Talk:Martin Kulldorff - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martdj (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 24 July 2023 (→The SBM article is factually incorrect and is misattributed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:53, 24 July 2023 by Martdj (talk | contribs) (→The SBM article is factually incorrect and is misattributed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Molecular Biology: COMPBIO

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

On Kulldorff's December 2021 essay

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

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

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

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

This paragraph would be more neutral by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly "my invention."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that's the "trick of a Wikipedian," I'd say the project is doing a piss-poor job of it, to be honest. The IP address has a perfectly valid point. The "reliable sources" have a nasty habit of incestuously citing one another in a sort of tautological circle-jerk. They create "truth" and "consensus" out of nothing on a regular basis. And frankly, the tone and verbiage that is being used against people like Kulldorff, Bhattachary, and Gupta is totally unbefitting of anyone with a principled scientific background. Edsanville (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

LOL, academics citing each other is more generally known as scholarship. Misplaced Pages likes knowledge. Which is why bullshit is properly framed within its great context, as here. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The SBM article is factually incorrect and is misattributed

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

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

Factual inaccuracy

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

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

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

Article misattribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed statement

I propose the following to replace the statement:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:RSP states the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It most certainly is not accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, a source in which the "wording is imprecise," as you say, is not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP.;Edited 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

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

It's not original research. It's clicking the link. The "two years" are 2020 and 2021. Obvious really. Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The year 2020 is influenza season 2019-2020. In that season, there were 199 influenza-related deaths.

The year 2021 is influenza season 2020-2021. In that season, there was 1 influenza-related death.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 18:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is what the article says. Glad that's all agreed. Can we close this now? Bon courage (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

We most certainly are not in agreement.

An editor stating what they think an author meant to say is WP:OR. The statement is unsourced.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The language of the source is slightly ambiguous. Your interpretation is particularly uncharitable, others disagree. The point (that there is a 1000x difference in deaths over the same period) is accurate and continues to be well supported. That you disagree about the wording the source used does not make the source inaccurate, and that does not mean the statement in the Misplaced Pages article is somehow 'unsourced.' MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"The point (that there is a 1000x difference in deaths over the same period) is accurate and continues to be well supported."

It is absolutely NOT accurate and that is the point. Can you clearly argue that there was only 1 child, influenza-related death in the two years of 2020 and 2021? What is the source that indicates that and is that source used in the SBM article?

The statement that there was only 1 death in two years (which is exactly what the SBM article says) is false to facts based on the source provided by SBM.

Any deviation from that, any interpretation of what "two years" might mean beyond "two years" is original research. Any statement by an editor that "two years" actually means 'six-to-eight months spanning two calendar years' is WP:OR.

Ambiguous, imprecise language is not fitting of a BLP.

If the situation was flipped, and someone was arguing that Kulldorff really meant one thing, when he clearly wrote something else, would you accept it?

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the SBM writer is describing the period from the end of flu season in spring 2020 (coinciding with the start of anti-COVID measures) to the publishing of the article in December 2021? That would cover two separate years and round up to two years, although it is closer to 19 months than 24. Llll5032 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, that would fit with the wording "the past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place". Bon courage (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that this SBM article is imprecisely and ambiguously worded to the point where editors are trying their best to make the article same something that it does not say.

Because it is imprecise and ambiguous, the SBM article does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. The statement as it is currently written is unsourced and disputed and therefore should be immediately removed without further discussion.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It is much easier to win an argument if you can take other people's words out of context to claim they agree with you, but that is not how discussions work. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

If you click the CDC link (try it!) it all becomes obvious that the "two years" are those of 20/21 season. The source does not say "24 month contiguous period", as Michael.C.Wright seems to be interpreting it. Even if it did it does not alter the underlying point that flu is not more hazardous that COVID for children, and that this relationship provides no logical basis for opposing childhood vaccination. Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is still inaccurate. According to the CDC's official COVID-19 fatality count (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm) there were 234 pediatric COVID-19 deaths during the 2020/21 flu season. This statement: "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season, while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000." implies that 1,000 children died of COVID-19 during the 2020/21 flu season, when in reality that count is based on all COVID-19 pediatric deaths through December 2021. Even if we were to use April 2020-December 2021, the official tally is 801. It is simply inaccurate to say that the flu killed 1 child while COVID-19 killed more than 1,000 over the same period.

Unfortunately, the facts are not on your or the psychiatrist author's side. Considering there is clearly a lack of consensus that the paragraph as written is accurate or appropriate, it should be removed until a consensus is reached. Otherwise, you're trying very hard to find a way to keep it in the article. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We're trying very hard to respect our policy on original research, which prevents us from substituting our own judgment in an attempt to undermine reliable sources as you are trying to do here. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of undermining reliable sources. It's pointing out factual inaccuracies. The paragraph in the Misplaced Pages article, as written, is factually inaccurate. Does it matter if the source of the inaccuracy is from an SBM article? Let's phrase this a different way. If the SBM article said that the flu killed 500 children during the 2020/21 season, which is obviously inaccurate, would it still be appropriate to say that in the Misplaced Pages article as if it's true? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We can only speculate about the exact data and time periods used, thus, any attempt to come up with our own numbers to 'prove' inaccuracy is original research. We don't do that here. The only policy way to undercut this source would be with another reliable source that specifically contradicts it. I'm sure in the hypothetical situation you suggest sources calling out the error in SBM would be available. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I've already linked to the CDC's COVID-19 fatality page which directly contradicts both the SBM source and the paragraph in this Misplaced Pages article. I'll post it again: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Should we consider the CDC or SBM more reliable for COVID-19 fatality data? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That you found some other data set that doesn't exactly match the article is irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's time to get others involved to resolve this dispute. You clearly aren't engaging in good faith and are more interested in arguing than ensuring the Misplaced Pages article is quality.

Here's my reasoning for saying you aren't engaging in good faith: In your 2nd to last statement, you said it would be necessary to find another reliable source that directly contradicts the SBM article. I posted the CDC's count which directly contradicts it and which is infinitely more reliable than an opinion piece on SBM, and now you say that it's irrelevant. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A source that directly contradicts SBM would say something like 'SBM is wrong and here is why'. That is not what you are presenting here. MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither the SBM article or Kulldorff's essay say that Kulldorff said children should not be vaccinated. Keep it up, you're only providing more evidence that you aren't engaging in good faith. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting Kulldorff's essay: COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

And SBM: I was dismayed that it mostly argued against vaccinating children. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is entirely different than Kulldorff saying children should not be vaccinated. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really; it would be different from him saying "must not". "Should not" is just a recommendation against. It was maybe too weak if anything. I've strengthened it. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Just noting here that blocks have been placed on both Michael.C.Wright (indefinite) and IP 71.128.145.158 (1 week). - MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOCKING eh. While whining about bad faith. Classic. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Zzuuzz with checkuser privilege looked at the sockpuppet accusation and wrote "In my opinion, the technical evidence says to me that this IP and Michael.C.Wright are not the same person." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I read the article, saw that a paragraph was incorrect and following the Misplaced Pages guidelines, removed it. Now I see all the communication about this single paragraph in the past. This entire thread already makes clear that this paragraph simply has no place in this article, but I'll take some time to explain why: The quoted SMB article makes false claims. The primary false claim, which you seem to have missed in your discussion is this: It claims that "During this same period, according to the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, over 1,000 children have died of COVID-19 in the US". However, while the definition of an influenza-death is "Someone who died of influenza", a Covid-19 death is "Someone who tested positive within 60 days prior to their death or where Covid-19 possible played a role in the chain of events that led to their death". The claim that over 1000 children died of Covid is therefore false. Fact is that there is no available data of how many children died of Covid-19 in the US. This of course also means that you can't simply compare influenza-deaths to Covid-deaths. That's comparing apples with pears. However, we do know of many European countries how many children died *of* Covid-19, as the ministry of health of Germany, the United Kingdom , the Netherlands and Sweden publicly disclosed this information. The combined number of children that died *of* Covid in those 4 countries (with a combined population of 179 million people) is... ZERO. Not a single child died of Covid-19 in those countries. So when we actually compare apples to apples in these countries, it's clear that Kulldorff's statement is 100% correct. Don't forget that Martin Kulldorff is of Swedish descent. He knows these numbers. It's actually common knowledge in Europe that for children influenza is more dangerous than Covid-19. I'm quite surprised to see that apparently many Americans didn't know this.

Also as mentioned earlier, the author is comparing influenza in years without influenza to Covid-19. That's not scientific at all for a statement like he makes.

I'd like to remind you that this is the English language Misplaced Pages, not the American Misplaced Pages. I see claims in the discussion above, which from the view of an European make no sense at all. For example, many European countries never vaccinated children < 12 years as it didn't make sense from a health perspective. The Danish minister of health actually admitted that vaccinating the 12 - 18 years group was a mistake. You seem set on defaming Martin Kulldorff on the premise that he thinks that it makes no sense to vaccinate children for Covid-19. In Europe, this is the mainstream thought among many vaccinologists and immunologists.

So I hope it's clear now for everyone that the paragraph has to go. It makes false claims to defame a famous epidemiologist and is spreading disinformation. Martdj (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) martdj

False?

Edit warrior was indef'd. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Do we have consensus for "false" in "while promoting the false promise that vulnerable people could be protected from the virus"? It had been stable (I think) in the article before the recent edit war. Hoping people can chime in so we can put together an edit request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Need to say false for NPOV. The idea is ridiculous/impossible (per sources) so off-handedly calling it just a "promise" is not good. Bon courage (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the changed language of "promoting the promise" is inadequate, and that NPOV requires an indication that said promise was widely considered impossible to keep. A refquote with the word "false" or very similar language would be advisable for verifiability. Llll5032 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, and it's not like this hasn't been discussed ad nauseum already. Bon courage (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How about this quote from the cited SBD source: "To boil it all down, if you listen to epidemiologists and public health scientists, you’ll soon realize that it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population, even if the risk of death or severe disease is much lower in the young"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is a helpful refquote. Llll5032 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Added! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And it's been reverted by the same new user that was edit-warring before. We have consensus that we should say "false promise" and include the quotation, so this would appear to be disruptive editing against consensus. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirming consensus. That new user is also WP:SPA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

AhmetYu, care to chime in? Are you familiar with WP:PARITY, which includes the guidance "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal"? Since the GBD is a fringe think tank publication, peer-reviewed works are not required to present the mainstream view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 09:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Categorizing GBD as fringe is pretty fringe, its a declaration signed by many reputable epidemiologists and scientists from worlds most known universities. Regardless, their declaration is for sure not "primarily described by amateurs". Mr. Kulldorff with his background as a professor of medicine at Harvard for 18 Years for sure doesn't count an amateur in this specific context. Therefore, the "guidance" you cite is not valid at all here. As I have described it in the editing history already, anyone with NPOV and common sense would require a peer-reviewed research in this specific and sensitive context before making an unnecessarily subjective distinction like that. Taking a deeper look, so many medicine or biology professors signed that declaration, that its literally a misinformation crime to simply call their declaration here easily false based on a single persons opinion just because you guys think those professors are "amateurs".

"Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view" - This is one of Misplaced Pages's main principles, leaving the word "False" here is a very very clear violation of that principle no matter how you try to game it. Again, these people, including Mr. Kulldorff are clearly not amateurs, instead of trying to falsify their declaration without reliable scientific sources we should simply report about things in a neutral way. One important and additional argument you guys are missing for removing the word "False" is that already in the next sentence it is anyways said that "The declaration was criticized as being unethical and infeasible and was widely rejected", that sentence is the limit of NPOV, going beyond that sentence is not NPOV anymore, its clearly a different intent. AhmetYu (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral means aligning with the WP:BESTSOURCES. But those the GBD is a load of hooey. Misplaced Pages is bound to reflect that knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"load of hooey".. That is your OPINION, and maybe also the opinion of many others, but it is not a scientifically proven fact which you can use here at Misplaced Pages, NPOV requires to inform the reader about GBD and Mr Kulldorff without violating NPOV. And again, if you have a sound peer-reviewed source for that claim, bring it on. AhmetYu (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the evaluation of on-point sources. So Misplaced Pages reflects that knowledge, to be neutral. Usually sources debunking fringe nonsenses like this aren't peer-reviewed, but WP:SBM is a golden source for fringe material, and generally reliable for assertions of fact. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

General reliability is not sufficient in this context, WP:SBM "is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS" according to the reference you point to. Aagain, for the sake of NPOV a peer reviewed source is needed here, opinions alone are obviously not sufficient with this one. AhmetYu (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing 'neutral point of view' with WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a common error but entirely unsupported by the NPOV policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Read yourself what you are referring to: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

Using the word "False" here is clearly taking a stand AGAINST it, and that without a scientific and peer-reviewed reference although the context clearly requires it. I would like to underline that Mr. Kulldorff here is a professor of medicine at Harvard for 18 Years, he is no amateur in this context. AhmetYu (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the word "False" is mirroring what the best available sources say, and that is what we're supposed to do. Misplaced Pages also takes a position that the Earth is round rather than flat, and that is not a problem with NPOV. You've also already been pointed to WP:PARITY - we do not require peer-reviewed references here. Sometimes people with impressive credentials are just wrong, and Misplaced Pages will say so when they are. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We are not supposed to violate NPOV, if you wish that badly to inform the user about people having the opinion that its "False", you simply do it, like with the next sentence, you don't need to break neutrality for that.

I don't care if the Earth is round, flat or elliptic, thats another discussion, I don't know what you are referring to concretely, I don't know what scientific research has been delivered by which side.

And concerning what I have been pointed to with WP:PARITY, there it mentions that peer reviewed criticism is not necessary in case the corresponding their is "primarily described by amateurs", don't let me repeat myself unnecessarily, Mr. Kulldorff is clearly no amateur, therefore what I have been pointed to has in this context not argumentative relevance. AhmetYu (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. The use of the word "false" is required by our NPOV policy. If you continue edit-warring you are likely to be blocked. To get further opinions on whether GBD is fringe, raise a query at WP:FT/N. I suggest this matter is now otherwise closed. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is the opposite of what our main principle dictate, my argumentation is valid until you can deliver a meaningful counter argument for keeping "False". If you continue edit-warring you should rather be blocked. If you and readers here have noticed it, one can clearly observe that you seem to pushing your own opinion here while I care only about being truly neutral. AhmetYu (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the combined wisdom of several established editors with tens of thousands of edits between them aligns better with Misplaced Pages's "main principles" than an WP:SPA trying to mangle a lede in a WP:PROFRINGE manner? Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And thats where we have arrived, because you have absolutely no counter-arguments, the only thing you have left is trying to discredit me by labeling me as WP:SPA. Yea, if the majority of "experienced" editors say so, they must be right, consensus indeed. People following Hitler had the same mentality, they were the majority back then. Congratulations. AhmetYu (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

A textbook example of Godwin's Law that got this editor blocked indefinitely ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand what NPOV is. It is not WP:FALSEBALANCE. You are seizing on a rhetorical device in WP:PARITY - that amateurs are used as an example in one sentence does not mean you can ignore everything else in a four paragraph section. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, you rather don't seem to understand what NPOV is, using the world "False" here is not neutral at all without any scientific reference. You can't simply ignore the word "amateurs" there just because its fitting better into your intention then, it is not our problem if the source you are pointing us to does not describe what you want. AhmetYu (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

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

SaTScan

A new topic, unrelated to the rest of the lively discussion on this talk page.

Martin Kulldorff's software SaTScan is very influential in the literature around and epidemiology. I created the page without knowing anything about the creator, and coming to his page I see that there is currently significant debate on current events/contributions.

Starting this topic because I think this page could focus a bit more on his academic contributions. Also, requesting help with the SaTScan page I have created if anyone wants to look over it. A section mentioning its use with COVID-19 might be useful. GeogSage 22:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Kulldorff an epidemiologist?

The article's lede states that Kulldorff is a biostatistician, though does not mention that he is a epidemiologist. I think the specialty might be worthy to mention, as it seems a good amount of sources support his assertion in the field ( ). In a court-document under the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Kulldorff's background states under penalty of perjury: Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and he is a biostatistician and epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital ( ). @Bon courage GuardianH (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

See previous discussion and dispute resolution on this. The only source which seems to consider it in depth explicitly says he is NOT an epidemiologist. So stick with what's certain. Bon courage (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you know which discussion the source is mentioned in? I haven't been a part of the previous discussions, so finding one source among the tons of discussions about Kulldorff is like finding a needle in a haystack. GuardianH (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

See. and this page's archives. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-children-who-died-of-covid-19-were-already-seriously-ill-jlxr8mkxq

Categories: