Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:08, 31 March 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Kulldorff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:BLP noticeboard

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WikiProject Computational Biology Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Epidemiologist or not?

Recently added language to the first sentence asserts that Kulldorff is an epidemiologist. But one source cited later in the article disputes this ("Harvard professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff (who is a biostatistician, not an epidemiologist""). Another editor removed this claim in October 2021. Is there enough evidence for this title to be in the first sentence? Llll5032 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-kulldorff-8a31a775

"Biostatistician and epidemiologist. Author of the Great Barrington Declaration."

Also take a look at his CV published on FDA.gov for clear examples of his work as an epidemiologist, with epidemiologists, within pharmacoepidemiology departments, editing journals focused on epidemiology, etc., etc., etc.

At this rate, there will eventually be disagreement with the use of the word "the" because 1. a primary source was used near it or 2. a better source is needed for some statement related to it or 3. it is evidence of SYNTH or 4. it is undue weight...

What is Gorski's evidence Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist? Does he use a secondary source? Is that source reliable? What makes Gorski an authority on who is and who is not an epidemiologist? Where are the editorial policies for SBM?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that his self-description as an epidemiologist on LinkedIn is notable, and it is not in dispute that he has worked with epidemiology and epidemiologists. Do any CVs on third-party sites describe him as an epidemiologist with that word? The FDA's does not. It is unusual for a RS and a subject to be in strong disagreement about a fact this way. Llll5032 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that SBM/Gorski is a reliable source for the claim that Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist.

See questions above, namely: "What is Gorski's evidence Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist? Does he use a secondary source? Is that source reliable? What makes Gorski an authority on who is and who is not an epidemiologist? Where are the editorial policies for SBM?"

Furthermore, the opening paragraph implies Gorski is an expert in recognizing pseudoscience and quackery. What are his qualifications for that expertise?

The article by Gorski is neither objective, nor neutral in POV. In his first paragraph he resorts to dismissive name-calling:

"I was thinking about this sort of thing when I came across the latest propaganda from COVID-19 deniers, conspiracy theorists, and grifters known as the Great Barrington Declaration."

How does an article that opens with that statement contribute meaningfully and neutrally to a biography of Martin Kulldorff?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how to balance a dispute between a secondary WP:BIASED or WP:RSOPINION source (if this is one of those) against WP:ABOUTSELF in only one of his CVs. Do other secondary RS confirm or deny? The neutral solution may be to say he is a biostatistician (all sources agree) and note his work with CDC and others without using the disputed word. Llll5032 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, I asked editors at the BLP noticeboard for assistance resolving this and other questions. Llll5032 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a WP:BIASED source used on BLP. I see no need to balance Gorski's assertions at all, as there is no place for his opinion in the biography of Kulldorff or even the Great Barrington Declaration, for that matter. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Then do you also want to remove the WP:RSOPINION source National Review in the J&J paragraph? I don't understand why you would want to keep that source (marked yellow at WP:RSP) but remove this one (marked green at WP:RSP). Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that the SBM article you cited, which claims Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist, is clearly biased. I am questioning how Gorski, the author of the article, is considered an authority on who is and who is not an epidemiologist.

Gorski's piece seems to counter an article in the WSJ that you have cited, which states:

"Dr. Bhattacharya, a physician and economist, and Mr. Kulldorf, a biostatistician—who study epidemiology at the medical schools at Stanford and Harvard, respectively..."

An epidemiologist is one who studies epidemiology.

Kulldorff's CV covers his lengthy and varied work on and study of epidemiology and it is published on FDA.gov, which lends weight to the accuracy and credibility of the CV. Help me to understand how a clear and obvious hit piece from Gorski—an oncologist specializing in breast cancer—is a reliable source to the contrary.

This is a clear insinuation that Kulldorff is lying on his LinkedIn page, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. A passing, parenthetical comment on an obvious hit-piece is not even evidence of anything. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the consensus on SBM not being enough evidence to challenge Kulldorff's status as an epidemiologist, I would like to remove the admin template "verification needed."

Are there any objections to my removal of the template?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if we have consensus on this. I agree that we can't assert in Wikivoice that he isn't an epidemiologist, but I think a RS actively disputing the term is enough to omit the word epidemiologist in the first sentence (per WP:DUE and WP:ONUS) and only say he is a biostatistician, as the article said before January 13. I would change my mind and agree to the word if an academic, government or WP:MEDRS source calls him an epidemiologist. His credentials can be established in other ways. What do you think, Alexbrn? Llll5032 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In this use, this specific article from SBM is not a reliable source. Per WP:RSP:

"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Misplaced Pages."

and:

"...some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety."

The statement that Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist flies in the face of significant evidence to the contrary. It is a parenthetical assertion in the SMB article and irrelevant to the content of the SBM article. It is therefore being given undue weight here in this discussion and therefore there is no reason to remove the word "epidemiologist" from Kulldorff's BLP unless you are asserting and have evidence that Kulldorff is lying on his LinkedIn page.

You conceded "it is not in dispute that he has worked with epidemiology." The very definition of an epidemiologist includes 'one who works with epidemiology.'

Based on the CDC's definition of an epidemiologist: "Using statistical analysis, epidemiologists study answers to these questions to find out how a particular health problem was introduced."

It has clearly been demonstrated that "Martin Kulldorff, PhD, is a respected biostatistician in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital + Harvard Medical School. He has long been working in infectious disease outbreaks, detection of new disease outbreaks, and developing novel epidemiological methods." That statement is part of a bio provided by Harvard to ContagionLive.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's concerning that the source (which is, BTW, not great) in the body used for his epidemiology label in fact belabours his role as a biostatistician. That said in my understanding biostatistics and epidemiology are closely related areas so it's not as if this is some huge issue. I guess the GBD crazies want to push the "epidemiology" credentials as PR? I think unless we can cite as fact that this guy held an appropriately-named post as an "Epidemiologist", or a suitably weighty academic source describing him as such, it's best simply to leave this label out, to ensure we stay strictly accurate & cautious, as we should for WP:BLP reasons. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Francis Collins used the term 'epidemiologist'

Francis Collins referred to the three authors of the GBD as "fringe epidemiologists" in an email to Fauci. Note that "epidemiologist" is not necessarily a job title bestowed by an authority any more than "biologist" is. One who works in epidemiology, or studies epidemiology is an epidemiologist. Kulldorff clearly did both and that was recognized by his peers.Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't find that a satisfactory response, and not WP:CLEARLY anything. I too think it is time for any applicable DISCLOSURE to be made. Alexbrn (talk)

I don't see how you've gone from "We'd need more than SBM to say the guy was "not an epidemiologist"" to "unless we can cite as fact that this guy held an appropriately-named post as an "Epidemiologist", or a suitably weighty academic source describing him as such, it's best simply to leave this label out."

One doesn't need to hold a post as a politician to be called a politician. President Biden's official post is not named "Politician" and yet we all know he is a politician and no one could reasonably argue that he isn't a politician. Likewise with an epidemiologist. That the former head of the NIH considers Kulldorff an epidemiologist, that's he's done work as an epidemiologist (for both the CDC and the FDA), that he's studied epidemiology, he's reviewed articles for journals such as Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Epidemiology, European Journal of Epidemiology, etc., should all be evidence enough. But if that isn't enough; his LinkedIn profile has 44 endorsements for the title "epidemiologist," two of which are by colleagues of his from Harvard, where he worked in the division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics.

It's hard to continue to assume good-faith editing in the act of keeping the title "epidemiologist" from being used, when it is so clearly warranted and has previously been used by individuals in authority and with expertise in such matters. It's beginning to look like there are editors here who don't want anything documented that indicates Kulldorff is an expert working in the field of epidemiology and that his controversial opinions might be well-informed, even if those opinions are fringe and minority.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also add that your statement "I guess the GBD crazies want to push the "epidemiology" credentials as PR?" is an explicit indication of bias and indicates your inability to consider this matter objectively. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

COI Disclosure discussion

WP:DISCLOSE? Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The correct course of action, should you believe someone is being paid to contribute, is documented in the policy.

If you believe someone is being paid to contribute, I encourage you to follow the correct procedure. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The "correct procedure" is set out in WP:DISCLOSE: "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it" . You are the first person to mention pay. Alexbrn (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If you believe an editor has any conflict of interest to disclose, pay or otherwise, you should engage an administrator, per the policy. You and another editor here have given me clear warning you believe I have something to disclose and I have disclosed nothing. If you continue to believe I have something to disclose, you have a clear action available to you.

I would also encourage civility and avoiding "ill-considered accusations of impropriety."

If there is a specific reason you believe I have something specific to disclose, we can discuss it in the hopes of clarifying the matter. I find that repeatedly mentioning the WP:DISCLOSE policy a bad-faith, baseless insinuation rather than a civil, thoughtful discussion.

It also appears to be deployed here to stonewall/sidetrack the discussion being had...

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, no. A trip to COIN is only appropriate if "ordinary talk page discussion" has failed per that page's instructions. Since you have not engaged in any such "ordinary" discussion but instead have responded evasively with various mis-statements about the WP:PAGs surrounding COI, and pathetic attempted counter-attacks, suspicion is only likely to increase. The reason why editors think there might be a COI is your extreme POV pushing. However this can occur without there being a COI, of course. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point we are talking in circles and you have effectively spread the conversation over multiple talk pages. You say you have engaged an admin. I think that is our best course of action at this point.

I have a clear understanding of what is required to be disclosed as COI, when, and where. I have not violated that policy. The policy requires the assumption—in good faith—that editors have no COI if they have not disclosed any. You have made your disclosure warning clear and I have acknowledged understanding of the policy and have not disclosed any COI. You have the answer you seek.

If the admin you have engaged would like more information from me I encourage them to contact me directly. As indicated on my talk page, I have also requested feedback from an admin.

I have asked for specifics and have received none. I don't know what "extreme POV pushing" means to you, nor have you provided examples and I will not confuse the issue by assuming.

If you look at the (extensive) history of back-and-forth between myself and Llll5032, I think you will see that I am reasonable, will admit when I have made a bad edit, and have work to reach consensus (even when there were only two active editors here).

This BLP is of a controversial figure (Kulldorff) in a politically-charged topic (the GB Declaration, Covid-19, etc). Editors are not likely to agree on every single point and consensus will likely be a long and arduous process (as evident in this growing discussion about the term "epidemiologist" that has now transformed into a discussion on something entirely different). That fact alone, that we will not agree on all points, does not indicate that one has a conflict of interest. And repeatedly re-asserting it does, does not change that fact.

Using wiki shortcuts like WP:DISCLOSE as a sole response in a discussion does not encourage constructive dialogue toward consensus. I would argue it has the opposite effect; it is distracting and counterproductive. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

WaPo uses term 'epidemiologist'

Martin Kulldorff is an epidemiologist at Harvard University. Sunetra Gupta is an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford. Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and health economist at Stanford Medical School.
— Joel Achenbach, Washingtonpost.com

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the most reliable secondary source you have found so far that supports the claim. The Washington Post is green on the WP:RSP list. WP:MEDPOP might indicate it is not a MEDRS, so I don't know how much weight it has against SBM's counterclaim. I think it has some weight, but publications by scientific journals, or Kulldorff's employers like Harvard, the FDA, and the CDC, would have more. What do you think, Alexbrn? Llll5032 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to WaPO being used to label him. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

break

• Saw this at BLPN. As with any bio this article should cover aspects of both the subject's life and work. Science-Based Medicine is an excellent source for commenting on WP:FRINGE medicine and since Kulldorff has been involved in the Great Barrington Declaration, SBM's use here could be useful for achieving neutrality. If the article left the impression that Kuldorff's views on GBD/COVID were "just another view of an epidemioligist" (rather than discredited and nonsensical), that would indeed be a neutrality problem. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could your comment be intended for this discussion instead: Science-based Medicine as a source?

The use of the SBM article, for the purposes of this discussion (Epidemiologist or not?), is to challenge Kulldorff's claim (on his LinkedIn page) to be an epidemiologist.

The SBM article itself is biased (use of loaded language and name-calling) and Gorski's claim that Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist is a passing, parenthetical statement offering no proof that Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist.

There are several reliable, secondary sources that do label Kulldorff a 'Harvard epidemiologist' or an 'epidemiologist', including a WSJ opinion article cited elsewhere in Kulldorff's BLP by Llll5032. Kulldorff's CV shows clear examples of work on and study of epidemiology.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The opinion article you mention was cited by ScrupulousScribe, not me. Llll5032 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

We'd need more than SBM to say the guy was "not an epidemiologist", but otherwise SBM's "bias" (in favour of Science) is good - exactly what the English Misplaced Pages likes so as to ensure unscientific views are framed in a proper context. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Original removal of title epidemiologist

The account that originally removed the title "epidemiologist" was registered the same day it made the removal and has only made two edits total; both to the Kulldorff article, making the account, so far anyway, look like a WP:SPA. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Munk Debates uses the term epidemiologist

The Munk debates includes the following as a profile for Kulldorff:

Martin Kulldorff is a biostatistician, an epidemiologist and a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. His research centers on the development and application of new methods for the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and for post-market drug and vaccine safety surveillance.
— Munk Debates, debater profile

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

notice of mediation

I have requested dispute mediation for the question "is Kulldorff an epidemiologist or not?" Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Restoring Fringe Epidemiologists statement

I would like to restore the statement "On October 8th, 2020, then-director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins sent an email to Anthony Fauci labeling Kulldorff and the other authors of the Great Barrington Declaration as "fringe epidemiologists" and sought a "devastating published take down" of the declaration's premises."

The statement was reverted without discussion and with a link to an essay, not a policy.

Are there any objections to me restoring that statement?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the revert (if you don't want to go by the essay, then the policy is WP:RSOPINION). The claims would be usable if they came from a secondary WP:MEDRS or a non-opinion RS like those marked in green on the WP:RSP list. Llll5032 (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: On October 8th, 2020, then-director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins sent an email to Anthony Fauci labeling Kulldorff and the other authors of the Great Barrington Declaration as "fringe epidemiologists" and sought a "devastating published take down" of the declaration's premises. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In your new source, the writer is identified as having also written for the Brownstone Institute, the new advocacy think tank about COVID-19 where Kulldorff also works. So I don't think this can be considered an independent source as WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:INDY ask us to use, to "build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject". It looks like WP:RSOPINION or possibly a WP:COISOURCE. Can you find an independent reliable source? Llll5032 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Clayton Fox is a freelance writer (who has written for Brownstone, I do not disagree with that). The piece was not published by Brownstone but by Tablet Magazine. Because he is freelance and because it was not published on Brownstone, I would argue there is no 'Brownstone COI.'

Simply because a freelance writer has, in the past, sold work to a publisher affiliated with the subject should not immediately disqualify them as a source.

The email in question, from Collins to Fauci is easily verified (that link can be provided on the BLP as well):

"Additional emails obtained by the Select Subcommittee show that top public health officials, including National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, expressed deep concerns about the herd immunity strategy being advocated by these “fringe epidemiologists.” In an October 8, 2020, email, Dr. Collins called for “a quick and devastating published take down” of the herd immunity strategy known as “The Great Barrington Declaration,” after which Dr. Collins spoke out against the approach in an interview with the Washington Post. After the interview was published, Dr. Collins noted in an October 13, 2020, email to NIH officials that his quotes were “accurate , but will not be appreciated in the WH .”"

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would even argue that the second link (the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis) I just included classifies as a very reliable secondary source and therefore satisfies the need without Tablet Mag being used. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages considers congressional press releases a primary source, so WP:MEDPRI. Llll5032 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages considers congressional press releases a primary source" Do you have a source for that? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The right source is probably WP:PRSOURCE, which discourages press releases for claims. It is part of WP:INDY. Llll5032 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Technically, a press release could be a secondary source. However, almost all of them actually are primary sources. A secondary source analyzes or evaluates previously published sources. A press release, in the broadest definition, is whatever you (intentionally) send to the media. It would be theoretically possible for someone to write up a Meta-analysis or a Review article and e-mail it to a journalist. It would be "a press release", and it would still be a secondary source.

However, that basically never happens. Press releases are normally used to make announcements or otherwise present new information. They're primary sources and non-independent of their authors and publishers (e.g., if Bob at Big Corp sends out a press release, the press release is non-independent for any information it contains that is related to Bob or Big Corp). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRSOURCE discusses press releases primarily in context of marketing material by companies selling a product or service (the example of a press release used there is a marketing press release). In the case of the Congressional investigation press release, it is a 'press release of new findings', evidence related to an investigation.

I am using the press release to support the claim the Collins said "X" and "Y" in an email. Collins later confirmed that claim as accurate, that he did indeed say "X" and "Y".

A secondary source is defined in part as:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

In this case, I argue that the press release qualifies as a reliable secondary source because:

1. It is one step removed from the event (Collins worked for the NIH, part of the executive branch. This is an investigation by the legislative branch of US govt.)
2. It is an investigation, or an analysis/evaluation/interpretation of "Evidence of Trump Officials’ Pursuit of ‘Herd Immunity’ Strategy"
3. It utilizes primary sources (in this case, Collins' emails, which he later verified as accurate)
4. Those primary sources (Collins' emails) have been directly confirmed as accurate by Collins himself

The WP:PRSOURCE page does recommend that press releases "should be used cautiously for other assertions" and I believe this is a cautious use of a press release for the assertion that Collins said "X" and "Y" (the proposed statement above).

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "The Dissidents". Tablet Magazine. 2022-01-25. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
2. "Select Subcommittee's Year-End Staff Report Highlights Oversight Work, Releases New Findings from Ongoing Investigations". House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. 2021-12-17. Retrieved 2022-02-02.

Medical citation needed

The following is from the lead of the article and is improperly sourced biomedical information and must be properly sourced per WP:MEDRS or removed:

...with the impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus.

The only source that supports the claim of 'impossibility' is Science-based Medicine (SBM). And although SBM is considered 'generally reliable,' this particular statement on SBM is not attributed to a secondary source. The statement "if you listen to epidemiologists and public health scientists" is not attribution.

WP:MEDRS states: "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources , and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

WP:MEDRS further states: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies."

David Gorski is an oncologist who specializes in breast cancer surgery.. He is not an expert in the relevant fields of epidemiology, virology, vaccinology, or immunology. Therefore his unattributed statement that "it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population" can not be used for biomedical information pertaining to subjects of epidemiology, virology, vaccinology, immunology, etc.

There is also no consensus that SBM qualifies as "a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS."

A third-party published secondary source is needed or the statement should be removed.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A comment on basic logic failure is not "biomedical", and WP:PARITY applies: since the GBD has no reliability as a source it can be dismissed with anything sane. NPOV requires fringe notions to be properly contextualized. If in doubt, check at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Biomedical information is defined as:

"...information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health."

"...keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus" can reasonably be perceived as relating to human health. Specifically, it qualifies as "Population data and epidemiology."

Therefore WP:MEDRS applies to the statement and it must be correctly cited or removed.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Not reasonably, the GBD aim is a nonsensical aspiration that does not fit into any category of knowledge or recognized epidemiology: that's exactly the point. Sources like SBM are routinely used on Misplaced Pages for calling out such pseudomedicine, and a principle of MEDRS is that lightweight sources are suitable for lightweight claims. I don't care if another source is used but if the GBD is to mentioned at all, we must point out that it is scientifically-discredited nonsense, to adhere to NPOV, which is a non-negotiable core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I believe you think we are working at cross-purposes. My intent is to ensure the BLP is neutral and accurate. I haven't always gotten that right, but when I'm wrong, I've acknowledged it and moved on. I think all editors of this and other, related articles should work harder at remaining congenial and cooperative (I'm talking to myself as much as anyone else).

