Talk:World Council for Health

ResearchGate is more reliable than Vice.

"As of May 2022 the group was led by Tess Lawrie, an obstetrician." ==> possible integration: As of May 2022 the group was led by Tess Lawrie (MBBCh, DFSRH, PhD), an obstetrician, director of E-BMC Ltd, whose peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 4000 citations. In their Coalition Partners they list over 170 associations worldwide.

I dont' understand why remove info and the link to their LTD site and to Research Gate. It is more relevant that she is an obstetrician or that she is a researcher with tens of peer reviewed publications and >4000 citations ? It is not possible to work this way. You could amend the sentence, not remove anything and roll back. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

This is not an article about Lawrie. If it were, we'd need reliable independent secondary sources and be to pretty clear about Lawrie's position in the misinformation nexus. For example, this one which calls her a conspiracy theorist who projects herself as a 'respectable' researcher. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

But she and the WCH don't work only on ivermectin. To put on emphasis only some aspects sounds as a bias. 150.145.142.8 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The point is this article is about WCH. Sources should be about WCH. We're not going into the weeds with individual people unless those sources explicitly link them with WCH. See WP:COATRACK. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This source mentions Aseem Malhotra attending the 27 September 2022 press conference hosted by the World Council for Health [1], the healthfeedback website looks like a reliable source but not sure if it can be used if it is primary or not. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

a researcher having more than 6000 citations [2] is supposed to be "respectable". that's more than the 4000 citations count by the author [3] of the article you link [4], as well as for publications and reading numbers. Scientometry (with all its limits) would give more credit to Lawrie at this stage.

So tell why, on which basis, a less solid and prolific researcher can call another one a "conspiracy theorist" ?!?

I am really curious to know which are the parameters you use, to prefer one on another ?

Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher.

Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method. 37.101.126.212 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Obvious conspiracy theorists as described by reliable sources are called that by Wikipedia too. Bon courage (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So VICE is RS ?!? OOOOOOOOOKKK :))) 150.145.142.8 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Vice is a middling source, fine for unexceptional claims. Bon courage (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me if a scientific article like this is reputed a RS? I am forming my opinion... tx "Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics", https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4 150.145.142.8 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

bias voice

I see the voice continues to grow and that's good. However the main refs here seem to be Vice. Not really a medicine RS. On another note, form description it seems they only promote ivermectin and discredited treatments: it isn't so. Many of those treatments are now recognized; they just proposed them in anticipation to other groups. 150.145.142.9 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really a "medicine" topic, it's about a group spreading misinformation. Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

yes I know, my point is that Vice could be spreading misinformation as well about this organization and other medicine associations. 37.101.126.212 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Like what? Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

... like that covid 19 vaccines are needed, safe and effective ?!?!? 150.145.142.9 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Not misinformation. Can you please stop this? You will not succeed in turning Wikipedia into a antivax quackery outlet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:CATW#9. Bon courage (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly why I am not donating to wikipedia like I have many other years. It's been a year since this issue was brought up and many of their claims have borne out to be true. Yet, this article is biased and based on old outdated and non-medical information. Wikipedia is no longer a fact based organization, but another arm of disinformation. This is why I don't donate anymore people... 148.170.214.195 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoa there @148.170.214.195. This take page is not a place to express your concerns. Wikipedia editors and bots try their best to make this a better place. I, myself, spend an unhealthy amount of time on Wikipedia every day. Can you please voice your concerns somewhere else? ItsCheck (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In their Coalition Partners they list over 170 associations worldwide.

There should be mention to their Coalition Partners which extends well beyond Kennedy. Is there any RS that can confirm what they claim on their website? Or could the sentence be added saying theat they list/claim such a network ? 150.145.142.9 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

We'd need good independent sources. Are there any commenting on this? Bon courage (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancillary associations

It should be linked also these entries, https://www.truthforhealth.org/ and https://feds4medfreedom.org/ Are there already voices on the wikipedia about these two organizations? 94.35.33.36 (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

These are anti-vax organizations, thus they are fringe and contrary to mainstream medical opinion. Wikipedia avoids giving undue weight to fringe organizations such as these. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

So why the current voice "World Council for Health" is here ? your answer is nonsense 150.145.142.8 (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. This topic meets that threshold. Is that true for these other orgs? Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Their mission statement

Their mission statement is:

The World Council for Health is a non-profit initiative for the people, that is informed and funded by the people. Our global coalition of health-focused initiatives and civil society groups seeks to broaden public health knowledge and sense-making through science and shared wisdom. We are dedicated to safeguarding human rights and free will while empowering people to take control of their health and wellbeing. 147.147.194.41 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like self-serving BS. Would need some secondary coverage to lend weight etc. Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thousands of investigations by respectable scientists who dont buy into the scam agree. The WXCfH does not spread "misinformation", the only misinformation comes from the WHO, Big Pharma and the governments who have bought into the lie. This article is biassed and is not reporting in a impartial way, but then we all know Wikipedia is the biggest source of marxist misinformation on the planet 151.237.131.143 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would need some secondary coverage to lend weight.

