Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Midgley (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 11 March 2006 (→[]: confused two nn articles for amoment. Oddly, both by the same author.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Peter_Fletcher

POV non WP:BIO. Not encyclopaedic. There are very very many retired civil service doctors in England and the only thing adduced about him is that he was to have been one witness in a trial which will not occur since the legal aid board determined it had no chance at all of success. Basically this is yet another attack page on immunisation presented as a biography - possibly we should decide that these are speedy delete candidates. DELETE Midgley 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Part of one user's walled garden on antivaccination activism. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Added comment: searching PubMed for "Fletcher P vaccine" gives no results. Googling for the same combination only results in hits from blogs describing his testimony. Do we need a page on every person who ever testified for an English court? Some may characterise him as "eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines", but this is not quite borne out by generally used indicators. Oh, and since when has the autism epidemic spanned the globe, and what is the source of the statistic that "untold thousands of UK children have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis"? JFW | T@lk 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  The above could be construed as misleading example of how to use a search engine. Try searching for '"Peter Fletcher" vaccine'. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  The above could also be construed as someone who knows how to search Pubmed, where authors are Surname initial. There are a lot of non-authoritative and unreliable hits in Google, but they don't each add new and different infroamtion, it is just promiscuous reduplication. Midgley 14:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  Ombudsman's patronising attitude is typical. I'm better at searching medline and google than you, Ombi. Really. And using the quotes had occurred to me. In fact, your search yields 384 results, all from secondary sources and none giving proof that Fletcher has published anything of use in the field of vaccination. Since his testimony he's an "expert". This article could be construed as a typical example of your walled garden, which is why it will probably be deleted. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep: An eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines, Fletcher has shattered the illusion that the medical establishment is united in its refusal to acknowledge culpability for triggering an autism epidemic that spans the globe. For political and economic reasons, other medical authorities have been entirely unable to regognize and acknowledge the global catastrophe caused by vaccine injuries. Simply because the bulk of Fletcher's career predates the advent of the internet, there is no reason to assume his contributions to medical science are anything less than extremely noteworthy. Fletcher is noteworthy not only for the prestigious position he once held overseeing vaccine policy in the UK, but also for breaking ranks with medical authorities loudly and clearly as an expert on vaccine issues, and his statements have been reported around the world. Beyond that, he was chosen as an expert witness and played a primary role in the high profile UK lawsuit on behalf of the untold thousands of UK children who have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis following vaccination. He presented reports, inexplicably ignored by the court in its decision to derail the litigation, that supported the clinical evidence and observations by thousands of parents "that a triple vaccine (MMR) was causally related to the damage suffered by the children." Fletcher has been quoted widely by journalists around the world who have covered the vaccine controversy. Ironically, Midgley himself has said the only thing that he dismisses about the case presented on behalf of the children and their parents had to do with conflict of interest concerns. However, the only expert testimony in the case where such concerns could easily be dismissed would be that of a retired vaccine expert and recognized authority, such as Fletcher. Ombudsman 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ombudsman is misrepresenting me in his polemic above, not for the first time, and I do suggest anyone who is tempted to take any part of it seriously read the actual comment I made in the BMJ Rabid Responses and consider whether this is part of a pattern of which this article is another part.

  If there had been any intent to mislead, a link leading to your comment allowing readers to judge for themselves would not have been provided. Indeed, your statement suggests that you dismiss everything about the arguments presented by Fletcher and the legal team representing the families as polemical. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • • Pray tell, to what were you referring? Your BMJ rapid response seemed to be addressing the the topic at hand. There was no intent to mislead, despite what you have tried to imply with your diversionary interjection, though any misunderstanding of your BMJ response simply would stem from the fact that interpreting your comments is often quite difficult. Ombudsman 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have not the slightest doubt that this was an attempt to mislead. I suggestt hat anyone in doubt looks at the reference, not at Ombod's interpretation of it. There is no point discussing this further here. Midgley 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the things about courts, at least English courts, is that very little of what they do is inexplicable. Hardly any of it is even unexplained. It isn't always trivial to obtain the actual text of the explanation, but it is perfectly clear here that the Legal Aid Board had the opportunity to consider Dr Fletcher's comments, and decided, in the light of that and the other avaialable elements of the case the bringing of which was proposed, that the case was hopeless - hence their explicable decision to not fund it further. That case has been funded IIRC to around £10M from public funds already, and I think that it was reasonable to pay to bring such concerns to law, but it is not reasonable to go on and on and on. Midgley 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ombudsman has edited my comment here on this page. This is improper. Midgley 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd give the benefit of the doubt here; it may have been an edit conflict. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't, it was deliberate and a reason given in the comment to the edit. He didn't like the comment about the possible identity of one of the posters to BMJ Rapid Responses. Midgley 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of misdirection by Midgley, as the comment included a link provided to allow readers to judge for themselves, but here is Midgley's full statement addressing the topic at hand, "Parents claiming a link between MMR vaccine and autism lose final appeal for legal aid," which Midgley seemed to be addressing: The only thing that I don't understand or cannot dismiss instantly in the polemic presented as a response above is this:- "Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy." Is this a claim that mixed vaccines cause food allergy? Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is, characteristically, not the case, and is also characteristically, not germane to the page in question, which should be deleted. I object to Ombusdamn's repeated lies about me. Midgley 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO, part of POV editing campaign in violation of WP:NOT a forum for advocacy. I'm afraid the "rapid response" includes some "rabid response". Barno 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page appears to be little more than a paraphrase of this newspaper article (or perhaps some of the opinion comment based on that article), and appears to contain little biographical information beyond that available in that page. In fact, there is more biographical information in that newspaper article than on Peter Fletcher (for example, he was Chief Scientific Officer in the 1970s). Further, the original text of the page is extremely emotive (e.g., "In early 2006, Fletcher reignited the smoldering MMR vaccine debate", "political firestorm"), and seems incongruous with the evidence. The Daily Mail article was published on February 5, and appears to have triggered fewer than 10 other articles in a month , which does not fit with "reigniting" a debate. --Limegreen 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As noted above, Fletcher's career pretty much predated the internet, so the article was originally, and will be, a little more difficult to flesh out. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • His career certainly did pre-date the internet. However, while it's possible that there is no information on the web about him is because of that, it could also be because he was not particularly notable. One of those news articles suggests his tenure with the Department of Health was not very long. Perhaps the best defence you could make for this article would be to find some actual biographical information and evidence of notability. If he is notable, 20 minutes in a public library should demonstrate that. --Limegreen 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:BIO. If kept, should be rewritten according to NPOV. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno. AED 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While the tone of the article is POV, he is as notable as many of the individuals listed on vaccine controversy. (Granted many of these individuals themselves aren't that notable either.) Andrew73 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps either the cast list should be on that page, or there should be a list of such people with a brief note against each of why their involvement ins interesting, and a brief note on the page of the comon features. As given thus far, the former notes would be very short, and the latter could be quite short as well, not least since it would not need to repeat the contents of the other pages. I know WP is not hierarchical, but these people have not been presented as articles about individuals, rather as examples of a corps. My own stylistic preference is actually for a little box to one side of a page or section, giving the capsule for a person referred to. It is a very different if one wishes to discuss his scholarly papers, taste in Claret, role in medical service development, the furniture in his restored Georgian house in the Home COunties, the difficulties of financing a listed building or civil service pensions none of which instances are at all specifically relevant here.Midgley 14:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Might as well keep it, since two more just like it will pop up in its place; thought I'd come back for one last edit.... Fletcher is not notable. This article is just another attempt by Ombudsman to spread more anti-immunisation idiocy around wikipedia. WHY hasn't Ombudsman been banned for using wikipedia as a soapbox? Ombudsman is just as bad as John Gohde (who will be back in little over a month after his year-long ban, what fun!), but Ombudsman makes admirable use of a thesaurus, and he's certainly got his foot in the door now with his countless POV edits on vaccine conspiracies/autism conspiracies/9-11 conspiracies/you-name-it conspiracies. DocJohnny's already gone, and why am I leaving instead of Ombudsman? --CDN99 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  Don't go. TO be fair though a senior civil servant could be notable. WHat is clear is that he is not notable for anything listed in the article, IE the article is not about him, nor is it to inform. I think Ombudsman is the antithesis of an encyclopedia autor, and although the WP credo offers a hope that by uniting thesis and antithesis we might achieve synthesis, I think it would be simpler and more effective to dispense with Ombudsman. Forthwith. Admins? Midgley 13:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ombudsman has for the second time in this discussion edited another user's comment. Is there any sanction that can be aplied over this? Midgley 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is the delete, which included a comment of his own:-

  • Aside Clifford Miller whose comments are in the BMJ rapid - but not published - responses referred to above, and who I had commented on, is one of the candidates for being the User:86.10.231.219 whose contributions and history are somewhat consistent with that idea and whose IP address is geographically adjacent to the address Mr Miller gives. (He is probably not notable, but is certainly persistent. Unaccountably, the college he examined in law at had forgotten him when I enquired of them, but I do not for a moment doubt that if they searched all their records they would eventually find him.)Midgley 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Restored after Ombudsman edited my comment into something he preferred to respond to. (A damnable liberty!)Midgley 22:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) + Restored againMidgley 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC) If there had been any intent to mislead, a link leading to your comment allowing readers to judge for themselves would not have been provided. Indeed, your statement suggests that you dismiss everything about the arguments presented by Fletcher and the legal team representing the families as polemical. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

- ***Pray tell, to what were you referring" Your BMJ rapid response seemed to be addressing the the topic at hand. There was no intent to mislead, despite what you have tried to imply with your diversionary interjection, though any misunderstanding of your BMJ response simply would stem from the fact that interpreting your comments is often quite difficult. Ombudsman 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)