is what we're dealing with here in my view. Could you kindly quote the exact section of BLP that you think justifies/necessitates this sentence's inclusion? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

od "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." we cannot say a person deliberately tried to kill people without including any information that contradicted such a claim. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" (so arguably the recsi8ign line "The book accuses Fauci of deliberately neglecting to use hydroxychloroquine in order to increase the number of people who would die from COVID-19" should not even by the the article). For a start. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

THis is going nowhere and needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Philo, "spread medical misinformation" is what Kennedy does. That you consider RS to be doing that based on your opinion of the current state of research is just that, your opinion, and you're getting pushback on that. It would be wise for you to not "die on that hill" without the backing of fellow editors.

There is no rush. Wait for the medical consensus to change. Then we'll gladly help you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a medical consensus. That's the whole issue. Take a look at the studies I linked and explain how portraying the issue as "settled science" is anything but misleading. It's not "my interpretation". The notion that "studies have shown hydroxychloroquine is ineffective" is YOUR interpretation (plural you) - one that happens to be highly dubious, and based on one non-medical source from non-experts from 2021.

The Wikipedia page on the topic of hydroxychloroquine is woefully out of date. That should be fixed, too, and I'd gladly help in doing so if one of you actually cares enough about hydroxychloroquine to join me. But the fact that that article is bad does not justify leaving poorly-sourced, incorrect medical information on this article. I think that if I allowed the misleading medical information to stay up, without significant pushback, I would actually be violating the rules.

I don't say this as an insult, but rather an acknowledgement of a self-evident truth: I understand that the goal of this article is to paint RFK in as kooky a light as possible, and ensure that the reader does not make the mistake of taking him seriously. You can say "that's not true!", but come on. You aren't fooling anyone. And I'm not even saying that it's necessarily a bad goal! He is a little kooky! I'm just saying that this particular sentence cannot be justified on any level. Nobody has even really tried to justify it - they just respond to me with emotion and half-baked arguments that don't even address the points I made.

I've been trying to be reasonable. I've proposed several alternatives. I've tried to meet in the middle and reach a consensus. Here's another one. What if we say this:

"According to Kate Yandell and Catalina Jaramillo at Factcheck.org, studies as of July 2021 had not demonstrated hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against COVID-19". Then, we can keep the source, and keep the "rebuttal" of the synopsis, without going overboard and putting medical misinformation in Wikivoice or misleading the reader. How about that? Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, final thought until someone else responds, @Valjean - I do not consider RS to be spreading medical misinformation, as you say. I think (know) that Wikipedia is spreading medical misinformation (arguably disinformation at this point) in order to promote a certain narrative, by cherry-picking a dubious source while ignoring a plethora of much more reliable academic sources that contradict it. There's nothing wrong with the RS, there's something wrong with the way Wikipedians are choosing to use/not use the sources that are available.

That is my contention, just to be clear. I'd like for that contention to be acknowledged, taken seriously, and either thoroughly rebutted or incorporated into the consensus, rather than hand-wringing and ban-threatening. That is all for now. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A reason the discussion is going nowhere is Philo dismisses with alacrity pretty good explanations as "very strong personal feelings" and "goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible". I further note that before responding I briefly tried to ascertain the current reliable stance toward HCQ as Covid treatment or prophylaxis. As people have discovered, the public health authorities (CDC, WHO) strongly advise against it. The popular research topics seem to have shifted from does it work a few years ago to nowadays how bad is it and how much damage did it cause during the pandamic. The changes that Philo is pushing are decidedly fringe.

I agree with Slatersteven it is time to close the discussion. Furthermore people might put the hydroxychloroquine articles on their watchlists. The articles possibly could use updating, but not with fringe notions. -- M.boli (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization the explanations as "pretty good".

In fact, the explanations fell so far short of being "pretty good", that it led me to make the mistake of questioning your "real" motives, which I shouldn't have done. I'm sorry for doing that. I was deeply annoyed that you suggested that I was a vandal, and I reacted personally. I take you at your word and I don't have any reason to believe you have any hidden agenda.

However, you, nor anybody else, has addressed the 7 problems I identified. It's almost impressive that there could be 7 distinct problems within a single declarative sentence, but here we are.

"I briefly tried to ascertain the current reliable stance toward HCQ as Covid treatment or prophylaxis"

Did you read the 3 sample articles I provided, and/or the articles it cites? They are not intended to be representative of all literature on the subject - they are intended to demonstrate that modern, 2023-2024 academic peer-reviewed literature has on multiple (more than 3) occasions found that, within certain parameters, hydroxychloroquine has been found to be effective against COVID-19, especially in scholarly observational research. Your characterization of recently-published academic, peer-reviewed literature is not accurate.

The point is, this article should not be the place to adjudicate that topic - that is why the article should refrain from making poorly-sourced Wikivoice statements about medicine, and should stick to providing what it claims to provide: a "synopsis" and a "critical reception" of the book.

The article's lead already tells the reader that the book is "misinformation" and "a conspiracy theory extravaganza". We don't need to mislead the reader about the science with semantic games in order to hammer the point home even further. That damages our credibility. I'm sure the readers will come away from the article with the correct opinions about RFK, even if the sentence I object to is removed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Newer WHO source

WHO is an eminently reliable MEDRS.

• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Hydroxychloroquine, 28 March 2023 | Q&A

WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This statement is unsupported and demonstrably false

"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19." This statement is hyperlinked to a page that isn't very well maintained. There is better evidence out there. The following website has links to 410 HCQ Covid studies - the vast majority of them indicate improvement:

"Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization." HCQ for COVID-19 https://c19hcq.org/meta.html 2001:569:5045:500:7D62:2B88:E5FE:E65C (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure this is a better source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

c19early is an (anonymous) activist source and totally fails our strict WP:MEDRS guideline. Reading their FAQ is informative and concerning. They deliberately use "multiple domain names" in efforts to avoid "censorship". We don't know who they are, there is no peer-review, and no evidence of fact-checking. FAIL! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

This source labels them a "major source of misinformation". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

NewsGuard has a withering analysis: "A network of websites that have misrepresented research to promote hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin as proven COVID-19 treatments, despite clinical trials finding that they are not effective." Source -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, IP, Slatersteven and Valjean are right - the link you provided should not, itself, be cited. However, the scholarly studies serve to demonstrate that the sentence in question implies a certainty about hydroxychloroquine that does not actually exist in the scientific community. I demonstrated this in a previous thread.

It's deliciously ironic that the writer at NewsGuard would accuse someone else of "misrepresenting research" while doing so itself in the very same sentence. The funniest part is that the author probably did so with a straight face, oblivious to what he was doing.

This article would be just as good, if not better, without the sentence in question. We have no right or responsibility to be selectively picking information to "debunk" RFK's book in the "summary" section - let the reliable sources do the talking in the "criticism" section. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This overview is a disgrace

Synopsis doesn’t reflect any content in the book 172.58.142.200 (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What do we say is in the book that is not in the book? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If there were lies, there would have been lawsuits

RFK Jr would’ve been sued into oblivion if any of his claims were false. No such claims have or ever will be made. Chew on that… 174.29.178.113 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your way of thinking is irrelevant. (It is also false. Not everybody wants to waste their time on lawsuits to punish wackjobs.) Wikipedia follows reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling better to just revert/deny this sort of comment especially when from a one-off editor. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller I regard the choice of how to handle things like this as a matter of taste. Since I have a watchlist, pinging me makes sense only when my contribution is older than a month or so, and if it is not, it ticks me off. When it is about a matter of taste, getting pinged ticks me off more.

If you don't like my responses, please just delete the thread instead of summoning me. It's less effort for everybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Hob. These one-offs just annoy me and I shouldn't have bothered you. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Response by book subject

I added well-sourced details about Fauci's response to the book. I included it in the introduction, but am open to placement in a standalone subsection if others feel it is warranted. Either way, since the article details a book focusing on one single, living public figure, the response by that figure is required in my opinion. RyeCityRoller (talk) RyeCityRoller (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, this should be in the body, probably the Response section. Then make very short mention of it in the Lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Publication section

This should read: The Real Anthony Fauci is a 480-page book written by 2024 Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr, nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, ... 96.20.226.196 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis Section

"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19. The World Health Organization recommends it not be used for treating or for preventing COVID". This sentence does not seem to be part of a synopsis of Kennedy's book, but rather it seems to be a criticism of the book. This criticism should be moved to the critical resception section of the article.

Overall, the synopsis section in this article is written as a rebuttal of the book, which is not appropriate. It would seem natural for the synopsis in this article to be a neutral summary of the points Kennedy tries to make in this book, with criticism of the accuracy of Kennedy's claims included in the Critical Reception section, or even in a "Allegations of False Information" subsection to the Critical Reception section. 84.74.130.179 (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems a valid request. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids lending credibility to fringe health-related misinformation. If a book says that arsenic will prolong your life, we might include that in the summary but wouldn't let this unsafe fringe notion stand by itself. Even if there is a criticism section later. RFK Jr.'s book promotes fringe debunked medicine. We summarize the book, but good practice is to point to medical authority so we don't lend credibility to medical nonsense in wiki-voice. -- M.boli (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)