Talk:Judy Mikovits

More research is needed

Dr. Judy Mikovitz is a highly-credentialed scientist who has been vilified in the media. Much of her Wikipedia page violate WP:BLP in its bias and lack of neutrality. Some citations provided are questionable as there is no consensus on the alleged "fact-checking" organizations, nor their ability to research and report on a topic with a true omission of all bias. I looked up the domain ownership records for "Science.org" and it's a rented domain with no ownership details present. If you compare Bloomberg.com - all the registration details are public. When there's nothing to hide, there's no reason to hide anything. I think that this whole article requires more thorough research, and typically, where there's smoke, there's fire. It is not too hard to believe that a government coverup of something terrible might be needed to serve a perceived greater good - such as - public health. However, leaving that whole debate aside - if the Wikipedians who wish to have their point of view heard and considered thoughtfully and for everyone to actually trust the information within, then a good clean-up of this (among thousands of others) is needed. The bias in this particular page is abundantly evident, which is shameful as she is a living person whose life was and is being impacted by the "news" - I'm still trying to figure out what exactly she's guilty of, other than being a bit of a whistleblower within a powerful agency. Some of the earlier talk page comments offer attacks with no substantiation. All valid facts should be present within a Wikipedia page - positive or negative, however, as well all know, there's a ton of crap in Wikipedia. All the biased information should be rewritten to present all the facts, not just the negative information, which one could certainly question whether or not it's factual. I have to agree with the IP address above which indicates "she was not proven wrong" as that is accurate. She was not proven wrong, she was not ever charged with a crime she was shunned by her industry for what apparently was an unpopular position or something too dangerous for the public to hear. She was forced to retract papers that were previously peer-reviewed and accepted and published. So were all the peers who reviewed it vilified as well? Lost their jobs, their careers, etc.? Anyone who claims to be a critical thinker sees through the personal attacks. Whether her data and observations and subsequent positions are believed by everyone, her data is factual, her observations are factual and her conclusions have not been proven wrong. This does not mean her conclusions are right either. But we should strive to have a robust debate on the back end - here, on the talk page - and clean up the actual biographical information.

I need way more time to research this, but some of the biased information I think should be changed/removed are:

• "...who is known for her discredited medical claims..." - her claims have not been proven to be wrong, so "discredited" does not really tell the whole story here.
• "She has made false claims about vaccines..." - again, where is the irrefutable proof that her claims are false?
• We can debate the definition of a "conspiracy theory" - but that is also a much broader discussion with implications in politics as well so I'll just park it here for a moment.
• David Gorski reviewed the video for his blog and remarked that "the amount of nonsense, misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy mongering in Mikovits' response to questions is truly epic - so David Gorski, another Ph.D. claims Dr. Mikovitz is wrong. How is this anything but he said/she said at the Ph.D. level, with a bunch of Wikipedia editors who are most likely not Ph.d scientists having the final word on which one of these Ph.D. characters has more actual provable facts, universally agreed-upon facts within the compendium of their careers? Now Dr. David Gorski is entitled to his opinion and I'd have to verify the sources, but if he said that, then it's a fact that he said, but there's no reason his stated "facts" should be taken as gospel when her stated "facts" are annihilated.

These are just a very small handful of the bias in this page. All the opinion-oriented info on this page should be removed and only neutral facts provided.

At this point, I don't think anyone should believe anything they read in Wikipedia if it's about any sort of controversial topic. And it's become more and more apparent for even non-Wikipedia editors to see this quite easily since Wikipedia has become a bit of a swampy shit-show where the opinion that throws enough money at the problem, wins. This is a positive shame as there are a lot of really dedicated Wikipedia editors who spend ridiculous amounts of their free time to improve Wikipedia, and it would be a shame for the whole thing to lose credibility because this bias business continues. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 22:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A very experienced wikipedian once said to me that you only need three things to edit wikipedia. Sources, sources and sources. Have you got any? The ones we actually have which are cited in the article contradict what you say, so the article follows them. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

They are calling into question the sources used in the article. Removing anything sourced to science.org would be a good start to cleaning up the article. Kapnkrunch337 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

See Science.org. If there is a better source for scientific questions than that, I don't know it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion

Using the word ‘discredited’ is an opinion, something that shouldn't be found in a encyclopedia. Same goes for most of the article. Since it's not reflecting the view if the entire population of the world, it's biased. Also, I don't understand why I am not allowed to edit it. It's like Wikipedia stopped being Wikipedia. 2800:810:5E9:804A:70AA:B98E:F024:3464 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's a fact, reported by multiple reliable sources. Just because it doesn't line up with your own opinion and beliefs does not make it untrue. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Third opinion please QeCn (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly. It's a fact, reported by multiple reliable sources.Sam Kuru (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"known for"

Apologies for the strange edit summary in this edit. I don't know how that happened — perhaps a result of switching between visual and markup editors or something.

I think we should remove "who is known for" in the lead for two reasons:

• It's redundant. All Wikipedia subjects are "known for" (ie notable) for something, by definition, or else they don't get Wikipedia articles. We may as well write Bill Clinton is an American politician who is known for serving as the 42nd president of the United States from 1993 to 2001.
• It's original research. Unless we have a source explicitly saying this is what she's known for, then this is Wikipedia adding its own analysis.

Popcornfud (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)