Talk:Great Barrington Declaration

Sweden and Excessive All-Cause Deaths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Before making any changes to the GBD article, I'd like to use the talk forum to discuss this very important subject regarding "lockdowns" and the harsh measures that the GBD criticized and advised against.

The country of Sweden was maligned during 2020 for keeping business and society open with few restrictions. Mainstream reports in 2020 claimed Sweden would suffer more death than other countries for their policies at the time. However, now, in 2025, official statistics show that Sweden had either the lowest or close to lowest excessive deaths in Europe from 2020-2024.

I noticed some dialogue about this in the other Talk pages, and saw that not all editors are aware of these facts and how they become part of the story and arguments.

Before I introduce this into the article, and how in some ways it may vindicate the GBD, I feel it's important we first clarify the issue in the Talk page.

One good source to start is:

"Comparing different international measures of excess mortality", Office for National Statistics Dicegroj (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Same issues have been extensively discussed in the talk page archives, and indeed very recently further up this page. We cannot accept any WP:OR attempts to use Sweden to 'vindicate' anything. MrOllie (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is one source to look at, though there are more....

"Sweden, Covid and ‘excess deaths’: a look at the data" The Spectator. 10 March 2023. Dicegroj (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if this were a reliable source (it isn't, a political magazine is not a good source for medical claims), it doesn't even mention the Great Barrington Declaration. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

I realize it doesn't mention GBD, but I sincerely believe that, as we compose an article on the contentious subject like this, the concept of excessive deaths is well understood.

That includes understanding the difference between overall mortality data and Covid deaths (deaths labeled as Covid) data.

This article presents some good explanations such as:

"While Covid deaths were counted daily, the longer-term effects would take years to come through. The only real way of counting this would be to look at ‘excess deaths’, i.e. how many more people die every month (or year) compared to normal. That data is now coming through.

Using the most common methodology, Sweden is at the bottom – below Australia and New Zealand, which had plenty of lockdowns but very few Covid deaths." Dicegroj (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You need a WP:MEDRS source saying that this is the result of the GBD being a good idea. Your own reasoning saying so is WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling

Understood, but it is acceptable to have dialogue about reasoning and logic in the Talk page, with the end goal of improving the article.

The Spectator article presents a very basic argument:

Inocontrovertible official data shows that the country that chose not to lockdown, and maligned for it at the time and expected to have more deaths during the pandemic period, actually had no notable excessive death compared to lockdowned countries. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that lockdowns may not be the effective strategy once thought of- perhaps the contrary.

The article uses data from early 2022, and we as reasonble and intelligent individuals can verify the data after early 2022 (which favors Sweden even further).

The idea of this thread is that those involved in the editing understand the argument. Even if they may disagree for some reason, to understand the basic argument.

Then, we'll go to the article with the cited sources and we'll see if such sources adhere to Wikidpedia's rules. Dicegroj (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It really is not, see WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a venue for you to debate the topic. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

I haven't cited all the sources yet, only some.

I am, out of respect, just using the Talk page before making edits. My goal is to improve the article to make it as realistic and encyclopedic as possible. Dicegroj (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You have cited precisely zero -usable- sources. Your 'goal' should be to develop an understanding of Wikipedia's policies first - right now you are wasting your time (along with everyone else's) with stuff that cannot possibly result in a change to the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph newspaper wrote in May 2022:

"Sweden’s Covid death rate among lowest in Europe, despite avoiding strict lockdowns"

This is in 2022, and in subsequent years Sweden fared even better as compared to the rest of Europe in this regard. Importantly, Sweden's excess death rate in the 2020's was similar to earlier periods in the century, before 2020. Dicegroj (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

An relevant article from the Telegraph, from February 2020 reads:

"Take scientists who supported the Great Barrington Declaration. They, not unreasonably, believed that it would be sensible to shield the most vulnerable while allowing those at very low risk to carry on their lives, thereby preventing cataclysmic damage to the economy, mental health and education.

