Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi
Latest comment: 10 days ago by Bruce A. WIlliamson in topic Hatchet job description
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sucharit Bhakdi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Lot of citations needed. Article needs rewording and changes. edit
Quite some of the statements in this Wikipedia article are worded in a way that is very biased towards an unpopular opinion that is partly plain wrong and partly fairly dubious, which is just strengthened by the fact that this article is worded like it's an article made by Bild, and on top of that locked for corrections.
He was not a source of misinformation, but rather an independent source of research just as other independent researchers and sources such as Dr. Botha.
Also his antisemitic statements were not antisemitic whatsoever and is just plain wrong. 46.128.215.37 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
an independent source of research
What research is that? In which peer-reviewed scientific journal did he publish it? If he did not, it is not research but opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)- Research isn't research until a gatekeeper provides a stamp of approval. AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the nature of science. One person cannot do science; someone else has to check it. Your point was? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- That one is far less likely to be published if holding a heterodox opinion. No one said anything about "one person." Your point was? AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- My point was to ask what your point was. Your point seems to be that Bhakdi's ideas are unlikely to be published in a scientific journal because they are "heterodox". (Actually, they are heterodox because he has no good justification for them, and they are unlikely to be published in a scientific journal because he has no good justification for them.)
- This page is not a forum but only for improving the article, see WP:NOTFORUM. The only fact relevant here is that he has not published. Why he has not done that - your "gatekeeper"/"heterodox" speculation - does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- That one is far less likely to be published if holding a heterodox opinion. No one said anything about "one person." Your point was? AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the nature of science. One person cannot do science; someone else has to check it. Your point was? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Research isn't research until a gatekeeper provides a stamp of approval. AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- The parenthetical "(even though Germany typically has more deaths due to pollution than Italy)" definitely needs a citation. I have no argument as whether or not it is true, but, if true, it should be fairly easy for whoever wrote this to find a statistic from a reputable source that could be cited. AardvarkAdevărul (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Was found not guilty edit
He was found not guilty, maybe you can clean up the smearing… 2A02:A03F:6946:2A00:4D24:1431:38A3:EF98 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing was changed? Why? The term misinformation is not appropriate. 2603:7080:D53B:B3B8:2011:E519:63D2:6485 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- What are you even on about? Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hatchet job description edit
The description is extremely biased misinformation that takes away credibility of the site. Real science welcomes debate and discussion. 96.48.125.176 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources that confirm that the article contains misinformation, bring them, Until then, we prefer the reliable sources we already use to your unfounded opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The article is extremely biased and most of the "fact check" citations are opinion or three years old. Much newer information regarding Dr Bhakdi's coment have come about. One is the "vaccines" are indeed killing people. The Us National Academy of Science has stated that any myocarditis after "vaccination" is caused by the "vaccine". That's essentially killing people. It is biased articles like this that caused me to stop being a donor for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your conclusions are invalid. COVID causes severe myocarditis that actually kills people. The vaccine causes mild myocarditis that does not. You should inform yourself at more reliable places.
- Even if your conclusions were valid, we would not be able to use them because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on the opinions of random people on the internet.
- Also, Wikipedia does not take bribes in exchange for modifying articles in a direction the briber likes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Source please (and read wp:rs)? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)