Talk:William C. Rader

Incorrect information cited by countless broken and invalid links

I am currently a medical student and have done extensive research on the application of human stem cells. For my thesis, I have studied the work of Dr. William Rader and other American doctors. What I can't believe is how certain people because of political, religious, or monetary reasons have a vendetta against and try to smear American doctors in the field of Stem Cell Science. We are already falling behind China in one of the greatest discoveries of medical science of our generation. Dr. Rader and other doctors like him are the very few Stem Cell pioneers in the United States. If we keep this up, there will be a grim viability of the application of stem cells in our country.

Most of the information in the article is incorrect, biased and cited by broken links. Don't get me wrong, there is also some valid information cited from ABC News and the LA Times about Dr. Rader. I'm going to do my best to correct this article. I welcome any feedback. Medstudent213 (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Rader charges large sums of money to desperate patients for treatment with no proof of efficacy. I an American physician and strongly support stem cell reseatch but Dr. Rader's research hardly qualifies as such. He is no pioneer, reasearcher or scientist. BTW medical students don't submit a thesis as part of their studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.176.2 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem. Possible conflict of interest

I reverted to the last version of the article that was not copied from the bottom of http://www.medra.com/faq.html. Please note that administrators will enforce our copyright rules. Text that is word-for-word copied from other websites, unless there is a copyright release, must not be brought into Wikipedia. The Medra site says "Copyright © 2008 Medra, Inc."

There is a possibility that one of the editors of this article may have a conflict of interest. If so please see the warning and general advice provided at {{uw-coi}}. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor has complained that the article may be incorrect

In a recent edit summary, Oldy2 suggested that the article may be incorrect. We welcome your joining the discussion here, explaining any errors you may perceive. The article has received contributions from Super1122 and Oldy2, who are rather new editors who do not edit anything besides this article. Neither of these users has until now left any Talk page comments. We can't evaluate your concerns unless you are willing to explain them! As you can see, the article is heavily cited to reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times, so you should be specific about the problems you see. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the inaccurate information provided in this article. As part of the WikiProject Medicine series, this article is supposed to "use high-quality medical sources." The recent revisions to this page do not include any references to high-quality medical sources. The very concept of stem cell therapy, as conducted via injections, has been thoroughly debunked by numerous scientists and, according to the NIH, is not likely to be available for several years. Their conclusion: "To summarize, stem cells offer exciting promise for future therapies, but significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research.": http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't have time right now to edit the entry myself. I created an account moments ago just so I could post here. But I at least wanted my concerns to be heard. I'm a professor who has recently counseled a student against considering a $30,000 "treatment" with Dr. Rader. There appears to be no scientific evidence to back his claims. If there was such evidence, why hasn't it been included in this wikipedia entry? How do we know that he successfully treated more than 1500 patients? Because several websites associated with Medra (and one anecdote published in the Reno News and Review) say so? Show me the science, please.Profcritical (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC Panorama interview, May 18, 2009

Transcription of a brief online excerpt:[1]

BBC Panorama narrator: But we were here to ask him about what Linda [Oatley] had recorded. For example, what appeared to be his high-pressure tactics.

William C. Rader (on hidden camera in the Dominican Republic): Let’s just do it, forget about it. Let’s just get started. He can go get the money...later.

William C. Rader (interviewed by BBC Panorama in Malibu): Does it ever occur to you that I cared about that woman? That I believed the woman wasn’t phony? That I believed that she was real? That she had all this anxiety? I said, ‘Don’t’… ‘You know what, you’re gonna do it anyway.’ You know why I said that? Because they always do! Unless they have a phony thing like what you were doing. I have never had a patient who came in and said they were anxious and they needed some time, and didn’t come in. That’s never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjul (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rader's book possibly pulled from publication? (September 2009)

Having provided an advance copy to the BBC, Rader was asked about his forthcoming book in a May 2009 Panorama interview.[2] Apparently titled The Stem Cell Miracle: The Healing Secret From Medicine's Future That's Saving Lives Today (ISBN-13: 9781933771953, ISBN-10: 193377195X), Rader's book was slated for release in January 2010 from BenBella Books in Dallas, Texas. It had a list price of $24.95, discounted to $17.47 for online pre-orders. The book's description, cover image, price, and pre-order option were apparently removed from the publisher's website in September 2009, though they were still visible in Google cache (as of as of September 26, 2009).

The publisher's description of the book was as follows:

DESCRIPTION

If you thought the time of medical breakthroughs was over, brace yourself for the untold story of a doctor who singlehandedly, in the face of disdain from his colleagues and threats from government bureaucrats, made a breakthrough scientific discovery. Dr. Rader discovered how to apply fetal stem cell technology to humans and has saved the lives and eased the suffering of more than 1,500 patients since 1995.

Dr. Rader, familiar to millions as a respected medical expert on ABC-TV, reveals the astounding truth about the most extensive fetal stem cell trials ever conducted on human patients—mostly so-called “hopeless” cases.

The Stem Cell Miracle reveals the science behind Dr. Rader’s breakthroughs, the struggles with the medical establishment and, most important, the detailed results of his work with many hundreds of patients. Now the truth can be told, and it reads like an adventure story, spanning three continents as one doctor dared to defy the FDA, the medical establishment and the drug companies.

As of this posting, Rader's author profile continues to appear on the BenBella Books website. According to Amazon.com, the book is "currently unavaiable" and "[w]e don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Minjul (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: The information below about Dr. Rader's book being published by BenBella Books is incorrect. Dr. Rader's book titled Blocked In The USA: The Stem Cell Miracle was published by Nanog Publishing Inc. on March 1, 2010.[3] Ccrunrr (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

thats a vanity self publishing firm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is your evidence of this book being self published? -- Medstudent213 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

my evidence that it is self published is the fact that the listed publisher is a vanity publisher. You dont need any more evidence than that. "Nanog Publishing - GET YOUR BOOK PUBLISHED TODAY"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Article was revert to a past revision that was incorrect

This article was revert to a past revision that was incorrect. As I stated in the talk section called "Incorrect information cited by countless broken and invalid links", most of the information in the article is incorrect, biased and cited by broken links.

I am going to revert the article to my revision. I welcome any feedback. Medstudent213 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

undid deletion of Medstudent213 Grammaring (talk) 1:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Marriage to Sally Struthers?

Do we have any evidence that the Dr. William Rader mentioned here as being married to Struthers is in fact the Dr. Willaim Rader who is doing stem cell work? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

William Rader psychiatrist is also listed as her exhusband here which is used as the source for her marriage in her article and Rader says that he wrote an episode for All in the Family (although IMDB lists Lear and two others with writing credits, but not Rader). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So why is this factoid not in the article? Capt Queeg (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

because there are no reliably published sources that verify that factiod and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not Giant Book of Trivia -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

BBC's Panorama episode

Can anybody figure out if there is a full transcript or posting of the full episode? [4]? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CBS 60 minutes

Anybody have a better connection than I do want to see if there is anything useful in this 60 minutes program? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit War

So many edits back and forth in a couple of days - not acceptable. There were enough reversions to enable blocking to be carried out. However, instead the page is protected. You will all have to come here and agree on a consensus in order to get any edit approved. I restored the last deleted paragraph, complete with references - it may be valid, it might not be - it's up to the community to decide if it should stay or go. There's no rush - Wikipedia is not news, you can all take your time in discussing and improving the article, rather than chopping bits in and out that you don't like  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The grammar under publications is incorrect

The grammar under publications is incorrect. "Rader self published another book titled..." should be "Rader published another book titled". "Self" in that sentence is unnecessary. You are already implying that he self published without the word "self". Does anyone have any objections or concerns to that change? Grammaring (talk) 3:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

no the term is "self publishing" / "self published". It is not grammatically incorrect, It is a necessary reflection of the fact that he self published the book through a vanity press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

although it appears that it should be hyphenated [5] [6] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look it up in any dictionary, he published means he self published. Adding self is improper English. It is an extra word that adds nothing extra to the sentence. Grammaring (talk) 3:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

duh, i did look up "self-publishing" and got many many many reliably sourced uses of the term including two linked right above. There are lots of kinds of "publishing"- those that go through strict peer reviews like those that publish medical claims, those that go through editorial reviews like newspapers and standard publishing houses, and those that go through a "did the check clear?" review. Rader's book was published via the last method and the distinction is absolutely required when he is attempting to pass off medical claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

edit request

{{edit protected}}

1)The "History" section is all duplicated from the intro paragraph and so it needs to be deleted.

2) Also, the sentence "He developed a widely used training program for alcoholism counselors." is either unsourced or sourced to Raders own website. In either case it should be removed as being unsourced or unduely self serving to be appropriately source from his own site. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Red Pen's edit requests. In fact, I believe that all the content that uses drwilliamrader.com as a source should be removed, per WP:USERG and WP:SELFSOURCE. It's currently used as the sole source eight times. Clearly, there are significant doubts about its reliability. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates removed, unreferenced data tagged.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly stated on Amazon that he published Blocked In The USA: The Stem Cell Miracle (ISBN-13: 978-0615329055, ISBN-10: 0615329055) [7]. It should be added as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammaring (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also stated on the Blocked In The USA: The Stem Cell Miracle website that he published the book.[8] -- Grammaring (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Grammaring, Amazon should be used as a source. Also, the author page on Amazon backs up everything stated on drwilliamrader.com.[9]. This should be added too. Medstudent213 (talk) 0:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

you can "ägree" all you want, but amazon will never be acceptable as a WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, your references do not have the person name before self-published. When you have the person's name and then published, it means he self-published the book. Self is uneccesary and incorrect in this sentence. Do you have a vendetta against the subject of the article? Multiple people have pointed out you mistake but yet you still can't accept it. Medstudent213 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

you are posting in the wrong section and making a ridiculous claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose deleting the talk section called "Rader's book possibly pulled from publication? (September 2009)" It looks like it is false information back by broken links that his book was pulled from publication. -- Grammaring (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it does not add anything to the talk page but false and possibly libelous information about a living person. Medstudent213(talk) 12:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

Per the LA Time source, the word "doctor" in the lead should be replaced with the more specific "psychiatrist". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February on 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the California Medical Board under William C. Rader MD, at the following link http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/PhysicianSurgeon/Lookup.aspx?licenseType=A&licenseNumber=22848, the word "psychiatrist" should be replaced with "physician, surgeon and psychiatrist". He is not only psychiatrist but a physician and surgeon too. -- User talk:Grammaring 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the policy, we should be hesitant about using primary sources rather than content that has gone through an editorial review process and been published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a primary source. In fact the California medical board is a credible secondary source. -- User talk:Grammaring 22:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What better secondary source than the government. I say please implement Grammaring's request. -- User talk:Medstudent213 22:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

it is so a primary source in the matter of Wikipedia PSTS - it is not a published writing, just a government list. see WP:BLPPRIMARY -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with TheRedPenOfDoom. User talk:Grammaring 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

you can disagree, but that wont make the search results of government database any more "published". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• More at User talk:Redrose64#Question about modifying William C Rader's Page that got denied but I would prefer that discussion took place here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Question about modifying William C Rader's Page that got denied

 – My talk page is not the place to argue your case. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Redrose64, it seems like TheRedPenOfDoom Potential conflict of interest with William C Rader. If you look at the revision history, he has removed talk and article pages in the past that the community has inputted. I am new to wikipedia, the request that I made, you denied it. It was a valid governmental source. What is the procedure to get this change? Can you help me out? Thank you for your time. User talk:Grammaring 23:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

RedPen indicated a source supporting the edit request, I checked and found that it was valid and didn't violate WP:BLP, so I made the edit. I don't want to be batted back and forth here, so unless a strong argument within WP:BLP can be advanced, WP:CONSENSUS needs to be established before any further changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for posting again. Dr. Rader saved my kid's life. I beg of you to help me. I feel I have the obligation to make sure the correct information is on his page so other families will have the same opportunity as mines has. People like me search his name on Google and wikipedia shows up. If they read he is only a psychiatrist (which he is not as I pointed out on the talk page, if you check the California medical board at the following link: http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/PhysicianSurgeon/Lookup.aspx?licenseType=A&licenseNumber=22848, his is physician, surgeon and psychiatrist), it will drive them away from receiving this life saving treatment. I am completely new to wikipedia, I don't know the correct procedures to get this information inputted. Please help!!! User talk:Grammaring 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss matters appertaining to William C. Rader on the article's talk page, which is Talk:William C. Rader. Material added to the article must satisfy the core policies on neutrality, verifiability and original research in addition to those for living persons. If you are in any way connected to this man, you should also read WP:COI. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So there is no way for me to request the information above that is neutral and justified to get inputted because of WP:COI? User talk:Grammaring 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, discuss it at Talk:William C. Rader and convince others of your opinions. You could also leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, asking them to join in at that discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have and others have agreed but my changes never get implemented. Please have a look at the talk section for yourself. Again, I am new to wikipedia and don't understand the system. TheRedPenOfDoom is manipulating the system because he his familiar with Wikipedia. At least, please help me out by telling me what I am doing wrong? Why is TheRedPenOfDoom's info getting implemented but not mines? Again the info that I am requesting is governmental information. User talk:Grammaring 23:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please have it in your heart to help me out. I am not requesting you to do anything agents Wikipedia policy. Have a look at it for yourself. It is valid and neutral. User talk:Grammaring 23:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

{added after the move to the WCR article talk page) What you are "doing wrong" is thinking that Wikipedia should be here to serve as an advertisement for Rader instead of a encyclopedia article that shows content based on reliable third party sources that doesnt mislead readers into thinking that Rader's practices are anything but what they are - the fringiest of fringe "treatments" that have ZERO medical evidence. We best serve our readers (and google searchers) best by making that quite clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

and as an FYI, the BLP notice board is how I got involved in the article Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#William_C._Rader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

MEATPUPPETS

Editors here should be aware that when swarms of new editors appear, editing solely articles related to a narrow focus, agreeing with each other about every subject, their "opinions" are given the weight as if they are a single voice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone help me?

I am new to Wikipedia. If you look at the California Medical Baord at http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLookupSystem/PhysicianSurgeon/Lookup.aspx?licenseType=A&licenseNumber=22848, Dr. Rader is listed as Physician and Surgeon. On the article it is stated that he is a psychiatrist. The information on the article is partial. How would I go about adding this information? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you. User talk:Grammaring 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Any admins, can I add the California Medical board as a source to this article? User talk:Grammaring 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who completes medical training is listed as "Physician and Surgeon", as far as I can tell. It does not mean "completed surgical residency" or the like, which you seem to me to be implying. I cross-checked several california doctors in different specialties, and their specialty is not mentioned anywhere in their records on that licensure site. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 00:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the article will settle down a bit now

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Medstudent213 -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 05:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

quite a little sock drawer there. Thanks for filing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013

I request that the first sentence be replace to properly describe Rader's process and present Rader's work within the scientific community's view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• William C. Rader, M.D., is a psychiatrist who injects patients with human fetal stem cells, a process which has been described as "That's not a therapy, that's snake oil." by Dr. Evan Snyder.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

References

• Support, properly sourced and highly pertinent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Protection has now been reduced to semi. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch says he is no longer in the Dominican republic, he has moved the clinic to Mexico

Per Quackwatch, Rader's clinic is now in Mexico. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013 2.0

I am going to again request that the claim He developed a widely used training program for alcoholism counselors[citation needed]. be removed from the article.

1) The statement was added by a user with a declared conflict of interest

2) The removal of the statement was only opposed by that user and one of their many sockpuppets.

3) and per WP:BLP unsourced and poorly sourced materials must be removed from the article, and per WP:V challenged material must be supported by reliable sources. In this case the WP:SPS is being used to support an unduly self serving comment and is not a reliable source for such a claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that (1) falls down in that while the two linked diffs were made by the same user, the first one does not contain the text in question, which seems to have gone in with this edit. The SPI page shown in (2) does not list the IP who made the edit which I have identified. However, (3) is valid so Done I've removed the sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment on recent edits

Edits like this, which remove a substantial number of valid references and text clearly require an equally substantive discussion on the talk page. I have restored the last good version of the article in case anyone is interested in participating in that discussion. The above threads are lacking in specific objections to specific references. (As was the edit summary to the original edit in question.) If content sourced to specific references is removed, then reasons for its removal should be clearly enumerated in a series of edits, and (preferably) a detailed discussion here should be given. Given the quality of sourcing in the original article, and the lack of sources in User:Medstudent213's version (a clear WP:SPA and sockpuppeteer, by the way). In fact, for this very reason, I doubt even Medstudent213's claim to being a medical student. If he or she is in fact a medical student working on a thesis about stem cells and knowledgeable about Dr. Rader, then it should be a trivial matter to supply review articles in scientific journals on Rader's methods. No? Well, it's unlikely that your thesis will pass any kind of examination. Particularly alarming is the removal, for instance, of an explicit reference to an article published in the journal Science, along with a supporting direct quotation from that article. Is it the contention of Medstudent213 (and his enablers) that this statement was somehow flawed? For what reason? It is not at all clear. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

On my talk page, I received a templated message telling me not to add poorly referenced material to Wikipedia or I will be blocked. I would like to know precisely what material I added that was poorly referenced so I can avoid doing it again in the future. It seemed to me that the older revision of the article had many more references, and generally references of a higher quality, than the present revision. I was unable to find, either in the discussions above, or in the edit summaries any indication of why the sources in the old revision were considered to be inadequate. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sally Struthers Trivia for one. Then there is the whole smear by association WP:COATRACKING going on and the general WP:UNDUE in your suggested version highlighting inappropriate quotes. All in all multiple WP:BLP issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the Sally Struthers trivia should be removed. I'm not sure what you mean by WP:COATRACKING. Could you please be more specific? Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The whole ["Associates" section] is an attempt to tar and feather by association and completely unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, we can get rid of that section. Anything else? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think that we should at the very least restore the reference to the Science policy forum. This is a reliable source:

• Kiatsangan, Sorapop (2009-03-20). "Monitoring and Regulating Offshore Stem Cell Clinics". Science. Retrieved 2009-11-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Published in the journal's Policy Forum section with the additional subtitle, "Unverified medical treatments based on stem cells need oversight." Vol. 323. no. 5921, pp. 1564-1565, online access by fee. Article is archived online (with magazine's permission) in PDF format by the New York Stem Cell Foundation: "Medra became particularly notorious for the extraordinary claims made by its founder, psychiatrist William Rader, who has refused to share information on cell lines and techniques he claims can be used for treatment of conditions including spinal cord injury and Down syndrome."

Thoughts on restoring this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont find and didnt see in a quick scan that the science piece talks about Rader. Did i miss something? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Science report is using as their source an ABC TV report (although it is not the one that we already have in the article), so its not really as significant as one might think on just seeing the surface and the publisher. What would the specific content / phrasing that you would see adding to the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should be based on secondary sources rather than primary sources. I don't really see how the fact that the article under discussion is a clear secondary source therefore renders it "not really... significant" in lieu of primary sources. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

I should add that in articles on the sciences (including scientists), normally the gold standard of referencing is peer reviewed scientific works, such as the Science reference deleted in your preferred revision of the article. So it is natural to ask why yellow media has been admitted as reliable sourcing to an ostensibly scientific article, whereas peer reviewed scientific content seems to have been deliberately excluded? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

California medical license revoked (November 5, 2014)

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm unable to update the article. Although no news outlet has reported on this as yet, Rader's medical license was revoked by the Medical Board of California effective November 5, 2014, after what appears to have been an elaborate investigation, including undercover work, which led to twelve days of testimony in February and March of 2014. The L.A. celebrity lawyer Robert Shapiro helmed Rader's unsuccessful defense team.

The Medical Board's report is filled with fascinating and chilling detail. The Board ultimately concluded that Rader is both "unrepentant" and that "[h]is dishonesty permeates every aspect of his business and practices", a quote which may be found on page 38 of this Medical Board of California pdf posted online: In the Matter of the Accusation Against: WILLIAM C. RADER, M.D., Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate No. A22848.

An appropriate update of Rader's page, reflecting revocation of his medical license, would be much appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: It's not clear who published that source or how they obtained it, so there are issues with the verifiability of the material. If his licensed were revoked—which, as I read the decision, it was not (it was suspended)—we should find some source other than the direct findings of the proceedings to cite. If medicine works like accounting, there should be a journal published in California that summarizes disciplinary actions. That journal would be an acceptable source. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I understand your concerns about verifiability; we never know who is posting to the cloud and we must appropriately question the legitimacy of such documents. That said, I have no reason to believe these are inauthentic.

Please read through the file with closer attention. You will in fact find three legal documents from 2014, in reverse chronological order, issued by the Medical Board of California. Pages 41-91 recount the PROPOSED DECISION of the Board, dated March 27, 2014, which recommended (among other things) temporary suspension of Rader's medical license, ethics counseling, and a probationary supervision period falling short of full revocation of his license; page 40, dated May 6, 2014, is a document titled NOTICE OF NON-ADOPTION OF PROPOSED DECISION, after which the Board apparently considered harsher sanctions and took further oral and written argument; and pages 1-39, titled DECISION AFTER NON-ADOPTION, which is the final order dated October 6, 2014. This order concludes that "[t]he Board has reviewed the disciplinary guidelines, and can find no term or condition that could aid [Rader's] rehabilitation and still provide protection to the public. Under these circumstances, the protection of the public trumps rehabilitation efforts and the Board finds that Respondent's physician and surgeon certificate be revoked." This final document (see page 39) confirms November 5, 2014 as the date of license revocation.

Rader's medical license revocation apparently came too late to make the Medical Board's Winter 2015 newsletter, but will undoubtedly be published in the Spring edition. Until then, the license revocation for "William Rader" can be confirmed through a search on this California government website. Is there any way to incorporate such a search result into the article? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: If it's in the spring newsletter, I think we can cite that no problem. Otherwise, I think we should wait to see if other editors chime in. If nobody does, then raise the issue at the reliable source noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Just noticed that Rader's medical license is listed as Revoked as of 11/5/14 on this Medical Board of California Disciplinary Action Alert page, thus providing us a direct link to a reliable online government source. Here's hoping an editor will soon incorporate this link into the main article. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs reference

"The treatment is prohibited in the United States and has no scientific validity. "