Instead of the idea being sensibly debated, the signatories were pilloried and made to seem as if they were in the minority. A recent study by Stanford University revealed they weren’t; they just had fewer social media followers and so struggled in the face of more organised opposition." Dicegroj (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph is not remotely reliable for anything in the realm of science (in fact in many respects it is an anti-science organ). Bon courage (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

A relevant article by Unherd is:

"Has the Great Barrington Declaration been vindicated? Lockdowns failed to serve the collective good"

It says, based on official incontrovertible data (we can check on this) "some of the countries that locked down the hardest are also those with the highest mortality figures and excess death rate. Peru is an obvious example, while Sweden’s excess mortality is below the European average for 2020.

This article is from January 2022. By 2023 Sweden's excessive mortality was among the very lowest in Europe if not the lowest. Dicegroj (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

More rubbish sourcing. What is the point of this? Wikipedia reflects knowledge, and does not amplify tosh. Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bon courage

About "rubbish sourcing," that is obviously a personal opinion. It is not my opinion or that of many.

Let's look at this source along with all others.

Here is the Wiki article on Unherd, which seems relatively well balanced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd?wprov=sfla1 Dicegroj (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Quite, and a silly piece on a "news and opinion" website is not remotely reliable for public health. Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

I realize that... but the Unherd article is written and published by Wikipedia rules. I used it as a response to a Wikipedia editor calling Unherd "rubbish sourcing."

This is a dialogue in a Talk page to discuss how to improve the article, not the article itself. Dicegroj (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussing a rubbish source here is a waste of time, the article will not be improved by it. So, you are essentially violating WP:NOTFORUM.

If you want this stupid "Sweden, therefore GBD not fringe" reasoning in the article, you need a WP:MEDRS source saying the GBD is not fringe because of that. No amount of wikilawyering will help you get around that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yes that article is. But that article can't be used to show Unheard is an RS (let alone one written by medical experts). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

That's ok for now... but the argument it presents seems reasonable and can be verified in reliable official data- that is, Sweden fairing exceptionally well in excessive deaths compared to other countries.

It can also be widely verified in RS that Sweden, in 2020, was harshly criticized and expected to perform poorly as compared to countries that imposed lockdowns. Dicegroj (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That is wp:or, we go by what RS say, and this is not an RS for medical claims. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven

Understood. Dicegroj (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is published by the Wall Street Journal in Decmber 2024... it's important because this type of opinion is being seen in mass media mainstream sources that Wikipedia most often equates with what they call Reliable Sources.

It uses the word "fringe" with quote marks to express sarcasm. The text reads "It was far from fringe."

Jay Bhattacharya and the Vindication of the ‘Fringe’ Scientists

His NIH nomination, years after being maligned for questioning lockdowns, is a boon for real science.

WSJ December 1 2024 Dicegroj (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You keep posting opinion articles from newspapers and political magazines. No number of these adds to up a single reliable source, you are wasting your time. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

Well, I was going by the Wiki rules such as the one below. Opinions and views should be valid if they come from established, published sources like Wall Street Journal.

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" Dicegroj (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

No, you are not. Opinion pages do not meet this requirement. WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOR, and WP:RS (and most importantly) WP:MEDRS are 'Wiki rules', which you are clearly not going by. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

We can go over that... but remember that this article uses sources like Science Based Medicine, essentially a self-published blog, and that is to support one of the most contentious words in the article: the word "fringe" without the quotes.

These things are not so clear-cut, in terms of what qualifies as RS per Wiki's rules and what does not. Dicegroj (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Science Based Medicine is a qualified subject matter expert writing within their expertise. It is not the same thing as trying to use a political opinion piece as a medical source. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

Science Based Medicine is not a peer-reviewed medical journal. Dicegroj (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

An accurate statement, but an irrelevant one. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You haven't read down that page far enough. The relevant bit of that policy to this can be found at WP:RSOPINION, which says: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. [...] A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. In fact, the entry for the Wall Street Journal at the list of perennially-discussed reliable sources specifically cites this as the relevant policy to follow for WSJ opinion pieces: Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper

I would not use an Opinion as fact.

