Talk:Robert W. Malone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

Change "misinfortmation" in the introduction to "fact-based information" 2602:47:D1E9:5F00:E95B:910A:80F0:54B2 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We follow what the sources say, and that is definitely not what they say. - MrOllie (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep "mis-information" btw I thought wikipedia was based on consensus building? Please pause and consider. Change - RWM is not the inventor or MRNA he is a contributor. The article should not include he said she said. Suggest that the article change to reflect the chronology. "The currently available mRNA vaccines are the results of contributions from multiple people in different locations over time." ForbesForbes Nature describes his work in 1987 as a landmark experiment and stepping stone.Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w The nature article has a chronology that pre-dates Malone and it also suggests that his work was far away from a vaccine.

Change - Add a reference to the fact that RWM is calling for statistical study as a rebuttal to the conclusion in the first sentence. There are numerous RS to that effect. eg "we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously"

Provide one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

we should be analysing the safety data and risks vigorously. Again he asks, "Is there information or patterns that can be found quotation asking for more informaiton

On another note, I was able to find metrics from UK NHS on vaccine effectiveness https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf The report does not cover adverse reactions but it does cover pregnancy; From what I can tell pregnancy risk of a premature birth is about 1/2 a percent greater vaccinated vs unvaccinated. The UK's adverse reaction reporting system cites 137686 adverse reactions and 856 fatalities; immune system reactions in a single week 54870 (171 fatalities) with the denominator being 39,324,944 with two vaccinations and 21,339,420 with two shots and a booster. With three shots adverse reactions are a little less than 1%. In the data its is very clear that the vaccine prevents hospitalization. My guess is that 1% is a very high adverse reaction reporting rate. The data also suggests that the vaccine has a very short effective duration, very short duration. I mention this because there IS DATA TO BE FOUND that is organized and meaningful I was not able to find usable data in the US, but that might be a function of having a national health system vs a highly distributed system. I am not advocating that original research be presented; Several leading academic institutions and academics are calling for more data, and they are calling for a pause to vaccinations in favor of changing the vaccine to match the variants. There is also an indicator that the vaccine is shaping mutations. I am very convinced that Malone is promulgating opinions that are falsely interpreted in fact, I am also convinced that politics has supplanted pragmatism; there are unknowns from every direction.

Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting original research be used or presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Then what are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• OR is prohibited. Is there a source about Malone on the table? Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.totalhealth.co.uk/blog/are-people-getting-full-facts-covid-vaccine-risks one of many — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A blog post. Right. I think we can close this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Curious editors might want to know that that website appears to be drenched in Kool-Aid. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

But it's written by "leading doctors"! It's in fact very un-transparent about its provenance, saying only "© Copyright 2019 Synaptic Limited" at the foot of the page. This appears to be a management consultancy (with overdue accounts).[1] Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about a potential reference

Would somehow adding information from the Nature Reviews's article Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery to the context of Malone's part on the development of the mRNA vaccines be adequate here? I feel like it's verging on WP:OR since it doesn't mention Malone by name, only one of his papers. OTOH, it's an important part of the current controversy regarding his claims of being "the inventor", and on Nature. Opinions? VdSV9•♫ 02:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Malone

I am very concerned about, Wikipedia, putting, misinformation , concerning, Dr.Malone, and do not, I repeat , do not state , sources or the author of this article/Bio/ on the Doctor! This is total propaganda , on behalf of WIKIPEDIA!! 50.35.17.3 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. What misinformation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And why do you think it is misinformation? Are you competent enough to tell the difference? Or did you have two sources contradicting each other, then throw a coin or something to decide which one was wrong, and it turned out to be Wikipedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Dr Malone actually got blocked on Twitter pretty recently, can't say if today or yesterday, presumably for the very same disinformation he was spreading on Twitter (I found no credible English outlet reporting on it, unfortunately), I find this comment unintentionally humorous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Twitter suspended him that's how you know he's wrong" Imbecilic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:8F40:E53B:6A76:C3A1:5CF3 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do we say that? And read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase second sentence of Overview section.

The public would greatly benefit from rephrasing the following sentence, which is confusing at best and grammatically incorrect.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, he is vaccinated, and he has been criticized for promoting misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines

A suggestion:

During the CoVID-19 pandemic, he has been criticised for promoting misinformation about the safety and efficacy of CoVID-19 vaccines, despite being vaccinated himself. Vixerunt69 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He specifically says that if you’ve had COVID and recovered, you have natural immunity that makes you 20-30x less likely to be hospitalized and if you take the vaccine post recovery, you have 3-7x increase chance of negative side effects from taking the vaccine. Basically, if you’ve been infected and recovered, you don’t need to take the vaccine. Saddario25 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

He had also said that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse. He has questioned their safety. No he has done far more than just said that natural immunity is better than a vaccine.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

but surely this man is qualified to make these statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:2cc:af00:ad82:1616:760b:9c87 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As are the many people who say otherwise. Wikipedia has rules for such situations, for example WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

Get rid of the "misinformation" in his description. 174.99.20.114 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Age

He was 62 at the time of the #1757 podcast he did with Joe Rogan in December 2021.Artaxerxes (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

His age is given as 61 in a June 17, 2021 RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland article (in German) and an August 12, 2021, Atlantic article. As of January 4, 2022, News.com.au still gives age as 61. Assuming the Joe Rogan Podcast is considered reliable (e.g. if Malone gave his own age as 62 which would probably be a permissible WP:SELFSOURCE), I think it would be acceptable to generalize DOB to ca. 1959 for now. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added age. Malone states his own age as 62 in the Joe Rogan podcast, per the transcript, which is acceptable via WP:SELFSOURCE. Unless my math is wrong (which it could be), if he was 61 August and 62 in December 2021, his birth year is 1959. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone find an open source picture of him? Could we use one of the Dos Equis "most interesting man" until we find one? 2600:1012:B017:656E:A9E1:A702:EA2D:4BD9 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

“Misinformation” is an opinion, not a fact. Remove the word, please. 108.54.82.152 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We say he was criticised for it, he was.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, we get that from reliable sources, and it is an important fact. It would be irresponsible to sweep it under the rug. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what I meant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the original sentiment: it should be changed. The language is too strong. Perhaps, instead: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Malone became associated with his controversial remarks on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and has drawn accusations of promoting misinformation." Same idea, little more objective. Bleepenvoy (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dutch wiki

The term mass formation comes from Mattias Desmet (Belgium). There is a Dutch wiki article that clearly describes the phenomenon according to Desmet. http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Massavorming In German they call it Massenbildung (coined by Freud if I am correct). Other sources: Gustave le Bon's The Crowd, Hannah Arendt, Elias Canetti wrote about it, but not specifically with the words 'mass formation'. 2A02:A443:5030:1:A462:63C9:B0D0:B4A (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It just means "crowd building". In this context, "Masse" is German for "crowd" or "mob", and the idea behind using it is that a mob is more prone to being wrong than an individual. Of course, the problem is that the science community has radically different mechanisms from a mob, and if Malone wants to change the consensus by gathering a mob of non-scientists, he is doing it wrong.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? What edit to the article are you suggesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is directed to Robert Malone: Mass_formation_psychosis. I'd say you make a proper article about mass formation/massavorming/massenbildung in the way Desmet has brought up this term and connecting it to Le Bon/Arendt, with the addition that Malone added the word 'psychosis' to it. Desmet corrects Malone in this YouTube that he uses Mass formation, not Mass formation psychosis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNbaXW6ypUY

The term Mass Formation and Mass Formation Psychosis deserve a proper wiki article itsself, since it became a recent top search on Google and Reuters, The Hill, Business Insider and soon other msm also talk about it. Whether it is a conspiracy or not, it should be clearly defined how experts, society and media are using this term.

2A02:A443:5030:1:C993:2B9B:B12A:BE95 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This guy is referring to meme currently popular in anti-vaccination circles. It has not scientific basis. See for example this article [2]. Fringe noticeboard, maybe? - Skysmith (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

the source of your link is Reuters. Business insider copied exact the same content from Reuters too. As said above: whether it is a scientific term or a 'Malone term', it doesn't matter. It is an existing term with a no1 google search as we are typing right now. The Reuters/your link overlook Desmet totally as the primary source who connected mass formation to covid. The theory exists in that form since Autumn 2020 in Dutch. The first source is this article in the Belgium Knack (magazine) (famous magazine): https://www.knack.be/nieuws/wetenschap/in-de-coronacrisis-is-de-publieke-opinie-in-de-greep-van-absurde-oordelen/article-opinion-1634377.html

Nobody ever claimed the term was "scientific". It's more philosophical/sociological/psychological. None of those fields are scientific...they're basically humanities. Also, I must object to how I perceive that the term "science" is being abused to basically be a proxy for what mainstream sources deem "true" or not. If a scientist describes an unprovable (which makes the use of the word "unproven" in the article really, really dumb) idea that is widely covered, there's no reason it shouldn't be on here. Otherwise, maybe we should start culling scientists' personal lives sections, political views sections, etc.? Some of you need to get out more. "It's not scientific"...of course it isn't, and it was never claimed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:D879:7066:5347:F49F:3E6 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody ever claimed the term was "scientific". It's more philosophical/sociological/psychological. None of those fields are scientific...they're basically humanities - excuse me? Psychology is a science. I know pop psych is full of nonsense, but that doesn't mean that the actual field isn't science, it just means that random people love to latch onto fringe and unscientific ideas. Like mass formation, for example. Wikipedia shouldn't start pushing fringe psych ideas just because some guy thought they sounded cool. And regardless, its application to the pandemic specifically is highly unscientific and highly fringe.

Just a note, please see MOS:INDENTGAP and MOS:INDENTMIX, you have been making this conversation inaccessible. I've corrected it, but please use lists in conversations properly. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Followed by a conversation with Marlies Dekkers and Dutch professor philosophy at the Leiden University Ad Verbrugge (http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ad_Verbrugge) (Famous thinker in NL who has published ten books. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOLhF9fyjkk This became a YouTube hit in The Netherlands, since that channel is a big countermedia channel in Dutch.

Also Trouw (prominent Dutch newspaper) followed then, Feb 2021: https://www.trouw.nl/religie-filosofie/de-coronacrisis-is-ook-een-zingevingscrisis-met-blikvernauwing-als-gevolg~b8e44231/

Maurice de Hond published a Dutch interview with him.

It took one year to jump from Dutch to English. This happened in several steps. Eric Clapton picks up the term and starts to talk about it with Robert F Kennedy jr https://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1457729180855160837

Then Chris Martenson picks it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRo-ieBEw-8

Aubrey Marcus as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqPJiM5Ir3A

And now Malone and it was Malone who added 'Psychosis'.

Sources enough and I now enumerate the timeline how the term spreaded.

2A02:A443:5030:1:C993:2B9B:B12A:BE95 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Background: This is related to a discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion. Platonk (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand or remove final paragraph of COVID-19 section

The final paragraph of the COVID-19 section of this article reads:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has given interviews to Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, InfoWars, and former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon."

While true, it isn't critical information, and the absence of follow-up regarding the content/significance of those interviews gives the impression that this line was included simply for the sake of associating Malone with politically divisive entities.

My opinion is that the line should be removed entirely and reintroduced only if it's expanded on to include what was noteworthy about the interviews. Bleepenvoy (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal: Identify Malone as AN inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, with citation to US Patent listing him as an inventor

The statement that he "claims to be the inventor" is neither neutral nor an accurate statement of the facts. He is listed as an inventor on, among others, U.S. Patent No. 6,673,776, which describes the invention as follows:

"The present invention relates to introduction of naked DNA and RNA sequences into a vertebrate to achieves controller expression of a polypeptide. It is useful in gene therapy, vaccination, and any therapeutic situation in which a polypeptide should be administered to cells in vivo."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6673776B1/

References

When he says he invented mRNA vaccine technology, that is literally true, as acknowledged by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Or is this branch of the US government not credible on this platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4180:4A20:8966:82B2:666E:7DB6 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As well, the part saying, "credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi," relies solely on an article from a Portuguese newspaper. If Karikó and Rossi are more commonly credited for the technology, you'd think there'd be an English-language source to substantiate that claim. Bleepenvoy (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Huh? There are three more citations there. MrOllie (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Read 'em. These make no mention of either Karikó or Rossi, and the last one only asserts that Karikó contributed in an important fashion but that the effort was largely collaborative. None of the offered sources gel with the statement, "credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi," except the Portuguese article.

Bleepenvoy (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Kariko is on record (I believe in the Nature piece?) as saying her contribution was narrow (it absolutely was important). Seriously, I recommend looking into the case of who discovered and who improved CRISPR; it just seems like history will be repeating itself, unless politics get in the way. 174.193.138.201 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we say that Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, or that Feng Zhang, invented/discovered Crispr? What did the Nobel committee eventually think? There's a concerted effort to discredit Dr. Malone, and in my opinion that has extended to involve revisionism of his scientific discoveries that happened during the Cold War. By the standards of the powers that exist in Stockholm, there's an extremely strong case to be made that Dr. Malone was the brainchild of mRNA vaccine therapy. I know we have to rely on reliable sources (which also universally acknowledge Malone was a formative figure in RNA vaccine tech), but a bit of research quickly reveals that if anyone was the "founding parent" of mRNA tech, it was Dr. Malone. Yes, absolutely don't give him full credit for mRNA vaccines as they exist today in this article, but do not understate his pioneering contribution to the transfection of RNA and production of a desired protein as a therapy, and be wary of sources that try to say otherwise. It is indeed funny how, when considering his present politics/perceived politics, he is actually the O.G., who did stand on the shoulders of many giants, with any of the other contributors to mRNA vaccines having some sort of load being transferred to his shoulders. 174.193.138.201 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

THE FACTS: While Malone has publicly criticized COVID-19 vaccines and claims to have invented the idea of mRNA vaccine technology, he was not involved in the development of COVID-19 vaccines.

“I did not develop mRNA COVID vaccines and I never was involved in developing a human mRNA vaccine,” Malone told The Associated Press.

Malone further clarified in an email that he never said that the COVID-19 vaccines should not be administered. 100ghostrider (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mass formation psychosis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mass formation psychosis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Mass formation psychosis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody can add this AP article on the MFP misinformation: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-joe-rogan-ap-fact-check-a87b1044c6256968dcc33886a36c949f?utm_medium=APFactCheck&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5895:6600:D441:F68A:6E7C:743F (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m the editor who added the long quote from Malone about mfp which is represented in various RS’s, around the world. Google suggests that those typing mass formation psychosis into its search field should go to the wiki article on mass psychogenic illness; that was its preferred answer before the redirect page existed. But that is something quite different. There is no article (yet) about Mattias Desmet, in which mfp would no doubt be detailed. Further, there is no article (yet) on mfp itself. But clearly it is of interest. It therefore seems appropriate that we provide a redirect to an article in which a brief description of it is given. Malone is, after all, like him or loathe him, an eminent and renowned scientist. NB the redirect page has been getting 6,000 views per day of late. Boscaswell talk 05:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If no-one has any objections, I’ll probably subdivide this article’s Career#COVID section further, such that the redirection can go straight to an mfp subsection, to aid the reader. Boscaswell talk 05:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a separate article about mfp. 2A02:A443:5030:1:BC61:1CFD:74B5:1768 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a quick draft: Mass_formation 2A02:A443:5030:1:BC61:1CFD:74B5:1768 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Editorialized section titles

The subsection titles "Supposed alternative treatments" and "Criticism for misinformation" are editorialized and implicitly judgemental, and any attempt to make them more neutral is being reverted without any attempt at justifying their divisive framing. Injecting opinionated language into the basic organizational structure of an article poisons the ability of editors to make impartial contributions, and since titles aren't subject to the typical sourcing requirements, they should be kept descriptive and impartial. Bleepenvoy (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So what was he critised for?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. "Criticism for X" is loaded as it implies X is objectively true. "Misinformation criticisms" or even just "Misinformation" gets the point across without making unnecessary claims. I'm certainly not going to assert that Malone didn't misinform anyone, it's just that section titles aren't the place for conclusive commentary. Let the text underneath the title handle painting the picture and leave the titles impartial. Bleepenvoy (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Completely side-stepping the issue, there's absolutely no need for one-paragraph subsections, so I've gone ahead and just removed them altogether. That hopefully solves the problem without any need for extended talk page verbosity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

(Discussed earlier in "Proposal: Identify Malone as AN inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, with citation to US Patent listing him as an inventor" above.)

Change, "Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, and while Stan Gromkowski, an early mRNA vaccine researcher and cellular immunologist, views Malone as "an underappreciated pioneer" who could be in contention to win a Nobel Prize for his work, credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi, and was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, including Malone."

To, "Malone claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines, and while Stan Gromkowski, an early mRNA vaccine researcher and cellular immunologist, views Malone as "an underappreciated pioneer" who could be in contention to win a Nobel Prize for his work, the invention was ultimately the result of the contributions of hundreds of researchers, including Malone."

From the sources provided, the only one which gives credit to Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi above Malone is written in Portuguese. Another asserts that Malone wasn't the sole inventor, but only goes as far as offering Karikó as proof of the effort's collaborative nature rather than as a more significant contributor.

If the only source that supports the claim "credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi" isn't even in English, it's likely not true that this is the case. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Not being in English is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the context, it's an indication that the claim is likely not as common as it's purporting -- especially considering the later two sources don't mention either Karikó or Derrick Rossi. But you're right, language isn't a strong justification on its own. This is: the assertion that "credit for the distinction is more often given to later advancements by Katalin Karikó or Derrick Rossi" is unsubstantiated by the given sources. Bleepenvoy (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Karikó was getting a lot of buzz as a potential Nobel winner for mRNA vaccines, and there are plenty of sources about that. I added a few and added mention of their partner in that work, Weissman. I don't doubt that there is plenty of sourcing for the co-founder of Moderna either, but I'll let someone else do that. MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I peeked around on my own and I think there's enough to justify the Karikó and Weissman sentiment. I remain skeptical of the addition of Rossi (Moderna co-founder) as being commonly credited; that one's a little harder to substantiate. Additionally, these sources make no mention of Karikó, Rossi, or Weissman, so those should get canned to avoid risking the illusion that the claim is more supported than it is. Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Reuters and AP

The source is rejected as unreliable
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems like Reuters and AP didn’t do a good job and it became the ‘truth’. https://www.allsides.com/blog/media-bias-alert-ap-and-reuters-one-sided-fact-checks-mass-formation-psychosis Why is Wikipedia not capable of making a balanced article about the term mass formation psychosis and mass formation and add this current fuzz about it. Downplaying it as ‘fringe’ while it is all over the media, a top search on Google, trending on Twitter, and Youtube with huge impact censored interviews,but widely viewed on mirror channels. The term might be a neologism, but is widely described by Le Bon, Freud (Massenbildung), Jung, Arendt, Canetti, Meerlo. Not really fringe scientists on this topic. Weird…2A02:A443:5030:1:D487:CB0B:4B66:7B78 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC) That's only a blog and not a reliable source (WP:RS, WP:BLOG). —PaleoNeonate – 06:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Of course it is a blog. It describes that Reuters is unreliable as a source too. If an opinion or topic is not supported by mainstream media it is untrue apparently. Even when msm do very flawed research. Strange. Freud Jung Le Bon Arendt Canetti Meerlo are the sources, not Reuters, not this blog. Wikipedia lacks specialists on mob psychology apparently. 2A02:A443:5030:1:70AC:632D:1D77:256 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Why dont you become that expert then. Open an account and bring some reliable sources WP:RS to bear and you could improve this article, no probs. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) I gave a list with many research links above. Then the Freud Jung Arendt etc as the people who are the experts on this topic, made an article as mass formation but it got reverted immediately. Informed about the article massavorming on the Dutch wiki. Massenbildung is the German term used by Freud. It seems impenetrable since the majority hates Malone. Hence mass formation doesn’t exist. Because Reuters did a lame job and many mainstream media literally copy pasted that bullshit. I don’t know what to do anymore. The term exists (in Dutch and German). Desmet introduced it in English apparently but essentially it fits in the series of other similar phenomena such as mass hysteria, groupthink, group pressure, mass psychosis, etc.. Solomon Asch experiments, The Wave, 1984, the list of references is endless. Not saying that it occurs during covid. Desmet thinks it does. But ignoring a fundamental element of mass psychology brought up by many thinkers is just really weird. As if the theory or the controversy about it doesn’t exist. While it is a top search on Google. 84.241.199.78 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC) If it's any consolation to you, there are some out there who think all of these psychological ideas are bunk no matter who utters them (myself included), whether coming from a mainstream source, or a blog. I think all of these ideas are just intellectualized ways of calling your opponents dumb. It's the same thing as the label "conspiracy theorist" which I think is just a label whose purpose is to pathologize an opponent's views, whether justified or not. Mass formation should be on wikipedia but only in the context of Malone's and Desmet's claim, not as part of wikipedia's science coverage. 2600:1012:B068:2F9B:8144:441F:3175:626A (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Then that should be included in the article too. With Reuters or the quoted experts that are mentioned in that article as the source. Ignoring the term is not the way. 84.241.198.207 (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC) As has been said it is a blog (read wp:sps) is the author an expert on the subject?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC) As said Freud Jung Arendt Le Bon Canetti are. The term exists in German and Dutch in their books. 84.241.198.207 (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC) The term may be real, its application (however) may be fringe. The moon is real, that does not mean that the theory it is made of green cheese is not fringe. Also if two people (even experts) think something is real, that might still be fringe (look at N rays)Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC) We already have an article at Crowd psychology. We don't duplicate topics at synonym titles. - MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Crowd psychology is mass psychology. Mass formation (Massenbildung) is crowd forming. More specifically: caused by collective fear/anger. When then crowd get hysterical (stampede) it is mass hysteria. Mass formation or mass hypgnosis or mass psychodis is less hysterical. People still go to work, talk normal etc. See the Great Leap Forward for instance related to Arendt Meerlo Le Bon and The medium is the message of Marshall McLuhan. Different terms for different topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.198.207 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: delete "mass formation psychosis" paragraph

There's an issue where it's being conflated with mass psychogenic illness via google search despite being, as defined by Malone and the academic he quotes, about leaders taking advantage of widespread dysfunction (commonly known as "mass hypnosis"), essentially, with no components of psychogenic/psychosomatic illness (psychogenic/psychosomatic phenomena are best illustrated in the movie Airplane! when the fish allegedly was leading to illness). I think the confusion arises from how it's a pandemic and people do get sick, but the conflation is a big problem, because absolutely the ideas are completely different, and if Wikipedia is claiming Malone is saying people are imagining being sick, that's like...hugely defamatory. Apparently it's a term made up by an academic and used by Robert Malone--two people. But if it's such a rare term, I don't think it belongs on here. Either we define it and explain it with redirect pages etc., or we don't bring it up at all. Do we invoke the term and risk amplification/endorsement of a niche and incendiary term, or do we remove all traces of it, because it's so rare, and not risk amplifying it? The redirect page I created was deleted because it risked amplifying the term, but the editor who deleted it said to post here, so here I am...Deep State Patriot (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would say it is very relevant that he is trying to draw a parallel between the rise of Naxi Germany and Covid. That he is claiming that the leadership of the western world is trying to take advantage of a global pandemic in the same way the Nazis used fear to gain power. Yes that is very relevant to our understanding of his views.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So maybe it should just be "sequestered" to this page? I suppose when you search for "mass formation psychosis" on here it doesn't lead you to "mass psychogenic illness" but rather this page leads the results, so that's good. Google's problems are a different story and are likely unfixable, but at least perhaps it is fine on here? Does a redirect page really risk amplifying it though? If we make a redirect page would that fix the google results? Maybe we could fix Google's search issue by making a redirect page, since apparently their highly paid employees can't design a search engine that produces correct results. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If "mass formation psychosis" only exits in two places, it will not be a search term look for in isolaotion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you do a google search and tell me what you see. You do see proper explanations of its niche application. Then you see Wikipedia, completely useless, providing an irrelevant article in response--a complete non sequitur. I am wondering if we could do here what Google's $250,000 software engineers/censors could not. Apparently for some time after the Rogan podcast was released, Google had a notification saying "we are improving results", so they're onto it and aware of the issue. That they would eventually link the incorrect Wikipedia article is either malevolent mischaracterization or extreme incompetence. They pay their employees so much, and we're getting paid nothing...and they were completely useless and wrong on this. Deep State Patriot (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Deep State Patriot questioned whether "we remove all traces of it, because it's so rare, and not risk amplifying it?" We’re not here to decide whether something we write risks amplifying it…if it’s notable. That’s called censorship. Wikipedians kind of should not do that. Ever. As in never ever. And as the interview has made headlines around the world, and a video of the interview had no fewer than 3,000,000 views according to an article on mainstream media outlet RealClearPolitics, and a Congressman saw fit to actually have a transcript of the whole interview entered into the Congressional record to avoid social media censorship, I think we can safely say and maybe even agree that it’s notable. However, Wikipedia has yet to catch up and produce an article about it. Googling Mattias Desmet, the Ghent University professor who first described the term is informative. Malone is no idiot, he’s a very highly regarded researcher. He mentions Desmet in his interview. Boscaswell talk 05:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph shouldn't be trying to confirm his definition as valid. Currently written presenting his views uncritically, as if it is factual. Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We present it as they RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

...that makes literally no sense, so I am very confused why you would even suggest that as an outcome. Right now we are presenting Malones POV as a clinical diagnosis equating the significant majority of the US with Nazi's. Putting "claimed" at the beginning and then presenting those same WP:FRINGE claims isn't how we do things, particularly when providing lengthy quotations. Koncorde (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact I am now assuming that you missed this change to the article which completely altered the tone, weight and attribution? Koncorde (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No we are not, we are staying he said it. We offer no judgment, nor do the RS, they just let the statement stand (or fall) on its own. Nor are we saying anything about it being a clinical diagnosis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Then we're full on WP:FRINGE and I am really surprised you don't seem to see that. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see it because we are just reporting he said it (which RS did). Yes it is fringe, it is misinformation. It is another example of his Covid misinformation., this is why it should be here. So people can see what he says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We can say what he says by quoting what other people say about it and him the way we would with any other subject matter. We are not reporting that he said it, we are duplicating it entirely, uncritically. We would not quote wholesale such inanity with such undue weight to a persons opinion on a FRINGE subject that they are neither an expert on (be it history, psychology or sociology) without equivalent peer coverage. WP:FRINGE policy is very clear on non-expert opining outside their lanes. Koncorde (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the urgency here. Malone was speaking extemporaneously on a talk show, and it's clear from the otherwise informal language in the quote that his words were a matter of opinion presented in an off-the-cuff manner. I think it would be overkill to include peer coverage for the sole sake of discounting obvious conjecture. Bleepenvoy (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A matter of opinion presented in an off-the-cuff manner does not belong in a Wikipedia article at all unless there is peer coverage for it, and if there is, then the peer coverage needs to be the source for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, the quote is sourced to three separate periodicals which covered the interview. The quote itself has been being reprinted in full, presumably because it involves a virtual neologism ('mass formation psychosis') that's seen very little past usage. In my mind, the direct quote is the shortest path from A to B in terms of describing what was noteworthy there. Bleepenvoy (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What is in your mind does not matter. The policy WP:PSTS says, 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 avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources for that quote *are* secondary. Again, the quote is being sourced from news articles regarding the interview, not from the podcast recording itself. The notability of Malone's quote is established through it being highlighted and reprinted by several secondary sources. If it were an arbitrarily chosen quote from the interview that received little attention and/or was not commonly reprinted, I would agree with you. But it's not -- those specific statements from him ended up being a main focus of coverage surrounding the interview as well as a viral phenomenon, making it notable. Bleepenvoy (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted your I think it would be overkill to include peer coverage as a demand to use the primary source instead of secondary sources. That was a misunderstanding. Still, because of WP:FRINGE, if there is no mainstream balance for it, it has to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So long as the quote itself remains (as that seems to be the focal point of the event in terms of media coverage and popular interest), I don't think it'd be harmful to place it in the context of mainstream responses. Bleepenvoy (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't dug too much into the literature but I think there is a reasonable amount of politics and sociology that are using the term psychosis quite liberally to mean "beliefs that are at odds with reality despite evidence", rather than "a state of the brain that causes it to generate such beliefs". The "psychosis" in this usage is maintained by social effects such as propaganda etc. I suspect that if you say, dict into the literature of cults or regimes you'll find a discussion of the effects that allow large number of people to believe lies. I think it would be useful to highlight how this is different from psychosis and make clear that this is not really a psychological term. The question is whether the literature is there. I still don't really know how wikipedia deals with a small and biased literature. Talpedia (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

May I recommend that anyone citing WP:FRINGE also take a look at WP:FRINGENOT, which has these words: "the matter of our FRINGE guideline deals directly with what can be proven or demonstrated using the scientific method by academics, scholars, and scientists." This does not apply to subjects such as the argument that a population has been manipulated. That article, WP:FRINGENOT, is well worth reading. I added the quote and put the two refs against it, and I imagine that there are many more RS’s available which have done the same. Note that both of the refs include all the words quoted, and little more. So why are they quoting that? Why are "we" quoting them? To explain to their readers. Because it’s notable. And that’s what we do. The interview video had 3,000,000 views in a couple of days before YT pulled it. This article had approaching 700,000 page views in December, and was trending high in the last few days of the month. People want to read about him and what he said. Not to be a source of information, or far, far worse, refusing to be a source of information, whether we agree with it or not, that’s called censorship. Boscaswell talk 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no part of that which is relevant. Idle speculation that the majority of a population is mentally ill, and an analogous to Nazi Germany isn't a "NOTFRINGE" issue. It patently is fringe, as the coverage states, particularly it isn't even a published theory. It also isn't censorship to not include every word of the Fringe claim by a non-expert. Koncorde (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As a reader coming to this page in an attempt to understand where Malone got 'Mass Formation Psychosis' from I found the redirect to this page hugely helpful. I was, frankly, quite pleased to not find an entire page devoted to it, but rather a link to the person who is the reason I was looking for it in the first place. Good work editors.Davecormier (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Quote is undue

User:Bleepenvoy currently acting as an article WP:OWNer and WP:SPA is edit warring to keep a coatracked quote in the article. I'm not sure what the motivation is, but none of our sources spend any time whatsoever parsing the quote, contextualizing it, or arguing that it is particularly noteworthy (no more than any of another dozen quotes this guy has spouted in the JRE and elsewhere). In spite of WP:ONUS it remains. I will wait for a defense here, but if none is forthcoming, reverting will surely happen. jps (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The quote is noteworthy due to extensive coverage from secondary sources, being popularly inquired about, and being a near-neologism that can't be adequately described without a direct quote. Instead of removing the quotation, why not contextualize it with RS commentary? I'm not in love with Malone's words, either, but that has nothing to do with whether the quote is worthy of inclusion. It's here because it's noteworthy. Bleepenvoy (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine keeping a reference to the phrase in, but I see no justification in this comment for the quote to be included in its entirety in the article text. There isn't any "RS" commentary about this particular quote that I can find, this is why I asked for it in particular. The quote is only worthy of inclusion if there are people who are reliable sources dealing specifically with the quote. I don't see we have that. jps (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the quote we are talking about is:

“ Malone said that in the Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, there was a "very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad. And how did that happen? The answer is mass formation psychosis. When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other, and has free floating anxiety, in a sense that things don't make sense. We can’t understand it. And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere." ”

The issue here is that Malone is not an expert in history, psychology, the kind of mass social phenomena he is trying to reference or really anything he is saying here. None of the sources we have actually do anything more than provide the quote in a somewhat WP:SENSATIONal manner. It is clear that people are referencing the term "mass formation psychosis" in various venues, but I see no attempt to look at this particular quote. There are no critiques. There are no analyses. There isn't even a comment that the quote is more noteworthy than any of a number of others that are included in the two sources we are referencing about the JRE podcast. So I think we have no real justification to keep this somewhat lengthy quote in the article. I anxiously await any sort of rejoinder to the contrary which has some kind of sourced contextualization. jps (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

jps, your sources are here, and they were found by Googling 'mass formation psychosis' and going down the list. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. They all reprint the quote, and they all contain secondary commentary about it. The quote should stay because it preserves pertinent information and is necessary to understanding the event. Additions regarding Malone's remarks being rejected by psychologists and sociologists are A-OK, but it simply doesn't make sense to censor the quote based on the grounds you provided. Bleepenvoy (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes it does. It makes perfect sense to censor it. It’s what we do. What we need is yet more criticism of what he said, while skating over what he actually said in the first place. That makes perfect sense to me, because - and here you need to push to one side the concept of our being creators of an online encyclopaedia - we are opinion formers, not information providers. I simply will not have it any other way. Boscaswell talk 06:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, Bleepenvoy’s rebuttals, which answered jps’s points fully and satisfactorily in every respect have not been answered. One of the plethora of policy and discussion docs which jps has merrily flung about lead me to the basic standard WP:NPOV. That states, "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." In other words, it cannot be right to give a cursory few words to the concept under discussion, while elaborating on critiques of same. Therefore, in view of the immense interest in it, we have a duty to explain what Malone was expounding. And in view of the fact that there are so many refs which all quote the very same words which I had originally included, there really is no problem with their inclusion. NPOV says so. They are already in innumerable RS’s, for goodness’ sake. It’s not as if I’m suggesting the inclusion of material from Q-ANON. *sigh* Boscaswell talk 07:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The quote remains undue but the mention is already in the article. I still don't personally see it very useful in the article as it only shows a tendency to resort to attacks without any useful information. If there was any expansion, since it's a ridiculous assertion it would also be within NPOV policy to provide independent analysis instead (you only quoted a summary from the top, but read the "Controversial subjects" section). —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, how could someone reading the article understand the controversy unless they read the quote? The term 'mass formation psychosis' is a new one as far as the average reader is concerned, given that it comes from an obscure lecture and isn't an actual recognized phenomenon. Omitting the quote omits the article's ability to successfully relay any significant information about the event except, "Malone used an unknown term, made a comparison to Nazis, it was controversial." I'd argue that most people searching 'mass formation psychosis' probably just want to know a.) the context in which the term was used (which requires the Malone quote), and b.) understand the reaction to it. Including the quote along with secondary commentary seems like the most reasonable way to inform the reader about what happened. Bleepenvoy (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

We summarise the quote to the relevant parts, and we summarise the response to those key elements. As there is neither any actual meaning to the term Mass Formation Psychosis - it is literally just an opinion.

The article was fine before the quotation was added. Now it is WP:FRINGE among a variety of other issues. Koncorde (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Who says that there was never any actual meaning to the term? In my opinion, that it is just an opinion is just your opinion, Koncorde. Listen, we’re in fast moving times. What was the stuff of conspiracy theories six or twelve months ago is now mainstream. Take the idea that covid came from the Wuhan lab. Under Trump’s presidency, conspiracy theory and worse. Under Biden, it’s seen as a strong possibility. There are many other examples concerning covid and vaccines, but there’s little to be gained in my elaborating here. My point is that for us to decide that a proper explanation of term should not be given (and currently it isn’t, the explanation of it is derisory) because some of us discount the theory as meaningless is not a reasonable argument. To the contrary, that it has been detailed with that very quote in so many RS’s makes it and that information as set out in the quote notable in itself. He makes a very interesting point, one which has generated a huge amount of interest. He adds to the scholarly work of Mattias Desmet, who is in any case coming up with a book about it. It would be wrong of us to decide to ignore that interest, because we’re not here to decide what interests people. Boscaswell talk 07:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What was the stuff of conspiracy theories six or twelve months ago is now mainstream. No. It is still the stuff of conspiracy theories, it's only more populat now. Conspiracy theories stay conspiracy theories. The scientific consensus is still the same. Why should we care what Biden says? His main qualification is that he is better than Trump, and that is a pretty low bar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The complete absence of any published papers or reliable sources covering the term says it has no meaning.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Malones opinion of what the theory means isn't even what Desmet has said so far, not least the absence of the word "Psychosis" from Desmets description (his theory is of "Mass Formation"). Koncorde (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a proposal. As it was, it read: Malone said that in the Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, there was a "very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad. And how did that happen? The answer is mass formation psychosis. When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other, and has free floating anxiety, in a sense that things don't make sense. We can’t understand it. And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere." May I suggest that this trimmed version be included: Malone said that in the Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, the people "went barking mad." How and why? Through "mass formation psychosis. When you have a society that has become decoupled … and has free floating anxiety … their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis. They literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere." That shaves off about a third of it, but I think that comprehensability is improved, and that’s what we’re all about. Can we agree, please, on this? It’s a compromise. Boscaswell talk 07:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Far too detailed. The gist is "Yes, most people disagree with me, but that is because they are brainwashed. LIKE THE NAZIS WERE!11!" Anybody who holds a minority position can say that with exactly the same justification, or rather, lack of it. It's just worthless piffle, it has zero value as a piece of reasoning to be put on the scales to decide who is right, and we do not need to quote it in any detail.

If we quote it, we give the reader the false impression that it is worth quoting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"It’s just worthless piffle…" in your opinion. So worthless that innumerable RS's published the whole quote. Ergo it is worth something, it is notable. Boscaswell talk 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

[I]t has zero value as a piece of reasoning to be put on the scales to decide who is right This isn't a skeptics forum, and whether or not their statement was rational enough for you has no bearing on the quote's noteworthiness or widespread coverage -- the goal is simply to have the section sufficiently relay the story. The current article leaves it excessively unclear what actually occurred. Bleepenvoy (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Responding to both:

in your opinion So, you think that empty rhetorics like that is not worthless? Guess what: Your opinion does not matter. WP:FRINGE tells us to cut fringe propaganda down to a minimum and not give crackpots a forum for spreading bullshit. Some RS seem to have different standards than we have. So what?

Because RS's have noticed it (but they are not innumerable), we mention it. That does not mean we should quote it.

WP:FRINGE says, The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. Summarizing it is enough. What actually occurred is someone said, essentially, "Yes, most people disagree with me, but that is because they are brainwashed. LIKE THE NAZIS WERE!11!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Raft of critical coverage of the term.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Koncorde (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, I think we can agree that the quote is silly. The effort to include it has nothing to do with the merits of his opinion, and much more to do with how the quote is integral to understanding what occurred. How is it WP:FRINGE when it's a non-expert opinion on a subject that's provided in an informal context?

Consider Chomsky: he's made numerous breakthroughs in linguistics and is lauded for his academic & scientific accomplishments, but he also has a habit of making truly controversial, non-expert political remarks. As an example, he made a statement (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Anti-war_activism_and_dissent:_1967%E2%80%931975) about the Vietnam war (featured in the quote box of that link), asserting there's a "system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent understanding of contemporary reality." Is that WP:FRINGE, like you're claiming Malone's quote is? Both allude to public deception and mass acceptance of normally objectionable ideas. Or are these quotes simply providing useful context, in a disinterested manner, for strongly-worded informal claims to shed light on why they were so divisive? Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of the Vietnam War isn't a solitary persons or even a minority perspective, so it's not Fringe. Chomsky is also famous, and successful, in a broad range of fields and has been a long standing critic of the Vietnam war since before it started. As a result of his work, and interest, in societal responses to pressures he created the Propaganda model. The model has been reviewed, criticised, and generally pored over for decades since its publication by peers and critics alike. It is both a significant and well developed viewpoint with regards to Chomsky, and also is his expertise, which would support both the inclusion of excerpts and also criticism

In contrast Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth is Fringe.

In contrast, Malone isn't even the author of the theory he is proposing. A theory that is neither published, nor documented, and isn't recognised by peers or equivalent. It's of no particular significance beyond the sudden interest people have in it, and that seems to be just so people can try and further promote the FRINGE that it is. Koncorde (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Malone isn't even the author of the theory he is proposing. A theory that is neither published, nor documented, and isn't recognised by peers or equivalent. It's of no particular significance beyond the sudden interest people have in it [...]" You just explained yourself why it's not WP:FRINGE: popular interest and widespread coverage is what makes it important, not scientific validity. It's not even a scientific claim. It's an extemporaneous opinion taken from a recorded conversation, as was the Chomsky quote -- which he uttered several years before his Propaganda model existed. Do you see my point? Much like the Chomsky quote, Malone's quote is a non-expert opinion that bears inclusion for the sake of painting a clear picture. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Chomsky's quote was published however, and is included as a retrospective after it established him as a social critic.

And no, sudden public interest in a made up term isn't reason to create an article about it or give uncritical coverage of an obviously fringe opinion. Support of reliable sources does that. The reliable sources are quite clear: the term is nonsense as used by Malone. Koncorde (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a thorough misunderstand of what WP:FRINGE is about. The key phrase here is "significant minority". There is no "significant minority" within science or elsewhere that says that the scientific consensus on vaccines was generated or spread by "hypnosis", and therefore it would not be worth mentioning, except lots of people publicly found it stupid. Since they did, it could be worth mentioning, but not worth quoting. Malone's blathering about the reasons why nobody believes him is just irrelevant rationalization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t agree with Bleepenvoy when s/he says that we can all agree that the quote is silly. I think it has merit. But much more importantly, I agree most fervently when s/he says "popular interest and widespread coverage is what makes it important". I’ve said the same many times over. Unfortunately, there are still those contributing here who believe that their opinion on the matter must over-ride the desire of multi-millions to learn about it. Why else would over 10 million listen regularly to Joe Rogan? For anyone here to set out deliberately limit reader exposure to something which came up on his podcast (mass formation psychosis) and immediately sparked a huge amount of interest, because we can’t see it as being valid, is wrong, pure and simple. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I say again, innumerable RS’s have the quote in full, making it abundantly clear that it is notable. I’ve trimmed the quote considerably in an effort to make it more palatable to the detractors. Currently our explanation of it here is insufficient. There are more than enough RS’s around, as has been pointed out, from which a criticism of similar length can be crafted. At present, the criticism in the article is longer than the initial explanation, so it’s UNDUE. Whether people here think the theory is valid or not is irrelevant, so let’s just get on with it and do what I’m suggesting. Boscaswell talk 07:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Um... the desire of multi-millions to learn about it can be fulfilled by those multi-millions clicking on the external links supplied by the article. Are you, as a spokesman of the multi-millions, really demanding that Wikipedia needs to feed them exactly what they want, instead of just having links to websites which do?

Those who want to watch Rogan should watch Rogan. Those who want a summary of what reliable sources say should read Wikipedia. You are essentially saying that we need to abandon the policies of Wikipedia in order to attract people who frequent other websites, and try to be more like those websites. Why don't you go tell Rogan he should be more like Wikipedia instead?

If you think applying the mass formation thingie to the scientific consensus on COVID vaccines "has merit", go find reliable sources that agree with that, instead of ones that just say that Malone does, and we can include those.

Failing that, if you disagree with WP:FRINGE restricting the amount of coverage of dubious stuff reliable sources disagree with, go try to have it changed. This is the wrong place for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Koncorde's sources include an excellent AP article. Since it's a newspaper, it does include the quote, but most of the article is explaining how and why it makes no sense. WP is WP:NOTNEWS and of a very different style to journalism; we also don't want a full section as long as that article to properly put it in context. It would be a good source for expansion, but will result in more critical material anyway. It could end up being undue coverage, but the mention seems due because full articles about it exist, like that one. Something worth adding could be that the argument includes vocabulary metaphors based on discredited misconceptions... —PaleoNeonate – 13:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quote is not undue; WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT

In defence of Bleepenvoy, s/he has been involved with many more articles in the past. That s/he chooses to concentrate on this one of late is of no consequence to us. S/he is no more OWNing it than several other editors on it, including myself. I remember several years ago observing the Vladimir Putin page during a Russian presidential election. One editor on it was coming up with every WP policy you can think of and many more besides to get his or her way. Which is why I tend to frown upon all those who quote them left right and centre, because otherwise they can’t get their way, and do so to prevent something sitting in an article which they don’t like. Anyway, we have in this discussion a reader thanking us for the information provided, and although there was no consensus to delete, editors just come along and deleted the quote anyway. I’ve read enough of WP:COAT (which is not official WP policy) to realise that the examples given there are nothing like what was going on here before the deletions. Malone gave the interview to Joe Rogan. Who, whether you like him or not, regularly has many millions more viewers than CNN, MSNBC, etc etc all combined. So to exclude information which was big on his show because it was considered FRINGE is, quite frankly, absurd, and quite obviously smacks of censorship. Over 3,000,000 watched the podcast on YouTube before it was deleted. This article became very popular in the immediate aftermath of that podcast’s release. The redirect article Mass formation psychosis is also attracting more than a few page views. It seems to me that this stonewalling, this “we can’t allow it to be given more than a passing mention” is some of this: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT (No, that’s not official policy either) Several RS’s in talking about the interview include the quote as has been quoted here and not much else. So it’s already notable. Clearly. Evidently, therefore, what had been done here with the inclusion of the quote was to present information which the world at large wants to know about. It is not up to us to decide one way or another whether other people should know about it! To do that in Wikipedia is shameful, disgraceful. Another editor said when deleting it, the RS’s didn’t think much of the theory as talked about in the quote. So summarise their critique in an edit! Don’t just delete because you can’t allow others to know about something! I’m sorry to be so unspoken, but to deny others information because you consider it to be incorrect is outrageous. Such denial of knowledge is the very opposite of what Wikipedia is all about. We are not here to shape opinion. We are here to provide information. Please accept that and stop the attempted suppression of information as had previously been presented with the inclusion of the quote. And by the way, regarding its length and arguments over DUE I gave that great consideration before posting, but realised that there was no way of trimming it without losing virtually all meaning. Just as the editors for those RS’s would have done. They didn’t trim it. They published it. How dare they! Fancy them publishing something so out there! Well they did, because millions want to know about it. As should we. Boscaswell talk 03:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this entire comment is essentially a non-sequitor. Would you like to try again? jps (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ll not waste my time, fruity. Boscaswell talk 09:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I explain above that it has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Please also remember of WP:FOC, focus on content and sources instead of ranting about editors... —PaleoNeonate – 18:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how quoting what he said is taking sides, unless there is a claim he never said it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reuters

I would like to drop this link: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-google-manipulated-mass-formation

Something strange happened with the 'mass formation' theory. It was innitially brought to the foreground by Mattias Desmet, not Malone. Desmet bases this phenomenon on Le Bon, Freud, Jung, Arendt, Meerloo, Canetti etc.

But somehow the media doesn't like this theory connected to covid. So Reuters searches for a couple of psychologists that disagree and all of the sudden this becomes truth. Huh? This new absolute truth is copied in all following articles you can find on Google. And on Duck Duck Go you see how Google maunally changed what you can find about this 'misinformative' term.

Totally 1984 Newspeak and a proof of mass formation actually.

Best would be is that the article about Mattias Desmet is on wikipedia asap with a redirection to him about the terminology. 2A02:A443:5030:1:9D6B:711E:D9B6:FEBD (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:soap and wp:or, Also I doubt your link is an RS for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reuters who shops 4 experts is not a reliable source to debunk Malone/Desmet's mass formation or mass formation psychosis is a non-existing term. The OR claim that my article is no RS to drop on a talk page is also BS: this was widely visible on Google when you typed the term in on Google on those days. Anybody with a bit of memory and was searching for it then knows. The difference between Google and Duck Duck Go is also clear. Type the term 'mass formation psychosis' on both and compare.

You can invert this whole issue: if Google, Reuters and msm and governments hide all info on this term, how can it ever become a Wikipedia article?

If all biology books in Arab language deny Darwin's evolution theory, and the broader part of the population agrees, this leads to the odd contradiction that Darwins evolution theory cannot exist on the Arab wikipedia. This is a variant of that.

The best would be that there is an article and that it is regarded by most as not proven, but that some think it is a valid theory. With Reuters etc as the source that is doesn't exist as an scientific term, and Desmet as the primary source for the latter. With the inclusion of the visions of Le Bon, Meerloo, Arendt, Canetti about what they descibe. Wikipedia is doing a very bad job right now. 2A02:A443:5030:1:7C98:21D:38CB:B88B (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we use it to debunk anything?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is green on WP:RSP, so it an RS. Your page is a blog and therefore not an RS, see WP:RS: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You said 'my article' above. Are you Steve Kirsch? MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Falsely"

From article: "Malone has also falsely claimed that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections"

Not according to this: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-drug-regulator-says-more-data-needed-impact-omicron-vaccines-2022-01-11/

"The EMA official raised concerns that a strategy of giving boosters every four months hypothetically poses the risk of overloading people's immune systems and leading to fatigue in the population."

And here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says

"European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune system and may not be feasible.

Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said."

The Atlantic article does not expand on his comments, but given that the boosters basically are the same thing as the original vaccine (moderna is a half dose), it seems like we're falsely saying he falsely said that. According to other sources, Malone was referring to "antibody dependent enhancement" which I surmise the Europeans are too. Keep in mind he is more qualified as a virologist/immunologist than the guy who wrote the Atlantic article hit piece or any of us here, and likely was just ahead of everyone, not wrong, in this case. See context: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-effectively-prevent-severe-disease-havent-shown-signs-of-antibody-dependent-enhancement-as-claimed-by-robert-malone/ 2600:1012:B011:786B:5506:B9DF:28AF:A656 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. The EMA being concerned about side effects from dosing every 4 months indefinitely is not the same thing as Malone falsely claiming that a single course would make people more sick. - MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Um...the EMA is not concerned about "side effects", they're concerned about a loss of immunity. And do you know if Malone was referring to overvaccination or just a single regimen (2 shots)? As I recall, his description of ADE presumed too many shots, but I need to double check. Shouldn't this be removed out of an abundance of caution (BLP)? 2600:1012:B011:786B:5506:B9DF:28AF:A656 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well we would need an RS to say it, as they do not we can't use OR to say what he meant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie can I get a direct quote for this assertion? "Malone falsely claiming that a single course would make people more sick." The Atlantic piece doesn't appear to state as much, so that ought to be sourced. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to footnote my talk page comments, thank you. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Then the claim is unsupported and needs to be removed until it's substantiated by an RS. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

And I'm referring to the claim in the article, not your talk page comment, sorry. "Malone has also falsely claimed that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections," should be removed. Bleepenvoy (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a fair summary of the statements reported by the Atlantic, I see no reason to remove it, certainly not based on the IP's WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's a fair summary of something, somewhere, but not anything present in The Atlantic article. The closest thing I can find from that source is that Malone stated he, himself, felt worsened long-haul symptoms after taking the vaccine. That's far narrower than, "Malone has also falsely claimed that the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 infections." It's an unsupported extrapolation. Bleepenvoy (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two such statements in the Atlantic article, the other is the opening sentence of the article. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand how the Wiki editor there was able to synthesize, from a one-off statement in an Atlantic article that neither quotes material nor provides any context, that Malone's statement was a falsehood. Bleepenvoy (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic describes the statement, then writes it 'was premised on misinformation.' The text in our article is a reasonable paraphrase of the Atlantic. I'm failing to understand how you could read the Atlantic article and have a problem with this. It is not up to us to second guess a reliable source by complaining about how much context or quoting it does. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The language in The Atlantic article is far more careful. Notice how it argues that the 'back and forth' was '*premised* on misinformation'. Notice how they stated that Malone '*suggested* that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines might actually make COVID-19 infections worse'. The article makes a point to avoid direct true-or-false assignments, instead relying on ambiguity and juxtaposition to express the author's message. Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You're drawing distinctions that add up to no actual difference. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Words have meaning. Especially in regard to science topics, and especially in regard to controversial topics. Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic source seems to be absolute shit, given this vignette right here. There are likely many other instances of broad strokes painted by the Atlantic writer, who by the way, is wholly unqualified to even have a scientific opinion, let alone have his take precedence over Malone's. Yes, Atlantic is a reliable source, but these are some heavy-hitting scientific ideas and they deserve the same sourcing standards that any scientific concepts receive on Wikipedia. Malone is a legit scientist, and in the same manner that other topics like the lab leak etc. are dealt with on here, we need refutations by scientific authorities/sources. This is the ridiculous side effect of the disparate treatment of sourcing for scientific topics due to the critical mass of selective political sympathies that exist among editors here. It needs to stop. 174.193.130.107 (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Yes I am OP. 174.193.130.107 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose policy changes that align with your views, but this is not the place for that. MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy that says a lesser nonscientific source is preferable to a scientific one, only that it isn't necessary when describing "fringe" ideas. I don't know what policy you're referring to. I'm not advocating for incorporating my original research on here, if that's what you meant. In fact, I'm advocating for the removal of what I deem to be original research. "Falsely" is OR pulled out of someone's hind quarters, no doubt. You seem to be approaching this dogmatically, which is no doubt sometimes what this encyclopedia needs, but I don't think you are appreciating the depth of nuance that may be involved here...a scientist invokes something obscure and says it might happen, a slanted, completely uncredentialled, but legally-aware liberal arts grad writes a hit piece commissioned by the RWJF and chan Zuck initiative using language that effectively calls Malone a liar, but not explicitly. In the final unfortunate event, a bunch of exhausted Wikipedia editors clumsily interpret what happened, and just call Malone a liar because it seems alright. This is how you get a really crappy Wikipedia article, which is what this article is, full stop. 2600:1012:B068:2F9B:8144:441F:3175:626A (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If you removed the word "falsely", the sentence wouldn't be seen as editorializing by the author. He "claimed" something and that isn't in dispute, but the assertion that he "falsely claimed" has been refuted above with several citations. Psychomichael (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't care about what the author sees as editorializing. We care about what is correct and true per asserting facts and using the sources that we have. I have yet to see a reliable source that contradicts the adverb "falsely" and see plenty that corroborate it. When something is falsely claimed, we state it that way. jps (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If it wasn't notable misinformation, it's not something that sources would have cared to report about anyway (uncontroversial statements usually go unnoticed). Since the IP argues for better sources, can you present WP:MEDRS contradicting the current source, like supporting that vaccination may worsen infections? As far as I'm aware, recent statistics show less incidence of serious disease after two doses or more of a popular mRNA vaccine (even alternated brands), at around 4+ months interval (at east six weeks), showing significantly in highly vaccinated populations. —PaleoNeonate – 06:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"We don't care about what the author sees as editorializing. We care about what is correct and true per asserting facts and using the sources that we have."...No, per WP:NOTTRUTH we care about verifiability. We can't unequivocaly say this was "falsely" stated, as the Atlantic Article does not conclusively state it in this manner, and given the contentiousness, we better damn well be sure it's foolproof. Remember when the Waukesha parade car terrorist attack article was briefly labeled a "crash" since editors were using the language of article headlines at the time, which for whatever reason were being exceptionally cautious about how to label the developing event? This should be treated similarly cautiously. Nowhere in the Atlantic article does it even reference the scientific context of the statement, and nowhere does it go into why that is (allegedly) false. Yes let's find better sourcing if it's indeed this murky, please. Can we please have some damn consistency with these contentious sourcing issues; Wikipedia's authority slides when the burden of proof for scientific information and sourcing is inconsistently applied. This is, at its heart, super clumsy and sad. 2600:1012:B068:2F9B:8144:441F:3175:626A (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to show all their work. We're not going to second guess the Atlantic because you are unhappy with the amount of scientific details they put into the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I object to everything you say except that I am unhappy with it. 2600:1012:B068:2F9B:8144:441F:3175:626A (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We know, but we go by what our policies say, not what you like.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Since when did opinion pieces become reliable sources? Citing the Atlantic article as evidence that his claims were "false" is no different than citing the JRE interview as evidence that his claims were true. 98.155.113.111 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Since when did we only use the Atlantic for these claims? By the way, it is not marked as an Opp-edd, it seems to be marked as science (as in science news)Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not apples and oranges if you are considering the merits of vaccinating someone with natural immunity/exposure, which was Malone's claimed personal experience (long original Wuhan covid followed by 2x Moderna and then negative side effects). This issue is getting increased attention, as Fauci was recently asked about it: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-aims-for-covidflu-booster-in-2023-but-fauci-and-other-virus-experts-warn-of-challenges-to-come-this-year/ar-AASRVUT You're assuming you know the full context of Malone's remarks to write "falsely" into this article, and that is a blatant BLP violation. 2600:1012:B02E:B798:DA:64D6:6604:C444 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A simple paraphrase of the Atlantic is not a BLP violation, and no amount of twisted OR based on sources about a different issue will change that. If you want to undercut a source that specifically says Malone is spreading misinformation, you'll need a source that is actually about Malone and his statements. MrOllie (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a "simple paraphrase". Furthermore, I'd like to point out, not from a position of scientific authority or anything, but just from a layperson's perspective, that since many studies have shown natural immunity is superior to vaccinated immunity pre and maybe post the emergence of omicron (i'm not going to link any, but feel free to shoot me down if i am wrong), the immunogenic presence in the body of a viral infection could be considered to be greater than that of a two part moderna regimen, in a shorter amount of time. Malone's claimed experience would thus constitute far more than a "once every four months" booster regimen, it could be as much as four boosters given in a month. We are taking an enormous privilege in using the word "falsely" and should temper the language. I think I've written enough and don't want to be seen as physically attacking a deceased pony carcass, but if I find better sourcing as you requested, I'll present them here. And I openly admit my analysis here is OR, and I am not advocating for it to be incorporated into the article; it will stay here on the talk page. Speaking of OR, I think "falsely" is OR that must be removed. It's OK to provide reasoning on a talk page, and sometimes OR is necessary to make a point.2600:1012:B02E:B798:DA:64D6:6604:C444 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The CDC says vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. This will be the last reply I make in this section unless/until a source that is actually about Malone is presented. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the CDC source, we too often tend to refute arguments while assuming that everyone already knows the sources, like I did above. —PaleoNeonate – 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate, I linked a CDC study (reported by WSJ) previously but you seemed to miss it so I will repeat it here and delete my old reply to keep the conversation flow: https://www.wsj.com/articles/prior-covid-19-infection-offered-better-protection-than-vaccination-during-delta-wave-11642619009?mod=mhp (click the link, no paywall required), that came to the exact opposite conclusion during the Delta wave. Also I'd like to add, in addition to Antibody dependent enhancement, one of the issues Malone brought up is Original antigenic sin. I'm still searching for sources. From WSJ: "Surviving a previous infection provided better protection than vaccination against Covid-19 during the Delta wave, federal health authorities said, citing research showing that both the shots and recovery from the virus provided significant defense." Given the EMA, a mainstream medical authority, has expressed reservations about even a spread out one-every-4-months booster, I think there's an argument to be made that Malone's claims were not fringe, and that they therefore require scientific sourcing rather than from non science RS. He is a licensed medical doctor, and doctors have leeway to recommend one thing over another, that's what they are trained to do. Furthermore, the Atlantic said he said they "might" make infections worse. If he says it "might", he is open to the idea that they won't. So how can Wikipedia say it was "false"? How can you characterize any skeptical statement as "false"? "An agnostic falsely said God may not exist." Whether God exists or god doesn't, it's the wrong way to describe such a statement. Given that we were able to find two different reputable CDC reports that came to opposite conclusions about natural immunity, we are so far from saying this is all settled, that as it stands, Wikipedia is the one spreading misinformation. Someone could read this and think there is no harm associated with too many boosters, and go out and get illicit shots because they think they'll get superimmumity, and wreck their immune response in the process. That's actively promoting harm, and I will WP:AGF before passing any judgment because bioethics can be complicated, especially in this internet environment of Wikipedia and the role it plays. It's not clear if the header of the Atlantic article is simply repeating what is in the body, but here is what is said in the body: "His concerns are personal, too. Malone contracted COVID-19 in February 2020, and later got the Moderna vaccine in hopes that it would alleviate his long-haul symptoms. Now he believes the injections made his symptoms worse: He still has a cough and is dealing with hypertension and reduced stamina, among other maladies." Moderna was the strongest vacccine (over 3x the quantity of pfizer) and also the most effective/the one with a higher risk of myocarditis. If the fist mention of worsening infection in Atlantic is just a rephrasing of the mention in the body of the article, then he absolutely is referring to his personal experience, which according to him was a moderna 2 part vaccine right after/during a covid infection. That definitely surpasses the EMA's stated threshold of too much immunogenicity. I don't think this is fringe and I posted on the board as stated below to get more input. Also, on a completely separate level..let's acknowledge he was a long covid survivor, and as such, acknowledge his statements were made based on his lived experience. We did that last year because a cop murdered an innocent man by kneeling on his neck and people were pleading for the reduction of funding to police departments, then we reduced police department budgets in high crime areas, which we're only now starting to reverse, because those policies seem to be creating more victims and harm. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were misunderstood. Regardless, we treated them with respect and listened because of their unique experience. Malone says he is a long hauler and basically disabled as a result of covid and (very much allegedly) the vaccine, and we're not even including the context of his remark. I only am making a squishy plea for humanity here because apparently he almost died; even if he looks robust, like a finely aged Harrison Ford or the Dos Equis guy, according to him, he is suffering very much. If you think the vaccine injury claim is BS, fine, he's still a long hauler, and long haul/general Covid disabilities are no doubt going to be the final stage of the pandemic, lasting decades. 174.193.139.150 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've linked to this on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Discussion on Talk:Robert W. Malone/Archive 2#"Falsely" noticeboard for additional input. 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm I doubt much can be done about the above without recent sources to support it. The notion that natural immunity is better than a vaccine has been promoted by many but is really a false equivalence, since the role of vaccines is to prevent or weaken potential future infections, precisely because those infections are more threatening and that vaccines are much safer. Moreover, we still see recent reports like "Crediting a professor in Belgium, Malone also said in a December blog post that this 'mass hypnosis' explains millions of people becoming captivated by the 'dominant narrative concerning the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccines.'" suggesting that vaccine hesitancy activism is an ongoing activity. The "dominant narrative" argument is like a conspiracy that the rest of the scientific community and major heath bodies are all pushing disinformation and Wikipedia by policy attempts to reflect what? "The dominant narrative", of course (WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, WP:MEDRS for biomedical claims, etc.) Are there recent MEDRS supporting that mRNA vaccines make the disease more serious? Here's a normal journalistic source also contesting this claim, that cites another source. —PaleoNeonate – 04:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's a false equivalence, also tainted by selection bias because we aren't including those killed by covid when assessing the efficacy...but that's kinda beside the point, as I was just trying to make a point about immunogenicity...which is also making an argument for the effectiveness of vaccines by proxy, by the way. I'm trying hard to not consider this "mass formation" stuff at the same time as the other stuff--his views are manifold, and fringe sociological views like "mass formation" shouldn't mean every other thing he says is fringe. Actually, the CDC data (the delta data) support the idea that the vaccine can help even those previously infected, albeit slightly, per one news outfit's article on the report which had graphs, which I can't find right now. But keep in mind those are pooled real world data and not the result of a randomized controlled trial, and the story with each individual may be different (when did they get vaccinated post-infection? etc.) Also, such a slight reduction in hospitalization may not represent a significant let alone causal effect, and we have no idea what confounders may exist and what may flip the script per Simpson's paradox. The benefit of natural immunity and no vaccine over vaccine immunity but no prior exposure was something like 5 fold or more, so it was dramatic enough for the CDC to make a noncontroversial statement that natural immunity was superior to vaccine immunity during the delta wave. Here's fhe article w the graphs: https://kdvr.com/news/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine/cdc-report-natural-immunity-stronger-than-vaccines-alone-during-delta-wave/ 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: "The best way to acquire immunity so you won't get that dreadful disease, COVID is ... to get COVID" Facepalm. Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I'm advocating for. Someone who already caught covid can't undo the immunogenic presence the virus had in the body. These losses of immunity are predicated on overexposure to antigen, whether produced by a vaccine or natural. Malone had covid, then he got vaccinated. He had a lot of "spike protein" circulating through his body. He then was reported by the Atlantic to be questioning whether mRNA vaccines would worsen covid infections, edit: presumably based on established immunological mechanisms like original antigenic sin and antibody dependent enhancement. The EMA is on record having concerns about a booster every four months, whereas a recovered covid patient who then receives a 2 part mRNA vaccine like Moderna, like Malone did, receive far more immunogenic spike protein than someone receiving a booster every four months would. The Atlantic never says he "falsely" made a claim, it says "he said it could" reduce immunity. We're translating that here, saying Malone was absolutely 100% incorrect, when the RS didn't even say that. Furthermore, with minimal digging, other RS, like the EMA reported through Reuters and Bloomberg, are on record as being concerned about having immunity loss through over-boosting. Not only are we claiming Malone is 100% incorrect, which based on completely non fringe sources is a very bold and questionable claim that borders on a BLP violation, we're making a nonsensical statement, by calling Malone's skepticism false. You can't do that. He said it COULD lead to a loss in immunity. Ok, so he's also saying it could not. I only invoked the effect of natural immunity vs. vaccinated immunity to illustrate that an infection stimulates the immune system like a vaccine does. Duh! It's a red herring to focus on this debate (i.e. the conflicting CDC reports) or somehow claim I am advocating for antivax "dont get vaccinated, just get covid" ideas. Your comment added absolutely nothing to the debate or issues here, but I'll entertain it as a non sequitur comment--yes, people shouldn't intentionally catch covid. Great point, dude. 2600:1012:B002:3AB0:752F:5712:DD20:5C21 (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"He chuckled as he imagined Anthony Fauci announcing that the vaccination campaign was all a big mistake". Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding for reference, —PaleoNeonate – 09:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ADE isn't possible with these vaccines. So much so Malone himself had to walk back his claims and started to say something "like" ADE instead (among a variety of other nonsense about the vaccines he has repeatedly been shot down for by other scientists - not least when he shared articles he hadn't himself read. Koncorde (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Missing background info

According to Malone on the Rogan podcast, he attended Santa Barbara City College for two years prior to attending UC Davis. He did not say whether he received an associates degree or not.

Also, on the same podcast, he said he was awarded a combined MD - PhD scholarship (today, the scholarship is awarded by the NIH in the Medical Scientist Training Program, or MSTP), but he didn't say if it was an MSTP or something else, and other combined scholarships do exist. He only received an MS after falling out with an advisor (not an uncommon thing), and there is no reason to challenge his claims.

Finally, he said he received another fellowship from UC Davis, which isn't in the article.

Additionally, I'd like to request that some publications that were removed be added--the 2-3 papers from 1987-1990 are referenced in the Nature "The tangled history of mRNA" article, and in my opinion, this is the secondary coverage that would be required for inclusion here.

I don't know how to find coverage of his missing background info, but someone could totally re-insert the mRNA transfection papers from 1987-1990 using Nature as the secondary source--they are indeed extremely notable, and were it not for the way he has gone public recently, it would likely be an uncontroversial Nobel prize, as they tend to value "discoveries" over "inventions" (see the wikipedia coverage for Nobel prizes). 2600:1012:B02E:B798:45E1:AC84:B001:FDBA (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source, a primary source, that has extensive background. Does the fact that it was likely filed with penalty of perjury in federal court make it more reliable than a self declaration not filed in court? We could really expand this article with this info.

https://ia601408.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.395057/gov.uscourts.flmd.395057.30.6.pdf

2600:1012:B02E:B798:DA:64D6:6604:C444 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

He is not really an RS for his own achievements.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This is context dependent. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume he's making up everything on his CV, unless someone wants to start a new conspiracy theory. While it is not Wikipedia's place to do the jobs for reporters or biographers, there is brief news mention in 1994, during his post-graduate time at Davis, co-leading a $1.8 million research grant from the U.S. Army to study HIV vaccines. According to his CV he was a research fellow in pathology from 1991-1993, and assistant professor 1993-1997. If someone has access to paywalled California newspaper archives, more biographical data might be gleaned, but of course not all may warrant inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent find. Does this mean you have to go to a library and use those ancient fascimile machines? Is there an easier way, like vellum or clay tablets... 2600:1012:B044:B442:5DBA:8C89:E9F1:3EF1 (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It just may. Good research takes effort. The world's knowledge is not yet fully freely findable on Google nor Wikipedia, nor the internet at large (not even the deep web). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References