You do not seem to be aware that Wikipedia is not for publishing your opinion? Please read WP:NOT and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten

This article relies too much on opinion articles. Opinion are not facts. This clearly is not up to the Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Vice is hardly a reliable source. lacking reliable sources this page should be removed. Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited sources are more than sufficient to support the article. I suppose you could nominate for deletion anyway, but there is zero chance that would happen, so please don't waste community time. MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh as a Wikipedia user I am entitled to suggest removal. Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

well that's not surprising since all the opposing citations have been deleted from the article. 121.213.160.66 (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I say once again that this article is too biased and relies on opinion pieces that it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This article and the crass response to my comments are the reason I no longer provide monetary support to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much recent coverage. They get a passing mention in this[5] Time piece. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The assertion in the article that there is no medical evidence for "post-covid injection syndrome" is false. There is plenty in the medical literature. It's called different names: "post vaccine syndrome", "Long Covid caused by vaccination", "long-haul post vaccine syndrome", etc. Drug regulators don't know what to do with it, and have been stonewalling since the beginning of the rollouts. The CDC in a recent public hearing acknowledged that this condition exists (though they didn't give it a name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frade (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source?Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll go find one, sit tight. Will you add accept a non vice article? 121.213.160.66 (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, any reliable source is useful; Vice is only a middling source. Bon courage (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Two news articles in Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj5565 & https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ada0394

Preprint from Yale, https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.09.23298266

Published studies from Europe, https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11111642 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2023.154497 Frade (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

These sources do not mention the World Council for Health? Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The question was to provide reliable sources that demonstrated the article's incorrect statements that "The condition is however not recognized in medical science". Nothing to do with WCH. Frade (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So not usable. And the article is correct. Some novel notion an unrelated article does not equate to a 'recognised condition'. Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Directly relevant. The article claims that "post vac syndrome" is fake, citing a single very out of date AAP "factcheck". I have cited far more credible sources, including subsequently published scientific journal articles, that say otherwise. But, whatever. Frade (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But one of your own links says: It is not even generally accepted that the syndrome exists Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously you did not grasp what the authors conveyed in their article. Have a proper read of the whole thing, including the context of the quote you pulled from it. Frade (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, we're talking about articles (some in dodgy journals) that don't even mention the World Council for Health, describing a hypothetical & unrecognized condition, that has a different name, and different symptoms. WTF? Bon courage (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"WTF"? How very courteous and professional of you. Top class. The wiki article currently states "In 2021 the group promoted claims on social media of a "multi-system inflammatory condition" which they called "Post-COVID injection syndrome". The condition is however not recognized in medical science, and there is no evidence any such condition is caused by vaccination.". The peer reviewed articles I have provided (all of which provide better quality evidence than the APP link cited for the claim) demonstrate that this last sentence is false. And in fact one of the article's (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2023.154497) entire purpose is to construct nomenclature for this condition, which is known by multiple different names in different parts of the world - Post Vax, Long Vax, Post Covid Vaccination Syndrome, and more - back in 2021 the WCH nomenclature was utilised by some but that specific term is not currently in use as far as I am aware. A simple resolution is to simply remove the offending sentences, as it is clear that the scientific literature is demonstrating that this condition is being taken seriously by some very high profile and well-respected researchers (including the team at Yale, for example here is a public interview with Akiko Iwasaki https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQUfkAdany4). But, again, whatever. I'm only trying to improve the accuracy and honesty of a wiki article. Feel free to let the article contain misinformation, if that's your gig. Frade (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Claims by editors about Ivermectin's (in)effectiveness are biased

This article is a disgrace. There seems to be a clear agenda of discrediting towards the World Council for Health. Throughout the whole article the main argument used to discredit the organization is its (and its members') stance on the use of Ivermectin for COVID19. The claim that Ivermectin is not effective against COVID19 has been debunked long ago and the evidence against this claim is only growing. Here is one example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9135450/ and there are plenty. I agree that the article needs to be rewritten without this clear bias and the editors that consistently went against "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" should be blocked from spreading further misinformation on Wikipedia. //jojjemastah (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Ivermectin is not effective against COVID19 has been debunked long ago ← err, citation required! See Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic for some reality. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/about/ https://www.freedomco.net/medical-freedom. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 16:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

This page is FULL of opinion rather than fact. Wikipedia should NOT encourage NOR allow BIASED narratives to be falsely presented as truth. Objectivity should be prioritized over ideology. Is this meant to be an online encyclopedia anyway it should be defined as an online book of truth (https://libguides.wpi.edu/c.php?g=355432&p=2396449). 2600:1700:F7E0:E6F0:5567:6821:CB62:91B3 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:ENC. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Article under attack offline, expect more like the above.

See [6]. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)