I may, however, include it in an article and label it as such. If such opinion is published on a Reliable Source, then we can include it as long as it is labeled as an opinion. Dicegroj (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

...and as long as it's relevant. Such an opinion piece is relevant only as a citation for what Allysia Finley's opinion is, and given that she is a newspaper editor with no kind of education, training or experience on medical topics (and a fairly transparent agenda), why would anyone care what her opinion is? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This was published in medical journals in July 2023:

• The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies*.

Excerpts:

"the available data on excess all-cause mortality rates indicate that Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population unit during the pandemic (2020–2022) than most high-income countries and was comparable to neighboring Nordic countries through the pandemic. An open, objective scientific dialogue is essential for learning and preparing for future outbreaks."

"...already early in the pandemic, other

scientists proposed that the vulnerable groups should be strongly protected but otherwise avoid strict lockdowns (The footnote refers to Great Barrington Declaration)." Dicegroj (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be a Frontiers journal right? So, junk. Bon courage (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bon courage

It's on National Library of Medicine (NLM) | National Institutes of Health (NIH) Dicegroj (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The NLM puts everything, good and bad on their website, it is indiscriminate - you can find papers claiming that vaccines cause autism or supporting 'biofield energy healing' there too. You have to look at the original source, and Frontiers media is a well known predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

As editors, it is not within our authority to determine what is "good" and/or "bad." Medical journals are reputable sources, and the information is in a reputable source. Dicegroj (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, particularly WP:MEDRS. We are not bound to accept anything published in any unreliable rag just because they print 'medical journal' on the cover. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

I wasn't saying that we should "accept anything published in any unreliable rag just because they print 'medical journal' on the cover."

I was just saying that what I presented seems to adhere to Wikipedia standards since the information is published in recognized peer reviewed journals.

We, as editors, are not authorized to determine whether the information published is "good" or "bad" for the purposes of article editing. We can, of course, discuss our thoughts and opinions on the Talk page. Dicegroj (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

No, a collection of opinion articles and a junk article from a predatory publisher do not 'adhere to Wikipedia standards'. We, as editors, absolutely are 'authorized' to tell good sources from bad, that is the only way to keep Wikipedia clear of unreliably sourced garbage. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

What is your basis for saying that is "a junk article"? Dicegroj (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It's presence in a journal published by Frontiers, a well known predatory publisher. As I just said a few lines up. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI, JUFO just downgraded this journal to level 0. Level 0 is normally reserved for publications which don't do peer review at all. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

"Predatory" may be the opinion of some, but the paper is also published by NLM and it is written by experts. These should be considered reliable sources. Dicegroj (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it was not 'published by NLM'. I think you have misunderstood what the NLM is. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

It is available on NLM. Dicegroj (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Along with all kinds of junk. That has no bearing on reliability. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

For this GBD article, who decides that this paper is not a reliable source, but the article by Gorski in Science Based Medicine is? Dicegroj (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The editors on this talk page do, by applying policies such as WP:RS and WP:PARITY. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

Can it be asked who are "the editors" that decide? I am an editor and I can't decide that.

If I try to change the article according to my understanding of what Reliable Sources are as per Wikipedia, and what I understand adheres to Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, the article would look different and it would get reverted. If I try again, I get blocked. Dicegroj (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. Please direct any further general questions about how Wikipedia works someplace like WP:TEAHOUSE, this talk page is not the place for it. MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

I understand how that works.

I wish to know what is the basis -of whatever team of people are determining the consensus for this article- to consider the Gorski article an RS but not the article "The Swedish Covid 19 approach."

I know what they consider consensus. I'd like to know what is their basis in this particular comparison

I wish to know how many of them, their names, qualifications etc. but I guess that is not possible. Dicegroj (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You've been pointed to the relevant policies, several times. I decline to repeat myself any further. No need to keep pinging me about this, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

Mr. Ollie,

Most sincerely and objectively, the Wikipedia policies for RS are interpretative, not clear-cut. That should be obvious.

The inclusion of Gorski's article as RS and the exclusion of "The Swedish COVID-19

approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies" (among other sources mentioned) as RS is a very good example. Dicegroj (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

You would not be repeating yourself if you answered the question because you never answered it.

The question is:

What is the basis for including the Gorski Science-Based Medicine article as RS, but the "The Swedish COVID-19 approach" can not be included as RS. Why does one qualify (as per Wiki), and the other one doesn't? Dicegroj (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recommend removing “fringe” from opening paragraph

I propose removing the word “fringe” from the sentence describing the Great Barrington Declaration’s strategy of “focused protection.” The current wording — “the fringe notion of ‘focused protection’” — is not consistent with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Reasons for removal:

1. Non-neutral language: The term “fringe” is evaluative and introduces editorial bias. It implies marginal or discredited status, which is a judgment rather than a neutral description. Per WP:NPOV, articles should avoid language that implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by reliable sources.
2. Lack of attribution: If experts or authoritative sources have characterized the strategy as fringe, that should be attributed directly — e.g., “described by [Source] as a fringe theory.” Without attribution, the label appears to be Wikipedia’s own characterization.
3. Better alternatives available: The article already includes sufficient context and references showing that the strategy was widely criticized. A more neutral phrasing, such as “the controversial notion” or simply “the strategy of ‘focused protection’”, would preserve the facts without editorializing.
4. Encyclopedic tone: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for debate. Neutrality doesn’t mean presenting all views as equal, but it does mean presenting them in an impartial tone and letting reliable sources carry the weight of judgment.

Suggested edit:

“…via the notion of ‘focused protection’, by which those most at risk…”

This keeps the tone factual and lets the references and subsequent explanation reflect the level of acceptance or criticism from the scientific community. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This request is being spammed to multiple locations. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I accidentally added it to the SARS-COVID page and when I realized my mistake I added it here. I also replied to a previous thread with a shorter explaination. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be confusing NPOV for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Accurately identifying fringe concepts as the cited sources do is required by Wikipedia's policies. We also don't over-attribute as requested, since the article should not present the mainstream view as though it is just someone's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

your reader should be able to draw their own conclusion without throwing little buzz words like Fringe into articles. can you define Fringe? What makes something fringe? is there like a committee who gets together and decides/votes on what’s Fringe? how is that determined? If you can’t answer that, then it’s inappropriate to include in an encyclopedia unless something has changed, that’s what Wikipedia claims to be. There have been lots of examples of things that were called words like Fringe, which turned out later to be most likely correct.

if you want to keep Fringe in the article that’s fine but if you’re going to do so, I think you should very least be able to define what’s considered Fringe. If a handful of people called the theory Fringe is it appropriate to cite that and included in a encyclopedia article as if it’s fact? My guess is that you and some of the other editors think it’s Fringe and you have designated yourself as the all powerful deciders of what is true and not true. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Also by using the word, Fringe at the beginning of the article you implied that the entire GBD is false. However, there are components of it that have actually turned out to be true, such as the effects that school closures had on kids and other points. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. We also don't let the reader draw their own conclusion about whether or not the earth is flat or whether or not the star signs affect their job prospects. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rbwhite9 it is a fundamental fact about FRINGE topics that organizations and individuals supporting fringe perspectives also make statements that happen to be true. Your argument is akin to the situation if a flat earth advocate were to make accurate statements about the apparent direction of the sun's movement in the sky. No such statements can make a fringe perspective into a respected, mainstream view - even a respected minority view. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be re-litigating already decided consensus with no new arguments. We go by what RSM say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I just wanna know who determines what Fringe is and what makes something fringe? If you can tell me that then OK, I’ll go along with it. I also think it’s rich to compare the GBD to flat earth, not even remotely close to the same thing. using fringe is unscientific and unscholarly. using that word is unnecessary, instead just emphasize that the WHO and other organizations disagreed. Rbwhite9 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems like Wikipedia editorialization through selective sourcing and appeals to “scientific consensus”, however the determined effort to keep the word fringe does provide readers with a tone-based warning that the editors who work on the whole article are biased…so mixed feelings about the change removal removal but overall support Tikitorch2 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This editor has been indefinitely blocked for disruption on the topic of Covid-19. Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If you must keep fringe can we change the wording?

Fascinating debate! But we've had it many times, and this instance has no chance of leading to any particular edit on the article -- so, enough... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you change it to something along the lines of “ considered by some to be fringe” or “ has been labeled as Fringe by a certain scientists” both of those would be accurate. If you’re so bent on the word fringe, you can keep it in while still being factual. unless you can define for me what makes something “fringe” it shouldn’t be used in your article except when referencing people‘s opinions about it. this is not about a political opinion or even a scientific one. Have enough pride in your job and work to do it correctly. If it’s fringe, then fine, explain the reasons that make it fringe rather than just using that word. I’m a medical doctor and scientist and my kids use Wikipedia, I want them to be provided with information and then they can decide for themselves if something is fringe. Rbwhite9 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

From the third paragraph of the lead: The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies stated that the strategy would be dangerous and lacked a sound scientific basis. "Dangerous, lacking a sound scientific basis, and opposed by numerous authorities on the subject" sounds like a reasonable enough definition of "fringe" to me. Do you have any reliable sources that disagree? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So say considered by the WHO to be fringe. One of the authors is now the director of the NIH Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:YESPOV and don't attribute reality to call it into question. This WP:SPA obsessive WP:REHASHing of the same point is beginning to get disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually if we said it was called fringe by the director of the NIH it would be even more authoritative sounding :)

https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/23/at-a-time-when-the-u-s-needed-covid-19-dialogue-between-scientists-francis-collins-moved-to-shut-it-down/ Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

He called the scientists themselves "fringe". That's another matter. Bon courage (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I was making a joke because he got replaced by an author of the “fringe” GBD after a majority election Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed there is a lot of fringe/bogus and antiscience activity now within the US govt. Wikipedia policies apply to covering that too. Bon courage (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rbwhite9 please see WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rbwhite9

The argument you make is obviously correct. This article is the quintessential example of why Wikipedia is not what it claims to be (neutral, objective, something "anyone can edit" etc).

This article would make a great case study to analyze and evaluate how Wikipedia operates and why it should be used with extreme caution. Dicegroj (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You're in luck: there is plenty of published WP:SCHOLARSHIP on Wikipedi'a coverage of COVID topics, some on misinformation in particular. The assessment is, it does rather well! WP:PROFRINGE attempts are not indulged. If we keep this page policy-aligned it can remain part of that good example. Bottom line, all the WP:BESTSOURCES agree the GBD is ridiclous; to be neutral Wikipedia mirrors that knowledge. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The word "fringe" expresses an opinion. In the article by The Guardian (note 1) thee word is included in the headline. If you read the full article, you note that it is the writer's opinion and not a quote from any scientist. Moreover, even the critics of the GBD often use much more nuanced wording. In a serious encyclopedia, you would first present the subject and then the critics. Here, however, the entire article is framed from the beginning by hostile rhetoric. Interestingly, the Covid-19 strategy of Sweden showed similiarities to the approach recommended by the GBD. In the end, Sweden fared much better than European countries with severe lockdowns. This points to another problem: Almost all the sources cited here are from 2020 and 2021 and reflect knowledge and (especially) opinions prevalent at the time. By now, they are outdated. Niemandsbucht (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The word "fringe" expresses a fact. No leading epidemiologist embraces it. Politicians do. Economists do. Market fundamentalist think tanks do, and a few doctors who have not treated any COVID patients but pushed their unfounded opinions into microphones. The GBD is dangerous quackery that killed many thousands of people by protecting [the economy from lockdowns while feeding] the vulnerable [to the virus]. That is the consensus in science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no serious argument here. We would need evidence the scientific community has changed its mind, none of that has been proffered. However picking up on two of your points:

• Referring to the Guardian article as "opinion" is a reading failure. The reporter quotes a number of experts explaining that the GBD is "a very bad idea", "a policy that ... isn't going to go well", "wishful thinking", "very unlikely to be achieved", yada yada. Each of those experts explains why they dismiss the GBD as nonsense. The science editor of the Guardian accurately summarizes his reporting on the GBD as: "among the scientific community, this is a fringe viewpoint." Saying it is "the writer's opinion" is quite deceptive.
• The reference to "Sweden" is a ret-con, a fantasy story made up to please the fringers. Sweden had no "focused protection" a la the GBD recommendations. Its outcomes were far worse than the neighboring countries, because its public health recommendations were less strict than other countries. By late 2020 their hospitals and medical systems were overwhelmed and Sweden was much worse off than other countries in the area. At which point Swedish authorities reversed course and came up with stricter protocols. And when vaccines became available they pushed it hard. Yes the hated "vaccine passports" were a thing. However the fringers fantasy story ret-cons the Swedish experience to say the first half year of lax protocols were sort of like the GBD recommendation, and the long-term several-year number of excess deaths was low, so the GBD-ers were correct.

The "Sweden" story has no representation in the scientific literature as retroactively supporting the GBD-ers, as far as I can tell. The bleating about "opinion" is a blatant reading failure. There is no serious argument here.

I assume these arguments presenting the GBD as non-fringe are advanced in good faith. But the attempt is misdirected, Wikipedia isn't the place to advance your beliefs about the GBD policies. Even if you were to persuade me, you would still need to find reliable sources telling us the scientific community thinks differently now. -- M.boli (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

A few comments. 1. To speak of "the" scientific community in the singular is deceptive (a "fantasy" in the words of the previous edit). Of course, the authors of the GBD as well as those thousands of scientists who signed it belong to the scientific community too. But the WP-article is carefully framed so as to suggest that every supporter of the GBD is basically an idiot. The effort to cast the three authors in an extremely bad light is obvious. 2. The word "fringe" is used by the author of the article in The Guardian, not by those selected experts he cites. At least, he should have said "allegedly fringe". 3. Sweden had problems in the winter of 2020/21 but the claim that it fared much worse than its neighbors is a "fantasy". In fact, on the whole it fared better. And even in 2020/21 it didn't opt for a fundamental change of its strategy. This is the point. Finally, I say "similarities" to what the GBD recommends, I don't say Sweden followed the GBD point-by-point. Niemandsbucht (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

More useful idiots than idiots, per the sourcing. Basically, this is just an attempt to water down the well-established knowledge that the GBD is ridiculous/fringe/nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Creationists have signed lists of "scientists who oppose evolution". But even they do not have lists that contain "Dr. Person Fakename" and "Johnny Bananas". Your claim that Johnny and Person belong to the scientific community does not hold water. Signing lists is not how science is done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I have seen that the case of Sweden was extensively discussed a while ago. The authors of the two previous edits were among the editors. Their edits – with their frequent use of polemics, even insults, and the invocation of "knowledge" and appeals to fringe evidence, such as strange and obviously fake names on signatories list which should spark curiosity as to who is behind such fake names – speak for themselves and do not need any further comment. As of today, the GBD site lists 16,183 signatures from Medical & Public Health Scientists and 47,850 signatures from Medical practitioners. What is evident in the discussion about the case of Sweden is the gaslighting performed by some editors. They bend the WP-rules as it suits them. Moreover, if there is an article that bashes the Swedish approach - good! If there is an article that finds the Swedish approach worthy of discussion (even if does not fully endorse it) – bad! And the same applies to the entire discussion about the GBD: Any article that bashes the GBD, even if it is written by a "layman" (to use a favorite word of one editor) with no medical knowledge, is good enough to be cited. Finally, the difference between fact and opinion is not properly recognized. The Guardian article that is referenced to support the use of the word "fringe" offers the opinion of the author who in turn relies on the opinion of others. Even if those opinions of others are expert opinions, they are still opinions. Niemandsbucht (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Niemandsbucht the professional judgement of qualified specialists, speaking of things within their area of specialty, is not what "opinion" means on English wikipedia. Neither is a synthetic statement made by a professional journalist based on based on the evidence they have gathered. Newimpartial (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on what they are talking about. A viewpoint on someone else's viewpoint remains a viewpoint or an opinion, even if you call the other person's viewpoint "fringe". Language on wikipedia should be the same language as the language used anywhere else. Niemandsbucht (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Crackpot would be an opinion. The word "fringe" has a well established, objective definition of "outside the mainstream" and so is a trivially true fact when the mainstream says it is. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Niemandsbucht perhaps it should be, but it isn't. opinion might not be as esoteric a form of wikispeak as notability, but it is still quite a bit more restricted from what a lay person would think of as "opinion". For example, in a courtroom an expert witness might be asked doe their "considered opinion", but their judgement would most often br treated on enwiki as a statement concerning facts or evidence, rather than what our guidelines term a statement of opinion.

In the specific case in question, we have a matter of public health policy. Competent authorities quite uniformly treat a series of recommendations as harmful, while a vocal minority believes they are potentially beneficial and some other authorities sit outside the debate. In a situation like this, as in the matter of anthropogenic climate change, enwiki does not treat the two perspectives as "opinions", but rather as a majority judgement that defines consensus reality, and a minority view that lacks support from competent experts. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Newimpartial

What you describe here, a "minority", does not mean "fringe".

Even the term "minority" is not certain in 2025 given the widely known official mortality data of Sweden (and many other places). Even if it were "a minority" it may still be large minority and significant amount. Dicegroj (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dicegroj you trying to prove the GBD signers were right "because Sweden" is WP:OR and irrelevant. If there is a significant minority of professional, expert opinion supporting the GBD recommendations, then RS must be found that support this statement. Instead, what we have is near-unanimous support among relevant experts for recommendations quite the opposite of the GBD, and RS that describe the position of the signers as "fringe". Wikipedia follows the sources rather than them what to say - if you have relevant, expert RS that disagree with the sources this article currently uses, please bring them to this discussion. Any other approach is a waste of time. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Newimpartial

I did not try to "prove the GBD singers [sic] were right because of Sweden".

I said that even if the GBD concept was thought of as acceptable by an overall minority of experts, that does not mean it can be described as "fringe"

Just clarifying, thanks. Dicegroj (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: that's "signers". I have corrected the text above.

Also, it doesn't matter if you were trying to prove them "right because Sweden" or "non-fringe because Sweden" - the Sweden argument is equally irrelevant in both cases. Only reliable sources saying that the GBD current represents a substantial alternative viewpoint on public health would be relevant, and we have no such sources.

We do have RS support for "fringe", and no RS opposition to "fringe", so right now the sources we have support this article's word choice. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Newimpartial

There are plenty of sources.

What happens is that the anonymous editors with last-word privileges (whoever they are and whoever gives them such rights) only choose sources (eg the self published blog "Science-Based Medicine") that fit their bias, and ignore any source (valid as per Wiki) that says anything that doesn't fit their personal opinions.

There are plenty of examples in the Talk pages. Dicegroj (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No there are not "plenty of sources" supporting the GBD. The last time this came up (a few months ago) I went looking. Sweden had many more excess deaths than neighbors during 2020 precisely because it not do the "focused protection" that was at the core of the GBD. After Sweden's death toll became noticably bad, the authorities started adopting some of the same provisions as the rest of the world and went all-in on vaccines.

The WHO study finding several-year low excess deaths concluded that the good results came from the country's relatively low income inequality and quite good medical system. Not the GBD. Ultimately sources praising the GBD seem to come down to political opinion pieces, which often point to the ridiculous Ioannidis "Kardashian index" paper.

To refer to the old adage: the GBD-promoters have failed at pounding the law (NPOV! RS!), failed at pounding the facts (Sweden!), and are now pounding the table. -- M.boli (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. There is nothing useful here, just another WP:PROFRINGE editor. This should be closed. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia

misuse of talk page, no edit to the article was proposed or contemplated. Pure WP:FORUM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Larry Sagner, one of the founders of Wikipedia, has expressed criticism of the site he partially created.

This is one good article in which Sagner's opinion can be evaluated.

Is this article neutral as per Wiki's goals? Are anonymous editors with power being libelous? Dicegroj (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is not an expert on COVID, the GBD, or even Wikipedia at this point, having been booted from the project over two decades ago (and still bitter about it). If you want to discuss anything about the GBD, you'll need actually reliable sources, not just sour grapes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper

You say Larry Sanger is not an expert on Covid, but Sagner has not been an editor in this page (or other Covid-related pages afik).

Now, who are the editors here that have been defending -and keeping- the use of the term "fringe notion"? Are they experts on Covid? What are their names and qualifications? Dicegroj (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Larry Sanger promotes antivaxx, climate change denialism, and election conspiracy theories. If Larry Sanger has a problem with what Wikipedia is doing, Wikipedia is probably doing the right thing. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@MrOllie

Not sure of that, but he did write this:

[Wikipedia] "it’s been captured by anonymous editors who manipulate articles to fit their ideological biases."

I think this GBD article is a great example, even proof, of what he is saying. Let's just leave this conversation here for anyone who is interested. Dicegroj (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Sanger considers keeping conspiracy theories out of the encyclopedia to be an 'ideological bias'. We're fine with that. If you going to try an Appeal to authority you should make sure the person in question actually is an authority. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is 100 percent WP:FORUM. Dicegroj if you have a specific change request for the article, make sure you clearly provide it in your next edit here. If not, we can conclude here and you can continue on your own talk pages. --McSly (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record: no, the editors of this page don't claim to be experts in COVID themselves; that's why we rely on cited, verifiable information on the subject from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a reflector of information, not a source; the information in our articles doesn't originate from our editors, it's brought to our articles by editors from reliable sources. That way, we don't rely on the possibly-faked authority of our editors, but on the sources, which anyone can check and verify.

Thus, my request for reliable sources. Sanger is not a reliable source and cannot be used as an impetus to change the article himself. If you feel that you have reliable sources not represented in the article, or that the reliable sources are misrepresented, then we can discuss that here. But Sanger's whingeing doesn't have anything to do with us unless there are reliable sources to back it up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

HOw, and what relevance do his opinions have on this topic? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I propose substituting this language. It is entirely neutral, avoiding aspersions such as "fringe":

"The Great Barrington Declaration is an open letter written, by three prominent epidemiologists—Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University—calling for a shift in COVID-19 policy from broad population lockdowns to a targeted "focused protection" strategy. This approach emphasized shielding vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and those with comorbidities, through measures like reallocating nursing home staff to high-risk facilities and providing robust support services, while allowing younger, low-risk individuals to resume normal social and economic activities to build population-level immunity via natural exposure". It was drafted on October 4, 2020, in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Lfstevens (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be whitewashing of the fact that their ideas were thoroughly rejected by the scientific community.

Also, it would be a lie. Neither Kulldorff nor Bhattacharya are epidemiologists. Kulldorff is a statistician and Bhattacharya is a health economist (Redacted). They both have no clue about how to handle epidemics, they are laymen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The previous edit is not in accordance with NPOV. Calling Kulldorf and Bhattacharya "laymen" in relation to the Covid-epidemic is as false as it is ridiculous. Furthermore, the Great Barrington Declaration received substantial support within the scientific community. To say that that it was "thorougly rejected" by "the" scientific community is also false. Niemandsbucht (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is proof that Bhattacharya has done epidemiological research on Covid-19. To call him a "layman" is outlandish and shows bad faith. Niemandsbucht (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Definitely laymen. - Walter Ego 11:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This presentation of a fringe idea without accompaniment from the mainstream scientific view worsens the neutrality of the article and falls afoul of WP:FRINGE. I agree there's an issue with the description of the authors, but I'd be opposed even if that were fixed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

'Fringe' in the opening lead

I don't think that 'fringe' is quite the right word in the lede. It's a loaded descriptor. It's the sort of wording that has eroded the credibility of Wikipedia. I 'love' this comment on this Talk Page: I'd be opposed even if that were fixed.

Perhaps something along the lines of 'minority' or 'alternative'. There is meaningful scientific support for the 'Great Barrington Declaration'. It's not a majority, but it is also not a fringe. I'll give it some thought.

And the paragraph harping on the abuse by some of the public on a 'open signature process' for support is really childish. "Not all who signed had the appropriate scientific credentials. Some of the signatures were sarcastic or unqualified" would work as a replacement. Seki1949 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE -- it's exactly the right word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)