I dispute the clause "...with the impossible aim..." not because I think the GBD is a "valid respectable scientific alternative" but because it is a factually inaccurate statement (being way to broad and lacking nuance) made by someone not qualified to to make it (per WP:MEDRS). If it's impossible to control the virus, then one could argue that control measures such as masks and hand-washing are a waste of time and that argument is exactly the mainstream concern about the GBD; that it makes a dangerous argument that could endanger public health. The claim that the virus is impossible to control and that we should therefore 'let it rip' is what Fauci, Collins, et al say is wrong with the GBD.

...since the GBD has no reliability as a source it can be dismissed with anything sane.
— User:Alexbrn 02:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that an article that one claims has no reliability as a source can be dismissed with anything sane. There are too many subjective qualifiers that are too easily gamed for POV (should an editor be so inclined).

I believe a consensus statement for the lead would be more concise and to-the-point. Already in the section titled COVID-19 pandemic, it is stated that the GBD "...lacked a sound scientific basis..." and a simple statement in the lead, indicating Kulldorff co-authored it is not giving the GBD undue weight. It is a simple statement of fact about the man who is the focus of the article. The GBD is not the focus here. It has its own article.

Proposal A: "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while adopting measures to protect the most vulnerable."

That statement concisely and neutrally states that he did indeed co-author the declaration and provides a neutral summary of what the declaration contends.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC); edited 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A third option is to use wording like Michael's, followed immediately by the consensus view about its hazards. Llll5032 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal B: "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while adopting measures to protect the most vulnerable. The Great Barrington Declaration has been characterized as "fringe epidemiology" and not mainstream science.

How does Proposal B strike everyone as a consensus statement?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Statements at the top usually summarize later parts of the article, so a short summary of objections in the "COVID-19 pandemic" section might be more due. Llll5032 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If we're going to air the concept of "measures to protect the most vulnerable" we need to point out it's bogus, to be neutral. I think the GBD is more than fringe: scientists have rejected it. The fact that a Misplaced Pages editor believes in the GBD's schtick is irrelevant (except that it may be the cause of the growing disruption). Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You could just leave out the "measures to protect the most vulnerable" part (from the lead). But I'd like to echo the suggestion from @Llll5032 to develop the body of the article first, and to work on the lead last. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Llll5032: We could keep the lead concise and to the point and use either Proposal A or B. There is a short summary already in the COVID-19 section of Kulldorff's page. The GBD has an entire page dedicated to what the declaration says and a large amount of copy dedicated to the mainstream interpretation of it. Proposal B above immediately indicates it is a fringe opinion and is not considered mainstream. The summary in the COVID-19 section indicates that the mainstream view is that it lacks sound science.

Or we could remove the statement altogether from the lead as is done on the biography for Sunetra Gupta. This reduces the exposure given to the GBD quite effectively.

In both cases we minimize the air time we give the GBD here while it is well documented on its own page.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I was interested in making the current sentence clearer about what the declaration was and why it was so controversial, without changing the content/balance significantly. Llll5032 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

To me, you just described Proposal B. However, in the interest of achieving consensus, can you compose a proposal? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

All right, I tried an edit in the article. There are many editors now and I doubt it will be the final word. Llll5032 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not BMI

The statement in question (now tagged by {{citation needed span}}: ) doesn't require WP:MEDRS. See WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:BMI. Please be careful with citing it. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov:, can you help others understand the reason you believe the clause "...with the impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus." is not biomedical information?

I believe it does qualify as BMI because it is making a statement regarding epidemiology, which is "he branch of science dealing with the spread and control of diseases, viruses, concepts etc. throughout populations or systems."

WP:BMI specifically mentions "Population data and epidemiology"

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: The phrase (i.e. with the impossible aim...) is a mere opinion of the blog's author David Gorski and we are safe to state it verbatim as long as we clarify that it was his own. Otherwise this kind of speculation would require WP:SECONDARY and, probably, WP:MEDRS at best. I also suggest we add "alleged" next to the "impossible aim" to resolve the issue. Even though it's purely speculative statement, it doesn't fall under WP:MEDRS right away. Remember about WP:RSCONTEXT. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the opinion of many scientists, of which SBM is just a representative. Per WP:YESPOV it shall be asserted that this premise of the GBD is "impossible" (or "ridiculous" or whatever) to abide by the requirement for NPOV, by which pseudoscience like this must be prominently identified within a sane context. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: the statement as it is currently written is:

In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups with the impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus.

That statement engages in the dispute per WP:YESPOV.

Written neutrally, by describing the dispute would be more like:

"In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups and attempting to protecting vulnerable people through a process the authors called focused protection. The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis."

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

More WP:WL? The statement does not "engage in the dispute" because there is no serious dispute. Legitimate scientists agree the premise of the GBD is ridiculous. Misplaced Pages just needs to say this instead of falsely implying there is some kind of "process" in play. We need to point out prominently that bullshit is bullshit, instead of making it seem like "just" another opinion is a kind of marketplace of ideas. If you want to go into further detail about why the GBD is dishonest in the article body, that is another matter but the lede just says it plain, brief and true. Time for you to drop the WP:STICK methinks; WP:CPUSH is a thing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We have to abide to WP:NEUTRAL regardless of your misunderstanding of WP:WL
… instead of making it seem like "just" another opinion is a kind of marketplace of ideas… I suggets we differentiate between scientific opinions and scientific facts. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, none of that justifies a contributor using poorly-sourced BMI in a biography to engage in the dispute in a biased manner. Fringe content does not give a contributor carte blanche.

Of course it relates to human health...
— User:Alexbrn

"It's impossible to stop the virus" is probably biomedical information.
— User:WhatamIdoing

Otherwise this kind of speculation would require WP:SECONDARY and, probably, WP:MEDRS at best.
— User:Alexander_Davronov

At this point, leaving the statement in place, knowing it is poorly sourced contradicts WP:BLP:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

It is acceptable to comment on the GBD and to ensure its fringe-ness is highlighted neutrally. I have not contended otherwise and in-fact I have proposed several alternatives that do that. But all copy must comply with WP:YESPOV, full stop. As you have rightly pointed out, it is part of a core policy. By not clearly attributing the "impossibility" statement to Gorski, you are engaging in the dispute and doing it with poorly-sourced BMI.

From WP:NPOV:

"Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008"

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC); edited 08:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies to information about living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages. The premises of the GBD are not a "living person". It is a typical WP:PROFRINGE tactic on Misplaced Pages to try and extend BLP to cover would-be scientific pronouncements. Science-Based Medicine is a golden source for fringe concepts, as has been repeatedly re-affirmed by the community. If you want to add more sources (there are plenty to chose from) be my guest. But Misplaced Pages is going to be pointing-out that the bullshit behind the GBD is bullshit. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As it states in the header of this talk page, placed by PamD, who seems to have significant experience contributing to Wiki and thus might be someone we can learn from:

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

Despite any colorful descriptions of the GBD, this article is a biography about Kulldorff and its content must comply with WP:BLP and be neutrally written. That much should not be contentious or confusing.

Again, fringe subjects do not give contributors carte blanche to disregard core policy.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The policy, as you quote is applies to "material about living persons". A biography article covers many aspects of a person life/work etc. per WP:NOPAGE. The material about work/concepts/movements/political environment/ancestors (etc. etc. etc.) found in any decent biography is not covered by WP:BLP. If the pseudoscience of the GBD is mentioned here, it must be identified as such. The Great Barrington Declaration is not somehow "protected" from criticism by WP:BLP. As I have repeatedly pointed out, NPOV is explicitly non-negotiable (here, WP:PSCI applies: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included ..."). You are trying to negotiate it. Alexbrn (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the opinion of many scientists … . AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually read Great Barrington Declaration? Trying to imply there is some kind of "scientific divide" over it is WP:PROFRINGE and falls afoul of WP:GEVAL. Epidemiologists have repeatedly smacked down the idea behind it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doubling down by adding the same, challenged clause to a second section of the article does not make it any less wrong.

It does, however suggest disruptive editing to make a point.

But Misplaced Pages is going to be pointing-out that the bullshit behind the GBD is bullshit.
— User:Alexbrn 09:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The second instance of the statement commits the same error of bias as the first by engaging in the dispute rather than describing the dispute. It is not the job of contributors to pass judgement. Contributors should maintain an impartial tone (also from a core policy).

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ledes are meant to summarize bodies, so the material needs to be in both places. It is not contributors here who have passed judgement on the GBD, it is scientists. Misplaced Pages reflects that to be neutral. Any bias is good. If you think somehow the GBD is not WP:FRINGE and so does not deserve to be treated as such, then raise it at WP:FTN. Alexbrn (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Claim of impossibility is still problematic

The current version of the "impossibility" statement is still problematic for the following reasons:

1. The Science-based Medicine (SBM) article used to support the claim of "impossibility" does not provide adequate evidence that it is a "widely regarded" opinion. The statement made by Gorski "if you listen to epidemiologists and public health scientists" is not attribution. Alternative: find a better source
2. The statement by SBM that "...it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus..." is likely BMI (see also this discussion on its potential BMI-ness). It's use as a source is therefore not likely compliant with WP:MEDRS Alternative: find a better source
3. Nothing in the parity of sources guidelines indicates that parity trumps WP:MEDRS Alternative: find a better source
4. The "impossibility" statement is contentious. See this discussion on its potential BMI-ness Alternative: Use other language to indicate the GBD's status as fringe/alt, such as Proposal B above.
5. Poorly sourced, contentious material on a biography "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That is core policy, not a guideline.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to question what reliable sources write and why. They write it, we quote it, end of story.

Also, it is clearly right. It is impossible to protect all the vulnerable from a virus. You can not put them all into clean rooms at high cost, lowering their quality of life. Or maybe the market-fundamentalist think tank who published the GBD wants to pay for it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This. There's been too much post-publication peer review going on here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd there say there has not been enough post-publication review going on here. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC); edited 03:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Rather, there has not been enough pre-publication review going on here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There might not have been enough pre-publication review going on elsewhere, but there is too much post-publication peer review going on on wiki, by Michael. I repeat: Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Stop trying to decide whether the reliable sources have "provide adequate evidence" or are otherwise justified in making the claims that they have made. They have made these claims, and Misplaced Pages editors should not be engaging in detailed peer review activities to decide whether the sources have provided enough evidence to convince Misplaced Pages editors that the claims are true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How have you determined the GBD is fringe/alt without critically reading it and reading sources that say it is fringe/alt?

It is the job of every Misplaced Pages editor/contributor to critically read every single source they use. Critical evaluation of sources is key to good writing and to Misplaced Pages's success. I'll quote at length from an explanatory supplement to the Reliable Sources guideline:

Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Misplaced Pages. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety.

"Generally reliable" ≠ bulletproof

Just because a publication has been deemed "generally reliable" at some point in time does not mean it is perpetually so, nor does it mean that every piece ever published by them is reliable.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So you are questioning whether the GBD is WP:FRINGE. I have posted at WP:FT/N#Great Barrington Declaration. I think we need to say a bit more about the fringe nature of the GBD here (in addition to how "focused protection" is impossible). Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "So you are questioning whether the GBD is WP:FRINGE." ← How did you come to that conclusion? (That's an honest question. Not snark)

When I said this: "How have you determined the GBD is fringe/alt without critically reading it and reading sources that say it is fringe/alt?" I was not questioning the GBD's fringe/alt status. I was asking a rhetorical question to demonstrate that in order to determine the GBD is fringe/alt (which I agree it is fringe/alt), one has to critically read it and sources that also say it is fringe/alt. It was a rhetorical way to disagree with Hob Gadling's statement:

It is not your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to question what reliable sources write and why.
— Hob Gadling

I think you assume I am being "sneaky" and concealing my motives from you. I think you assume that because I am challenging sources or statements that you have used, I must be challenging your opinions/positions (or even you, personally). I think you are reading too much into my comments.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what SBM is reliable for: evaluating dubious claims about medicine. It's not like SBM is reliable for engineering only and cannot be used for anything else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Getting closer

I do think we are getting closer. We have many more eyes on the article and many more opinions being weighed and that will (hopefully) make the article better in the long run—as long as we don't eat each other beforehand.

I do think the current format:

Scientists dismissed the document's ideas as impossible in practice, unethical, and as pseudoscience.

...gets rid of the problem of "engaging in the dispute" and rather "describes the dispute."

That also likely removes the concern of Gorski's statement being BMI, as the article is documenting the fact that he said it while not judging if it is correct/sound/warranted/etc. I still think his statement is BMI but as long as the article attributes the statement to him rather than re-stating it as fact, the BMI problem is side-stepped.

It's much cleaner and easier to prove someone said something than it is to prove they were right or wrong and a lot of our circular discussions get bogged down in that, I think. This version makes it easier for the reader to see both sides and decide for themselves (it's not our job to convince them of anything).

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not Misplaced Pages's goal to present both sides. Its goal is to present what serious sources say, and in those there are no two sides. You keep trying to move the article towards WP:FALSEBALANCE. Your contributions are full of unnecessary fluff, trying to be smart and persnickety, WP:WIKILAWYERing, tugging at wordings but missing the point, and if that fluff is removed, false balance is left.

Misplaced Pages is taking sides here: the side of science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

...and the science is not conclusive in that way. The GBD has been considered, multiple times as a serious proposal, in the scientific literature. That puts at question the use of Gorski's opinion piece here per WP:WEIGHT.

Just some papers considering the declaration (sure, they may reject, but not on grounds that it is pseudoscience):

• COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink
• Precision shielding for COVID-19: metrics of assessment and feasibility of deployment
• An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic
• The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?
• Model-based analysis on social acceptability and feasibility of a focused protection strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic
• SARS-CoV-2 transmission across age groups in France and implications for control
• Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy
• Modelling the impact of age-stratified public health measures on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada
• Physicians’ Role in the COVID-19 Infodemic: A Reflection
• Effect of Non-lockdown Social Distancing and Testing-Contact Tracing During a COVID-19 Outbreak in Daegu, South Korea, February to April 2020: A Modeling Study

Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Some scientists are more polite than others: not all of them call pseudoscience pseudoscience. But it does not matter: as long as they reject it, the science regarding the GBD is conclusive. Collecting sources that reject the GBD will not help your case, and heaping lots of text on the opposition in the hope that they do not have time to refute it all is an invalid technique called Gish gallop. If you have one (in numbers, 1) reliable scientific source that agrees with the GBD, bring it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You misinterpret the point of the list. I'm not expecting you to read the articles, I added the to establish a short list of articles that while critical certainly do not treat the issue as pseudoscience.

Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

They treat it as pseudoscience, typically without using that word. Misplaced Pages tells it plain and and eschews academic language. When scientists speak outside the decorous world of academe they tell it straight too, as is amply sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

So I though you tried to show that some scientists did not dismiss the document's ideas as impossible in practice, unethical, and as pseudoscience. But if you just wanted to collect links that prove nothing, you are in the wrong place. Can we stop this now? It leads nowhere. What you write here should be connected to the article and its improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no support that the declaration is pseudoscience or impossible anywhere in those, and the sources that suggest that are not nearly strong enough. There are sources that say it is unfeasible and unethical, I'm not arguing against that, but that's not what has been put in the text.

There is also the issue that we use scientists as to suggest that an indeterminable mass to which Kulldorff does belong, when we are referring to three separate quotes. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Collecting sources that do not say something is not a reason to delete that something from the article when there are source which do say it, and your claim that the existing sources are "not nearly strong enough" is just that: a claim.

I cannot parse your last sentence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They do prove that a declaration signed by hundreds of identifiable qualified academics and clinicians does not have WP:parity with a blog-post from the self-published SBM. Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Collecting sources that do not say something is not a reason to delete that something from the article when there are source which do say it...

That exact logic and reasoning has been used here by both Alexbrn and Llll5032 to prevent the label "epidemiologist" from being used in the article.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. We have RS saying he's NOT an epidemioligist. It's therefore contentious. Alexbrn (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"We have..." Is there a team the rest of "us" don't know about? Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 08:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What an obtuse comment. We = everyone here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's another can of worms, as there are plenty of sources stating that he is an epidemiologist, including most importantly himself and his publications in epidemiology. To just name a few others I found within 2 minutes: Democracy Now, The Wall Street Journal, The Stanford Daily, The Crimson, The Daily Wire, Epoch Times, Spiked - and a bunch more. Distrait cognizance (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Invoking unreliable and deprecated sources rather proves the point. This has already been to DRN once. Alexbrn (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It can certainly be taken there, or anywhere else, again - especially in the light of new evidence/arguments. You are pretty much invalidating the totally of your argument by stating that those sources are unreliable or deprecated based off nothing apart from you personal views and without even engaging in debate.

For what reason would they be invalid? Are you the arbiter of what is reliable? Even if so, what do you base that off?

And most importantly for the debate above: Why is the self-published blog Science-Based-Medicine more reliable?

Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a point for debate, I'm just giving you information. On the English Misplaced Pages the Epoch Times is formally deprecated and sources like The Daily Wire considered unreliable. Science-Based Medicine on the other hand is considered generally reliable and particularly suitable for fringe medicine and quackery (like GBD). If you want to learn more read the archives of RSN or the dummies version, WP:RSP. But, I find in hard to believe that anybody pushing obviously shit sources like this is WP:HERE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So, out of 7 articles I just pulled out - two are less reliable - yet you proceed to invalidate them all? What about the WSJ or Democracy Now pieces?

None of what you suggest has any bearing on the question whether self-published blog of Science-Based Medicine has parity. Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone and language used here can easily be interpreted as a lack of civility. I assume the intention was not to insinuate another editor is a dummy, but it can be construed as such. Can you strike the "dummies" comment?

If you want to learn more read the archives of RSN or the dummies version...
— User:Alexbrn 16:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Civility is a core policy and something we should all strive to abide. This is an attempt to deal with perceived incivility.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Alex doubtless refers to the well-known reference series called For Dummies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Epoch Times? Do you realize that this is a cult's propaganda arm? —PaleoNeonate – 18:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So forget about that one, and focus on the others - this was all just from a 2-minute googling, there is inevitably much more. It may not be the best of those sources, but it is telling that you target that - instead of 5-6 other sources that remain. FWIW, Falun Gong is not commonly referred to as a cult. Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Here is a pile of crap that I did not even bother to read; now please spend all your free time trying to find gems in that pile of crap." See also: Gish gallop. Kleinpecan (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone and language used here can easily be interpreted as a lack of civility. I assume the intention was not to insinuate another editor's contribution is a pile of crap, but it can be construed as such.

Can you strike the "crap" comment?

"Here is a pile of crap that I did not even bother to read; now please spend all your free time trying to find gems in that pile of crap."
— User:Kleinpecan 10:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Civility is a core policy and something we should all strive to abide. This is an attempt to deal with perceived incivility.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe I've heard editors say in the past that filling a discussion with a list of sources that you haven't bothered to read yourself, but whose views you assert to be relevant, and then expecting other editors to spend hours disproving your assertions, can also easily be interpreted as a lack of civility. Perhaps we should all strive to avoid that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn is correct, this has been to DRN but the resolution process failed (blame falls on both Alexbrn and myself). The topic should be discussed further in the appropriate thread on this page to see if we can reach a consensus. Alexbrn is correct; I should not have mentioned it here. Conversation about the title 'epidemiologist' should continue there.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On that logic question: Some sources talk about different things. Others directly conflict with each other. These are different cases:

• One source says coffee tastes good.
• Another source says coffee beans are grown in tropical countries.

vs

• One source says coffee tastes good.
• Another sources says coffee tastes bad.

For the question of pseudoscience/impossibility/etc., we have many sources doing the first, but very few or no sources doing the second. For example, the first source (Joffe) says to focus on protecting people at high risk and says "Do not lock everyone down, regardless of their individual risk, as this will cause more harm than benefit", but he doesn't actually say that it's possible to protect the lives of high-risk individuals when the low-risk members of their households are making behavioral choices on the basis of their individual risks. He also doesn't say that it's possible to have low-risk people doing whatever they want and still have the hospitals functioning normally. (I think the holiday season in the US has already proven the opposite?)

The second source says that previous aggressive measures, some of which happened during various levels of area-wide restrictions, provided an average of "some shielding" to nursing home residents (which are only a small fraction of the high-risk people), but it does not actually contradict the assertion that it is impossible to provide full protection to all vulnerable people while letting low-risk people do whatever they want.

This is typical: A source says it's impossible to prevent COVID from spreading unless (almost) everyone is taking burdensome restrictions, and another source says that X or Y will "only" double the number of vulnerable people dying compared to those burdensome restrictions, and then a Misplaced Pages editor wants to misinterpret that admission that focused protection results in preventable deaths, so that they can write that someone has directly said that focused protection is totally possible. That's not what's happening here. What's happening in these sources is them saying that partial protection of vulnerable people is possible and desirable, but overall they've made a values-based judgment that we should throw the vulnerable people overboard to protect the economic and mental health of lower-risk people.

In the end, if we want to contradict the accepted idea that "it's impossible", we need two high-quality sources that say something remarkably close to "It is possible to fully and completely protect the lives of all vulnerable people without restricting the behavior of any low-risk person". Because that's what the "impossible" sources are saying: It is impossible to do this fully and completely, not that it's possible to take some measures that produce partial protection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What source directly supports the statement "we should throw the vulnerable people overboard to protect the economic and mental health of lower-risk people?"

Asserting that supporters of the GBD or the authors themselves want to "throw the vulnerable people overboard" is hyperbolic insinuation that boarders on libel (it implies they want to kill people).

The core policy regarding biographies applies to this talk page as well as the article:

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Fully in agreement with Michael.C.Wright that this is the core issue.

To clarify at least two faults brought forth here:

1) The suggestion that anyone, anywhere, at any time, has suggested that it is possible to "fully and completely protect the lives of all vulnerable people" is hyperbole and to meet the declaration at that is argumentum ad absurdum. It is not serious, and it is not neutral.

If the measure that is imposed is zero mortality among the vulnerable - then everything is not only practically impossible, but also theoretically impossible, including severe lockdown - as all society-wide measures inevitably have casualties.

2) The GBD-authors have stated elsewhere that they do not believe anything but targeted protection is feasible. According to them it's not so much throwing the elderly to the wolves - but that they wish to avoid the double whammy of lockdown AND disease spread. Their interpretation is rather that one should have minimized the effects on young people in the face of inevitable casualties. They further justify it with the argument that keeping society mostly open for those not at risk - is more likely to avoid harm to the elderly and allows for better capacity at providing targeted protection: e.g. Opinion piece in USA Today

As a side note the comments by Fauci and Collins on the initial GBD have received criticism, including in the not very WP:FRINGE Wall Street Journal.

How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate - They worked with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration.

Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The declaration says that their aim is "better protecting those who are at highest risk". "Better" presumably refers to "better than we're doing right now" (i.e., when they signed the declaration in October 2020, before vaccines were available). Their proposed method of "better protecting" vulnerable people was to let everyone around them get sick (e.g. – to name only the risks they propose that vulnerable people be exposed to in the document itself – the healthcare workers who have already caught COVID once but who do not have lifelong immunity, the family members who visit them, and the delivery drivers from the grocery store).

Left out of the document were things like:

• how you protect a vulnerable household member when everyone else in the household is supposed to get infected
• how you protect a vulnerable person who needs non-COVID medical care when the hospital is full of COVID patients
• how much emotional damage comes from believing that you brought home the virus that killed a family member
• how you protect vulnerable people who do not know they are vulnerable, or who are in denial about being vulnerable

This is not a sensible method for "better protecting" vulnerable people. It is impossible for this to protect vulnerable people. If you give up on vulnerable people, and declare that it's inevitable that they'll die no matter what, then this might be a good system for making the best of a bad situation, but this does not provide "better protection" for vulnerable people. Low rates of infection provide "better protection" than high rates (and especially compared to high rates that overwhelm the healthcare system). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Their proposed method of "better protecting" vulnerable people was to let everyone around them get sick..."
— User:WhatamIdoing

1. "et everyone around them get sick" is not at all what the document says and 2. that's not how it has been clarified by the authors to mean. Not everyone who gets infected gets sick and not everyone who gets sick gets seriously ill and not everyone who gets seriously ill goes to the hospital and not everyone who goes to the hospital dies. Whether you agree with the GBD or not, the stratified risk of COVID-19 is not new knowledge.

Part of why we, as a group, are having a hard time collaborating is because we can't agree on the goals of the GBD and the intentions of the authors. Even though this isn't an article about the GBD, editors' disagreement about the authors intention has implications for the Kulldorff biography. I believe there is a faction of editors here who wish to paint Kulldorff as a crank/quack/charlatan. This is partly done by either reducing the GBD to its most scary aspects (let it rip, throw people overboard, let everyone get sick) or presenting it in a demeaning way (bullshit/ridiculous/pixie dust). But at the end of the day, editors' opinions on the effectiveness/sensibleness of the GBD are irrelevant.

I do not dispute that mainstream science is critical of the GBD and it is (in my opinion) rightfully classified as a fringe/alternative theory here at wiki. Its fringe-ness has been made clear on the article and it therefore conforms to core policy. At this point, going any further to illustrate the 'scariness/ridiculousness/etc' of the GBD, on Kulldorff's biography is scope creep at best, and POV-pushing at worst. Neither benefits the readers of Kulldorff's biography.

I think we would be better able to collaborate towards writing a good article for wiki readers if we, as editors, do not engage in the same reductionist, political dispute and instead neutrally document the dispute: "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________."

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using the word "get sick" to mean "become infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2". Since (pre-vaccine) the only way to develop their "herd immunity" was to "get sick", then I hope we can agree that they actually did want everyone else to "get sick". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How, in your opinion, does the debate over using the term sick vs infected help move the larger debate forward or otherwise help improve the biography of Kulldorff as it currently is? Is there a specific improvement to the article you are thinking of that relates to whether we use the term 'sick' or 'infected?' (that's neither a trick question nor snark)

The original problem prompting this original discussion over the statement of the "impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus" has been resolved in the article. I believe the debate we are having here now is whether or not to keep the claim of "pseudoscience" in the lede as a form of parity to acknowledge the Declaration's fringe-ness. But I could be wrong about what we are debating now, it has taken several tangents.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "et everyone around them get sick" is not at all what the document says. We are to have herd immunity, and low-risk people are to increase their risk of getting infected, but somehow we are not going to let any of them get infected? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What part of my statement do you find unclear and more importantly, how does this debate move us towards the goal of improving the article?

In response to your statement:

We are to have herd immunity, and low-risk people are to increase their risk of getting infected, but somehow we are not going to let any of them get infected?
— User:WhatamIdoing

That is not for us as editors to decide or adjudicate. Neutrality policy requires editors to describe the dispute, not engage in it. "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________."

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a big waste of time, and it is not about improving the article anymore. The users who want the article to pretend that the GBD is not absurd, Social Darwinist bullshit will not be convinced that it is absurd, Social Darwinist bullshit, and they need not be convinced of that. They only need to be convinced that they will not succeed in turning the article into a fence-sitting exercise. And they won't. Just forget it. We follow the reliable sources. So, let's close this thread. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, pointless WP:CPUSHING and a waste of time. Time to ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I will concur that time is being wasted here, but that is only in that some editors are refusing to acknowledge that the declaration is not "debunked"/"absurd" or whatever, but has been given due consideration including in reliable medical sources. Yes, it was rejected in many cases, but that does not mean it is pseudoscience or whatever else is being WP:CPUSHed for (I should be frank, not always being civil, as is made clear by the two preceding comments).

The issue is that there are reliable sources that discuss the topic, but some WP:POV-editors are pushing for poor quality sources that dismiss it off hand. Single stray quotes in the Hill, or judgement made by a single author in self-published blog Science-Based Medicine - are not WP:DUE for the lede in a WP:BLP, nor keep parity with the declaration, or any number of sources that discuss is at lenght.

For instance, what is wrong with the following discussion: Wall Street Journal - How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate - They worked with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration. ? (mentioned already, but completely ignored)

Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: "Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source".

(The Great Barrington Declaration, on the other hand, absolutely and unequivocally is a self-published source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Also from WP:RSP: "Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces." Your WSJ link is not news, it is an opinion piece about science. So, not reliable except as a source for the opinon of "The editorial board", a bunch of anti-science ideologues known for climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your comments on WSJ are repeated from elsewhere, and as that issue was resolved I don't see why you write here. As for SCM: it is not for editors to dictate whether something is self-published or not, it is simply fact that the New England Sceptics Association publishes its own blog: Science-Based Medicine. As for reliability, it certainly might be useful for some statements, but not here and certainly not for use in the lede of this biographical article that is not about the Great Barrington Declaration. Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why you write here - well, it was an answer to your question what is wrong with the following discussion. If you do not want an anseer, don't ask.

it is not for editors to dictate whether something is self-published or not Replace "dictate" by "find out", and voila, yes it is. That is one of the purposes of WP:RSP. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how Misplaced Pages works, by reading the pages behind the "WP:" links. Then we would not have to explain every basic thing to you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Collins statement

I have placed a statement to that effect in the article before, using the same WSJ article you are citing. The statement was reverted soon thereafter. There is a discussion above, where consensus has not yet been reached on restoring the statement.

I think the statement adds value to the article, as it helps explain the breadth of the controversy surrounding Kulldorff's less-mainstream opinions and how mainstream science reacted to them. Join the discussion there to see if we can find a consensus statement that improves the article. More involved editors may equate to a broader consensus. Unfortunately I am seeing a lot of digging-in of positions and editors are explicitly "choosing sides," losing site of our collective goal; to write a neutral article.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The users who want the article to pretend that the GBD is not absurd, Social Darwinist bullshit will not be convinced that it is absurd, Social Darwinist bullshit, and they need not be convinced of that.
— User:Hob Gadling 13:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor's opinions of the GBD are irrelevant. An editor's job is not to engage in the dispute. Neutrality policy requires editors to describe the dispute, not engage in it. "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________."

They only need to be convinced that they will not succeed in turning the article into a fence-sitting exercise. And they won't. Just forget it.
— User:Hob Gadling 13:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Civility policy (core policy) states that no one owns a particular article, or any part of it. It also recommends that editors should check their emotions when their views are challenged. We are all here to cooperatively improve the article, not to choose sides and ensure "they" don't succeed.

By explicitly expressing one's opinion of the content (engaging in the dispute), one is choosing a side and explicitly stating a bias. By explicitly stating an editor won't allow content that contradicts their bias, they are not editing neutrally and are not assuming good faith.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a very, very, very bad source on questions like whether something is the scientific consensus and whether something is wildly fringe. After all, they push climate change denial. But even if they did not, they are just a journalistic source and therefore automatically sub-par on any scientific questions. So, stick it.

No, WP:FRINGE still applies. No dissing of mainstream science, no pushing of outsider ideas. That the GBD qualifies for application of WP:LUNATICS is not "editor's opinions". It is the scientific consensus. I am sorry that you have been misinformed about that, and you should reconsider your choice of information sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The tone and language used here can easily be interpreted as a lack of civility. I assume the intention was not to offend anyone, but it can be construed as such. Can you strike the "stick it" comment?

So, stick it.
— User:Hob Gadling 08:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Civility is a core policy and something we should all strive to abide. This is an attempt to deal with perceived incivility.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 09:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Tone policing is the last refuge of people who have nothing else. You have been doing almost nothing but tone policing and similarly empty and pointless word-concatenating for this whole thread, and it has been getting on people's nerves. Which leads to people being gruff with you, which leads to more tone-policing. After this, you will once again tone-police, but I will not respond to it, except maybe with, "Am I psychic, or what?" --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

So, instead of focusing on tone - how about engaging in how the self-published blog of the New England Skeptical Society: Science-Based Medicine - trumps a piece signed by the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal? (and numerous other sources)

Simply stating that something is "very very bad" is in violation of multiple policies and guidelines, including WP:NEUTRAL, WP:PARITY, and most significantly WP:RS and WP:MEDRS#WP:MEDASSESS, which reads:

WP:MEDRS#WP:MEDASSESS
Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review

Rejection of a piece signed by WSJ editorial board in favor of blog SCM is textbook WP:POV-editing.

As for the civility-issues, tone policing is certainly below the cut-off for useful debate.

It is however difficult to engage with the higher rungs of argument, when repeated refutation is met by ad hominem and name-calling (see the Pyramid of argumentation which places a rung above those)

I have for instance repeatedly been castigated for "pro-fringe" views, of which I have not expressed, and which I have even rejected.

I suggest we return to the issue at hand, which is that poorer quality sources are being used in the lede of a BLP in a non-WP:NEUTRAL un-WP:DUE and highly WP:POV fashion.

Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is not a "self-published blog". See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply stating that something is "very very bad" is in violation of multiple policies and guidelines Bullshit. WSJ is a bad source for science, and I have explained why, not "simply stated" it. The foremost reason is that it is a journalistic source, as I said. Maybe you should actually read pages like WP:RS instead of just plastering links to them all over the Talk page: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics and Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires. Even our article Wall Street Journal says that The Journal's editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters. So, if what the WSJ says contradicts what actual scientists in the field say, it is obvious that the WSJ should end up in the garbage bin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: RSN and WP:RSP make a distinction between news articles and opinion pieces. The Wall Street Journal news articles are "generally reliable for news", but the opinion pieces count as WP:RSOPINION, which says they may not be reliable for facts. I have assumed the news articles are usable, even if a high-quality MEDRS is better, but the the opinion pieces (like the one Distrait suggests) are not usable for facts because of RSOPINION. Llll5032 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Llll5032 - thank you, that argument pans out with regards to it being less reliable, however not de facto unreliable in the the face of similar quality sources. However Hob Gadling - your argument is false, in that you first and foremost, did not clarify your stance - nor did you specify how SCM is better, since it is both a journalistic source and an opinion piece - and most certainly self-published.

As for what you state about contradicting what "actual scientists say", the GBD was also penned by actual scientists - and we are currently referencing a flimsy source to state that the declaration is pseudoscience and impossible. Distrait cognizance (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, bullshit. SBM is far more reliable than WSJ when it comes to medical subjects. If you disagree, go to ].

The difference between the GBD "actual scientists" and the majority of actual scientists can be seen from the many comments by actual scientists at our article [[Great Barrington Declaration}} - we could use the sources used there too.

In every field, there are a few who get it wrong. Cherry picking those few scientists who agree with you is not a way to find the truth. What matters is which side as the facts on their side, for example the number of deaths in states that did something against the pandemic - Vietnam, for instance - and the number of deaths in states that did not - Brazil, for instance. You can blab and blab and blab and blab as long as you want, that will not change the fact that the scientific consensus is very clear because the facts are very clear. Go away, you lost this discussion long ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

An Opinion piece should normally be used only as a source for its opinions ("Ed Editor said he believes social darwinism is better than his grandkids missing any more school"), not as a source for facts.

Also, regardless of source quality, "somebody sent a private e-mail message to somebody else that didn't even mention Kulldorff by name" probably shouldn't be included in this article anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your statement regarding the fair uses of an opinion piece.

However, emails to and from a U.S. government email address are public domain, not private. The emails I assume you are referencing (between Collins and Fauci) were obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, which states the following:

Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency.

Collins email explicitly states "This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists..." and Kulldorff is one of the three authors. The email, therefore directly and explicitly concerns Kulldorff as well as the other two authors.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Privacy is not merely a matter of copyright status (e.g., whether it's public domain). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a copyright status dispute. It's a matter of public records and the emails are now public records.

Situations of personal privacy are reasons to delete material and otherwise deny a FOIA request. Therefore, the fact that the FOIA request was granted precludes any legal basis for privacy. FOIA documents belong to the general public.

The following is from the Department of Health and Human Services page. The NIH is under the HHS.

Federal agencies are required to disclose records upon receipt of a written request, with some exceptions. This right of access is enforceable in court. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides public access to all federal agency records except for those records (or portions of those records) that are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions or three exclusions (reasons for which an agency may withhold records from a requester).

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I still think it's reasonable to refer to an e-mail message sent from one (1) person to one (1) other person as a private communication, even if it were later published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Communications to and from public officials are—by default—considered public. "This right of access is enforceable in court." It is legally considered public unless and until it qualifies for one of the nine exemptions or three exclusions (and justifications for exemptions and exclusions must be requested in writing and be approved).

The portions of the emails that were not redacted did not receive any of the exemptions or exclusions and are therefore considered public communications. It would, therefore be inappropriate and inaccurate to label them as private communications.

"The public’s business must be conducted in public."

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 05:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS – Managing Editor | Science-Based Medicine". sciencebasedmedicine.org. 2008-10-05. Retrieved 2022-02-04.
2. "Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256", Misplaced Pages, 2021-04-24, retrieved 2022-02-04
3. "Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information", Misplaced Pages, 2021-12-06, retrieved 2022-02-05
4. "Proposal to hasten herd immunity to the coronavirus grabs White House attention but appalls top scientists". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-02-10.

Unnecessary deaths and recurrent epidemics

The following statement got mangled in a recent edit and contains two sentence run-ons and a typo (I can correct the typo):

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis, and scienists dismissed the document as impossible in practice, unethical and as pseudoscience, warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths and result in recurrent epidemics.

The WSJ article does not say that a policy such as the GBD would result in recurrent epidemics. The article attributes recurrent waves of infection to the possibility of immunity waning:

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection , a common occurrence before vaccines were invented. That would continue to place a huge burden on the economy and health-care system, they said.

The article quotes Ashish Jha as saying "What they're calling for would just lead to many—hundreds of thousands of Americans—dying."

I would therefore like to remove the following clause as poorly-cited and also a sentence run-on...

, warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths and result in recurrent epidemics.

...and replace it with this complete/independent sentence (fixing one of the run-ons and the poorly-cited statement regarding recurrent epidemics):

Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University's School of Public Health claimed that following the recommendations of the declaration would "lead to many—hundreds of thousands of Americans—dying."

Are there any objections to that edit?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 08:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree partly but disagree partly. I may share a proposal later today. Llll5032 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We could change "recurrent epidemics" to "recurrent waves of infections" to match the Wall Street Journal wording, and edit the grammar so it is not a run-on sentence. But I don't think we need to replace the summary with a quotation from a single scientist. Are there any objections to me making small edits to the sentence? Llll5032 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Where do you read the source article supports the assertion that the GBD, if implemented, would cause either recurrent waves or recurrent epidemics? That's a serious question, not snark. I don't see that the source asserts that, but I could be interpreting something differently than you.

It would be much easier to understand and evaluate if you propose a version of the statement here, in its full form.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 06:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole Wall Street Journal article describes scientists' warnings about the declaration and its herd immunity strategy, including the warning about recurring waves. The Journal also links to a letter from scientists in The Lancet that says, "Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination." Llll5032 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The article unambiguously ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the Declaration. Again the quote, for clarity and for those who don't have access to the WSJ article:

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection...

Not only does the article not tie recurrent waves to the GBD (in any clear or direct way that I can see or that anyone else has quoted), it also doesn't make clear these 'recurrent waves' would be unique to or the cause of implementing the policies suggested by the Declaration.

We have are already seen recurrent waves and the Declaration has not been implemented.

Therefore I don't think the statement adds value to the article. It could be considered fear-mongering or just poor synthesis. We also know know that, at least with the Delta variant, natural immunity (infection-derived) provided better protection than vaccine-induced immunity:

Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning.

So that puts into question the concern about waning immunity, recurrent waves, and a direct link to policies recommended by the Declaration.

The Lancet article does not mention the Great Barrington Declaration at all so it certainly isn't tying recurrent waves to the Declaration.

It's a very tenuous synthesis at best. I think it should be removed from Kulldorff's biography.

Since you aren't in favor of quoting Ashish Jha either (and I tend to agree with you on that), I propose we remove that entire clause altogether (as it is commentary on the GBD anyway, not Kulldorff).

Are there any objections?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 07:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That letter to The Lancet is the John Snow Memorandum, written in response to the GBD. This SBM article quotes it about recurrent epidemics, and notes that it was written in response to the GBD. Llll5032 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither the Lancet article, nor johnsnowmemo.com mention the Great Barrington Declaration.

But again; can you show where the WSJ article ties recurrent waves to the GBD?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 08:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the Journal article makes the connections clearly. But if you do not, then we could cite the SBM article as well, because it makes the connections even more clearly. What do other editors think? Llll5032 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote the WSJ article indicating it 'makes the connection clearly?' Here is how it reads:

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection...

We can omit modifying clauses without losing any context and it reads: 'If immunity wanes, patients could be susceptible. That would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection.'

The single time the SBM article mentions "recurrent epidemics" is a quote from the Lancet article, which again, does not mention the Declaration at all.

SBM is an equally poor source for the statement for the same reason WSJ is: it does not attribute 'recurrent epidemics or waves' to the GBD but rather to waning immunity.

The source they are both using, the Lancet article, does not mention the GBD at all, neither in the document nor in the accompany homepage.

I think the uncontroversial compromise for an article about Kulldorff, not the Declaration, is to leave the statement out of Kulldorff's article. The statement might have consensus acceptance and value on the Great Barrington Declaration page but I don't think it adds value to Kulldorff's biography. It is not only speculative synthesis, but we now know that for the Delta variant (the predominant strain when the WSJ article was published), infection-induced immunity is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity, making the statement even more problematic.

Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The John Snow Memorandum warned of recurrent waves due to waning immunity after infections if the virus was allowed to spread. Are you really arguing that the JSM wasn't a response to the GBD and its herd immunity strategy, despite secondary RS saying it was, and despite the documents even sharing a Misplaced Pages page? Llll5032 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping the discussion on track, I am saying (and believe I have effectively demonstrated) that none of the sources you have provided directly tie the assertion of "recurrent waves" or "recurrent epidemics" to the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD).

You continue to say they do, but haven't effectively demonstrated it with a direct quote.

Verifiablity policy states:

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.

It further clarifies direct support as:

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research.

None of the sources explicitly state that the GBD would cause recurrent waves or recurrent epidemics.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 04:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The supporting direct quote is already in the footquote in the article. You seem to think it is insufficient, so I don't object to adding another citation. Llll5032 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Llll5032. The WSJ article is about the GBD, and the section we're quoting is laying out the issues with a strategy that relies on herd immunity. Firefangledfeathers 04:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not the WSJ article is about the GBD, broadly speaking, is not at issue (nor in dispute by me).

WP:VERIFY requires explicit presentation. The footquote provided (and quoted above) explicitly attributes recurrent waves to waning immunity not the GBD.

Neither the WSJ article, nor the SBM article explicitly ties "recurrent waves" or "recurrent epidemics" to the GBD. They both explicitly attribute recurrent waves to waning immunity. It's not a matter of interpretation.

Making the connection from recurrent epidemics → waning immunity → Great Barrington Declaration is original research.

The article for Martin Kulldorff is not an article about the GBD. It's a biography of Kulldorff. Therefore this statement can be uncontroversially removed. Maybe it's better used in the article for the Declaration. But given this is a biography, I don't see how a challenged statement about the Declaration, which lacks direct support adds value.

There is no quote that explicitly and directly supports the statement. The footquote doesn't even mention the Great Barrington Declaration.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 05:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I added "and" for grammar while the other questions are considered. Alexbrn edited the sentence last and may have a better idea. Llll5032 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The template "verification needed" was removed in a recent edit by Distrait_cognizance. However, the edit did not address the underlying problem discussed above. I would like to replace the template in order to continue to solicit outside verification of the source.

Are there any objections to me replacing the template?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Having not read this discussion, I may have missed what you were requesting. I understood it that you did not have access to the source - however I see now that you do. Distrait cognizance (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed two sentence run-ons from this statement, one of which was the statement regarding unnecessary deaths and recurrent epidemics. The original statement added undue weight to the fringe/alt of the Declaration and as such, has no value to the biography of Kulldorff (but may have value to the page dedicated to the Declaration).

The statement has had an administrative template requesting verification of the dubious use of the language 'recurrent epidemics' as discussed above. After thirty days, no one has demonstrated that the cited source directly links recurrent waves to the Declaration, nor to Kulldorff and therefore, as a challenged statement on a biography of a living person, it should be removed.

As the statement currently reads, the opinion of mainstream science of the Declaration is clear and no undue weight is given to Kulldorff's alt/fringe views as presented in the Declaration. Readers who want to learn more about the Declaration can read the article dedicated to it.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Please provide the quote from the article that directly supports the statement that the Declaration could contribute to recurrent epidemics. Based on your revert of my edit, you believe there is consensus that it does, yet there has been no quote provided and the administrative tag has remained unanswered for thirty days.

As noted above, this is a BLP and according to core policy:

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.
— verifiability (core policy)

The material has been challenged as not directly supported. Therefore it does not belong in a biography of a living person.

Because there is no direct link between either Kulldorff or the Declaration, that link represents original research and does not belong in the biography.

Furthermore:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
— Biographies of Living Persons (core policy)

Because this is a biography, the challenged/contested material should remain off the biography unless and until a source is provided that directly supports the statement.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, my initial impression, and my continued belief having re-read the discussion, is that you have failed to persuade other editors that your interpretation of the source is correct. The WSJ does directly support the statement, and the verification needed tag should be removed. I am not sure that repeating my view will be helpful, but please don't take my lack of reply as silent agreement with your points. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So again, no one can provide a quote in the article that directly states 'the Declaration will cause recurrent epidemics.' What the article does state is:

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection...

What does that have to do with the Declaration or Kuldorff?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 04:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

...you have failed to persuade other editors that your interpretation of the source is correct
— Firefangledfeathers

According to the core verifiability policy, the onus is on the editor wishing to include the content:

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Therefore the removal of the disputed and unverified content from a biography is inline with core policy. Repeatedly re-inserting it is not.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 09:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to me, other editors have now stated that the 'recurrent waves' statement is not supported by any of the discussed sources (Wall Street Journal, Science-Based Medicine, the John Snow Memorandum, and the Boston Globe):

This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD...But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19.
— Endwise

(source)

...the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions...
— Morbidthoughts

(source)

I have therefore replaced the statement with something that incorporates more of a consensus of what seems to be what everyone wants portrayed, taking input from the discussion had at the BLP noticeboard. I believe this version maintains due weight and neutrality.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Focused Protection (resolved)

I would like to change the following clause in the lede:

...while claiming that vulnerable people could simultaneously be kept safe from the virus.

To the following:

...while focusing protective measures on the vulnerable.

The word "safe" has special context within medicine that should be considered. When the authors begin to describe focused protection in the document, they write:

...while better protecting those who are at highest risk.

The authors did not assert it possible to keep people safe. The word "safe" is not used in the Declaration. They asserted it is possible to better protect the vulnerable, which implies the protection will not be complete, nor perfect, but better (their opinion and an assertion of the Declaration).

They further clarified it in the dedicated page defining focused protection:

The aim of focused protection is to minimize overall mortality...

That clarifies that what they are proposing is not expected to be complete nor perfect protection.

The source used to support the statement also does not use the word 'safe' in the context of what the Declaration aims to achieve. Instead, the source states the following:

The declaration, a statement written by three public health experts from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford, encourages governments to lift lockdown restrictions on young and healthy people while focusing protection measures on the elderly.

That quote does not assert the Declaration aims to keep people safe. The word "safe" is only used in that article in a statement by Kulldorff regarding children returning to school.

Are there any objections to me making this edit?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems better before, a promise to "minimize" overall mortality is in effect a promise to keep safe. Alexbrn (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Declaration can not be reasonably interpreted as a promise. And to reiterate; the word "safe" is used in neither the declaration nor the citation supporting it. Therefore the statement is poorly-sourced, contentious material in a biography. From WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

That the contentious statement itself is about the GBD does not exclude it from core policy regarding biographies. The statement at the top of this talk page clearly states:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The statement at the top of the page (which has no policy weight) is badly worded as it encourages WP:CLUELESS Wikilawyering like what you're doing. The actual policy is explicit that BLP applies to material about living people anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I agree that the policy applies as stated, to material about living people. But if you're really arguing that the declaration itself needs to be treated as a living person, then we have a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The ceaseless and baseless accusations are growing tiresome. The ad hominem attacks are uncivil and your assertion that "we have a problem" is a problem.

Discussing edit changes and trying to reach a consensus is not disruptive nor is it wiki-lawyering. Anyone can clearly see in the history of this talk page that I am working towards consensus changes to improve the article and to conform to policy (whether I have violated policy or others have).

If you feel I am being disruptive, I encourage you to stop accusing me of it and proceed with whatever you feel is the appropriate next step. Similar to the baseless and unwarranted accusations of COI, this will not be tolerated as it is uncivil and it is disruptive.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of your argument is based on the word 'safe'. I am fine with replacing that with 'protected'. I oppose the rest of the proposed change, as the claims the declaration made about protecting/safeguarding vulnerable populations are a key focus of RS coverage of the GBD and Kulldorff. The proposal would remove focus from the claims and lessen the neutrality of the article. Firefangledfeathers 03:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct, my argument is based on the word 'safe.' What does your proposed statement look like? Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

...while claiming that vulnerable people could simultaneously be kept protected from the virus.

Firefangledfeathers 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that statement fixes the problem. It might be better if the word "kept" is removed. It reads a bit awkwardly. Maybe something like:

...while claiming that vulnerable people could simultaneously be protected from the virus.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

John Snow Momorandum not relevant for this article

It is not relevant or appropriate to bring up specifics of the John Snow Memorandum, as was done in this edit .

There are multiple stylistic issues with that edit that are non-neutral and there is missing context. While certainly relevant for the article on the Great Barrington Declaration, the wording would even then need to be reworked. Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's one of the main sources of the claim, present in this article, that Kulldorff's proposal would result in excess deaths.

I notice that you reverted everything, instead of just this one change. For example, I removed some needless verbiage about which publication their opinion piece was published in. We need to cite sources, not bloat articles with descriptions of the sources. Do you think that it's actually necessary to this article to include the words "In a September 2020 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal,"? If not, maybe you would go remove that again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a few reasons the John Snow Memorandum should not be used as a source on Kulldorff's biography:

1. Neither the the memorandum itself, nor the homepage for the memorandum mentions Kuldorff or the GBD by name, anywhere.

2. Others have described the GBD as a 'herd immunity strategy'

3. The John Snow Memorandum refutes a 'herd immunity strategy'

Therefore, using the John Snow Memorandum to specifically refute the GBD is a straw man fallacy in which one labels the GBD as a "herd immunity strategy" and then refutes a "herd immunity strategy" and not the GBD specifically. The authors of the GBD have made it clear that it is not a "herd immunity strategy."

This may surprise some readers given the unfortunate caricature of the Declaration, where some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy” that aims to maximize infections among the young or as a laissez-faire approach to let the virus rip through society. On the contrary, we believe that everyone should take basic precautions to avoid spreading the disease and that no one should intentionally expose themselves to COVID-19 infection. Since zero COVID is impossible, herd immunity is the endpoint of this epidemic regardless of whether we choose lockdowns or focused protection to address it.

— gbdeclaration.org

It is further problematic to use the John Snow Memorandum to refute the GBD because we now know that a key concern expressed in the John Snow Memorandum, namely that "there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection" is now false; natural immunity is proving to be at least as strong, if not stronger and longer-lasting than vaccine-acquired immunity:

Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning.

— cdc.gov

There is a very similar discussion being had here.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 21:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Section structure

I was asked via my User talk to consider what should be done about contentious aspects of this article.

For the good of the article as a whole, I think the section structure should be refactored. Fundamentally, the "Career" section should read smoothly, and that is not the case now. I would recommend sorting "Views" into a separate section, since the contentious points relate primarily to Kulldorff's expressed views. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I reordered the paragraphs. What was originally the second paragraph seems more appropriate to me as a section-lead. I also reworded it to better-reflect what the sources say.

One of the things we need to make more clear is how his views were informed and developed over time, as new information became available. For example, in the first paragraph (the new section-lead), the BMJ article used as a source was written before vaccines had emergency use approval. The BMJ article discusses his views on the age-stratification of mortality risk, which only partly informed his opposition to broad vaccine mandates, as he stated in The Hill article. Therefore we need to somehow indicate those types of developments; as the pandemic developed and as mandates developed, his views against mandates developed.

I'm not sure at the moment how best to do that...

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Kulldorff's opposition to vaccine mandates

@Firefangledfeathers: I have reverted part of your edit and in response to your edit summary, below are the sources for the statement you removed:

For older people, this does not cause a dilemma. Even if there is a small risk of a serious adverse reaction, that is still better than the much higher risk of dying from COVID. Hence, we should do everything we can to encourage vaccination for older people, including less affluent people whom our health care system often has difficulty reaching.

For younger adults and children, it is a different story, as their mortality risk is extremely low. Even a slight risk of a serious vaccine adverse reaction could tip the benefit-risk calculation, making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial. We have already observed rare problems with blood clots (J&J vaccine) and myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle, Pfizer and Moderna) in younger people, and additional equally serious issues might still be found.

Under such uncertainty, vaccine mandates are unethical.

— Kulldorff, Martin The Hill

The BMJ article supports his statement of a 'thousand fold higher' risk for older people:

because older people were 1000 times more likely to die of covid-19 than younger people, an “age stratified” approach could allow resources to be focused on older and high risk patients, while allowing younger and healthier people to attend school and keep businesses open.

— BMJ

Kulldorff did not " whether younger adults and children should be vaccinated against COVID-19." That is too finite a statement and makes it sound like he was against vaccinating the young, period, which is not what the article states.

He stated the risk versus benefits ratio for the young made vaccine mandates unethical (as quoted above).

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

For the "Kulldorff opposed ..." line, I think you might be able to rewrite it to remove the synth and fake quote, so I'm happy to leave it up. For the part sourced only to his opinion piece, we're experiencing a classic issue with over-reliance on primary sources are coming up right now, as my reading of Kulldorff's words differs from you. When he says "making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial", I see him questioning vaccination of young people. Neither of use have secondary sources to rely on to avoid personal interpretation. I'm not sure I see why we shouldn't find WP:BRD or WP:ONUS here, so I'd prefer it if you'd self-revert pending a new consensus. If you'd prefer to remove the content entirely, I'm not opposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1. What is the 'fake quote?' Please be specific.
2. What is the synth? Please be specific.
3. "I see him questioning vaccination of young people" That is an editor's opinion and as such is not neutral. An editor's interpretation of a subject's statement is original research.
4. Policy regarding biographies permits the use of a subject's statements to support an editor's claim the subject stated it. For an editor to assert "so-and-so said X, Y, and Z", policy allows the use of the subjects own words stating X, Y, and Z.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1. fake quote: "thousand fold higher", not present in either cited source
2. synth: which of the cited sources connects "a thousand fold higher" to vaccine mandates?
3. how would you feel about replacing your interpretation with a direct quote like Writing about younger people, Kulldorff said "Even a slight risk of a serious vaccine adverse reaction could tip the benefit-risk calculation, making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial." You are not the sole arbiter of what is impermissible editor interpretation and what is permissible summary. I'd argue that "younger people experience rare reactions to the vaccines at higher rates than older people" is more of a stretch than "questioned"
4. policy also recommends against over-reliance on primary sources, which is why I reverted a lengthening of the primary-source-supported content

We could be discussing all of this without any edit warring, but you reverted to restore new, disputed material without having achieved consensus for inclusion. Here's my second request for self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We must be talking about different sources.

The Hill says: "While anyone can get infected, the old have a thousand-fold higher mortality risk than the young. "

The BMJ article says: "...because older people were 1000 times more likely to die of covid-19 than younger people... "

Regarding the connection, The Hill states:

"For younger adults and children, it is a different story, as their mortality risk is extremely low. Even a slight risk of a serious vaccine adverse reaction could tip the benefit-risk calculation, making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial." and then it states "Under such uncertainty, vaccine mandates are unethical."

He opposes vaccine mandates (calls them unethical) partly because of the age-differentiated risk of mortality from the disease and adverse reactions to the vaccines. There is no synth necessary on my part.

Where else are primary sources used and at what level do we consider their "too much?" We have to be able to directly source statements he's made.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In response to the idea he opposed vaccines for younger people in general, this statement of his, also in The Hill, contradicts that idea:

There is intense pressure on young adults and children to be vaccinated. Universities such as Colombia, Cornell, Harvard and Stanford require all students to get the shot as a condition of attending college normally. Young people looking for work are discriminated against if they are not vaccinated. It makes public health sense to require some vaccinations in some settings.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said, and the article never said, that he opposed vaccines for younger people. The status quo text is "questioned whether younger adults and children should be vaccinated against COVID-19." I'd also be fine with wrote that the vaccines could be "more harmful than beneficial" for young people and children. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

For the quote, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I fixed the WP:V issue created by that source not being cited in-line with the quoted material. I now see no synth issue. You'll see a few issues in the article, and there are more that are untagged, including citing LinkedIn for career details. As you've identified, at various times, a desire to reduce the amount of content in the COVID section, the first place we should look is to content that isn't proven DUE by secondary coverage. Could you quote the material in The Hill source that discusses age-differentiated mortality in adverse reactions to vaccines? While you're looking, could you restore the old content pending consensus for the new material? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As you've identified, at various times, a desire to reduce the amount of content in the COVID section...

I advocate reducing the amount of content specifically regarding the GBD. I am in favor of documenting Kulldorff's views of COVID-19 and his contribution to the overall debate about lockdowns, herd-immunity, etc. But as recommended by Charles Matthews I'm focussing on the flow of the "career" and "views" sections first.

Could you quote the material in The Hill source that discusses age-differentiated mortality in adverse reactions to vaccines?

I think you've misread what I said.

What I said was: "He opposes vaccine mandates (calls them unethical) partly because of the age-differentiated risk of mortality from the disease and adverse reactions to the vaccines. "

To try to rephrase it: two of the reasons (both stated in the Hill article) for his opposition to vaccine mandates are age-differentiated risk of mortality and age-differentiated risk of adverse reactions to the vaccines. According to Kulldorff; the young are both less like to die from the disease and are more likely to suffer adverse reactions to the vaccines.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on your thoughts on overall length. You're right that I was conflating the two subjects. On adverse reactions: I'm not actually concerned with what you're saying here, but what's currently in the article, "younger people experience rare reactions to the vaccines at higher rates than older people". That content is not supported by The Hill. I've suggested some alternate language, to which you haven't responded. It's ok if you don't like the proposals, and I look forward to the opinions of other editors. It's not ok to leave your disputed content in the article without consensus, and you haven't been acknowledging or accepting my requests to self-revert. I'm going to go ahead and revert to the status quo ante. I am again, fine, with removing the disputed lines entirely while discussion is ongoing, if that's what you'd prefer. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the article:

We have already observed rare problems with blood clots (J&J vaccine) and myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle, Pfizer and Moderna) in younger people, and additional equally serious issues might still be found.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 04:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The article does not support the statement "…younger people experience rare reactions to the vaccines at higher rates than older people". Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 06:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class COVID-19 articles
• Low-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles