Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 16 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the G. Edward Griffin 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 sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 23, 2008 Articles for deletion Deleted March 7, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept April 23, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed March 10, 2015 Articles for deletion No consensus

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

RfC on laetrile

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please comment on sources and content regarding the use of amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy in cancer that may validate Griffin's claims.

Griffin's claims are, as far as I understand it:

• That amygdalin is a vitamin, specifically vitamin B17.
• That deficiency of vitamin B17 is a cause of cancer.
• That supplementation of vitamin B17 can cure cancer.
• That the medical establishment conspires to suppress this.

The questions at issue are:

1. Is it reasonable to describe Griffin's thesis in respect of amygdalin as scientifically unsupported (per , , and even , a well-known proponent of numerous quesitonable supplement claims)?
2. Is it reasonable to characterise the vitamin B17 / laetrile scam, as quackery, in Misplaced Pages's voice (per especially - "All prior forms of cancer quackery, however, pale in comparison with the laetrile crusade, unquestionably the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history"), or must it be attributed to "the medical community", or, more accurately, the medical and scientific communities?
3. Does recent research suggesting a possible therapeutic benefit for amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy, cast sufficient doubt on the consensus . Missed form original, added after Nomoskedasticity's comments below

Please address each separately.

Alternative questions

(please specify if your responses pertain to the Alternative question)

1. Is it reasonable to include Griffin's views as biographical content regarding why he wrote his book, World Without Cancer, as long as his views are not given WP:UNDUE, provided the current views of the medical community are properly presented including not only the research that is 30+ years old, but also the most recent research on amygdalin in 2013 - 2015?

Note: Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, includes documented evidence regarding clinical trials of various physicians , and the results of various physicians and scientific researchers of that time period (30+ years ago) who used the drug Laetrile, a chemically modified version of amygdalin, a natural substance found in apricots, almonds and various other fruits and nuts. . Scientist Krebbs called amygdalin (B17) a vitamin, but it was never officially recorded as such. Griffin's book marshals evidence provided by physicians and researchers of that time period, much of which still applies today with regards to the natural substance, amygdalin, . There are books written by whistle blowers from Memorial Sloan Kettering that exposes the fraudulent results of the 30 year old research: . Griffin's book advocates for further research of amygdalin as a potential treatment for cancer but more so for the freedom of choice.

2. Is it reasonable to include brief mention of ongoing scientific research as indicated most recently by Memorial Sloan Kettering, who finally admitted to "the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms" , as well as what is published in peer reviewed journals as long as those views are presented as ongoing research per WP:FRINGE guidelines?

• Important notes: This RfC is poorly crafted, the questions are rather misleading and ambiguous for the following reasons:

1. Griffin did not write a thesis, he wrote a book World Without Cancer which provides historical documentation of laetrile including clinical application by medical physicians such as Laetrile Case Histories, which is further supported by more recent documentation Evidence Based Medicine, 1700 scientific publications, and historical research. The current results posed in the questions are based on 30+ year old research. The book advocates for further research of amygdalin which is commonly called B17, or laetrile and also advocates for medical free choice. More recent research indicates much different responses from the 30+ year old research: ...amygdalin may serve as a promising lead candidate, Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells, Amygdalin inhibits renal fibrosis in chronic kidney disease With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin..., More likely, serious negative reactions are in fact unusual, , .
2. The sources cited to justify calling it quackery are sourced to old research (one is a journal articles for clinicians) that date back 30+ and has since been challenged by whistle blowers Doctored Results, and the antiquated results disproven as evidenced by recent research above.
3. Recent research suggests a possible therapeutic benefit for amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy, and amygdalin is currently being used as an integrative therapy in reputable clinics in the US and around the world. In Chicago, Miami, New York, etc., , and a list of locations by the American Anti-Cancer Institute. Atsme☯ 15:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Important notes on the "important" notes

Atsme, as has been pointed out dozens of times before, the recent research you keep mentioning is completely irrelevant to the 1970s laetrile scam.

Will explaining it one more time get you to finally shut up? I'm happy to explain it yet again if you like.

1. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. PubMed mentions it only in connection with the laetrile scam (see search, "The many popular misconceptions and unsound advice concerning vitamins and health, including "fake" vitamins-pangamic acid ("vitamin B15") and laetrile ("vitamin B17")-are also discussed." - both B15 and B17 were invented by Krebs).
2. Deficiency of "vitamin B17" aka amygdalin aka laetrile does not cause cancer, not least because, as noted above, vitamin B17 does not exist.
3. Supplementation of vitamin B17 aka amygdalin aka laetrile does not cure cancer, ditto.
4. There is no conspiracy by the medical profession to hush this up because the claims are false so there is nothing to suppress. The "conspiracy" would in any case have to be unfeasibly large and yet never have had a single whistleblower.

That is the core of Griffin's thesis (see the relevant definition of the word for its validity in this case) in his book. Every single argument he makes in favour of the laetrile scam, is invalid. The book was written in support of a fellow member of the John Birch Society who was prosecuted for taking part in the laetrile scam.

The book's arguments are invalid.

There is no newer research on laetrile as a cancer cure because the Declaration of Helsinki does not permit human trials unless there is credible evidence that a drug will actually work. No IRB in the world would sanction an RCT of laetrile for cancer at this time, for the simple and obvious reason that it has at its heart an erroneous claim: that cancer is caused by a deficiency of "vitamin B17", which does not exist. .

The recent research showing early indications that amygdalin, or a component thereof, may have value as an adjuvant therapy in some cancers, are not in any way relevant to the 1970s laetrile scam as promoted by Griffin in World Without Cancer and which is still ongoing now.

Even if these early findings bear fruit and a worthwhile therapy results - and bear in mind that at least nine out of every ten substances that show early promise of this kind turn out not to be clinically useful - this would have absolutely no bearing or relevance whatsoever on the status of the laetrile scam as promoted by Griffin in World Without cancer.

Now that's all clearly explained, you can safely strike the comment you added above, as it may serve to mislead others who share your previous lack of understanding, which I have now corrected, of the irrelevance of this recent material to the laetrile scam.

Lest it be misunderstood: the laetrile scam was identified as possibly the most lucrative form of cancer quackery in the 1970s. It has not gone away. Despite the comprehensive evidence that it is a fraud, it is still pursued by a small number of unscrupulous individuals, mainly working clinics across the border in Mexico that specialise in preying on desperate terminally ill Americans with money. This is not a historical issue, though it should be and would be if these vermin had any conscience. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

• Editors previously uninvolved in this issue comment in this section.

