Talk:John Ioannidis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The message found favor with right-wing media outlets

The following statement in Ioannidis's page "The message found favor with right-wing media outlets..." is hearsay and has no reference or source to support it. I have repeatedly replaced it with a more accurate statement with a reference which reads as follows: "The message found favor among news outlets such as WSJ (Reference: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bearer-of-good-coronavirus-news-11587746176) but attracted criticism by other commentators". Again users Alexbrn and Hob Gadling have been bringing the previous unsourced and unsubstantiated statement back on the page.

In the end, this study was published in one of the most reputable scientific journals in the field (International Journal of Epidemiology), which is again a fact that is constantly removed from Ioannidis page. Is there an agenda here? --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seemed okay before. We reflect secondary sources, not the views of editors here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

On Covid-19, a Respected Science Watchdog Raises Eyebrows is cited at the end of the sentence referred to and says These arguments have earned Ioannidis widespread attention in conservative media. I personally think "right-wing" is a reasonable rewording of "conservative", but would have no objection if it is deemed preferable to use the exact word the reference uses. FDW777 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

An what makes "Undark" reliable for facts, or notable for opinions? Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to try and argue Undark Magazine is not reliable, you are welcome to waste your energy doing so. FDW777 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I might do that, But thought I'd ask you first, but you seem to have no actual response. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The following statement is neither fair nor impartial and will be removed till it is corrected: "...but the paper dismayed epidemiologists who said its testing was inaccurate and its methods were sloppy.[30][31][32]" The people listed in these quotes are for the large majority not epidemiologists. It is also counterintuitive and cannot say that it dismayed epidemiologists in general, when the paper eventually was published in a very competitive epidemiology journal (https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab010/6146069). --PantelisPatra (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked the credentials of those quoted in the article- what are they if not epidemiologists? In general, I think it is better to qualify it, with something like "the paper dismayed some epidemiologists like <name> " (surely not all were dismayed, but some certainly were.) Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That a study was published in a very competitive epidemiology journal does not exempt it, nor its authors, from criticism. FDW777 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

agreed, but it does mean that not all epidemiologists were dismayed by it, as the current wording suggests. Kenosha Forever (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It was clearly promotional, —PaleoNeonate – 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

the fact that the study was published in a highly reputable scientific journal, guarantees it has followed peer review by other expert epidemiologists who have examined and confirmed the methods and findings. Certainly some epidemiologists may disagree with the results, and so can any non subject-matter experts, reporters or anyone else, whose opinion you may decide to bring into Ioannidis page as more relevant than the peer reviewers of the reputable scientific journals. This will not change the fact that scientific process is clear and undisputed. Scientific papers are reviewed and approved or rejected by peers. Anyone else can have an opinion which however cannot overturn in any way that of the scientific publication, unless it will be done by another scientific publication. Scientific debate by Wikipedia users, twitter, or on your local grocery store, is equally meaningless and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Concluding, it may be news for you, but the fact that it was published in a highly reputable scientific journal, has a huge value of its own. Epidemiologists or anyone else disagreeing on tabloids, twitter or news agencies has no real scientific or even encyclopedic value and its nothing other than rumors and gossip. A scientific publication can only be contested by another scientific publication that will provide evidence for its flaws. For everyone's sake, Science is evaluated in scientific journals and not on twitter or blogs. --PantelisPatra (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:5P before replying any further. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Underreporting

On May 11, the study's authors revised the study with new figures, settling on a figure of 54% underreporting, whereas the original study gave a range of 50%-85%, is this correct? The reference cited says After originally reporting that coronavirus infections in Santa Clara County have been underreported by a factor of 50-85 and In a second draft recently uploaded to medial preprint website medRxiv, the Stanford University researchers settle in on a weighted prevalence of 2.8 percent, which translates to an underreporting of infections by a factor of 54. Similarly the reference from the section above says That estimate was drastically larger, 50- to 85-fold larger, than had been estimated up to that point using swab testing and but as much as 85-fold higher. Surely his figure is not that the figure is 54% underreported but 54 times more? FDW777 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right, good thinking FDW777. While we think about adding "54 times more", I deleted the 54% figure, which is certainly an error. Llll5032 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and reorganised it slightly. I've included the original estimate, then the revision in a note. I wasn't happy with the initial claim-criticism-revised claim structure, since it tended to give Ioannidis the last word, when underreporting by a factor of 54 doesn't actuallly rebut any of the criticism. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, what shall we do with the sentence beginning In March 2021 Ioannidis estimated the global infection fatality rate from COVID-19 at 0.15%? It doesn't seem to add anything other than what's already been stated earlier with putting the virus's fatality rate as low as 0.1% to 0.2%. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 research & controversies

I was the first to introduce a section in this article over Ioannidis' research on the Covid-19 pandemic and it got more attention that I anticipated. I think these events are significant and deserve a place in this article. Events are ongoing, so suggestions on neutrality are well-founded. However, there's probably ample of research contrasting conclusions in Ioannidis' research. If others feel the same, it'd be great if those more knowledgeable on the matter could cite appropriate research to reflect this inside the article.

In my initial addition, I had tried to reflect that Ioannidis is also recipient of criticism for expressing strong opinions (especially on the matters of lockdown and transmission) in the media. Frankly, he was expressing an opinion on the matter even prior to his research being published. So let us discuss if those media appearances are worthy of inclusion in the article.

Lastly, as the paragraph focuses on the published research with current edits, I think the accusation of a conflict of interest due to the funding source can't be forgone. It comes from a reputable source and the incident was widely reported. Finally on the note of the paragraph's focus, ideally the heading of the paragraph should be more descriptive, especially as it expands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr (talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favor of expanding the section. This guy is quite infamous at this point for making claims that most people at the time thought were wrong to the point of endangering lives, which we now know for sure were wrong. E.g.:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/?fbclid=IwAR2Z7LbEZizN5w-Jl9HBJ65whnLBnicyRUuttUhUllatF5upUUeN-K_bWAs

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams.

Basically he was using his Stanford credentials to try to convince people not to respond to a gigantic global crisis in the (false) hopes that it wouldn’t be that bad, and the article should note this. One might have believed his argument was reasonable at the time (although this is quite a charitable interpretation in my opinion), but there shouldn’t be an issue with neutrality at this point noting that he was wrong.

rdl381 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would violate WP:OR to make these conclusions. In any case, in reading the study, it's consistent with exactly what's posted on the CDC site (that ILI cases are indeed lumped together). However, this too would be OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainePatriot (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Focusing on Covid‘s lethality (or lack thereof) misses the point that even with non-fatal outcome large-scale infections and subsequent loss of essential workforce (albeit temporary) poses a national security risk. That said, even his recurring insistence on downplaying the immediate risk seems to lack a peer-reviewed base [1] Webmgr (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As the factuality of the events mentioned in the the related section has been discussed, and sources have been looked into, I would like to invite other authors to refrain from an edit war until there is consensus. The events did take place and the sources are reliable. I'd say, please don't remove the entire section without reason until the discussion has concluded. Gnkgr (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

In other words: "Please let us win the edit war."

The removal was not "without reason", it was with a reason you failed to understand because you did not seriously try to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And we now have the WP:CLOP/WP:COPYVIO protected:

Guardian Source[2]	Wikipedia
John Ioannidis, who used the results to promote the controversial view that the coronavirus is “not the apocalyptic problem we thought” and that societal lockdowns were an expensive and potentially deadly overreaction.	Ioannidis concluded from the study that the coronavirus is “not the apocalyptic problem we thought” and that societal lockdowns were a costly and possibly deadly overreaction.

I am also concerned about WP:SOCKING by the IP that edit-warred this back in. However, the primary problems with this edit are that it is undue and spun around an unreliable medical source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the peer reviewed article on which Ioannidis claims are based that there is no significant effect on Covid19 spread by more restrictive non pharmacological interventions compared to less restrictive NPI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484 Could we list it in this article? It would also be great if we could add a peer-reviewed paper that argues against these findings. Than it would fit in the controversy section very well. Petkraw (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The original article has been discredited. We should not include it, but if decent WP:MEDRS covers the controversy at large, that could be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you point me to articles that discredit this work? thx! Petkraw (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn & Roxy the dog , I don't quite understand why my source is considered unreliable. In my brief paragraph which details Ioannidis' rebuttals to criticisms levelled against him, I quote him ver batim twice. Surely in that case it's more appropriate to link directly to the podcast episode (again, this is not a random podcast, it's an interview with Ioannidis conducted by Vinay Prasad, a fellow academic) rather than to a secondary source. I don't see how it could get any more compliant with "No original research" than directly quoting Ioannidis. Plenary Session Episode 3.41 - 3.41 Building a Meta-Research Career and Constructing COVID-19 Health Policy with Dr. John Ioannidis Seanonicholas (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be built on secondary sources. We reflect what those sources have published about Ioannidis, rather than deciding for ourselves what's significant. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So an interview with the very subject of the page responding to the exact criticisms detailed in this section is not considered significant enough? I understand that care has to be taken in situations like this to avoid vandalisation, but I don't quite understand what source could be considered more appropriate than this one.Seanonicholas (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If it was significant, secondary sources would be using it; we could then use those. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It was significant enough for a separate person (Vinay Prasad) to interview him and release it as an episode of his podcast. Would it be more acceptable if Prasad interviewed him, and then published a transcript of the interview as part of one of his written editorials in MedPage Today? I don't think you've made a convincing argument as to why citing an interview with Ioannidis is inappropriate. What would one of these secondary sources that you prefer look like, a review of the interview written by a third person? Seanonicholas (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In secondary sources we are looking for analysis and synthesis, to give us "knowledge". Given Ioannidis is said to have been espousing fringe views Wikipedia certainly does not want to be giving them oxygen without some reliable secondary sourcing to give validity/context. Alexbrn (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that he was interviewed and the interview was published by another academic (Vinay Prasad) provide validity and context? I understand your point about fringe views, which is why I haven't edited the rest of the section to obscure criticisms and align everything with Ioannidis' opinions; the section is titled COVID-19 Research & Controversies for good reason, because many people disagree with him. But you must understand why I think disallowing direct quotation of Ioannidis is a bizarre position to take, right? Surely any section titled "Controversy" shouldn't exclude the subject's direct rebuttals to criticisms levelled against them.Seanonicholas (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's bizarre until you remember this is encyclopedia. This article is not directly about Ioannidis but is meant to offer a summary of what reliable sources have said about him. Thus any controversy will be controversy framed as such in secondary sources, it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what it is and present it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so in this case Prasad (or some other relevant person) would have to produce some other published work besides this interview (like say, a different podcast episode) that synthesises Ioannidis' points into their own original rebuttal of the criticisms levelled against Ioannidis? Is the issue here that Ioannidis himself is directly involved in the content of the podcast? I just want to make sure I understand, thanks.Seanonicholas (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It would need to be better than a podcast - in particular self-published sources (WP:SPS) are absolutely prohibited for biographical content. We are looking for reputably-published material generally from third-party sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. The rule against self-published sources in biographical pages was the missing link for me. I can understand why that rule exists. Cheers. Seanonicholas (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

5000 dollars

It was later reported that authors of the study received funding from JetBlue's founder, which led to criticism over a potential conflict of interest. -- When did Buzzfeed become a reliable source? JetBlue did not fund the study. It was an anonymous donation. So how is that sentence still there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximum70 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Maximum70, you can see Buzzfeed News' rating as a reliable source at WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New article from Science-Based Medicine

• Gorski DH (29 March 2021). "What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?". Science-Based Medicine.

