Talk:Robert W. Malone/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Minor thing: credentials are incorrectly formatted

He is described as having a "BSc" and an "MSc", but in the USA a bachelor's degree in science is abbreviated either as "BS" or "B.S.", and a master's degree is likewise either "MS" or "M.S.". As a Canadian expat living in the US, it bugs me to say that I have a BS rather than a BSc, but when-in-Rome, and all that. Felice Enellen (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. It's more about the institution than the country. We still say MBBS about doctors who were awarded in England but practice in the US, for example. It's about which institution granted the degree and which type of degree they grant. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

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

---

What misinformation did he spread? 2001:FB1:32:36BA:30A2:968F:8DDC:9DD4 (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Malone didn't spread one word of misinformation about COVID-19. This characterization of his public work itself is libel and misinformation. A tactic common on wikipedia used to demonize people who do not agree with the mob who writes these articles. He was correct about the immune escape problem, the cytotoxic nature of the spike, the subsequent pandemic of AIDS-like immunity amongst the mRNS vaccine takers, and the world wide phenomenon of "unknown-cause" sudden cardiac death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.33.2 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also read wp:nlt and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Authoritative accurate COVID-19 information

Dr. Malone provided authoritative and accurate information early on in the pandemic and continues to do so. The information on this Wiki page is not accurate and needs to be amended to comply with Wiki principles. Newbdad (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

soOURCe? Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Inventor

This paragraph below, from this Wikipedia article, literally means that he DID invent the mRNA technology. And yet the article goes on to say he didn't, in a deliberate concerted effort to belittle and smear him as a boaster.
"In the late 1980s, while a graduate student researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, Malone conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology, discovering in what Nature has described as a landmark experiment that it was possible to transfer mRNA protected by a liposome into cultured cells to signal the information needed for the production of proteins.[3][13][4]"

The paragraph below what? Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Below the sentence above it. -insert clown emoji- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.177.247 (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ahh I see, no we do not contradict ourselves, we say he demonstrated a possibility, not that he demonstrated it worked. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass Formation

While "mass formation psychosis" is not a recognized disorder, "mass formation" is a legitimate field of study in social psychology (e.g. Group Formation and Ideology, What is mass formation?). It may be useful to note the difference between the two. As the article is currently written, one could surmise that "mass formation" itself is "more metaphor than science" when that description specifically applies to "mass formation psychosis". Auctoris (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation 7 is an opinion piece

Citation seven is not a factual backing of any information, but is instead of an opinion piece used as fact and should not belong in an encyclopedia as it is neither relevant, nor true 136.26.15.82 (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not seem to be marked as an opp-ed, but rather as tech news. Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

also WP:ASSERT. Even if it is one person's opinion, if it is widely accepted as fact by experts in the field, we keep it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

7 is almost certainly an opinion piece. I have a hard time believing a good faith actor could interpret it otherwise. It is a straight up political hit piece.

Further, I don't think experts on the field of mRNA vaccines have given much public thought to Malone, let alone formed a piblic consensus. Giving cherry picked opinions, from unknown sources, on highly politicized subjects isn't exactly a consensus. Thus WP:ASSERT doesn't apply to this case. Bdougherty13 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Soap applies to this topic Bdougherty13 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not marked as an OP-edd. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

You say in this bio he got the facts wrong on covid experimental injections , when he never 78.145.217.151 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I would delete the entire article: it is potentially litigious. Excalibur (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:nlt. Unless the courts say it is, its not. Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this the space?

I have no idea if this is the appropriate space to ask this question, so please let me know if it is.

What I am wondering is the following:

Since Wikipedia is inevitably in the position of arbitrating what is true or not true, and since Wikipedia is apparently declaring (in our inevitable position as arbiters of truth, to some extent — by the very nature of being an encyclopedia) that Mr. Malone has perpetuated untruths or "misinformation", would it not make sense for us to establish specifically, right at the moment that we declare "misinformation", exactly what the misinformation, and exactly what the truth, really is?

In other words, as a neutral skeptic, I would like to see specifics. I would like to read that Mr. Malone was the perpetrator of the misinformation THAT… (such and such happened). But the truth is that… (such and such didn't happen) — and then of course followed by sources.

Instead what I see is us Wikipedians repeating the purported fact that he "misinformed", without even us being able to gist in a few simple words WHAT he misinformed about, and what the truth is (which should be easy to specify if he is in fact demonstrably wrong according to our standards).

"He said that blah blah blah is the truth (here's my source that he said so). But we here on Wikipedia must state that in fact blah blah blah is the truth (at least one good source)."

For example: Let's say that I begin to misinform the public that 5+5 is actually 11. It is affirmed by mathematicians with their proofs that 5+5 is actually 10, and so Wikipedia informs us that by telling the people that 5+5 was 11, I was "misinforming" them, because 5+5 is actually 10 (source, source, source).

Does this make any sense? That perhaps here we should be putting ourselves in a position of declaring that something is false only if we can say exactly WHAT is false (and what is false about it), and then what the "truth" is (at least as far as we can tell according to the consensus measurements we prioritize). Destrylevigriffith (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You're making the WP:BIGMISTAKE but in any case the article does go into specifics about Malone's well-documented falsity, like claiming he was the inventor of mRNA vaccines for example, or that ivermectin treats COVID. Bon courage (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What I am criticizing is what I perceive as the Wikipedia space reflecting its personal opinions on the matter (and I think it is becoming abundantly clear to the world that the Wikipedia space does in fact have some pretty strong opinions).

If it is so clear and simple exactly WHAT he stated that is incorrect, can I quote you in the opening paragraph?

"...the misinformation that he was the inventor of mRNA vaccines and that ivermectin treats COVID, among other falsehoods..."

If this or any other specific claims of misinformation are demonstrably true, then this should be an easy edit.

If however we can not specify, then I fear it is Wikipedia who is repeating mere opinion of facts, and not fact itself. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia, a web site, does not have 'opinions', that's silly. Content on Wikipedia is WP:Verified. The detail about Malone's nonsenses is specified in the article, the lede is just a summary. Bon courage (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Destrylevigriffith, Wikipedia's purpose is to accurately summarize what reliable, published sources say about the topic. Those sources can be found in the "References" section of the article. If you believe that some part of the article misrepresents one or more reliable sources, then quote the specific passage and explain why you do not believe that the source verifies the content. If you are aware of other reliable, independent sources that offer a different perspective, then bring them forth for discussion, and explain why they support specific content changes. Generalized grousing accomplishes nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping me. I was confused about Wikipedia — the culture, the vibe, the real,

lived values. Especially with the casual revert of my (actually very careful and thought-out) Rogan edits, I think I get it, now.

I don't dare breathe a syllable of what I think "it" is — I'll be impressed if even this isn't simply deleted as "offensive".

Shrewd thinkers will understand from that alone exactly what it is. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:forum and wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Some claims in regards to "misinformation" shall be reviewed and updated accordingly to the latest findings

The claim that the spike protein from the vaccine isn't toxic is wrong! The spike toxicity from the vaccine is one of the biggest issues causing long-term vaccine injury and autoimmunity. This statement is backed up by following review paper [1]https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

There might be not everything wrong about the critical statements from an experienced medical doctor who has concerns about a new medication. Please note that there was a lot of political and medial pressure. Therefore a structured and dry re-review is required to remove pre-set biases. FatiguePhysics (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We have sources directly calling Malone's statements misinformation. Any sources replying to that must be directly on-point - they must address Malone specifically. You cannot use other sources to try to argue that Malone was right after all, that would be original research, forbidden by Wikipedia's policies as explained at WP:OR. Even if you could do that, the citation you have given above does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for biomedical information as explained at WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Cite these sources please. 121.202.127.46 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We already do. The sentence Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. has five sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The material in the "five sources" is seriously libelous and I'm surprised that you're either unaware or indifferent. Or both. Source (5), for example, by France 24 does NOT say "Malone promoted misinformation", and it's deceptive for someone to say that it does. That "source" should be removed, and the other possibly libelous information should be examined carefully by someone knowledgeable about libel and slander issues in Wikipedia. Henrilebec (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources are reliable sources, and Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. We cannot just ignore them just because someone does not like them and calls them "libellous". See WP:NLT.

The France24 source talks about a bad paper which contained misinformation and was retracted, and says that Malone tweeted about that paper, which means that he spread the misinformation. But that connection is a bit shaky - he did not know that it would be retracted later, and he later deleted the tweet - so, yes, it should probably be removed as source for the statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Update the summary - it looks like Wagonlit propaganda and censorship

“during the COVID-19 pandemic, was one of the scientists that were not in favor of vaccines but due to censorship from the global organizations , governments and mídia his views were censored preventing the world population to have a different view of it hence destitute the world population to have informed decisions about vaccination “

this is important! We should never let censorship to control our world he might be right or wrong, for the individuals to análise and take their own decisions 2804:7F0:B080:539F:C4C1:50C5:89CA:8FAE (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. (I had to look up what "Wagonlit" is, and does not even seem to make sense.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is not factual, it is yet another character assassination

It is quite clear that Wikipedia entries on Covid-19 related subjects have been hijacked by corrupt and very single-minded entities, who are determined to assassinate the characters of anyone who threatens their profits from what appear to be useless and contaminated experimental medical products. If that is what Wikipedia stands for these days, then the Wikipedia project itself is dead.Excalibur (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a specific problem with the article, for which you can suggest a fix? Otherwise this is not a forum, and you can air your grievances elsewhere. Kimen8 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

Robert Malone does not promote misinformation. He investigates and tells others the facts. 166.196.65.4 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024

“ Malone promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.” Is an opinion. Peoples political opinion should not be stated as fact. By making this an uneditable part of the page it shows Wikipedia bias opinion Nballstar (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia follows reliable sources. This is not an opinion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Passive Voice and Dates

The article states that credit for early mRNA research has been given to other researchers, however, who gave this credit is not stated and the sources refer to a few authors writing post-2019. Considering that mRNA research began in the 1980's, this would not substantiate a position that Malone has not been given credit. It only substantiates that after 2019 a few authors focused giving credit to other researchers. 71.57.156.115 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)