Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Epidemiologist or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An epidemiologist is one who studies epidemiology.

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

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

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

Are there any objections to my removal of the template?

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

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

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

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's concerning that the source (which is, BTW, not great) in the body used for his epidemiology label in fact belabours his role as a biostatistician.[1] That said in my understanding biostatistics and epidemiology are closely related areas so it's not as if this is some huge issue. I guess the GBD crazies want to push the "epidemiology" credentials as PR? I think unless we can cite as fact that this guy held an appropriately-named post as an "Epidemiologist", or a suitably weighty academic source describing him as such, it's best simply to leave this label out, to ensure we stay strictly accurate & cautious, as we should for WP:BLP reasons. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Francis Collins used the term 'epidemiologist'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI Disclosure discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WaPo uses term 'epidemiologist'

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

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

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

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

break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original removal of title epidemiologist

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

Munk Debates uses the term epidemiologist

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

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

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

notice of mediation

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

Unnecessary deaths and recurrent epidemics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any objections to that edit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have are already seen recurrent waves[2] and the Declaration has not been implemented.

Therefore I don't think the statement adds value to the article. It could be considered fear-mongering or just poor synthesis. We also know know that, at least with the Delta variant, natural immunity (infection-derived) provided better protection than vaccine-induced immunity[3]:

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any objections?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source they are both using, the Lancet article, does not mention the GBD at all, neither in the document[4] nor in the accompany homepage[5].

I think the uncontroversial compromise for an article about Kulldorff, not the Declaration, is to leave the statement out of Kulldorff's article. The statement might have consensus acceptance and value on the Great Barrington Declaration page but I don't think it adds value to Kulldorff's biography. It is not only speculative synthesis, but we now know that for the Delta variant (the predominant strain when the WSJ article was published), infection-induced immunity is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity[6], making the statement even more problematic.

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiablity policy states:

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

It further clarifies direct support as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any objections to me replacing the template?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(source)

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

(source)

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

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

Section structure

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

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

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

One of the things we need to make more clear is how his views were informed and developed over time, as new information became available. For example, in the first paragraph (the new section-lead), the BMJ article[7] used as a source was written before vaccines had emergency use approval. The BMJ article discusses his views on the age-stratification of mortality risk, which only partly informed his opposition to broad vaccine mandates, as he stated in The Hill article.[8] Therefore we need to somehow indicate those types of developments; as the pandemic developed and as mandates developed, his views against mandates developed.

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

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

Kulldorff's opposition to vaccine mandates

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

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

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

Under such uncertainty, vaccine mandates are unethical.

— Kulldorff, Martin The Hill

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

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

— BMJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must be talking about different sources.

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

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

Regarding the connection, The Hill states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the quote, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I fixed the WP:V issue created by that source not being cited in-line with the quoted material. I now see no synth issue. You'll see a few issues in the article, and there are more that are untagged, including citing LinkedIn for career details. As you've identified, at various times, a desire to reduce the amount of content in the COVID section, the first place we should look is to content that isn't proven DUE by secondary coverage.

Could you quote the material in The Hill source that discusses age-differentiated mortality in adverse reactions to vaccines? While you're looking, could you restore the old content pending consensus for the new material? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think you've misread what I said.

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

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

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

Thanks for clarifying on your thoughts on overall length. You're right that I was conflating the two subjects. On adverse reactions: I'm not actually concerned with what you're saying here, but what's currently in the article, "younger people experience rare reactions to the vaccines at higher rates than older people". That content is not supported by The Hill.

I've suggested some alternate language, to which you haven't responded. It's ok if you don't like the proposals, and I look forward to the opinions of other editors. It's not ok to leave your disputed content in the article without consensus, and you haven't been acknowledging or accepting my requests to self-revert. I'm going to go ahead and revert to the status quo ante. I am again, fine, with removing the disputed lines entirely while discussion is ongoing, if that's what you'd prefer. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from the article:

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

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

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

Views subsections

Given the evolution of the pandemic, I think it would be helpful if the Views section was divided by year into 2020, 2021 and 2022. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's only about 550 words right now. I don't think it needs to be divided into subsections.

Also, if you divide it by dates, people might assume that Kulldorff's views changed each year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hasn't he gone full-bloom antivaxx now?[9] Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That source certainly doesn't prove it. There's a pretty big gap between "I don't think this particular type of vaccine works as well as advertised" and "Nobody should take vaccines". Six months ago, he wrote "Dr. Gupta and I have spent decades on vaccine research and we are all strong advocates for Covid and other vaccines. They are among the greatest inventions in history." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with WAID. I think I see where CM is coming from, as views like "I think herd immunity should be a major component of the next few months of COVID strategy" are substantively different if expressed in October 2020 or March 2022. I'd be more likely to support a re-org if sources were more focused on change in Kulldorff's views, or the context in which they're expressed, as opposed to tying all his comments back to his authorship of GBD. I'm seeing more of the latter still. Probably worthwhile to ping Charles Matthews, as it's been a while since he made the suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding BMJ and Guardian references

@Firefangledfeathers What is your reasoning for removing a BMJ source?

Also, if you don't mind sharing, what is your real name?

Unnecessary emphasis on COVID a persons contribution to medicine and science shouldn’t be reduced to fear or gain.

Unnecessary emphasis on COVID a persons contribution to medicine and science shouldn’t be reduced to fear or gain. 45.53.128.229 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources. When they mention Kulldorff primarily because of the stupid ideas he has about COVID, that is what ends up in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to top

I think these recent changes went against talk page consensus from extensive discussions. The top should be based on the consensus of independent WP:BESTSOURCES (per WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB). Does anyone besides the editor who made the changes support the changes? Llll5032 (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

New source

• Howard J (28 August 2022). "Lockdowns 'Postponed the Inevitable'. Is That a Bad Thing?". Science-Based Medicine.

Strong on the increasing absurdity of the arguments Kulldorff expounded. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Age-targeted viral testing

Whether any editor feels it is a fantasy or not does not change the fact that Kulldorff supported age-targeted testing. That fact was clearly documented by Medpage.[10].

Editors' opinions about Kulldorff's beliefs do not matter. Acting otherwise by removing a legitimate and sourced statement is biased editing and does not belong in a biography of living persons nor any other wiki article.

If there is a reliable article that documents an expert calling Kulldorff's support in age-targeted viral testing a fantasy, then that would be appropriate to document in the article alongside the statement that Kulldorff support it.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"age-target viral testing" is present in the body, but I don't see any reason it's WP:DUE for the lead. If it is shown to be, we need to be careful not to suggest in wiki-voice that it is a "control measure" without additional reliable sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say that since they are all sourced from the same articles and because it adds context to his stance, all the measures carry the same weight. I would further argue that it adds context to the controversy; he opposed some specific measures will supporting others. In his capacity as a working epidemiologist and at the time working with the very agencies trying to react to the emerging pandemic, his stance on all measures is equally important.

Including his stance on age-targeted viral testing reports on the nuance of his position. Put simply, he controversially disagreed with some measures while supporting others. That's worth reporting because that's basically what was reported by Medpage.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Kullldorff identifies as an epidemiologist

He identifies himself as an epidemiologist and several, reputable organizations recognize him as one. This has been discussed at length in the past. One unsourced, parenthetical statement in an obvious hit-piece by someone who is not an expert on epidemiology is not sufficient to outweigh the sources that indicate otherwise.[11] [12] [13] [14]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue was never resolved.

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

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

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

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

From WP:GREL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. This is now way off topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's a "disease control measure"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki reports on what has been reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hob Gadling,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His commentary was written after CDC guidelines stated some asymptomatic patients may not need to be tested -- but those recommendations were later reversed."[15]

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

During the pandemic, Kulldorff opposed specific measures such as lockdowns, contact tracing, and mask mandates, while supporting other measures such as "age-targeted viral testing." Kulldorff's support for what he called "age-targeted viral testing" was based on CDC guidelines that were later reversed. [16] [17] [18]

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

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

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

@Hob Gadling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a source which says just this anyway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as you said; them's the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My response to that is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary source that was originally cited, even before my edit (Medpage), contains the following statement:[19]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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