Should be a valuable source, particularly for the WP:FRINGE aspects of this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A hit piece is not and should not be a source. The author of the article is also the owner of the site. That is conflict of interest and definitely NPOV. Also to call Ioannidis, 'fringe' is absurd. Maximum70 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A good source, is SBM, as has been determined by community consensus many times. Nobody is "calling Ioannidis fringe" - that would't make sense. But there are fringe aspects to this topic, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting directly referenced matarial

The editors of this page are deleting directly referenced material, in favour of their POV and attempt to smear Ioannidis with sensationalist media articles. I posted these inserts below in the COVID section, and they were deleted. This page will be reported if they are not included now, as they are quotes from the actual published material being discussed, and also a reference to a W.H.O published study:

"He estimated a lower infection mortality rate than most at the time. Quote:Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%." - https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ " ———————

" (later posted by the W.H.O in October 2020 - https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dxXTwhdtH1-BqCWvZVheVZco2LJ9ZovT6DQ9hjW4TOaxI1K6olyO6j1M ) "

————
" In October 2020, after further peer-review, the W.H.O. published the study - https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dxXTwhdtH1-BqCWvZVheVZco2LJ9ZovT6DQ9hjW4TOaxI1K6olyO6j1M " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.104.150 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the significance of a long quote by Ioannidis, that's coincidentally from an article authored by Ioannidis? Promoting his discredited views perhaps? FDW777 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it says what he actually said…clearly and precisely, rather than the POV and misrepresentation of that article that is being perpetrated by the COVID section, and the mis-information being aggressively pushed therein. For such a controversial subject, it is very important readers get what the article being referred to, actually clearly stated, instead of a misunderstanding of a statement about ratios.

The article should be built on secondary sources. We rely on them for what's worth mentioning, and should avoid the selection choices of Wikipedia editors, which can take us in bad directions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Theranos

Nothing on his criticisms of Theranos? Why? Maximum70 (talk)

The above half-signed contribution was from 21:35, 27 July 2021.

Maybe we do not have any reliable secondary sources for it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Editorial Bias

A direct quote from a cited source (STAT article from Ioannidis) was repeatedly removed by User:Llll5032 in an abuse of WP:OR. The quote is directly from the article being discussed, there is no additional editorial or explanatory content involved, and in fact, the content originally present prior to the edit was a quote of the comment taken out of context, to mis-represent the intent of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.7.159 06:35, 23 September 2021‎ (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:74.71.7.159. We assume good faith here (WP:AGF). Treating other editors with respect is a pillar of Wikipedia (WP:PILLARS). We discuss major changes on the talk page per WP:CAUTIOUS: "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page." We prefer independent secondary sources over primary sources per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Per WP:SECONDARY, "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." We minimize quotations per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE: "Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy." I reverted your editing because it ran afoul of WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:PSTS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:LONGQUOTE. Llll5032 (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We also go by WP:MEDPRI: "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." Llll5032 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, new stuff goes to the bottom. Moved it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In my revert, I wanted to link WP:BRD, not BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's very much likely that the two respondents above who as evident by this talk page are obsessing over this article and also going against consensus have editorial bias. The reasons given for removal of articles criticizing Ioannidis are often laughable and it has happened repeatedly. It's likely that we're witnessing an attempt to erase history here for the sake of protecting someone's image. Oddly enough it keeps happening even now that Ioannidis' dangerous claims and reasoning for anti-lockdown political activism have been thoroughly debunked and proven to be unscientific to say the least. Gnkgr (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who "the two respondents above" are supposed to be, but if one of them is me, you could not be more wrong. Ioannidis' most famous work was about avoiding false positives. I think he does not care about, and does not know how to handle, false negatives, and when it comes to COVID-19, he is firmly in the wrong boat because of that.

Maybe you should have a look at the actual reasoning and take that seriously, instead of casting baseless and fruitless aspersions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Per Science Based Medicine, an article he wrote contains ad hominem attacks on someone who disagreed with him. That the current version of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation article doesn't contain that any more is irrelevant, Science Based Medicine is a reliable reference and confirms it did. FDW777 (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

article picture

anyone very familiar with Ioannidis will have to laugh when they see this profile picture. i don't know any scientist who smiles as much or as warmly as John. grow up, wiki cabal Mbsyl (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

New publication

In [3] he writes about Great Barrington Declaration and John Snow Memorandum.

[4] Rebecca Watson comments: "Now, you’d think that more than a year later anyone with eyeballs and two neurons to rub together would see that one of these declarations was extraordinarily stupid and one was rather reasonable, but you’d be wrong, because we live in the worst timeline. Enter John Ioannidis, who has, in February of 2022, decided to quite bravely NOT look at the success of countries that had real lockdowns and the failure of countries that did basically nothing, and to instead evaluate each of these dusty artifacts of a bygone era to determine which document had the most famous people sign it. Yes. Yes, really."

I have no useable sources yet, one is WP:PRIMARY and the other a blog, but I guess the subject will sooner or later end up here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The responses at the journal are not to be missed. XOR'easter (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this published research finding is like Most Published Research Findings - false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Science-Based Medicine has something too: [5] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

At least one of the Telegraph links in [6] seems to be about that same paper. The wording who supported that harsh and extended Covid-19 lockdowns were detrimental to the economy, education and mental health is misleading. Of course lockdowns are detrimental to those! Is there anybody who thinks otherwise? The reason the anti-lockdowners are frowned upon is that at the same time they downplay the dangers of the pandemic, with dubious methods, of course. I cannot access the article, so I don't know who picked that cherry: the Wikipedia editor, the journalist, or Ioannidis. In any case, that sentence needs to be aligned with WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the published replies that captures their overall tenor. XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, all criticism of that stupid paper has been deleted. At least [7] is useable, but we seem to have a few users who want to whitewash Ioannidis and do not allow any contradiction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That source looks good. Honestly I still think a quote from the published comments was passable enough -- the relevant people quoted were subject-matter experts, which is an exception to WP:SPS, and if all the published comments regarding a paper were extremely negative in tone that is in general probably a noteworthy thing. But Gorski's article is probably better. Endwise (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If your edit commentary What's mainstream and what's fringe isn't decided by our opinions on things/WP:OR, but by reliable sources. If such sources exist that demonstrates this paper falls under WP:FRINGE then they should be included here, if such sources don't exist then there's nothing for you to base your assessment off other than OR were valid, we would never be able to delete any propagation of fringe views.

WP:FRINGE says, In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. When Ioannidis specifically writes a paper trying to find an excuse why the GBD is not mainstream, then that paper is fringe by definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I see two questions to be resolved here. One is whether this particular paper is notable enough to mention among Dr. Ioannidis' body of work, the other is which sources we use to describe it.

The former question makes me think WP:TENYEARTEST, and question whether COVID discourse is going to be long term notable, and if this paper is particularly notable within that COVID discourse. I lean towards not being particularly notable long-term, and more notable on the GBD and JS articles. There's also a sub-question of whether the notability depends on the controversy/criticism, and how we address it if so.

The latter is a question of WP:PARITY. BMJ Open is peer reviewed, but also intended as a quick-turnaround alternative to the higher-impact BMJ, with ease of responses. This appears to be a bit of an edge case, as PARITY suggests that if it is fringe, it needs to be refuted by sources of similar (or stronger) weight, which SBM and rapid responses (in my view) are not. That said, it's also a weird WP:PRIMARY study itself: the data itself is just Twitter followers vs citation impact, followed by the 'extremely online' discussion proposing that Twitter firepower may have helped shape the narrative. Is this claim in the Discussion section a strong enough claim to consider reliable, or just the underlying K-index vs citation impact results? I suspect we're potentially giving undue weight to the 'just asking questions' of the discussion. This also applies to the Telegraph article cited, is popular press reliable for such a study, or feeding into the issues Ioannidis is arguing exist?

My personal view, Dr. Ioannidis' support of evidence base medicine would suggest he wouldn't want strong conclusions drawn from his discussion, and instead see further research probing the differences seen in his results. As he concludes: Critical differences between them should be probed with rigorous science rather than defended on partisan grounds and with social media warfare. Are we making a mountain of a molehill? Is this really notable enough for the article among his body of work? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)