Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:46, 22 October 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

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: Science and Academia 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 This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology: COMPBIO This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance). 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Kullldorff identifies as an epidemiologist

He identifies himself as an epidemiologist and several, reputable organizations recognize him as one. This has been discussed at length in the past. One unsourced, parenthetical statement in an obvious hit-piece by someone who is not an expert on epidemiology is not sufficient to outweigh the sources that indicate otherwise.

To believe that Hillsdale College, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Francis Collins himself are all wrong and that an oncologist has it right in an obvious hit-piece is to clearly show bias in an attempt to prevent Kulldorff from being represented as a legitimate epidemiologist.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A blurb by Hillsdale college is not a reliable source. We follow decent secondary ones. Also, edit warring is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

When "the blurb" is paired with numerous other sources, it gains authority. He is an epidemiologist. It is documented by a number of sources, to include the previous head of NIH Francis Collins.

What an oncologist with an axe to grind says, without any supporting evidence is hearsay. Is it realistic to think that Gorski knows better that Collins about Kulldorff being or not being an epidemiologist? I don't think so.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

When the blurb is self-published by a college known primarily for its refusal to comply with US laws against sex discrimination (thereby depriving all of its students of Pell grants and other financial aid), one really might not want to rely on them for any sort of "authority". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Even a mediator said the neutral option is to omit the title when RS disagree, instead of saying he is or is not an epidemiologist. Did any editor besides Michael want to include it during the previous discussions? Llll5032 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that mediation failed and additional evidence has come to light since that attempted mediation.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For those of us that didn't participate in the old DRN discussion, is there more new evidence than just the Hillsdale bio? I wouldn't weigh that much at all, given that it's so non-independent. Often, those bios are written by the staff member themselves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The reputation of Hillsdale College as an educational institution gives weight to the use of the term 'epidemiologist.' The act of publishing his bio and using the term 'epidemiologist' to describe Kulldorff indicates they are willing to risk their reputation on him being an epidemiologist.

To argue otherwise, to me sounds like one is arguing this:

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, former head of the NIH Francis Collins, and Hillsdale College all have it wrong and the oncologist David Gorski has it right.

Kulldorff works in epidemiology. He identifies as an epidemiologist. He is recognized as an epidemiologist by reputable institutions.

I see no valid, unbiased reason to intentionally exclude the descriptor from his bio. It directly contributes to a reader's understanding of the more controversial and fringe opinions he has expressed. If he were a plumber, his controversial opinions would be less impactful but due to his work as an epidemiologist they become more important.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to rehash old evidence and counter-evidence. Have any new high-quality, independent secondary sources in 2022 (see WP:BESTSOURCES) described Kulldorff as an epidemiologist? Llll5032 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue was never resolved.

Persisting that Gorski is an authority of what defines an epidemiologist, over Francis Collins, let alone the Post, the Journal, and Hillsdale College is not logical and biases the article. It makes it appear that Misplaced Pages doesn't want Kulldorff recognized as an epidemiologist, despite the fact that other institutions do.

Since wiki reports on what has been reported, a more suitable and less-biased solution would be to document in the Covid-19 section that Gorski, an oncologist, personally believes Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:GREL and WP:REHASH closely. Llll5032 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

From WP:GREL:

Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.

1. How is Gorski an expert on who is and who is not an epidemiologist?

2. How does that compare to Francis Collins, former director of the NIH, who considered Kulldorff a fringe epidemiolgist?

I contend that Gorski—an oncologist specializing in breast surgery—does not have expertise in establishing who is and who is not an epidemiologist. Especially so, considering Francis Collins, former director of the NIH, and director at the time of the statement, called Kulldorff a "fringe epidemiologist."

To argue that Gorski's parenthetical, unsourced comment that Kulldorff is specifically "not an epidemiologist" trumps Collins' assertion that he an epidemiologist, defies logic and reason.

For example, to maybe help illustrate my argument: Gorski could reliably be sourced for his opinion that Kulldorff is a 'fringe epidemiologist' because Gorski is an accepted expert on fringy/wooy things. But I don't see that he has expertise in defining who is an epidemiologist who isn't, especially when it contradicts Collins.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

opposed some disease control measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting control measures such as "age-targeted viral testing" is WP:PROFRINGE. "Age-targeted viral testing" has 8 Google hits, all of them Barrington-related. It is a theoretical concept the GBD folks dreamed up and claim will work, but there is no evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"It is a theoretical concept the GBD folks dreamed up..."

Great! Document it in the article and be sure to cite it. See new section below.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You got it ass-backwards. You want it in the lead as a "disease control measure", you need to document that it is one, and just an empty term. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

See discussion below titled What's a control measure?.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice attempt at diverting attention away from your attempt to shift the burden of proof. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove anything was a control measure. See discussion below.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's what I am saying. You are not trying to prove anything, you are trying to shift the burden of proof to the opponents. I don't need to prove that an obscure concept is obscure, you need to show that it is due. That is how Misplaced Pages works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

1. This is now way off topic.

2. I don't see you as an opponent. I see you as a fellow editor with the same objective as mine; to improve the biography of a living person.

3. This is still way off topic. The discussion is below.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In line with a quote added by user:Bon_courage that identifies Kulldorff as an epidemiologist, I have added the moniker.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like WP:TE. This has been discussed ad nauseam and the situation hasn't changed: the only source that considers this question (a good one) says explicitly he's not an epidemiologist, so Misplaced Pages is not going to assert this contended information as fact. But you know this. Bon courage (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What's a "disease control measure"?

@Firefangledfeathers was right. None of the cited articles for the statement regarding control measures called any of them control measures so the statement should be revised here in the talk page and consensus should be reached before the statement is replaced. Lest an edit war ensues and none of us want that, clearly.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael's latest edit to the top is clearly against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE, and probably also MOS:LEADREL and WP:POINT. I think the deleted content, including refs to two RS, should be restored immediately. Llll5032 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I support restoration. This does feel pretty POINTy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree; this deletion spree is beginning to feel disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY is raising its head. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree there was ever any consensus. There are too few editors and a tyranny of the majority has developed, but no consensus, otherwise the content wouldn't be contended.

The question to answer now is 'what is a control measure?' Firefangledfeathers was right and the terminology "disease control measure" used was not supported by any of the cited articles.

I propose this statement be added to the section titled: Views on COVID-19

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting measures such as "age-targeted viral testing."

That way we avoid calling anything a control measure as the cited articles did not. It also includes the example of a measure he supported, which was also referenced in the same cited article.

That edit would be closer to achieving consensus because it contains accurate statements from the article that all parties can agree on.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 13:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that the things he opposes work, while there is a consensus that the thing he supports does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus text, with an additional wikilink which will I hope inform the OP of what's what. Incidentally, the target article, Public health mitigation of COVID-19, is in pretty poor shape and needs expansion. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Repeated and disruptive reverts of good faith edits does not build consensus. We are working in the talk page to ensure the biography is accurate and fair to the subject.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the old "I disagree with everybody else, therefore the question is contentious, and this is a BLP, so I win by default" trick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Text + link look good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"The main problem with this is that the things he opposes work"

That's an editor's opinion and was not a statement cited from anywhere. The cited articles did not call any of the measures disease control measures and @Firefangledfeathers is right; we as editors can not determine what is and what is not a disease control measure. We can report what has been reported.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point we're in danger of getting into WP:TE territory. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article and disease control measures (not, NB just "control measures") are obviously measures which (attempt to) control disease - of which there have been many throughout history, and during this pandemic in particular. Quibbling with a good summary which guides the reader into a correct understanding does not help build the encyclopedia. And claiming that somehow ones's edits should be revert-proof is also most odd ... WP:BRD can be a good way to proceed. Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki reports on what has been reported.

Being medical information, it is not an editor's place to interpret. Because none of the cited articles called them "disease control measures," we as editors shouldn't make that connection. That was Firefangledfeathers' point regarding age-targeted viral testing and I would agree. It therefore applies to all of the measures mentioned. Whether they control the disease or not is not something a wiki editor can determine or should infer.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is far into WP:SKYBLUE territory. Of course they are disease control measures. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And as well as being at 3RR the OP has now broken the page so there are reference errors. Even Kulldorff called the things "COVID-19 control measures" as is explained in the article body. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Even Kulldorff called the things "COVID-19 control measures" as is explained in the article body."

Can you put together a proposed statement that is cited to reflect that Kulldorff called them that without synthesizing or interpreting? If so, then we may be getting closer to a consensus.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We're already at consensus. You're edit warring against it though. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't at consensus otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. A consensus is not a majority—especially when there are so few editors involved.

As a BLP, we need to make sure we get it right. Therefore contentious copy should be sussed out in Talk Page before going to article space. That's to protect the subject and to protect Wiki from liable.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You do not understand what the word consensus means. It is not the same as unanimity. One can have a consensus with a few people arguing against it, if the reasoning of those people is clearly unreasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling, I understand a consensus to be define as:

Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely.

I also understand that what some of us are trying to do here, in the talk page; is to work through our differences, i.e. propose alternative statements that are hopefully agreeable to all, even if only barely.

Putting that attempt at consensus into the context of a biography, we need to make sure we get it right. There is no rush to have the copy in the biography if it is contentious and reflects inaccurately or incompletely the subject's controversial positions. There have been previous, recent comments from other editors that Kulldorff's biography seems biased. It is therefore our job to ensure it is neutral and accurate in reporting on what others reported about Kulldorff, nuance and all. When one side or one opinion dominates the biography, it comes across, rightly so, as biased.

There is also the added hurdle of achieving consensus in a biography that largely centers on biomedical information. All three things that Misplaced Pages takes seriously as conveyed through policies and accepted conventions.

So I think we are doing the hard work here, now, to find a consensus statement in order to clear up some of the perceived and some of the blatantly biased copy.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The same page WP:WHATISCONSENSUS says, further down, However, after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best.

Please do not ping me, I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling,

"...it may become necessary..."

I would say in this case it may not become necessary. There are too few editors involved and since my opinion seems to be the minority opinion, it should be more carefully considered, so as to avoid group-think.

What I have proposed is not unreasonable. The new full, proposed statement includes copy originally covered in the originally cited article. I am not introducing anything new, so-to-speak. Kulldorff's support of age-targeted viral testing was reported alongside his opposition to lockdowns, etc.

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting measures such as "age-targeted viral testing."

With the new statement, I as an editor am making no arguments on the efficacy of lockdowns versus age-targeted viral testing, nor is that being reflected in the new, proposed statement. I think that is where other editors are opposing the new statement. My contention is that Medpage reported on Kulldorff opposing some specific measures and supporting other, specific measures.

I would also agree with other editors that the new, proposed statement should't be in the lede, but should be in the section titled "Views on Covid-19."

I pinged you to make it clear who I was responding to. These discussions and the way they are threaded can make it less clear who's talking to who. Also, sometimes editor apps can dork up the way they display a reply, breaking indents specifically. The ping wasn't personal.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of your reasoning is fluff. You are wasting everybody's time with having consensus, reliable sources, expertise, and other trivial formal rookie stuff explained to you. Your suggestion is WP:PROFRINGE because it pretends that the economics-based fringe notion of "age-targeted viral testing" is on the same level as the science-based measures. The GBD is fringe, mainstream medicine rejects it, and its proponents are talking nonsense that endangers thousands of lives. Misplaced Pages will not portray it as anything else but fringe, and it will not use the postmodern some-say-this-others-say-that rhetoric. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not comparing the efficacy of age-targeted viral testing to lockdowns or any other measure. My addition to the statement reports on the fact that Medpage reported on the fact that Kulldorff opposed some named measures and supported others.

Another fact that we, as editors, should consider is that Kulldorff's statements regarding "age-targeted viral testing" were in response to specific CDC recommendations that were later reversed—something also reported by the same Medpage article (and this timeline of events lends credence to @Charles Matthews proposed Views subsection):

His commentary was written after CDC guidelines stated some asymptomatic patients may not need to be tested -- but those recommendations were later reversed."

So maybe the statement to be included in Article space becomes something like this:

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed specific measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting other measures such as "age-targeted viral testing." Kulldorff's support for what he called "age-targeted viral testing" was based on CDC guidelines that were later reversed.

I removed "contact tracing" from the statement because none of the three original sources mention his opposition to it, at least by the name "contact tracing."

That version of the statement makes it clear that "age-targeted viral testing" was a specific/quoted term Kulldorff used and it was based on guidelines later reversed by the CDC. That allows the reader to fully understand that his opinion on "aged-targeted viral testing" eventually diverged with published CDC guidance. AKA; a fringe idea.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling

"Of course they are disease control measures." The articles didn't call them that and as @Firefangledfeathers said, and I would agree, we shouldn't interpret or synthesize something the cited articles didn't say.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We're allowed to use synonyms, and sourcing is plentiful (for example this for contract tracing). What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think that these aren't diseases control measures? What is the purpose of challenging this particular phrase? MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers originally challenged the use of the term "disease control measure." I agree with their opinion.

What I am trying to accomplish here is to report the full nuance of what the original, cited articles reported. And that is—in a nutshell—that Kulldorff opposed specific measures while supporting others.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So propose a rewording that addresses your concerns - don't just blank it out and make us guess at what you have in mind. - Sorry, I see you did above. MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would add that we can avoid this entanglement by simply not using the term and instead use this statement, cited and sourced as originally done:

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting measures such as "age-targeted viral testing."

That copy avoids the contentious term "disease control measure" that the cited articles don't use and that Firefangledfeathers originally objected to and it reports on the nuance that is present in the cited/sourced articles.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 14:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It also slips in the disputed text you'd like to add. Deleting one bit of content as a wedge to make an addition you'd like seems rather WP:POINT to me. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What I am trying to add is something reported by the cited article. What is contentious about it is some editors' opinions of the efficacy of "age-targeted viral testing" which is a biased and inappropriate argument for an editor to make and take action on in a biography of a living person.

As editors we report what was reported. It was reported that he supported some and opposed other measures.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the consensus among experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a source which says just this anyway

• From the SBM source which the OP also deleted in their latest revert,

In order to maintain the illusion that his plan had any relevance in a post-vaccine world, Dr. Kulldorff has been forced to disparage vaccines, lockdowns, and all other measures that limit the spread of the virus.

Seems to sum it up nicely. Bon courage (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It sums up the opinion of an oncologist who had zero responsibility in reacting to the pandemic, commenting on an epidemiologist employed and depended on by some of the top institutions responsible for protecting the public.

The statement "In order to maintain the illusion..." is loaded with bias and conjecture about Kulldorff's intentions, something Gorski is not qualified to comment on.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the source with any attention, and your misdirected ad hominem would be fallacious in any case. On Misplaced Pages SBM is recognized as WP:GREL, especially for fringe medical views of the kind Kulldorff espouses. We need such sources to achieve NPOV and treat WP:FRINGE ideas in the proper manner. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that SBM is recognized does not mean anything and everything published there is gospel. Gorski is not the type of medical expert who can reasonably be cited to know or intuit another human's intentions. That's not the focus of oncology. So for a wiki editor to say that Kulldorff intended to maintain the illusion...because Gorski said so, is absurd.

There is no ad hominem in stating that an oncologist is not a psychologist, a phrenologist, or other. He's an oncologist with a blog and strong opinions. That's not ad hominem. That's simply fact.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't read the source have you? The fact that SBM is recognized as an authoritative on-point source for fringe medical topics means it is the ideal source to use. The best articles follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. Them's the rules. Given that, your incompetent objections and POV pushing count for nothing. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My reading the article didn't change the fact that the unqualified opinion of an oncologist regarding an epidemiologist's intentions is just that; unqualified opinion. Gorski's unqualified opinion of Kulldorff's intentions regarding epidemiological matters bears no weight on any wiki article. Gorski can't possibly know another person's intentions, nor is he qualified to comment on what another persons' intentions might be, in context of a wiki article. Therefore, for an editor to place into article space any copy regarding Kulldorff's intentions, as intuited by Gorski is inappropriate.

And as you said; them's the rules.

It is becoming clear to me now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your main argument is that Kulldorff's intentions were bad and therefore his biography on wiki must reflect that his intentions were bad. Is that a correct or even near-enough summary of your general stance on Kulldorff and his biography?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 15:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My "argument" is that the English Misplaced Pages should carry articles which accurately summarize the expert knowledge found in relevant reliable sources, in accord with the WP:PAGs. SBM is such a source, a golden one. Editors should be competent and read sources before judging them. Your argument is apparently that you personally don't rate David Gorski (as if that's even relevant – because he didn't even write the fucking article). Your deletions and argument show you're not paying proper attention before modifying the article and blustering on the Talk page, which is further evidence of disruption. Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am working here towards consensus. The original statement about Kulldorff's stance on specific "disease control measures" was incomplete as it only mentioned those measures he opposed, despite the cited article also listing measures he supported. I made the statement more complete by adding the measures he supported.

Firefangledfeathers had a good point in questioning what comprises a "disease control measure." I agree with that point and therefore proposed an updated version of the statement that removes the contentious statement of "disease control measure," in light of the fact that the cited article does not use the term and we as editors can not interpret or synthesize content in that way.

My proposed statement includes the gist of the original statement, removes the contentious term, and includes additional nuance as reported in the originally cited article.

My opinion of Gorski (not that it matters) is that he is an oncologist with a blog and strong opinions he likes to share.

Any recognized, generally accepted source is just that; generally recognized, generally accepted. To elevate a source to a 'golden status' that is unimpeachable and unquestionable is an absurd act. No source is unquestionable, even if some editors may believe the author's musings to be the Old Testament. No source is gospel. Context matters.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And this is an excellent reinforcing source for the fact that Kulldorff has opposed disease mitigation measures (in any case, an obvious sky-is-blue assertion, as others have said above) ! The burden is on you to disprove the suitability of any WP:GREL in any circumstance. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that an editor can not report on the fact that Medpage reported on measures Kulldorff supported, such as "age-targeted viral testing." The way I understand it is you feel that way because an oncologist claims to know the intention of another human being, and those intentions are bad.

My response to that is:

1. Gorski's opinion of Kulldorff's intentions are just that; Gorski's opinion.

2. The original Medpage article covered some of the measures Kulldorff opposed and some he supported.

3. The role of an editor is to report what was reported and to ensure the biography of a living person accurately reflects even (maybe especially) the nuance of a controversial topic.

In this way, readers are able to see a bigger picture of the controversy, to make their own opinions on Kulldorff's intentions, and to decide for themselves where he went wrong and where he went right.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

In this SBM article, the sentence in question links "other measures" to a Kulldorff tweet about birds getting entangled in masks. Nothing here about "all other measures". The general antagonistic tone in the SBM article doesn't lend it credibility. I think that general statements about what Kulldorff opposed requires robust sourcing, not just a single one. I only so far see the CBS News source that says Kulldorff opposed masks for children in schools. If he opposed other interventions I would imagine they would be listed in other sources? I don't see anything that suggests he disparaged vaccines?? SmolBrane (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The general antagonistic tone in the SBM article doesn't lend it credibility By its very nature, SBM is antagonistic to bad science, pseudoscience, and bullshit. It already has credibility, it does not need anybody to lend it to them. It was classified as a reliable source, and its "tone" was known back then. If you want to relitigate that, go to WP:RSP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"From the SBM source which the OP also deleted in their latest revert..."

I don't see where I deleted any source that said this:

In order to maintain the illusion that his plan had any relevance in a post-vaccine world, Dr. Kulldorff has been forced to disparage vaccines, lockdowns, and all other measures that limit the spread of the virus.

I think that might be part of the disconnect here. You keep bringing up Gorski in context of the term "disease control measures."

The content I removed can be seen in this diff. SBM was never cited in the statement to which I am referring and of which I have proposed a new version.

The primary source that was originally cited, even before my edit (Medpage), contains the following statement:

"Testing is intended to save lives, not to detect asymptomatic people who are otherwise healthy," Kulldorff and Bhattacharya wrote. "With the new CDC guidelines, strategic age-targeted viral testing will protect older people from deadly COVID-19 exposure and children and young adults from needless school closures."

Based on Kulldorff's quote above, I added the statement that he supported age-targeted viral testing. Whether he's right about his statement "strategic age-targeted viral testing will protect older people" is not of concern. The fact that he supported age-targeted viral testing is what I am trying to report, based on what Medpage reported.

So I think bringing Gorski's opinion about Kuldorff's intentions does not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. And in fact, I think it has caused an unnecessary diversion from the actual point trying to be made.

The SMB article that contains the quote regarding 'maintaining the illusion' does not mention age-targeted viral testing.

I would further agree with SmolBrane that the "general antagonistic tone in the SBM article doesn't lend it credibility."

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 18:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I restored part of a statement to the top that appears well-sourced, but omitted some phrases that have caused controversy on the talk page (per WP:JUSTDOIT). Llll5032 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with your boldness with the statement I added that was also sourced from the same cited articles. I would say this is now a good, consensus statement, boldly written.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone agree that Michael's addition reflects the emphasis of reliable sources, as MOS:LEADREL recommends? I do not think it does. Llll5032 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If the Medpage article is not a reliable source for what Kulldorff supports, how can it be used for what he opposes? They are both mentioned in the same article.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted it (and the follow-up deletion of the text that has been removed in some misguided false balance attempt). It clearly doesn't enjoy consensus, nor is it a fair representation of the cited source. In context, the source is talking about his opposition to widespread testing. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Good revert. The source says nothing about any measures Kulldorff "supported"; it merely quotes the word salad about "age-targeted viral testing" that he and Bhattacharya were asserting, without evidence, "would protect older people". This is a WP:FRINGE notion and shouldn't be aired without some sane context. Also, a lede needs to be a summary of the article body rather than a place for crow-barring in novel POV. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the above-mentioned sciencebasedmedicine.org, which describes itself as a blog: Bon Courage used another SBM article when adding this. Saying "error-laden essay", "falsely claimed", "illogically argued" is addition of contentious opinion in Misplaced Pages voice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What RS is contending it? Science-Based medicine is an excellent source and generally reliable for factual assertions. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Collective action of edit warring

It is becoming clear there is organized and collective warring going on here.

There is no consensus on the statement of what he opposes without the accompanying statement of what he supported. Both are covered by the same article.

If we can't reach consensus on the statement, as it incompletely reflects what the article stated, then the statement should remain in talk.

The same reasoning is being applied to the title of epidemiology and therefore should apply here as well. Bon Courage has posted in the Fringe board to request more eyes and we should let more people weigh in on the issue. Otherwise we'll be stuck in a tit-for-tat battle on an individual's biography, which requires accuracy, completeness, impartiality.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's only one person that has breached the 3RR by my count. Also, consensus is not the same as unanimity. MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bon courage mentioned an admin being involved. I would say now is a good time for the admin to surface and help us sort this out.

I am continue to advocate keeping the back and forth editing on the statement here until consensus is reached. That does not mean someone jumps up and says "I just added a statement that we can all agree on even if one person dissents." That's not good-faith editing.

Working through the discussion here, even if it takes a lot of work, is what doing a good biography on a contentious subject is all about. If an editor feels this discussion is a waste of time, that editor is free to work on another article.

Alternatively, if an editor wishes to work through a contentious, controversial subject in a meaningful, but difficult manner of dialog, then let's keep at it...in Talk space not in Article space.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The apparent need to have one's copy present on the biography, even if it's contended and actively being discussed in Talk, further indicates to me this is ideologically driven.

My proposed statement comes from the same, accepted article that lists some of Kulldorff's opposed measures. Therefore the source should not be in contention. The only issue we have at this point, per my understanding, is the inclusion of measures Kulldorff supported. And I don't understand that resistance beyond an ideological resistance.

So from my side, this looks more and more like an ideologically driven resistance to portraying anything "positive" about Kulldorff.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The standard process is to leave the article at the status quo ante bellum while discussion proceeds. WP:BLP is not a license for one user to keep well-cited text that enjoys consensus among other editors out of an article for as long as they can fillibuster. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement as it currently stands is an incomplete truth on a biography. You are correct, a biography is not a license for edit warring. From WP:BLP

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The statement as it currently reads is challenged as an impartial truth with undue weight being placed on what Kulldorff opposed. Editors are actively and intentionally omitting what he supported. This impartial truth can lead a reader to believe that Kulldorff was broadly against measures intended to control the disease.

Therefore the statement should be removed immediately or edited to reflect the full truth in a manner befitting consensus.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

that is unsourced or poorly sourced - this is neither. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The incomplete truth is poorly sourced and challenged. The source indicates there were specific measures Kulldorff supported as well, which deserve equal mention to those he opposed. That is a non-biased report of what the source reported.

The discussion thread we've been having on the topic is less than 24 hours old. That's not filibustering. That's an attempt at finding consensus. What is so pressing that the statement not be in Article space for less than 24 hours while it is discussed? The daily, average page view is 78. I'd say we have plenty of time to discuss this in Talk, without a challenged, impartial truth still present on a living person's biography.

And if the back and forth discussion is too much for an editor, they are free to spend their time on another article.

I think there is such a desire to "win the battle for one's own truth" (argh! battle noises!) that neutrality has been forgotten.

Disagreement here in Talk space doesn't have to be shouldn't be a binary of either everyone agreeing and patting each other on the back or a group of people threatening admin action against another for warring. The target we should be shooting for is the non-binary, or analog consensus.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 00:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

On Kulldorff's December 2021 essay

I've gone back and forth with a few of you on this now, so fine, let's use the talk page to discuss it.

The section under Views on COVID-19 contains the following paragraph:

"In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and that on that basis illogically argued that children should not receive COVID-19 vaccination. In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death that year, while COVID-19 had killed more than 1,000."

The only part of this that is objectively true is that he wrote an essay for the Brownstone Institute. "error-laden" shows bias against the essay, "in which he falsely claimed" shows bias against the view, and "illogically argued" is pure opinion.

This paragraph would be more neutral by saying:

"In December 2021, Kulldorff published an essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he asserted that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis argued that children do not require the COVID-19 vaccination. Influenza was responsible for one child death that year, while COVID-19 was responsible for more than 1,000 since the start of the pandemic (609 in 2021). However, the 2020-2021 flu season was abnormally mild and is not representative of normal influenza related mortality rates among children."

That is an objectively true paragraph and completely neutral (I also corrected some grammar errors from the original).

Either remove the paragraph for being biased against Kulldorff's essay and view, or modify it to be actually objective. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to represent the cited source (which is a good one) accurately, as is. The "mild season" stuff appears to be entirely your invention. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The cited "article" is a blatant hit and opinion piece, it's hardly a "good one" and if articles like that were the standard for Misplaced Pages, the site would lose all credibility.

As for whether a COVID infection or influenza infection is more severe, which is the point of Kulldorff's statement, the cited article even concedes this: "Yes, a young child with the flu might fare slightly worse than a child with COVID-19, but COVID-19 is much more contagious, and so it has much done more damage overall."

The author acknowledges that an infection with influenza is likely to be more severe than with COVID. He goes on to argue that COVID is still worse in aggregate because more kids got COVID during the pandemic.

Last, you state "The "mild season" stuff appears to be entirely your invention" yet my source for that is the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm -- "Flu activity was unusually low throughout the 2020-2021 flu season both in the United States and globally, despite high levels of testing."

Hardly "my invention."

Again, because the original source is an opinion piece with a blatant and clear bias against Kulldorff, it's inappropriate for the paragraph in question to even be in the article. If it's going to be, it should be my version which is a neutral take. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a Misplaced Pages-wide consensus that sciencebasedmedicine is a good source (see WP:SBM) - You're not going to get very far here by arguing that its inappropriate based on your personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and there is nothing in it about a "mild season" - the IP is trying for WP:SYNTH based on some as yet unused source. The whole point here is that whatever erroneous assertions were made, it cannot follow that children do not require the COVID-19 vaccination. That is what the source says; we relay it, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You're really getting into semantics here by suggesting that "unusually low" and "mild" aren't synonymous. But fine, I'll change it to say what the CDC said verbatim. I trust you'll consider them a good source.

I'm going to make the edit again, because the verbiage used in the original paragraph is opinionated and not fact based. Kulldorff's article is error-laden in the opinion of the SMB author. "Falsely claimed" in the opinion of the SMB author, despite him acknowledging that a flu infection is more severe in his own article. "Illogically argued" in the opinion of the SMB author. These are not neutral points nor are they based in fact. It's the opinion of the SMB author.

As for whether or not children broadly require COVID-19 vaccination, I would think Misplaced Pages editors would give more credence to the views of a doctor that specializes in vaccine safety and infectious diseases than the views of a psychiatrist. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

SBM is reliable for statements of fact, which we WP:ASSERT unless there is a counter reliable source. This is particularly important for WP:FRINGE views like "flu something something so don't vaccinate children!". The CDC source is irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The SMB author's assertion is that COVID is obviously more dangerous than the flu because the flu only killed one kid that year. It goes without saying that context for why there were so few flu fatalities is relevant and necessary. Pretty wild to me that you consider a CDC source on the 2020-2021 flu season irrelevant in a paragraph that has to do with the 2020-2021 flu season. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Copying a source in an juxtaposing it with another to try to make some sort of point is called 'synthesis' here, a type of original research. (see WP:SYN). It is against Misplaced Pages policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, and as it happens the record annual US pediatric deaths from flu in recent years is 188, so not "more hazardous to children than COVID-19" in theory, let alone in practice. Stating otherwise is an error as our excellent source relays. I think we are done here. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The point that Kulldorff was making is that an infection with influenza is usually more severe for a child than an infection with COVID-19. The SBM opinion author even acknowledged that fact, which I've already quoted but will again: "Yes, a young child with the flu might fare slightly worse than a child with COVID-19..."

That said, none of us here are doctors or experts in infectious diseases and we're losing sight of the original point of the edit: That the original paragraph has multiple opinionated and biased statements in it, and the SBM source itself is an opinion piece. You all keep saying the SBM is "excellent" and that may usually be the case, but the New York Times is also usually an excellent source, but an opinion piece in the NYT would also be inappropriate to use as a source unless it's made clear that it's an opinion piece.

The original paragraph and the cited SBM source are both expressing their views of Kulldorff's article and the validity of it, rather than simply explaining the views of Kulldorff. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the viewpoint of science applied to the viewpoint of antivax grift. Misplaced Pages prefers the science way. You may have your views on how the relative hazards of flu and COVID weigh up, and how that means COVID vaccination is unnecessary, but here we simply relay what good sources say, so any such personal views are irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

So if you want to prefer the science way, perhaps you should prefer the views of an infectious disease and vaccine safety expert over the views of a neurologist/psychiatrist?

I totally agree. Anyone who doesn't is simply more interested in their preferred narrative than what "the science" says. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We prefer the mainstream view. Sometimes people who have impressive qualifications aren't in the mainstream - when that happens, Misplaced Pages will say so. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Has a "vaccine safety expert" given some view on Kulldorff in RS? That would be useful to cite .... Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And who decides what is mainstream and what isn't? The point is, the original paragraph cites a psychiatrist offering his opinion on an essay by a infectious disease and vaccine safety expert.

"Has a "vaccine safety expert" given some view on Kulldorff in RS? That would be useful to cite" - Kulldorff is a vaccine safety expert, unless you believe the CDC allows (or allowed) average Joes to sit on their panels related to vaccine safety. Kulldorff is the type of expert that should be cited. There are also other experts with different views. All are more credible than a psychiatrists. Or yours or mine. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources do. We don't do it ourselves by trying to interpret CDC data. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources... And have you considered, and bear with me here, that the reason you consider a psychiatrist's view on vaccine safety more reliable than an infectious diseases and vaccine safety expert because the psychiatrist's view fits your own personal view? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really, the trick of a Wikipedian is not to have their "own personal view" for the subjects they edit, and to convey what is written in reliable sources. I certainly have a "view" about what is a reliable source, partly through a long period of editing Misplaced Pages, but also through a lifetime including long stints in academia and in STEM publishing. Good editors should know their limits. Bottom line, the argument that influenza somehow means the COVID-19 vaccine should be avoided for children is shite per every reliable source on the planet, and Misplaced Pages puts it in that context. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The SBM article is factually incorrect and is misattributed

I have removed the contended statement so that we can continue to discuss this issue here and try to find a consensus, per WP:BLP, which states:

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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Factual inaccuracy

The SMB article states: "The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child."

According to the author's source; the CDC, the previous two years had 200 pediatric influenza-related deaths. The previous two years would be seasons 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, which had 199 and 1 total deaths respectively.

Therefore we can not use this SBM article to assert that only one child had died of influenza in the two years previous to the article publication. We also can't use it to say that only one child had died of influenza the year/season before because the SBM article doesn't say that.

Article misattribution

Bon_courage added the statement "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death that year, while COVID-19 had killed more than 1,000."

The SBM article does not say that COVID-19 killed more than 1,000 that year. It says that 1,000 were killed during the "past two years":

The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child. During this same period, according to the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, over 1,000 children have died of COVID-19 in the US, with mitigations in place, making it one of the leading causes of pediatric deaths. Even in normal years, the flu killed fewer children than COVID-19.
— Jonathan Howard , Science-based Medicine

While it looks to me like influenza, during a typical season, kills fewer children than COVID-19 did during the period the SBM article references, I can't find a good source discussing this in context of Kulldorff's assertion that 'kids are at less risk from COVID than from influenza during a typical influenza year.'

In an interview with Unherd earlier this year, Kulldorff re-asserted himself and the statement was unchecked by Freddie Sayers, the interviewer:

While kids can, do get COVID, there’s more than 1,000-fold difference in mortality between the youngest and the oldest. So they are at very minimal risk. They are at less risk from COVID death than from, from influenza death during a typical influenza year.
— Martin Kulldorff, Martin Kulldorff: Lessons from Sweden for the next pandemic

Proposed statement

I propose the following to replace the statement:

Kulldorff published an essay in December, 2021 for the Brownstone Institute in which he claimed that children have a higher mortality risk from the annual influenza than from COVID-19. In the same essay, he asserted that it "will take years" to understand the risk profile of the vaccines for children and therefore we don't know if there is more harm than good done in vaccinating children. Kulldorff re-asserted his assessment of the risk of influenza vs COVID-19 in children in July, 2022 during an interview by Freddie Sayers of Unherd.

It reads a bit awkward I think, but can be massaged here, in talk, to reach a consensus

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

that is unsourced or poorly sourced - See WP:CRYBLP as well. We've been over this before, you don't get to wave your hands, call a perfectly reliable source 'poor' and keep content out of the article based solely on your say-so. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's stick to the reliable sources and not amplify misinformation by pernicious WP:OR. (Although the 1 year snit was good to fix; it makes the grift even more apparent). Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP states the following:

Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.

Even when a source such as WP:SBM is considered generally reliable, that does not mean it is considered universally or unquestionably reliable.

The SBM article is factually inaccurate in stating that there has ever been two years of only 1 child, influenza-related death. The author's own source for the statement clearly shows that. The designation "2020-2021" is an influenza season. It does not indicate calendar years 2020 and 2021.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not my "say-so." It's core policy.

The statement you reinserted "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in that two year period..." is factually inaccurate according to the source provided by the SBM article. A two year period would include two influenza seasons (2019-2020 and 2020-2021). During those two periods, there were 200 total deaths. Therefore the statement is factually inaccurate. The only influenza season with only 1 child death was 2020-2021, which is not two years, according to how the CDC tracks influenza seasons.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A rephrase into slightly different terminology does not equal 'factually inaccurate'. The difference in death totals for the two diseases over the same period is accurately reported by the source. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference in death totals for the two diseases over the same period is accurately reported by the source.
— User:MrOllie 17:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly is not accurate.

The source provided (the CDC's FluView) unambiguously indicates that only one influenza season had only 1 child, influenza-related death: season 2020-2021.

The designation of flu season "2020-2021" does not indicate 24 months of 2020-2021. According to the CDC, this is how they track and designate flu seasons:

"The exact timing and duration of flu seasons varies, but flu activity often begins to increase in October. Most of the time flu activity peaks between December and February, although significant activity can last as late as May."

The statement in the SBM article "The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child." is therefore factually incorrect according to the author's own source.

17:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 17:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. But rather getting into the weeds, I'll just say that we cannot substitute your original research interpretation of the primary sources for what the actual reliable secondary source is saying. MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The wording is imprecise. From the SBM link the "two years" comment means the period straddling 2020/21. I have tweaked the text to reflect this. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your statement "From the SBM link the "two years" comment means the period straddling 2020/21." is original research. We don't know what the author might have meant outside of what is actually written. What is written is "two years" not 'the 2020/21 season.' The author does not use the word "season" outside of quoting the CDC about the 2004-2005 influenza season.

Therefore this statement made by you is unsourced, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR: "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season, while COVID-19 had killed more than 1,000."

What if an editor added a statement that Kulldorff actually meant something else when what is written is clearly not that. Would you accept that edit?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 18:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
• Start-Class Computational Biology articles
• Low-importance Computational Biology articles
• WikiProject Computational Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• 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
• Start-Class Sweden articles
• Low-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages