Talk:Jay Bhattacharya

Anti-vaxx position

[1] Primary source for Bhattacharya's WP:FRINGE antivax position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The link you provide has a subheading that reads "For recovered Covid patients, the vaccines provide no benefit and some harm. It is thus unethical to vaccinate them." This may be true in that T-cell immunity and circulating anti-viral antibodies that usually results from the viral infection itself produces a stronger antiviral immune response than the immunity from injecting RNA encoding of spike proteins. Thus, I cannot rule out anaphylactic shock and death from a subsequent injection of a vaccine, in a patient for whom the vaccine itself offers little added immune response. That vaccination was proposed without testing for immunity may indeed offer a risk. Certainly, it is something that I worry about. If you wish, I can look through the literature to substantiate this informal opinion, but to claim that you have "science" on your side and that anyone who has concerns is an anti-vaxxer, is, well, frankly, nuts. The characterization that someone who disagrees with your undocumented, and not primary referenced informal opinion from the rumor mill of what "science" should be while neglecting that science is usually peer reviewed and contains numerical analysis with proof by disproof of a hypothesis, is a "useful idiot," is both over the top, uncalled for, illogical (as it is an argument against the person and not "science" in anyone's wildest dreams), and detracts rather than adds to anything. It is usefully idiotic to call someone a "useful idiot" while issuing unsubstantiated claims yourself. For example, I provide here a hypothetical explanation as to how vaccinating someone with immunity may be dangerous. If you wish to offer some hypothesis beyond "Anyone who does not agree with me is an idiot" I would be glad to see it. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of what you are saying makes no sense. Where does the "useful idiot" come from? What are you talking about, and who are you talking to?

I admit that I was in a hurry and have not seen the subheading, but given that the virus is now killing lots of Indians, his claim that most of them were already immune was nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The phrase in question is "...the scientists fronting the declaration were simply being useful idiots..." It makes no difference whether you cite a libelous content or come up with it yourself. Get rid of it for your own good, for example, you could face a law suit for defamation. I am sorry you cannot follow my reasoning, I was expecting you to be a content expert, and I apologize for my presumptuousness. It is true that the natural immunity claim is over the top, but that doesn't mean that there was any intention for mislead. I am sure you do not mean to mislead either, but you do. Consider, for example, the Toronto Sun has written this https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-the-great-barrington-declaration-is-a-worthwhile-document, and if they are correct, then you are off-base. Now you may not think much of the Toronto Sun, I don't think much of the Science-Based Medicine website you are quoting. The biased language alone is enough to taint their "sterling reputation."

BTW Newsweek, rated center by Media Bias, relates that Jay Bhattacharya "Calls Dr. Fauci 'Number One Anti Vaxxer'" https://www.newsweek.com/stanford-doctor-jay-bhattacharya-calls-dr-fauci-number-one-anti-vaxxer-1584181. And, he has a point given the mixed messaging and lack of any coherent policy from Dr. Fauci. Read it. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you had responded to my contribution and seemed to be talking about that at first, I naturally expected you to refer to either what I said or what the website I linked to said. Since neither text contained any "useful idiots", what you wrote made no sense to me. Now I have found the phrase "useful idiots": it was in the Wikipedia article itself! Next time when you quote somebody, you should say who it is you are quoting, it prevents misunderstandings and provides the necessary context. I am sorry that you are so bad at communicating.

Please read WP:LEGAL. Don't make legal threats, you can be banned for that.

The Toronto Sun is not a reliable source for medical subjects. See WP:MEDRS. It does not matter what you think about SBM, it is, although not MEDRS either, definitely a better sources on medical matters than any newspaper.

What is the point of the Newsweek link? Does it have anything to do with anything? Seems to be just whataboutism. Do you want to add it to the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Collapse antivax WP:MWOT. This page is WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely did not make any legal threats, what I was trying to point out was that calling someone a useful idiot, especially someone who has attained the rank of professor in a harder science at a North American University, is a falsehood at face value. Since it is defamatory, there are risks associated with such language, and it serves no one, especially Wikipedia, to call people names as contrasted with offering an argument that is not so self-contradictory at face value. However, you did threaten me, which was uncalled for as I was giving you advice and I think any impartial read of what I wrote would come to that same conclusion. In the "COVID-19 pandemic" text, David Gorski, the useful idiot speculator you quote (He is a medical oncologist, who only rarely dabbles in cancer epidemiology, which is not viral risk/benefit epidemiology.) serves no plausible role in this discussion. Also, concerning anaphylaxis, CDC itself admits to a risk for that as well as 4000+ deaths from all causes in the US that may be associated with Covid-19 vaccination, e.g., see Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination and other headings in https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html Now I am not an anti-vaxxer, and neither is CDC, nor despite the heading here neither is Prof. Bhattacharya, and wild-eyed trash citations do not make it so. Having used an adverse drug reaction reporting system myself, I can relate that the responsible physician would not be likely to use such a system unless the adverse reaction is causally linked as a matter of the legality of making claims that are not reasonably demonstrable, and defensible in the mind of that physician. I can tell you what anaphylactic shock looks like, it scares the shit out of you if the patient unexpectedly stops breathing and turns blue. That means that the 50-50's, the "I'm not sure cases," the maybe's, largely go unreported because it takes a lot in the real world for a physician be sure about something unusual or unanticipated, it also takes time away from other patients' care, i.e., is time consuming, and it actually takes courage to use it; it can make a stink in the hospital; with the drug company; and no one will say thank-you; indeed it may result in legal action on behalf of the patient and court time (and no that is not a threat, just something that happens, don't misinterpret everything please). I also know from other sources that the adverse reaction reporting system does not capture the preponderance of probable cases. Why do you have an anti-vaxxer heading here? You offer no evidence for that opinion and the quotes from the professor himself to the opposite effect in Newsweek are likely reliable even if it is written on toilet paper. Direct quotes are either completely false, like your useful idiot comment, or they reflect something that is the actual opinion of the person to whom they are attributed. So, whom are you implying is a liar? Newsweek or Professor Bhattacharya, and what evidence do you have for your off-the-wall opinion by someone with no direct connection to the issue being discussed? It seems you attribute credence to unverifiable random opinions by people not in the mix and then admit outright gossip as if it were scripture. Quelle audace! 207.47.175.199 (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lack of source support for counter perspective

This sentence: "The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis." is not supported by the cited sources.

1. The sources do not include any commentary by "numerous academic and public-health bodies", only commentary by WHO. 2. The sources cited do not specifically address the 'proposed strategy' of the Great Barrington Document, only herd immunity. The Great Barrington Declaration proposes a mixed-approach strategy in which vaccinations are highly recommended for the most vulnerable populations and the no recommendations are made for the remaining population. 3. There is no citation specific to the conclusions that the Great Barrington Declaration is; a. dangerous, b. unethical, and c. lacking a sound scientific basis. The cited sources state only that leaving the population untreated to naturally develop herd immunity is unethical.

The sentence should either be stricken or properly supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:c400:c170:503d:5585:47b7:117b (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

New source

Science-Based Medicine: Did New Zealand Let Too Few People Die of COVID? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

New Section on Twitter Files Revealing Shadowbanning

This article should be amplified to reflect new information in December 2022 regarding Twitter's shadowbanning of Dr Bhattaharya. Given this new information, it appears even more possible that similar situations developed on Facebook and YouTube regarding different views on handling covid-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing this talk comment now--I made an edit. SmolBrane (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite

I do not feel that the lead accurately summarizes the fringe views of the subject and relevant reception. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've copied the corresponding description of the GBD from the Kulldorff article, where there's been a lot of work to get it NPOV. Hopefully this improves matters here too. Bon courage (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"concerns for possible harmful effects of covid lockdowns" is fringe

Please see this revert [2]. I don't agree with this revert since it poorly summarizes the source--and I don't know why possible harmful effects from lockdowns would be presumed to be fringe. SmolBrane (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Because an unadorned view that masks hurt children is fringe. Would need some mainstream context if this is to be aired, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the revert just for brevity's sake. Bhattacharya's position on lockdowns is given lengthier treatment earlier in the section, and it doesn't need additional restatement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

To me, more importantly than WP:FRINGE, and the reason I made the edit in the first place, is because of WP:SAID. "Raising concerns" has positive implications about diligence and thoroughness that are undue. BrigadierG (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding "opponent of lockdowns and mask mandates"

A discussion is occurring regarding this statement over at Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 5#Jay Bhattacharya's block needs better context. Editors are invited to participate since it's the transcluded content in question. SmolBrane (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Page being used to push political beliefs

In the edit history there's been countless attempts to remove political bias from this page. They're all instantly taken down by one user. Is there a way to stop this? 98.10.105.122 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, by providing reliable sources that provide the context you're trying to convey, and discussing changes on these talk pages after your edits have been reverted on order to gain consensus for the changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example, Talk:Monica Gandhi#Issues with TB's version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My edit was worded straight from the Great Barrington declaration, which was being summarized. What could be a more reliable source about the declaration itself? 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based primarily on reliable secondary sources. The declaration is a primary source, so citing itself or its authors for how it was received by others is not neutral or policy compliant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence was attempting to summarize the primary source. Why would a summary of the primary source rely on a secondary source? 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not my reading of that part of the sentence. That part is describing how, in no uncertain terms, the declaration is considered pseudoscience by all of the relevant public health bodies and organisations.

That said, even if it was a sentence on summarising the declaration, policy requires us to describe it how secondary sources describe it. To do otherwise would be original research as we, as editors, would be determining which parts of the declaration that reader attention should be drawn towards. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The GB declaration is criticizing the government public health organizations' Covid response. To rely on their opinion is absurd. It is written by scientists who work for other private public health institutions. Should we be citing republicans about democrats views? Or democrats about republican's views?

Your insistence on inserting bias and political beliefs into this article is unprofessional. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a political issue - it is an issue of mainstream science verses fringe medical opinions. We're not going to pretend otherwise in the name of a false balance because some people have hitched their political beliefs to misinformation. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what scientific views are mainstream. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Luckily I don't have to, because the source we cite have done it for me. MrOllie (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I could cite a dozen sources in favor of the GB declaration. Your little power trip is pathetic. You aren't the arbiter of truth. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we be citing republicans about democrats views? Or democrats about republican's views?

Please answer this. Why should the WHO director be cited as a reputable source in response to criticism of his policies? This is indefensible to anyone with their critical faculties in check. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Mu. The premise of the question is flawed. This isn't a political issue. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should the WHO director be cited as a reputable source in response to criticism of his policies? 98.10.105.122 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually you've been reverted by three users, ScottishFinnishRadish and MrOllie and myself. I agree with their assessment that the proposed edits thusfar have gone against policy. I would also echo the recommendation from SFR that if you wish to see this change in the article, please provide reliable sources in support of these changes and get a consensus here first before trying to make the edit again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit I made returned the sentence to neutral voice, instead of pushing a view about his beliefs. It also clarified his view. Calling an unverifiable view "false" is bias. Calling a view "fringe" is also bias and unquantifiable. These words currently in the article push views and are in violation of wikipedia's neutrality, not me. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources in support of the changes you wish to see made. The current text seems exceedingly well sourced, and in line with how reliable sources describe the Great Barrington Declaration and Jay's role in drafting it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's "well-sourced" is irrespective of if it contains bias or not, as I'm sure you're aware. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What Wikipedia's NPOV policy means by neutrality is slightly different from how the average person might consider a piece of text to be neutral. If the balance of reliable sources describe a theory as fringe, pseudoscience, or dangerous, then that also means that Wikipedia describes it as such too. While this can look like non-neutral text to proponents and supporters of a theory or idea, it is neutral to the vast majority of people. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"As of Wednesday 7 October almost 6300 medical practitioners and public health scientists from the US, the UK, and other nations had signed the declaration."

There are three cited articles that contain bias. 6300 medical experts disagree. "Fringe" is not an accurate or helpful term. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

How many homeopathy practitioners are there in the US and UK? Whatever the number, it doesn't make it not fringe. I suggest you take a look at the discussion I linked to above to see how to productively discuss this. It's a lot of work finding sourcing, providing quotes and context, and drafting prose, but that's how the sausage is made here.

On the topic of primary versus secondary sources, we always prefer secondary sources. We should not be using primary sources for anything but bare statements of fact. Any interpretation, including what quotes from a primary source are worth including, should be provided by secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a bare statement of fact. It was saying directly what the declaration said, in a sentence where the declaration was being summarized.

You're comparing three non-scientists vs 60000 PhDs and MDs. Who made you the arbiter of truth? This is absurd. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Many of the signatures turned out to be fake. But even if they weren't, there are 8.7 million 'health care practitioners' (Bureau of Labor Statistics) in the US alone. That less than one percent of them agreed with this position isn't the flex you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Citing people with journalism degrees to criticize epidemiology experts isn't the flew *you* think it is. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There are professionals like medical practitioners who agree with all manner of fringe and pseudoscientific theories. Just because they have a degree or some other form of relevant training, while being a supporter of a pseudoscientific theory does not prevent the pseudoscience being pseudoscience. To give two examples, there are astronomers who believe in the flat Earth theory, and there are geologists and palaeontologists who subscribe to the Young Earth creationism myth. However despite their respective supports, those ideas are still considered pseudoscience by pretty much everyone else. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Lockdowns and widespread quarantine were a policy not supported by the World Health Organization until 2020. Your description of the GB as pseudoscience and fringe is not supported by actual facts, and instead relies on your own political bias.

From the WHO in 2006: "Ill persons should remain home when they first become symptomatic, but forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical." 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a funny way of saying 'the WHO didn't support lockdowns until a global health crisis made them necessary' MrOllie (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It was their pandemic policy. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

And they changed it when circumstances changed, which is what they're supposed to do. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not an argument. A view doesn't become fringe overnight with no change in evidence. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Could you direct me to the WHO's policy on the proper way to balance the four humors? MrOllie (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the overnight change in evidence? Your inability to stay on topic is baffling and pathetic. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

See COVID-19. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this a scientific study on pandemic preparedness? You must have sent the wrong link. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

In fairness to the WHO, there hadn't been a global pandemic of an airborne disease on the scale of Covid since prior to their foundation. It's understandable that their policies weren't exactly up to scratch prior to 2020 as a result. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Declaring the view of the GB "fringe" while it was the WHO policy the year before does not make sense. You realize that right? 98.10.105.122 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Policy changes over time. What was once considered scientific can, even a year later, be considered pseudoscientific when new evidence showing the flaws of the old policy becomes available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Direct me to the new evidence, please. 98.10.105.122 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a false statement. The WHO was founded in 1948. Since then we've seen both the Asian flu pandemic and the Hong Kong flu pandemic . Especially, the virus causing the Asian flu pandemic was completely comparable both in mortality and infectiousness of the virus. Martdj (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)