Talk:Simone Gold

Medical Consensus

Wow! Read this article and felt like Wikipedia is loosing it's touch. Can we at least attempt to be unbiased? First paragraph: how about "known for being accused of spreading misinformation..." That removes the bias of asserting whether it is actually misinformation or not. Another very similar edit later in the article: Remove the word "falsely" from "and falsely called her a political prisoner." Again, why is the article asserting as fact items that are debatable? This very unnecessary word ("falsely") betrays the bias of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.74.87 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Before you claim someone is making misinformation about medical facts, one needs to actually annotate it from reputable sources...

166.84.1.3 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a process for determining the reliability of a source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Which source specifically fails that (or are they all "fake news" to you)? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Page Creation

I just created this article. I found a lot of information on her activities throughout 2020 and 2021, but not a lot of personal information. I couldn't verify her date of birth, degree, or prior employment. Anywhere that mentions her degrees seems to be taken directly from her self-published bio at the America's Frontline Doctors website. I didn't add an infobox because I didn't have a lot of information for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmburke5 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Notice to editors that I've nominated this article for Did you know at Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Valereee (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Simone Gold

• ... that anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold (pictured) participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol? (Source: The Washington Post)

• ALT1: ... that Simone Gold (pictured), the founder of the anti-vaccine group America's Frontline Doctors, helped convince Donald Trump that hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID-19? (Source: CNN)
• ALT2: ... that one day after telling supporters "you must not allow yourself to be coerced," anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold (pictured) stormed the U.S. Capitol? (Source: CNN)

Created by Kmburke5 (talk) and Rp2006 (talk). Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk) at 03:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Some problems here. A few of the references are broken, and The claim that "many" in the medical field have criticized her seems to be unsourced.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - I am concerned that the hook may "focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals", as discouraged by WP:DYKHOOK. The hook is basically a list of three negative aspects of a living individual. I'm also concerned that the phrase "hydroxychloroquine advocate" may be misleading out of context – the WHO is also a hydroxychloroquine advocate in that they recommend hydroxychloroquine for treating malaria, but I suppose the point here is that Simone Gold advocates it for treating COVID-19. Could we try an alt hook or two?

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: In addition to the points above, the article is somewhat negative in tone. If that's a reflection of reliable sources, then fair enough, but I would suggest at least making some adjustments based on WP:CSECTION and WP:CLAIM. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) updated 16:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the article per your comments. On the point about the hook being negative: I agree that you or I may find Gold's actions objectionable, but for her, it's how she's chosen to live her life. For someone who genuinely seems to believe that vaccines don't work, that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID, and that Trump won the election, I doubt she would see these facts as negative at all. However, I have added alternative blurbs to the nomination for you to take a look at. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, and it's a good point that what seems negative to me may not be negative from Gold's point of view. ALT1 doesn't quite seem to be supported by the source, which says that Trump shared a video from the organization but not that Gold helped convince him. ALT0 or ALT2 is probably fine, though I remain concerned that "hydroxychloroquine advocate" may be misleading in ALT0. My preference would be something like

• ALT3: ... that one day after telling supporters "you must not allow yourself to be coerced," anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold (pictured) participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol? (Source: CNN)

—Granger (talk · contribs) 07:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to hydroxychloroquine from the first blurb. I would support that or the blurb you've proposed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, the new version of the original blurb (ALT0) is my favorite of the bunch. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Came by to promote, need clarification on which ALTs have been approved. AllegedlyHuman Mx. Granger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: ALT0, ALT2, and ALT3 are approved. My preference is ALT0. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent major edits

I think the section removed from the lead is relevant since the press conference was organized by Gold and was what first put national attention on her.

I also think the section about her appearances is relevant, since that is generally what her career is at this time, but don't have a strong objection to its removal. Kmburke5 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note: what I removed here is resume-style information. It's meta, if you will, and the sourcing, which should be secondary and discuss those appearances, is ridiculous: this is to be used as a source for an encyclopedic article? This could be used as a source for a statement like "Gold appeared prominently on Fox News where she BS-ed about the virus" or something like that--but that is not the sentence we had. As for the lead, well, experienced Wikipedia editors know that the lead summarizes what's in the main article. Again, that is not what we had. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see why the original wording would be too much detail for the lead. However, I still think the lead should include something about the press conference, since that's what she is widely known for. All of the articles that talk about her taking part in the storming of the capital remind people who she was by referencing that press confernce. Maybe something like "She gained notoriety with an America's Frontline Doctor's press conference in front of the Supreme Court building in July 2020." Kmburke5 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• You can do that, as long as every aspect of the wording is verified in the article. We need to adhere to common editorial guidelines pertaining to the BLP, and in particular WP:UNDUE here. If you can find the sources that verify that yes, that's where her notoriety comes from, you can say that. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Corrected date Gold spoke at "Stop the Steal" rally from 2020 to 2021

2021 storming of the US Capitol building

On January 5, 2020, Gold spoke at a rally in Washington D.C. to a crowd of people gathering in the city for the next day's "Stop the Steal" rally. To

2021 storming of the US Capitol building

On January 5, 2021, Gold spoke at a rally in Washington D.C. to a crowd of people gathering in the city for the next day's "Stop the Steal" rally. Vigilfree (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! (Just for future reference, you don't need to do this every time you make an edit, though I appreciate the sentiment.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Article needs significant revision to be unbiased and objective for readers

Articles that are controversial on Wikipedia need multiple sources to back them up in accordance with the Wikipedia Community. This article is heavily biased with phrases such as "gained notoriety," "No real frontline doctor objects to this vaccine," and other statements. A nonobjective observer needs to be able to read this article and form his/her own opinion about it. Real seems to be a relative term associated with one side of the argument used in this article. Also, the heading [reactions from the medical community] contains only negative reactions from one side, and are leading. Finally, the phrase "The letter was co-signed by more than 600 doctors." Some of these doctors could be listed with this claim. There needs to be more revision of this article and a neutral opinion without a slant should be the goal. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usatoday12466 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dictated by what reliable sources say. The vast majority of scholarly evidence says Gold and her organization are pseudoscientific conspiracy theorists whose advice is not medically accurate. You need reliable sources to back up your claims otherwise. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the "real" quote you reference is not said in WP:WIKIVOICE; it is quoted to Dr. Peter Hotez (and identified as such in text). That is his expert opinion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there are top scholarly sources such as the British Medical Journal, Science Journal, and Scientific American that disagree with the mainstream narrative and criticizes the rollout and the ferocity and lack of rationale behind de facto forcing people to vaccinate. I could care less about Simone Gold, but it needs to be understood that there are many holes and plenty pseudoscience coming from mainstream media and the alphabet health agencies, the problem is two-fold however: most people have no background in science and don't know better when junk is being reported to them, and those reporting or furthering such junk are too egomaniacal to ever admit they were wrong when definitively discrediting data comes in, like when it was claimed for 6 months by people like Hotez, Fauci, and Walensky that "you can't get the virus if you're vaccinated" which of course was false at the time it was said and is still false now and indisputably so due to the data showing so. They all claimed the vaccines stopped transmission, but opposing equally qualified professionals disagreed with data at the time and either got censored or deplatformed, but now we know their findings were true, the vaccines didn't stop the spread, so now what?

Wikipedia has become a place where mods reject things based on personal biases, and allow writing that is clearly slanted and biased like allowing anyone to be called an "anti-vaxxer" simply because they opposed one vaccine which is utter nonsense. Lots of medical professionals and scientists opposed the covid vaccines only because of their dangerously short development time in relation to the norm mainly because of the lack of long-term side effect data which is indispensable to developing safe medicines and has been a staple in medicine for generations, but most kept quiet because they have bills to pay not because they forgot everything they learned and now think its safe to ignore all established protocols and safety measures in medical science and whip drugs out and into people's bodies in short order. With all of the millions of injuries from the vaccine now known worldwide (or not known for those who only pay attention to pharmaceutical-funded mainstream media networks, and that's a fact not a "conspiracy theory") it's now known that opposition was right, especially considering the remarkably high survival rate that had remained even before a vaccine was available and has remained with those who chose not to vaccinate. But as the covid vaccine injuries keep piling up, I suspect people who vaccinated will never relent on their choice-supportive bias and continue to hold on to discriminatory practices against anyone who didn't drink the kool-aid and suffer the side effects many of them are suffering. Special:Contributions/User1 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hippocrates said (in Of the Epidemics) "First do no harm." So reasonable people did wonder whether lockdowns did harm first and possibly delayed herd immunity. Messenger RNA vaccines were new, and many side-effects have now shown up, so being skeptical about lockdowns and shots was a scientific attitude. Like many others, I got the covid shots and viewed it as the most rational medical gamble to take, but the current attitude of censoring out all other viewpoints is unscientific and the very sort of false certitude which Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, et al.faced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit to Simone Gold's page

172.103.212.47 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Request:

This wikipedia page makes an untrue assertion that Simone Gold is an anti-vaccine advocate. It also states an unsubstantiated opinion that she is spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.

My request is that this statement:

"Simone Gold is an American doctor, anti-vaccine activist, author, and founder of America's Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization known for spreading misinformation concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.[1][2][3]"

be removed from this page due to its libelous nature.

And replaced with this wording:

"Simone Gold is an American doctor, author, and founder of America's Frontline Doctors."

And that the following inflammatory and inaccurate "category" labels associated with this page be removed:

American anti-vaccination activists COVID-19 conspiracy theorists American conspiracy theorists

Support for this claim:

Dr. Gold states herself here, in this video near the end that she and her children are fully vaccinated. https://covidvaccinesideeffects.com/fact-check-video-from-dr-simone-gold-the-truth-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/

In her scientifically based, medically backed assertions, Gold uses peer reviewed studies to support her concerns about the safety of the experimental injections being rushed through the developmental process.

Please stop promoting misinformation and mis-categorizing those seeking prudence and caution on this vital issue.

Wiki can be a part of the betterment of humanity. As I see, it has become a large part of the effort to create more division, discord and mis-information in the world.

I used to donate to wiki annually until 2018 when articles I referenced for my college teaching were radically altered and filled with words like "right-wing," "conspiracy theory, " "pseudo-science" and "quackery." In themselves, these words are unscientific and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Beyond that they are ignorant and pigeon hole topics based on opinion rather than fact.

As far as I can tell around 2018, wiki articles underwent a systemic re-write campaign that aimed to cast doubt on anything that isn't supported by whomever is creating our "national narrative."

Now, articles are laughably inaccurate and many are flat out libelous. Shame on Wiki for allowing this type of editing to occur.

Wiki, Please reclaim your power for good. You could really influence the world right now in a positive way to help people seek truth and not propaganda.

May your decisions bring you peace and bring peace and truth to the world. 2600:6C67:907F:FEAA:41A9:54AA:C888:415F (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You say you are or were a college professor. As such, you surely understand that secondary sources, like the many that currently exist in the article to verify claims such that Gold is an "antivaccine activist" or "right-wing", take precedence over the primary source statements of Gold herself. This article labels her as it does because that is what the vast majority of reliable sources have said. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow unnamed college professor - watch your words. "experimental injections being rushed though" isn't showing your bias at all is it? How about this "Please stop promoting misinformation" is directly your words, so look in a mirror. Thank you for donating to Wikipedia, please continue doing so, but we aren't influenced by those that donate or advertisers which is why you should continue to donate to this powerful project. "Now, articles are laughably inaccurate and many are flat out libelous." Totally agree have you seen the entry on Kartij Kola and 1591 in India? Bias and inaccuracy are in the eye of the beholder which is NOT how Wikipedia works. "Shame on Wiki for allowing this type of editing to occur." I'm not sure you understand that Wikipedia is not a "thing" that approves or disproves edits, we are a group of volunteers that are loosely associated, if you want to help, please learn the rules, create a user name (I highly recommend) and get to work. Sorry that Gold isn't represented the way you (unnamed college professor) wants, but we don't write Wikipedia pages for you, we have to follow the sources as AllegedlyHuman said. When Gold changes her tune and it is picked up by reliable sources, then that will be added to the Wikipedia page. That's how it works. Oh and those pages I used as examples, I just hit "random article" to select them, I have no idea if they are biased or inaccurate - but I bet someone thinks so. Maybe (unnamed college professor) you can start by editing those pages. Sgerbic (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: With an additional pointer that, like in usual academic settings, Civility is a requirement not an option, in addition to reminding, again, as in usual academic settings, that conflicts of interest rarely allow for a neutral take on the subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, vague legal threats such as calling this "libelous" are entirely unacceptable, see WP:LEGAL. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Vaxxine

I do not think we should call Dr. Gold and "anti vaxxer". On multiple occasions she has said she is pro vaxx, just against the Covid-19 vaccine. We should change it to Cover-19 vaccine skeptic as she is not skeptic about other vaccines.

Quoted from America Frontline Doctors wiki page: Simone Gold said "We doctors are pro-vaccine, (Fiore, Kristina (May 26, 2021). "Simone Gold's Group Sues to Stop COVID Shots for Kids". MedPage Today. Retrieved May 29, 2021.) This wiki article is a clear hit piece and unworthy of the site. Many of the sources come from a single author, Amanda D'Ambrosio who has a clear axe to grind. CAN WE PLEASE STICK WITH THE FACTS?Data.kindnet (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)sethinthebox

I agree wholeheartedly that this article is one sided, lacking proper WP:NPOV and reads like a hit piece void of WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC WP:TONEfor a Wikipedia article. Something seen quite often around these days on political articles. MaximusEditor (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with you. Because of WP:RS, reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

I usually trust wikipedia to provide factual non biased information or present multiple sides and references. This entry is just a derogatory personal insult to the woman. Shouldn't both her views be listed along with alternative views? This is one of the few times I have not appreciated wikipedia for information. What's next, banning all opposition or critical thought? Hello Stazi. 108.52.48.194 (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this entry at all: "She also alleged the United States Government experimented on African Americans." "Alleged" makes it seem like the Tuskegee Study never happened or is not established fact. The Tuskegee Study is a case study on "human subjects experimentation" and it was African Americans and the US Government. Why "alleged"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.248.139 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

She is not anti-vax, she is for 99% of vaccines, just not this non-fda approved and experimental, cytotoxic one. She has given no misinformation, stop lying and be a good human being ffs. Xemnuz (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: . Also check out the above requests for further details on policies of wikipedia.

References

This article's hydroxychloroquine claim is out of step with a linked article

The following text in the article: "despite evidence that it is ineffective as a COVID-19 treatment and can carry significant risks" links to [this article] which states in part "...but proved to reduce symptoms and increase survival chances of infected patients."

Reducing symptoms and increasing survival chances of infected patients sure sounds like an effective treatment to me.

I know Wikipedia is probably too far gone to ever return anywhere near NPOV but could someone please fix this so Wikipedia at least agrees with itself? I'm taking private bets on which page is going to be "fixed".

I mean I'd do it myself, but learning that something called "The Arbitration Committee" exists and has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose "discretionary sanctions" on "users" sounds a little scary. I guess this supersedes the "be bold" from a different timeline? 2600:1000:BF0A:803:19BF:A60D:F3F0:6D8B (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Current medical practice?

Request: is there verifiable information about Simone Gold's current medical practice? Is she in fact a practicing physician? TAPwiki (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Last I checked (see semi-protected edit request below), her California medical license was still active. But I have found no evidence of her actually treating patients since 2015. Her website, since taken down, advertised concierge medical services which seemed to be oriented toward second opinions/review of medical records. Two hospitals have explicitly stated that she last worked there in 2015 (statement made July 2020) and "over a decade ago" (statement made August 2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.108.45 (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Article Innacuracies and Non-neutral tone

I read the article with great interest. I found it to be a diatribe by someone attacking Dr Gold with a political viewpoint on her activities, organization and viewpoint. The article contains misleading information, inaccurate information and a political viewpoint. The fourth point when using the "Talk" function states that articles MUST be a neutral point of view. The first paragraph is obviously NOT neutral when it states "...is an American anti-vaccine activist, physician, attorney,author, and the founder of America's Frontline Doctors, a right-wing organization known for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic She gained notoriety when a video of an America's Frontline Doctors press conference in front of the US Supreme Court Building went viral in July 2020." The sources quoted, The Guardian, New York Times and MedPage Today are liberal media supporting the viewpoint. This is akin to quoting Fox News to back up a conservative point of view. I cannot find an objective source to back up any claims made by the author in the References. There are no objective references; instead, the references cited are all liberal, pro-vax media.

It is obvious that the author believes in the vaccines and has misrepresented Dr Gold's stand on vaccines in order to justify his viewpoint. In fact, Dr Gold and her family have been vaccinated and she is NOT anti-vaccine as the author states. I also believe that this is not alternative medicine as categorized. Dr Gold, whether you agree with her politics and activities or not, is a board certified medical doctor, emergency medicine, AND a licensed attorney, as stated in the article, unlike the author of the article. Dr Gold speaks from a standpoint of knowledge, whereas the author of the article simply regurgitates information gleaned from liberal media articles concerning the topic. It’s obvious he/she has formed their opinions based on that information, not from an informed standpoint, which further suggests that the article should be removed in its entirety.

There is much debate concerning the COVID-19 and its effects on the human population. Statistics provided by the CDC seem to indicate that the people most at risk tend to be people with compromised immune systems, and few healthy individuals have actually died from the virus. There are reports, not necessarily substantiated, that hospitals report other deaths, particularly influenza deaths, as COVID deaths because they receive a considerably larger reimbursement for COVID hospitalizations than others. This, if true, would certainly skew the statistics on COVID-related illness and deaths. Frankly, the article written about Dr Gold is rather inflammatory even if some of it is true, although there is speculation throughout the article on Dr Gold's activities and personal life. Frankly, this author's ability to post to Wikipedia should be removed or require considerable supervision.

If this article is to remain on Wikipedia, I would suggest that the first paragraph be changed to "...is a physician, attorney, author and founder of America's Frontline Doctors. In July 2020 she gave a press conference in Washington, D.C. in front of the US Supreme Court Building." This is politically neutral and is known factual data.Ghostrider1948 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:NPOV, particularly WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:RS. There are no such things as pro-vax and anti-vax positions but pro- and anti-science. Wikipedia is firmly pro-science and will not entertain your conspiracy theories. Before you turn this into a massive timesink, read the discussions above, the archive and, as you apparently believe in COVID misinformation, the talk page of Talk:COVID-19 misinformation to see why your suggestions won't get very far. 15 (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A true scientific attitude entertains the possibility of other viewpoints and incoming evidence. Lockdowns, for example, essentially deprived kids of formal schooling and interpersonal interaction for two years, which was a negative for society. Side-effects of vaccines are still becomming known. Mendel and Einstein and Lobachevsky and countless others in the history of math and science were at odds with consensus views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That is quite a lot of bullshit in a few sentences. First, your assumption that other viewpoints have not been entertained is wrong. They have been entertained and found lacking. Second, the problem is that lots of dead people are also "a negative for society" and one has to find the lesser evil. Which is not helped by people like Gold spreading misinformation. Third, what antivaxxers call "side-effects of vaccines" are usually random events which they connect to vaccines by the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Lastly, a minority idea does not gain traction by its proponents pointing out that other, unrelated minority ideas gained traction, but by actual reasoning actually supporting the idea.

And the really big counter: This page is for improving the article, not for trying to convert users to your own anti-science worldview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP pic

Sgerbic, I don't see why her BLP can't use the same pic, but whatever, I was just passing by. soibangla (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There were two photos identical one on top of each other. that's why I reverted you. Sgerbic (talk) 02

23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

oh hey, you're right. long story why I didn't see that, so nevermind. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

Change "claims" to "states" that 2600:1007:B10C:8451:87B:E45:9BEC:ADDE (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Replaced instances of "claim" with synonym when possible.15 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"alleged experiments on African Americans"

Is the new Wikipedia consensus that Tuskegee was a conspiracy? Someone authorized please rewrite this article from a more neutral perspective. Preferably somebody without a social justice bias. 124.169.128.74 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Since this keeps coming up (see also #Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021) and I think it's a fair criticism that our wording was confusing, I've modified it [1]. Anyone else is free to rewording my modification to improve it further but it seems to me it's helpful to make it clearer what she alleged i.e. "the government is experimenting on Black people to determine the safety of the vaccines for everyone else" as per the source, instead of just general experiments on African Americans.

While the Tuskegee Syphilis Study happened and was horrible, it's clearly not the sort of thing Simone Gold referred to. It involved leaving people untreated even after a very effective and safe cure was widely available, to observe the disease when untreated. But Simone Gold referred to testing a vaccine's safety which while horrible if done in a "racially" selective manner without a good reason, or if done without proper informed consent and cause; is clearly something quite different. Sort of on the opposite in terms of what's being done in fact.

I also changed African American to black people per the source [2]. The source doesn't make clear if she's referring to African Americans or just black people in general. Perhaps she's alleging it's being carried out on black people somewhere in Africa, I don't know and frankly I don't think it matters much so am not going to look if she clarified. It's clearly a crazy idea.

The Tuskegee experiment also ended in 1972 which while way way way too late, is clearly a long time before COVID-19 was a concern, indeed long before SARS-CoV-1. Actually the designs of many of the successful vaccines would probably have been considered science fiction at the time.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

MCBOiS1210 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Not an edit request. I have removed {{Proposed deletion}}, as one cannot request the deletion of a talk page and the nomination was not coherent in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Request to correct inaccuracies concerning Gold's employment and alleged firing

Gold has repeatedly claimed or implied to be an active ER physician, however no evidence seems to exist of her practicing as such other than as a temporary doctor a number of years ago. Shortly after the appearance at the Capitol, several hospitals acknowledged that she HAD worked there at least several years in the past but that she had not practiced in their hospitals since. She claims to have been "fired" from several hospital positions "speaking out" in favor of hydroxychloroquine yet she has never identified any such position or any employer purported to have fired her. Nor has any wrongful termination suit been filed on her behalf despite being temporarily represented by Lin Wood.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

REPLY: It's hard to prove a negative but I've been unable to find any evidence of Gold practicing medicine at any hospital after 2015. I have searched the web for sources concentring her claim of being fired, but not one actually identifies a hospital that fired her.

CURRENT text: Gold was fired from hospitals where she had worked as an emergency department physician in the aftermath of the video.[1]

PROPOSED EDIT/ADDITION: Gold claims to have been fired from hospitals where she had worked as an emergency department physician in the aftermath of the video. However, despite claims to be a practicing emergency physician, Gold has not identified the hospitals she claims fired her. In addition, although Gold remains a licensed physician, it appears that Gold has not worked as an ER doctor since approximately 2015 and it is unclear when she last practiced medicine. Following Gold's appearance, at least two hospitals issued statements indicating that she had not been recently employed as an emergency physician.

Relevant Sources: https://twitter.com/cedarssinai/status/1285278034354933766 https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement-july-29-2020/ https://www.providence.org/news/uf/626791490 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Understood. I would strongly suggest, at bare minimum, the following edit. "Gold [was]-->[claims to have been] fired from hospitals where she had worked as an emergency department physician in the aftermath of the video"

Her claims to have been fired are totally unsubstantiated. The article cited as support merely says that this is what Gold told them and does not substantiate the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.108.45 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlawful entry

The article currently states, "Gold admitted entering the Capitol building, saying that she did not know it was illegal to do so". Gold has subsequently admitted she did indeed know "she did not have lawful authority to enter the building"; see "Prominent peddler of COVID misinfo pleads guilty to joining Capitol riot" and Gold's guilty plea. It's not clear to me how this bit should be reworded, though. Perhaps, "Gold admitted entering the Capitol building, knowing it was illegal to do so." However, I'm very open to other wording. Perhaps that's too strong? Alternatively, perhaps we should highlight her claim in Washington Post where she claimed she assumed it was legal to enter the Capitol, contrasted with her later admission under oath that she knew it wasn't? --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

DEMOCRATE PROPAGANDA

This is blatantly Left propaganda. REMOVE THE SUBJECTIVE and obviously incorrect statements claiming misinformation. CDC has accepted the proof of her and other doctors as correct now! 2603:9000:8F0F:A4E3:55AC:F64A:ED7C:33DC (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is about quackery, not democracy. If you have reliable sources, give them. If not, you are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

"She served her sentence at a federal prism in Miami". Change to word "prism" to "prison". 70.241.118.123 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

75.100.23.78 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Simone Gold was rightfully called a political prisoner

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about Gold's ethnic heritage. 204.11.186.190 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Political Bias

Wikipedia risks losing credibility with biased, politicized articles such as this. Dr. Gold is wrong on many issues, but this article manages to generate sympathy for her... We can start by removing "editorial adjectives" such as "falsely called her a "political prisoner"". That's a judgment call. 2603:8001:3400:B6B7:79F6:7A16:1395:6CAE (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't get to add our opinion, we can only report what the notable citations give us. Have you looked at the citation that is backing up that statement to see what it says? When you have done so, please report back with your suggested changes and argument for doing so. Sgerbic (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Lawsuit by the State of California

In January of 2023 the then Deputy Director (now Executive Director) of the Medical Board of the State of California (Reji Varghese) to have the medical license of Dr. Gold "revoked or suspended" for "unprofessional conduct."

This information is available on the state board of medicine site:

https://search.dca.ca.gov/details/8002/G/70224/595d067c562f072a5e7b25c913b285cf

https://www2.mbc.ca.gov/BreezePDL/document.aspx?path=%5cDIDOCS%5c20230130%5cDMRAAAJD1%5c&did=AAAJD230130200313651.DID Mempheditor (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)