• yes, yes and no. This is all supported by high quality RS. Any recent research should only be considered once reviewed by MEDRS quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with MrBill3, it should be yes, yes and no. Yes to 1 & 2, because the sources are good. No to 3, because the sources are not talking about using amygdalin to cure cancer, which is the issue here. Darx9url (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• yes, yes and no. as per the above-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• yes, yes and no per the above. The reliable sources are quite clear on 1 and 2 and recent research on amygdalin has no bearing on the consensus regarding Griffin's thesis (here I'm using "thesis" to mean "central idea").

Regarding the "alternative questions": no and no. If Griffin's motivations for writing the book were covered in reliable sources, that information might merit inclusion in the article. However, inclusion of his motivation in writing the book does not imply that current medical research must also be included. One of the issues here is that Griffin and recent medical research define amygdalin differently: Griffin says it's "Vitamin B17" and makes certain claims with respect to that "Vitamin" whereas modern research defines it only as an extract. Even if the Griffin and modern research weren't talking about different substances (which they are, since they define amygdalin differently), this article is a biography; it is not a summary of the past and present research into amygdalin, and the medical status of and research into amygdalin does not belong in this article. Ca2james (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the avoidance of doubt my views are:

1. Yes. There is no such thing as vitamin B17, there is no evidence that cancer is caused by a deficiency of the non-existent vitamin, or of amygdalin, whether or not it is a vitamin, there is no evidence that amygdalin is a cure for cancer as it is promoted by laetrile quacks, and there has never been any evidence whatsoever of a concerted cover up by the immense group of doctors, medical scientists, regulators, drug company employees and charity workers who would have to be party to any conspiracy of silence. It is therefore correct, both technically and in terms of WP:NPOV, to describe Griffin's view as scientifically unsupported.
2. Yes. Laetrile is a fraud. Numerous prosecutions (e.g. ) attest to this. It is correct to characterise it as quackery and/or fraud and there is no need to qualify this as it is a view that has no significant dissent among the relevant scientific community. Even those investigating amygdalin as a potential therapy, do not subscribe to the laetrile narrative of cancer as a disease caused by deficiency of amygdalin.
3. No. Recent research is irrelevant to Griffin's claims as it does not touch at any point on the narrative of laetrile: it does not demonstrate that amygdalin is a vitamin, does not support the idea that cancer as a deficiency disease, does not show that amygdalin cures cancer when administered as Griffin and other laetrile promoters claim, and if anything weakens the claims of the laetrile underground by providing a plausible explanation for the positive results found by Sugiura at MSKCC, one which refutes the narrative spun by the likes of Ralph W. Moss and other laetrile believers. Thus it is not relevant in this article and to include it would be a red herring, a novel synthesis and a failure of WP:NPOV.

(addendum:) In respect of the alternative questions posed presumably by Atsme: the 2013-2015 research is irrelevant to world without cancer so the question is moot. WWC claims that amygdalin is a vitamin. It isn't and the new research does not change that. WWC posits that amygdalin is a cure for cancer generally, that claim is fraudulent and illegal and will remain so even if the 2013-2015 research shows it to be a valid adjuvant therapy for specific cancers. The reasons behind the John Birch Society promoting this fraud are political, not medical. There is no medical or scientific evidence to support the thesis in WWC, and cherry-picking through it looking for statements that are only arguably wrong, rather than definitively wrong as is the case for the book's overall argument, is impermissible per NPOV and SYN. No reliable sources establish that WWC is a valid view of dancer or if Laetrile.

Sorry to raise this issue yet again but it's clear that we need to establish an unambiguous answer to these questions so that we can break the endless circular argument. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an RfC is in order, but the way you are wording it is not neutral. Furthermore, you have provided attributions to OR that dates back over 30 years (most of which is represented in a recent compilation), and doesn't include any attributions whatsoever to substantiate your allegations of what Griffin claims. WP is not interested in your POV. Policy requires inline citations with inline text attribution and that includes adherence to NPOV and Verifiability. Let's discuss how the RfC will be worded, or have you already called for one, because if you have, I need to add an alternative question. Atsme☯ 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of times you have to be told why the literature dates back 30 years, and why no IRB would sanction new research on this? If one more time will get you to finally drop it, I will do so, but otherwise I won't waste time repeating what you have already been told numerous times. As to the wording, you have had ample opportunity to start this RfC yourself, and you haven't. Somebody has to, it's me, and I am going to phrase it as I see fit. We've already established that I am substantially better informed about this scam (and indeed health scams generally ) than you are, so perhaps you might like to consider the possibility that I do actually know what I;m talking about here. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No. All answers are based in a proper reading of the sources: if we use the best sources on this topic, we find a high degree of consensus regarding these answers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I just wanted to add that I have never opposed the inclusion of scientific facts or the position of the medical community with regards to the drug, Laetrile, or its efficacy as a treatment for cancer. My objection is the use of contentious material to present those views, their relevance to this author's book, and the fact that you are trying to suppress the reasons Griffin wrote the book. The latter is biographical material that should be presented with strict adherence to NPOV, and with proper WEIGHT regarding the views of the medical community. Your position has been to suppress all mention of those views based on your interpretation of suggested PSCI guidelines, and that is my objection because by doing so, it appears to be an inadvertent violation of our 3 core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. The following two links are examples for his views on the topic which we are obligated to include in this BLP per WP:PAG: because they qualify as RS that support the author's views. The medical community doesn't support the use of the drug Laetrile in the treatment of cancer. The FDA has banned its use, and we will clearly demonstrate that view, making absolutely sure we don't give WP:UNDUE to the drug. What I also believe should be stressed is accuracy. I have read claims that it kills, it's harmful, etc. which are actually claims that over and above what the American Cancer Society has published on its website: This substance has not been thoroughly tested to find out how it interacts with medicines, foods, herbs, or dietary supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete. Accuracy is essential - it is not our job to sensationalize, or use contentious material that is not included in the sources, therefore cannot be cited with inline text attribution. While Griffin believes amygdalin merits further research (which you know full well is ongoing) based on what he considered to be "documented evidence", his primary advocacy is a person's freedom to choose. You may or may not be of the opinion that people are too stupid to make such decisions for themselves, and I may or may not agree with you, but either way, our opinions do not count here. You are making this debate focus on the chemically modified form of amygdalin which is known as Laetrile. You and others have also been misrepresenting my position, and I am growing weary of it. I have you to repeatedly to please stop. I simply want the article to be right, and that means factual accuracy void of POV. We are basically saying the same thing, only from different perspectives. I want to write GAs which is how you should gage my perspective. You are a self-professed quack buster which is how I gage yours. I am concerned that your advocacy may be contributing to the disputes over noncompliance with NPOV and BLP policy, but will AGF, and remain hopeful that we will soon meet on neutral ground to improve this article and make it a real biography of a living person. I want it ready to pass a GA review, possibly even FA which means it cannot remain as a WP:COATRACK. Atsme☯ 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You have said this before, but your version of what has to be done to make it pass GA is to remove any reference to the crazy nature of his beliefs, and while that may make a nice article, it is not a good article by any meaningful definition. I do not care if it meets GA criteria or not. The page on homeopathy has been kicked out of GA primarily because the quackery apologists hate it so much that they spend endless hours trying to water it down (irony unintentional), and it gets longer and longer as each new bullshit rationale for magic sugar is debunked. Whether it's GA or not is entirely immaterial: it is an exceptionally solidly referenced article and a model of reality-based analysis of a fraudulent "medical" practice that is in effect a religious cult not a form of medicine at all. I'm not interested int he rationale behind your special pleading, I am only interested in ensuring that this article accurately reflects the fact that Griffin is a promoter of conspiracy theories, that he is referenced almost exclusively by cranks and loons, and that his ideas have no objective merit as established by reliable independent sources. The Fed is a perfectly normal central bank. Laetrile is a fraud. Chemtrails don't exist. AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus. The twin towers fell as a result of fires caused by impact of aircraft hijacked by terrorists. There is no Jewish New World Order conspiracy. These are facts, and Griffin claims otherwise. We have to be honest about that. And to be fair I have absolutely no idea why you would want to promote to GA status, an article on a crank who is ignored by virtually the entirety of the reality-based media, being promoted only by certifiable kooks like Glenn Beck.

Neutrality does not lie somewhere between the scientific consensus and whacknuts. The scientific consensus is inherently neutral. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Guy, is the laetrile claim of curing cancer something that the John Birch Society first came up with? You said "The reasons behind the John Birch Society promoting this fraud are political, not medical." I see it says in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91/pdf John Birch members supported it in 1972. John Birch Society is all about being against communism and for limited govt. Do they just want americans "to have right to choose laetrile for themselves"? Or is it a hoax they themselves are pushing? I see you mention other non laetrile things that Griffen is connected to like AIDS, Jewish NWO, etc. Why? Atsme's lede in the sandbox said Griffen is a conspiracy theorist, are you worried someone might be reading wikipedia and think laetrile is a proven cancer cure by looking at that? Popish Plot (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. The Birchers weighed in because one of their own was prosecuted for his part in the scam. It could be argued that as zealot libertarians they might thereby have invented the health freedom movement, modern adherents of whihc seem to think that it's possible for the individual to opt out of having standard human physiology - and in some cases also opt out of the laws of physics. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, and no per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI. This is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Irrelevant, Irrelevant, and Irrelevant No, no, yes based on actual PAGs, and for the same reasons provided above: and per the passages proposed for inclusion in the article to make it ready for a GA review. See current proposal User:Atsme/sandbox2, and a prior attempt which was reverted without justification

1. Is it correct to cite RS and/or questionable sources to justify inclusion of contentious material that defames/discredits a BLP if the cited source does not support the statement, or are only passing mention?
2. Is it correct to include pejorative terminology to describe an author such as "charlatan, quackery, and/or fraud" in the lead when the author has written many books on various topics, but only one of which covers a medical topic?
3. Is it correct to exclude updated scientific research regarding the primary topic (amygdalin) of this author's book in a section about his literary works which includes a segment on his views/motivations for authoring a particular book?

I wanted to also bring the following information to light because of the requirements for NPOV, V, NOR, and strict adherence to US Laws in BLP policy regarding the inclusion of pejorative terminology as mentioned above: . If you don't think it should be a consideration, then simply ignore it. The arguments presented above have little relevance to what is actually written in Griffin's book, but even if they were relevant, the passages being proposed would be written from a biographical perspective relating only to the author's views, not from a medical perspective. WP already has an article about Laetrile. This is a BLP about an author who wrote one book about amygdalin. That book doesn't even have to be mentioned in the lead. There is much ado about nothing. More importantly are the concerns over noncompliance with NPOV, V, OR, and BLP (including FRINGEBLP) which supersedes the guidelines suggested in WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. Atsme☯ 04:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, BLP is not a magic talisman to ward off criticism, and ideas are not people anyway. BLP gives no reason at all not to identify when somebody advocates ideas that are wrong. Three long-standing editors have Al lready rejected your claim in this RFC, and others have rejected it in the history of this talk page. So, your opinion is noted, but it is only your opinion and I for one reject it for reasons given many times now. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Why do you have a special section for uninvolved editor comment? Anyway, Question 1, Yes. Question 2 in a nutshell yes, but the concerns priorly mentioned can be addressed, shouldn't be completely written off, in the end it's all about presentation. Question 3, no. Alternative question 1 A very cautious yes. Alternative question 2 No it's not reasonable as this is a bio about Griffin and not amygdalin, and this would only stand to unduly validate Griffins positions (he can due so himself) while ignoring numerous wikipedia policies and guidelines (that have already been pointed out) without a common sense justification to WP:IAR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - summoned by bot. tl;dr. Maybe I'm not understanding the issue, but I would suggest that even if his arguments are ridiculous and a huge scam, the critique of his arguments should be presented professionally. Using words like "quackery" seems lacking; surely there are more professional terms and analysis to use. —Мандичка 😜 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The professional analysis - as published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians, impact factor 162.5, the highest ranked peer-reviewed cancer journal in the world - is precisely that it is quackery: Laetrile: A Lesson in CancerQuackery. It is a truly remarkable fact that the laetrile scam - regarded as possibly the most lucrative fraud in US medical history - is described forthrightly and unambiguously in these terms. To get a slapdown of that magnitude in the scientific literature indicates wrongness on a truly epic scale. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the date, Guy? That paper is dated 1981. The terminology went out of style with bell bottoms and sheepskin vests. Terms like quackery and snake oil belong in the Ntl Enquirer not in an encyclopedia where we should be using terms like scientifically unsupported. Atsme☯ 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to whitewash the article. However, there does seem to be a reasonable basis to discuss and review the language used. Specifically the word "Quackery". To be clear, discuss and review, that would be with both the possibility that it be changed and the possibility that it stay the same. I'd ask specifically is this more of an attack on Griffin or a reasonable criticism. More importantly, is it clear that his views on vitamin b12 (or what ever) are complete bunk, garbage, fringe views that aren't supported by medical science, or ect? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points, SJP. Atsme☯ 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, the fact that laetrile is quackery is established from very strong sources (e.g. Laetrile: A Lesson In Cancer Quackery, CA (the highest impact cancer specialist journal in the world). Misplaced Pages should only use terms like this when we have good solid external evidence from reliable independent sources to support their inclusion. Of all the forms of quackery there are, this is probably subject to the most robust and forthright condemnation in the literature, because it was such a profitable scam in its day. And this article specifically references the reasons behind Griffin's book, namely that the John Birch Society rallied to the defence of a member charged with participating in the fraud. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Going back over the article, Care is used with the word quackery. Perhaps to much care. The word is solely directed at the use of laetrile to cure cancer. Certainly I would agree that it's a reasonable criticism as used, though again perhaps it's to diplomatically used. The second use of the word does make it clear to the reader that this view is bunk, regarded as fringe or what have you. I'm concerned that the lead does little in this regard but this really isn't of much importance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• No, no and no Synthesis says we cannot take one source that says Griffith makes claims about Vitamin B17 and another source that says those claims are invalid (or valid for that matter), when the first source does not say they are invalid and the second source does not mention Griffith. The MEDRS guideline is no reason to override policy and in fact is not relevant. No one reading this article is looking for medical advice. TFD (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. Per Guy - this is basic policy. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. Per Guy - are we still on this? Laetrile is a pernicious scam, and the scam appears to have convinced many people. Still a scam though. It isn't a vitamin either - why is this difficult to understand? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. Straightforward and application of core policy. The RfC is clearly stated. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, no. No to both "alternate" questions which are leading. Why are we still having this discussion? We're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Yobol (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on sources

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please comment on the admissibility of these sources:

1. GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). "G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System." ...
2. , Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa) "G. Edward Griffin works tirelessly to dispel the notion that the Fed has been a failure. His latest effort was at the just-concluded Casey Research/Sprott Inc. investor summit on Navigating the Politicized Economy, where he told a packed hall that the Fed has been wildly successful at its true mission – to protect the banking system at all costs. According to Griffin, the problem is the American people are footing the bill for these costs through stealth taxation, thanks to the coordinated actions of the Fed and US government." ...
3. Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island." ...
4. Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa) "On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act we talk to G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about America’s central bank."...
5. Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - "This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island. ..."
6. RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act...

Uninvolved editor comments

• Comments by editors previously uninvolved go in this section.
• Improperly crafted RfC. Evaluation of the reliability of a source is relative to specific content. Propose content with sources and seek consensus on the content and the reliability of the source(s) for that content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello MrBill3, I'm not sure what this means: " Evaluation of the reliability of a source is relative to specific content." Is this like saying it depends on context? Popish Plot (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is if you propose a source, you need to specify what content in the article you feel that source would support. I don't see proposed content or a reference to specific existing content. In other words the question would need to be, is source "A" a reliable source for proposed/existing content "X". Then the reliability of the source for that content could be evaluated. I hope this has clarified adequately. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• From a quick glance, I fail to see how Forbes or RT could be rejected as sources. There has been ample discussion about using RT as a source, and I believe the general consensus was that it qualifies for all but Russia-related issues, at which point more discussion is needed. As a side note, I wonder about the option of taking these sources individually to the RS noticeboard rather than dealing with them here. It would make the task easier for uninvolved editors who have no experience with this article. petrarchan47tc 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please review this page and the archives. There's ample explanation, which need not be repeated, as to why e.g. a blog post from a non-notable commentator on Forbes is not RS for the claims being made. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with SPECIFICO'S assumption that Forbes is not a RS for the following two reasons:

1. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. Even the RS noticeboard cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. It is the greater context of the article that matters.
2. According to WP:RS - Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. The latter applies to Forbes and the journalist credited as author. I already made this point very clear in other posts. Atsme☯ 23:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Specifico's claims are not in alignment with WP:RS. In fact even non-notable blogs can be used as a source in certain circumstances. If taken to the RS NB, the Forbes source and content, for example, can be reviewed by less-entrenched editors with perhaps a more neutral stance. petrarchan47tc 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're calling me "entrenched" because I have graciously responded to many repetitions of the same nonsense here, I consider that a personal attack and I ask you to remove it. It is disruptive to cast aspersions on unnamed "entrenched" editors, whoever you intend to characterize in that manner, instead of responding to the content and policy-based statements they make here. Please strike your remark and comment in the future on content, not contributors. Several Admins are watching this page, which falls under Arbcom sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Specifico, I was speaking in generalities, as this has been a long dispute involving several people. This wasn't meant to be a comment about you, it was a recommendation to Atsme. petrarchan47tc 03:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a PA, SPECIFICO. Why would you make such an assumption? It appears maybe you may have been premature to make such an allegation. From where I sit, less-entrenched meant the depth of one's involvement, or is there a policy I've overlooked that considers "entrenched" to be derogatory? If my memory serves, you and I and several others who have tried to improve this BLP have been involved for quite some time. I don't see that as a PA, or a bad thing, either. I find it commendable that we have devoted as much time to trying to improve the article as we have. Sometimes I feel like I've grown roots so in an effort to be less involved (or entrenched whatever the case may be), I've been spending more time copy editing and working on other articles. I highly recommend it. Atsme☯ 00:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• All of these sources fail rs as secondary sources. 1. GoldSilver.com is a site selling gold and silver, hence not rs. 2. The Casey Report is an investment newsletter, also not rs. 3. Financial Sense - same as 2. 4. Contains an interview with Griffin. Probably meets rs as a primary source, hence not useful. 5. While Forbes articles are rs, this is an opinion piece, hence not rs. 6. While RT articles are rs, this is an opinion piece, hence not rs as a secondary source. But since it is by Griffin, it meets rs as a primary source, hence not useful. TFD (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - TFD, thank you for your input, but please see the following per WP:RS guidelines: (my bold for emphasis)

1. Self-published: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves;
2. Opinion pieces: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.
3. Blogs: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
4. Primary sources: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
5. E-commerce sources - inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages, just not as external links. Atsme☯ 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Mostly true. However, you need establish weight for opinions and balancing aspects for facts, which can only be done by showing that the specific opinions and facts you want to present are reported in reliable secondary sources. You need to stretch the rules to include these sources. Note for example that the section in rs about e-commerce refers to such things as running times of albums, certainly not details that come under biographies of living persons. Also note that opinion pieces are not rs for facts. So we cannot use for example an opinion piece in Forbes to explain why Griffith named his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. TFD (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

TFD, I realize this RfC was improperly crafted which makes it difficult for participants to respond without having to invest a great deal more time analyzing than should be necessary, but if I may please demonstrate one example for your consideration? The passage that cites Casey Research, , references a summit held by Casey Research, a reputable company with a reputable team of experts where Griffin was featured as guest speaker. They published the video recorded interview of Griffin with interviewer Louis James, an expert in his field who has been interviewed himself by RS, . It appears to me to fit the requirement of a RS as it relates to the passage and overall context of the article. Atsme☯ 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, an interview is rs for what Griffith said, and agree to keeping a link to it. But what Griffin says needs to be reported in rs and I do not think Casey Research or any investment analysts meet that level, except when they write news articles. Usually though when analysts write for newspapers, it is opinion pieces, which do not meet rs. So why would something they write for their company's website have greater reliability? I agree btw that these RfCs are poorly written and the article is biased. The lead contains the words "conspiracy" three times and "denialist" and "quackery." Ironically, the amateurish agitprop style by being over the top creates doubt about whether Griffin might be right, since "the lady doth protest too much." TFD (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• admissibility is dependent upon what content they are supposed to be supporting although in general, the answer to most is clearly no for any content in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• This RfC needs to be deleted as it is based on supposition of passages not currently included in the article. The results of this RfC will only create disruption in the future because whatever passage is actually added citing one of those sources will be automatically reverted using this RfC as consensus to not include the passage, even if the added passages has nothing to do with the examples used or the application of the source. That is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

• On the contrary -- since you keep bringing them up, we need some closure about it. Or you could simply stop... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• They don't apply to anything that is written in the article. It's vapor source. Please do not talk about me as though I'm the only one who has attempted to fix the issues here. Focus on the unreliably sourced material currently in the article because as soon as this RfC is over, I'm taking it to RSN, or perhaps to BLPN. I haven't decided which one, yet. Atsme☯ 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC Sources can only be classified reliable in the context of specific text they're supposed to support. Without that text, it is not possible to determine whether or not these sources are reliable. That said, aside from the Forbes blog, which only contains a passing mention of the fact that Griffin wrote the Jekyll book (and thus can only be used to support that fact), all the sources listed are interviews with Griffin. I suspect, although I'm not certain, that such interviews are WP:BLPSELFPUB and therefore can only be used in limited circumstances. I suggest that this RfC be withdrawn and the interviews be brought up over at WP:RSN (along with the text the interviews are supposed to support). Ca2james (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the record, I oppose Atsme's interpretation of all of them, and I oppose the inclusion of any of them because only one meets WP:RS and that is merely a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may ask (for the record) on what grounds do you oppose them, Guy? A very useful analysis of RS was posted by TenOfAllTrades at RSN regarding a common misconception (my bold): that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.). What part of the aforementioned analysis do you believe supports your argument? Atsme☯ 17:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by several others above, several times. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• All of those sources are inappropriate for use on this BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: RfC as posed is not answerable - there are few sources that one can very broadly say are RS or not RS for use in WP. It depends on what you want to use them for and the RfC doesn't make that clear. Seems more a matter for RSN in any case. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is at least the third recent time that these citations have been advocated against consensus. None of them is RS for the associated article content that's being advocated. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - the sources are perfectly acceptable for how they are being used. It is not about whether or not you "like" or "agree" with a source, but whether that source supports the material that was added in a BLP. Atsme☯ 04:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Did you notice how nobody else agrees? Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC proved differently and so did the AfD. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." Atsme☯ 07:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they did not. The RfC "proved" only that to call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is inappropriate - it does not even prevent us saying, in the first sentence, that he is known for advocacy of conspiracy theories, and it certainly does not prevent us noting throughout the article that most of what he writes is conspiracist claptrap. The scope was very narrow. You have of course tried many times to imply a vastly greater scope and breadth to that consensus, but every time you have tried this, you have failed. The AfD similarly did not in any way validate the crap sources you keep proposing. Importantly, neither shoed any consensus at all in favour of inclusion of these sources. That's your precise argument here: that the RfC and AfD "prove differently", i.e. that they show unambiguous consensus that the sources you propose are valid. That claim is simply false. To pretend otherwise is disruptive, kindly stop. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, it appears we are reading different RfC summaries. Per RfC close (excerpt): Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (See Archive 7 here) It doesn't say only the first sentence of the lead. Admin Nyttend took it further as well he should have because of noncompliance with NPOV. Furthermore, he deleted the following from the lead: Review of that close by another admin (excerpt): Second, it's hard to find fault with the close, but just as hard to be at peace with it: it could have come down either way. It also states: Whether it's a BLP violation to state "x is a conspiracy theorist" when there is overwhelming evidence that they are (I think the RfC supports the latter point) is an interesting question, and probably one that ArbCom, as our Supreme Authority, should decide on. That it's "essentially not-neutral" is still an open question, as far as I'm concerned, and that's where our BLP and fringe policies may bump into each other. Guy, the closings are not at all what you surmised. Further substantiate is the following from yet another admin's summary: However, I'm not of the opinion that the RfC prevents 'conspiracy theory' (or worded in a different way) being used to describe his theory or a theory he supports as long as it is supported by consensus, nor do I believe that doing so would be a BLP issue if it's properly sourced (though it does depend how it's worded and what it describes). The only factually accurate way to summarize it would be that It is still in question and it appears perhaps that an ARBCOM may be our only recourse. It is not productive for you to discredit me based on your misapprehension of the closings. Atsme☯ 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is still open. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN the editor has the burden to explain why sources are good and we should assume good faith. I see atsme has done that. You say you oppose the sources, Atsme asked why, you said you already did I believe? Could you give a link so I can see? I have searched thru archives but might be missing something. Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of this talk page shows that Atsme's view has been rejected. The burden is not to state an incorrect view, it's to establish that article text is supported by WP:RS references. The consensus of editors is that no RS have been provided, only a collection of blogs and other invalid sources for these claims. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I hardly think I'm asking an unfair request. Popish Plot (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a fair request if Atsme had explained why the sources are relevant for some material to be added, and if the sources had not been previously rejected as not reliable for much of anything. Both false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is incorrect in his statement that the history shows my view has been rejected. In fact, the opposite has been true including the results of the AfD regarding notability, and the RfC regarding compliance with NPOV as it effects BLP and reliable sources. It's easy to say an editor's views are wrong without any diffs to support such a statement. If one will simply take the time to review policy, RfC results, BLPN and RSN noticeboard results it becomes quite apparent that WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies prevail and that is the only view I hold in this regard. Read the policies first, then make a decision. Atsme☯ 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you're going off-topic. This thread is neither about the AfD -- in which I had no opinion -- nor is it about the RfC concerning the lede. It's important to stick to the topic under discussion. Otherwise there is no chance of progress here and the article will stay as is for eternity or longer. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrBill3 - it is an improperly crafted RfC. Close it and focus on the poorly sourced contentious material in the lede or remove it. Finding RS to cite what is already written will prove far more productive than debating RS for passages that haven't been written, yet. Atsme☯ 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course you do, because you want to include these junk sources and won't accept the consensus that keeps going against you, and have no interest in closing off that avenue of debate. I think the rest of us have had enough of your obduracy though, and some of us at least would like to see some of your perennially-rejected requests kicked into touch once and for all. Guy (Help!) 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I take it all back

Use of term Quackery in the lede

Does it have to mention "quackery" in the lede? What is the policy on using the term quackery in BLP articles. Even if reliable sources say someone is a quack, is it needed in the article? MEDRS doesn't seem to say you need to say he's a quack. This Griffen article does say he advocates conspiracy theories is that enough weight to let people reading wikipedia know his laetrile views aren't supported by mainstream medicine? I looked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Quackery#Persons_accused_of_quackery I see none of these mention them being quacks in the ledes.

Some see the term quackery as needlessly perjorative. How "needed" is it here? Popish Plot (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You realise this issue has been discussed extensively over recent months? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean it can never be discussed again? Popish Plot (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course not -- but those who have discussed it already might not want to have to repeat the same points all again. Best to look at previous discussions and find a specific angle that you think wasn't addressed properly, rather than simply (re)opening a general discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok good idea, thanks. Popish Plot (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I searched these archives and then also found it was discussed on the fringe board https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_44#G._Edward_Griffin well looks like it was decided. Thanks again. Popish Plot (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish Plot, even though "community consensus" believes it is an acceptable term, WP:Consensus doesn't trump policy. I agree with you that use of the term is needlessly pejorative, and that view is further supported by the fact it is not RS per WP:BLP which requires editors to Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources., and it also doesn't pass the smell test per WP:MEDRS, or WP:RS (medicine) #Use up-to-date evidence. For one thing, Media Matters is not a high quality source for citing such contentious material because it is a self-proclaimed progressive nonprofit organization that has a COI with Griffin's political affiliations. The other two sources are outdated, one of which is a journal article dated May 1979 that was written by Victor Herbert who died of malignant melanocytoma in 2002 at the age of 75 per the following sources. . The other source is noted in PUBMED as an "Historical article" originally published in the Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and was written by I.J. Lerner, (1981), Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine at University of Minnesota Medical School. , . Not sure of the relevance, but he co-authored a chapter in Integrative Therapies 2(4); 2003 pp 332-344 re: a RCT design that "conclusively supported the hypothesis that therapeutic massage and healing touch therapy were more effective than presence of a caring professional alone or standard care in inducing a relaxed state and reducing short-term pain" and so forth "in adult patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy." I found it curious considering the prevailing views of pseudoscience and CAM which is often discounted by mainstream, so why cite an author who practices pseudoscience to support the claim of quackery against another? Perhaps I've overlooked something? Anyway, I believe the 3 cited sources used to support the term "quackery" do not Those sources need to be replaced with RS or the contentious label should be removed. As soon as this RfC has concluded, I will move forward to get the current issues resolved. Atsme☯ 17:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how old a reliable source is though right? I also asked about this on the BLP board where I saw someone else discussing using the term quackery in a BLP article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#I_am_a_quack_vs_my_work_is_regarded_as_quackery It says if that's what a reliable source says that can be in the article. I was thinking that wasn't the case just because I had been reading other wikipedia articles about folks accused of quackery and those articles didn't mention quackery in the lede. But maybe they should and wikipedia could be "improved" by adding that to articles such as Mehmet Oz (assuming a reliable source says such a thing, not trying to do original research). Popish Plot (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish, it will be well worth your while to read and consider the many pages of policy and guidelines regarding sources, verification, due weight, and related topics. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's just what I have been doing. Popish Plot (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Keep it up and you'll rapidly develop some context on the various talk page and editing interactions you've been following. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We might as well point to reliable source guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons Here it says to take care about anything contentious. I think there is grey area and it's worth a discussion. But there are reliable sources saying Griffin is practicing "quackery", old sources yes, but that's why I said it doesn't matter how old a source is. In fact it says breaking news is considered less reliable. Popish Plot (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

without evidence of new medical understandings of snakeoil as no longer being "quackery", what was "quackery" in 1990 is still "quackery" and what was "quackery" in 1950 is still "quackery" and what was "quackery" in 1900 is still "quackery". In fact the longer it has been identified as "quackery" and is still being pushed as if it were not, says something about the pusher. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to say what the cold hard facts are. Do you want to know my opinion on this? I bet you don't. Do you want to see some reliable sources on this? I bet you do, if you are looking to improve a wiki article anyway. Besides that, no need to insult anyway. Keep in mind cancer is an evil, evil thing and many are looking for hope. Popish Plot (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cancer is not evil. It is a disease. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. We are not here to "provide hope". we are particularly not here to "provide FALSE hope". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I consider it quite brazen to determine for our readers what is and isn't FALSE hope when discussing ongoing research. See Alzheimer's_disease#Research_directions. The amygdalin research is real, it has been published in peer reviewed journals, and it is in practice as integrative therapy, which is not unlike the following sentence at Alzheimer's Preliminary research on the effects of meditation on retrieving memory and cognitive functions have been encouraging. Meditation? Isn't that CAM? I hope such mention doesn't stir the skeptics who appear to be opposed to anything CAM. Atsme☯ 13:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Integrative medicine is just a rebranding of complementary and alternative medicine, itself a rebranding of alternative medicine. All share the same problem: they are defined by rejection by the scientific community. Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. The term for alternative medicine that has been proven to work is: medicine.

Regardless of what you might "consider", laetrile, as promoted by Griffin in World Without Cancer, is objectively wrong. Not debatable or a matter of interpretation or an unpromising but legitimate line of inquiry, it is categorically wrong. Right there on the cover, it mentions vitamin B17. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. The book says that cancer is caused by a deficiency of vitamin B17. This is wrong. There are many causes of cancer and deficiency of a fake vitamin is not one of them. The book says the cure is supplementation with amygdalin (aka laetrile) which is rich in vitamin B17. This is categorically wrong since cancer, generically, is not a deficiency disease and certainly not a deficiency of a fake vitamin.

As I pointed out before, the discovery of calcium in lunar rock samples does not validate the casein theory of lunar geology. However much calcium they find, the moon is still not made of cheese.

So it goes with laetrile. Whatever uses may be found for amygdalin, laetrile remains a fraud, and a particularly evil one at that. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Popish Plot, your comment goes tot he very heart of it. Yes, people are looking for hope, and some people will try to sell them false hope because they know it makes money. Laetrile is a fraud, possibly the most lucrative fraud in the history of cancer quackery. It's lucrative precisely because people are looking for hope and would often prefer a barely-plausible lie to a harsh reality. That is why it is so very important to remain rigorous in our treatment of health frauds like laetrile. It's part of our mission: to inform, not to misinform. That's why we mention that laetrile is a scam, that's why we say the Earth is warming due to human activity, that's why we say the Earth is billions of years old. We know this collides with the beliefs of some people. That's their problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Will those who have actually read the book, World Without Cancer, please raise your hands? My question results from what appears to be mirrored responses originating from critics rather than actual encyclopedic analysis of specific passages in the book using RS with inline text attribution. Could that be why we're not seeing any inline text attribution? Btw, the blanket criticisms and contentious labels that are not properly sourced are not acceptable per any of the PAGs I've read. You also might want to keep in mind that reputable clinics (whether you agree with them or not) are actually using amygdalin (laetrile) today. Laetrile the drug compound is banned, but amygdalin (aka B17) the natural substance is not, and that's the further research Griffin promotes in his book along with medical freedom to choose. The fact that ongoing research is being conducted today makes the outdated sources (30+ year old journal articles for clinicians, etc.) less reliable than the belief itself, so I imagine the disputes will continue.

Editors have to consider the facts and present them in a dispassionate tone with compliance to NPOV, NOR, V, FRINGEBLP, etc.. Let's start with the facts:

1. There are treatments in use today so if medical practitioners are legally prescribing amygdalin as integrative therapy, why should WP assume the position that it's quackery based on journal articles that are 30+ years old? , (about those doctors: )
2. If it is quackery as what was stated in Wiki voice in the lead, why are the following medical centers allowed to use laetrile (amygdalin) as part of their prescribed integrative therapies? .
3. Is the International Myeloma Foundation (June Pruitt) a RS? .
4. If the therapy itself is worthless quackery, why is it still being used around the world?
5. If laetrile (amygdalin) is worthless quackery, why is there still ongoing academic and scientific research? Read the guidelines in WP:FRINGE/PS before you answer that question, and see the following: , , , , .
6. Why are RS still covering the issue 30+ years later?
7. Considering the first publication date of the book, is there a reason to exclude information regarding the 60 Minutes broadcast in 1974 titled "Laetrile: Cure or quackery" with Mike Wallace?

The point I'm trying to make here is that by not providing general information in a dispassionate tone in compliance with a NPOV to achieve WP:Balance and proper WP:Weight, we are driving readers away. It is far better to include as much information as possible and not leave readers thinking WP is only half truth. Consider that readers who end-up on WP seeking knowledge should be able to acquire well-balanced encyclopedic knowledge, not a coatrack for the purpose of discrediting Griffin's politics and his book. Atsme☯ 23:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether any editor here has read Griffin's works. Please confine your remarks to content, not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And please stop repeating yourself. Your opinion is clear. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As is yours, so please stop giving me instructions and limit your discussion to improving the article. Atsme☯ 01:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is in very good shape. The challenge now is to keep it in good shape. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article does not give enough weight to The Creature from Jekyll Island, which is more notable than all of his other works. -A1candidate 02:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is Start-class and unstable. It is PP. WP:Start-Class The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. It does fit the description alright. And you think this article is in "very good shape"? It doesn't even satisfy fundamental content policies which will be addressed as soon as the other RfC's are completed. Atsme☯ 05:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Your consistent inability to persuade anybody else rather suggests that you may be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Jekyll book is barely notable. The problem is that few RS discuss it and the ones that do discuss it are derisive. There's really nothing more to say other than what's in the article. If anybody ever finds qualified RS references, the discussion of the book can be expanded. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean cancer is evil literally. Figureateively, do you want to see some sources that made that personification? Anyways it's just best to assume good faith. If you resort to insults, people will correctly assume you're wrong. Facts may be boring and it's more fun to insult people online but really you do more bad than good to wikipedia if you do that, even if you're right. If you have facts on your side, use em. Post links to wikipedia guidelines and explain how they relate to the situation here in an emotionless manner. Popish Plot (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. Atsme has been pushing this for months without gaining any traction at all, and I have lost count of the number of times that various people have patiently explained to her why the recent research is not in any way relevant to Griffin's thesis in World Without Cancer. This is not the article to argue the toss about whether amygdalin might prove to have some valid therapeutic use at some pointy in the future, because that was not the case Griffin was making. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is saying it's not a suicide pact a common thing? It's a very odd thing to say. Strawman, I never said such an extreme thing as it being a suicide pact. Back to what I say. If you keep insulting someone, it makes you look nuts, and then people will assume you're wrong. But if you calmly and clearly show wikipedia guidelines and reliable sources, that is something else entirely. All I am saying. Popish Plot (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see that is from here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Our_social_policies_are_not_a_suicide_pact I think you are using it in wrong way and didn't intend to. It says ""Our social policies are not a suicide pact" is essentially a restatement of Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules as applied to editor behavior: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." Popish Plot (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I advise you to check my contributions history: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I think you will find that I have plenty of experience in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, rather more than you do. The patience of Misplaced Pages has a limit. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. You have a good contributions history. I'll try to get a good idea of what "to do" as opposed to "what not to do" based on some of your past edits. Is the suicide pact thing here meaning, if the wikipedia page here ended up with false, point of view, unsourced information, that is obviously a very bad thing hence it'd be like a suicide? And self caused? I understand we can't put false, point of viewish, unsourced information in here just to make someone happy. Don't worry about that, I get it. Popish Plot (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTSUICIDE means that while "assuming good faith that editors are here to build an encyclopedia based on policies" is the initial position, we are not obliged to continue "assuming" in the face of evidence to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules might help simplify things. I think assuming bad faith is suicide too though. Popish Plot (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the crucial difference between assuming bad faith and concluding bad faith. You are also apparently ignoring the fact, whihc I have stated more than once, that I think Atsme is entirely sincere in her crusade - sincere, but wrong in important and fundamental ways. The problem is not lack of good faith, but WP:IDHT, WP:STICK and sundry others along the same lines. It seems on the face of it that no matter how often the facts are pointed out and the proposed edits rejected, Atsme will continue to assert her opinion regardless. Misplaced Pages has a problem with people who do that, and they very often end up sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I do understand it but I get confused by some of your vague references. In this case the assuming good faith not being a suicide pact. I believe it refers to not putting unsourced, point of viewish false information into wiki articles. Not that it gives free reign to insult people on talk pages even if they may have a wrong opinion. To repeat myself: "I didn't mean cancer is evil literally. Figureateively, do you want to see some sources that made that personification? Anyways it's just best to assume good faith. If you resort to insults, people will correctly assume you're wrong. Facts may be boring and it's more fun to insult people online but really you do more bad than good to wikipedia if you do that, even if you're right. If you have facts on your side, use em. Post links to wikipedia guidelines and explain how they relate to the situation here in an emotionless manner." What I just said is not a wikipedia rule and you are free to ignore wikipedia's rules anyway. And all of these essays and such have people disagreeing. Just common sense advice for any conversations whether on wikipedia or real life or any other medium of exchange. The golden rule if you will. Popish Plot (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep asserting that we should assume good faith, with the obvious implication that we are not assuming good faith of Atsme. This is wrong on two counts. First, I do not assume ill-faith of Atsme, as previously stated. Second, even if I did, that would be justified per WP:SUICIDE. Your exhortations to assume good faith do not offer any meaningful assistance. Atsme refuses to stop making the same factually incorrect assertions, that has nothing to do with ill-faith.

Nobody is being insulted. If you consider that being shown you are wrong is insulting, then Misplaced Pages is the wrong place for you. I will acknowledge that I have encountered some people who do profess great offence at being shown they are wrong, especially one particular strident homeopathy shill, who considers that pointing out the scientific consensus on homeopathy is abuse, harassment and bullying; I see no evidence that this applies to Atsme. While she does seem unable to unpick criticism of her statements form criticism of herself, she does not show any of the characteristic paranoid mindset of the typical quackery shill. In fact she seems perfectly decent, which is why I have not been pursuing sanctions against her for her zealous defence of fringe and crank ideas in this article. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I see where first you state the facts, reliable sources etc. That all gets laid out. If it is ignored, that is like failure to get the point https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 So at that point, if you kept assuming good faith, that would mean letting someone put in false, unsourced material, or give it undue weight or whatever the issue may be, and in that case you should ignore the rule on assuming good faith because otherwise it would get in the way of making a good wikipedia article. Popish Plot (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Do not bit the newcomers. Guy, you just made some pretty bold statements about me which are not content related, including your boldly incorrect statement that Nobody is being insulted. You also said you do not assume ill-faith of Atsme, and then added if you had that would be justified per WP:SUICIDE. I perceive your statement as a threat of harm worthy of oversight by Callanecc. That statement is way over the edge. There is actually evidence that you have repeatedly insulted me as exampled by the following diffs: , , In this diff you ask why nobody else agrees? Perhaps some editors don't speak up because of behavior similar to what you just did to Popish. No editor wants to constantly be told they are wrong based only on your POV. , Falsely claiming that I tried to "imply a vastly greater scope and breadth to that consensus" The closing comments are evidence for why it is a false claim: . You have made known your views as a a skeptic against quack treatments which appears to carry with it a specific POV not to mention your political slant that "all Birchers are toxic for any editor who fails to understand and accept that members of the John Birch Society are usually extremists and very often completely unhinged. I see no justification whatsoever for your behavior, past or present. Atsme☯ 18:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, please confine your article talk page remarks to content improvement. SPECIFICO talk

I think part of the problem is I asked questions and he wrongly assumed that meant I was doing something wrong. But I didn't understand what suicide pact and ignoring all rules meant here. I think wikipedia doesn't like to have hard and fast rules that must always be followed because context matters. So they have many essays giving leeway but some of them do more harm than good because they're confusing and then people get annoyed if someone asks what it means. But he finally did explain which was great. Popish Plot (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you are quote-mining through policy and ignoring its actual intent. You are not a newcomer. Your claims of insults rely on the idea that criticizing your arguments is criticism of you. That's not how it is. I think you're a nice person, but I know, as a fact, that you are wrong about laetrile - as you acknowledged once before, I know a lot more about this than you do, yet you seem unwilling to accept consensus even after acknowledging that others know more than you do. Sooner or later you are going to have to either walk away form this or be removed by force. I would very much prefer the former. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the whole laetreile thing really a John Bircher scam? I think unless there were reliable sources showing that connection it's original research. Popish Plot (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind I searched and found it's not original research. http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html Popish Plot (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure - how is "Quackwatch" a reliable source? I looked for credentials at the bottom of the webpage, and saw only a list of "recommended vendors" for sunglasses and such. Quackwatch looks to be no more RS than DrMercola.com for statements of fact. You might get by with attribution to the doctor who wrote the article, "According to...", but how noteworthy is he? petrarchan47tc 20:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You could always search a well-known online encyclopaedia. Quackwatch is considered (by independent authorities, not just Misplaced Pages) to be a reliable source for critical commentary on Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (SCAM for short). Guy (Help!) 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a Bircher scam, it originated with Krebs, but the Birchers became involved when one of their members was prosecuted; it offended their libertarian ideals to have a Federal agency regulating medical claims, as far as I can tell. A reliable source for this has been posted several times on this page: Laetrile, a lesson in cancer quackery. Please do read it. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected request: a --> an HIV/AIDS denialist_an_HIV/AIDS_denialist-2015-04-13T02:12:00.000Z">

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request a change in the lead: a --> an HIV/AIDS denialist

See: APA: Using "a" or "an" With Acronyms and Abbreviations

BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)_an_HIV/AIDS_denialist"> _an_HIV/AIDS_denialist">

 Done, as entirely uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 06:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

PP

I feel that we need to have the page protection, due to expire in 3 days, extended for another month. I see no progress on the issues that led to the disruption here. After another month, we'll have resolution on two RfCs and perhaps the tone of the discussion here will improve. Could those who agree with an extension post a brief note here so that we can arrange with an Admin? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for all but I do think for me this has been informative and at first I was thinking this was a BLP so that meant keep tedentious material to a minimum but then I saw the reliable sources, and some that were older, I had been thinking older material was less reliable but I got corrected on that. And one edit I would make is remove the source USA Daily http://web.archive.org/web/20071016170111/http://www.usadaily.com//article.cfm?articleID=63368 because it isn't considered reliable. That one tricked me because I wrongly assumed it was USA Today, an entirely different newspaper. Popish Plot (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that perhaps the sanctions should be allowed to expire. I'd question the ability of an extension to have an effect if the current page protection has not. This may shield disruptive individuals from sanctions that could assist in ending their disruption.The benifit of the doubt has been given and ample opportunity has been provided (or what have you).-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're agreeing with my concern but stating that once the disruption resumes that it will be ended once and for all by sanctions on the perpetrators? SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, but it's more questioning aloud than an actual statement. Just another avenue to look at. I mean it may be that if there is further disruption page protection settles it. Or it maybe this has went on for to long and it's time to settle it once and for all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. It says at the top of this talk page

" The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.

Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process."

Is this the same thing you're talking about? Popish Plot (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My personal preference is for the RfCs to be closed and all parties to abide by them, but there is no doubt that Atsme is in danger of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please keep all these silly essays on rationalwiki, not here? -A1candidate 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaking me for Atsme, whose silly essay was recently deleted, but I don't think she edits RationalWiki (I certainly don't). Guy (Help!) 22:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment