Talk:Paul D. Thacker

Criticism

I just saw this page, and it seems as if Mosstacker, a Wikipedia editor who is now permanently blocked, added a lot of negative information about how Thacker's stories had resulted in his firing at EST, and corrections or retractions in PLOS and STAT.

This may have been with the intention of discrediting Thacker. I think they're important for a different reason, which is censorship.

Many science journalists have been fired from JAMA, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Science, Chemical Week, and others for writing legitimate stories that the publisher objected to, and other stories have been retracted. Most of these firings have been thoroughly covered in the science journals and newspapers. I'd like to see the full accounts of these incidents with Thacker, assuming they're supported by WP:RSs as required by WP:WEIGHT as User:Welovegv started to do. I don't think the corrections in STAT would meet that standard, but I'm interested in the full story behind EST and PLOS. Were they the result of serious errors by the journalist, or were they pressure from industry? I'll have to check Retraction Watch. --Nbauman (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I just read the STAT article, The pharmaceutical industry is no stranger to fake news, By PAUL D. THACKER JANUARY 30, 2018. It's a great autobiography of Thacker and his work, which should be incorporated into the Wikipedia entry. However, the editor ignored the entire article and cherry-picked the one-paragraph correction at the end. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

More Gorski

[1] "investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank Paul Thacker" --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ventavia piece can benefit from reaction from more sides

I see the article was already updated with the Ventavia revelations. Can we insert the reaction from the Ventavia executives to the allegations? We already have the reaction from uninvolved anti-vaxxers, so the article can benefit from reactions from the agents directly involved. Forich (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about Thacker, so that would be a bit WP:COATRACK-y. We could probably lose the anti-vaxxer sentence here too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this article should give too much coverage to the single Ventavia story, and maybe none, but lest it be thought David Gorski is the only one who has commented on the story, here are some others. Again, this information might be more appropriate in another article, or nowhere for the time being, per WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:PROPORTION. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• McCreary, Joedy (3 November 2021). "Fact check: Report questioning Pfizer trial shouldn't undermine confidence in vaccines". CBS17.
• Kolstoe, Simon. "Vaccine trial misconduct allegation – could it damage trust in science?". The Conversation. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
• Clark, Cheryl (5 November 2021). "Experts Blow Whistle on Alleged COVID Vaccine Whistleblower Claims". MedPage Today.
• Coombes, Rebecca (17 November 2021). "Re: Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial". BMJ.

Paul Thacker is Anti-GMO, Anti-Vaccine

And "good faith" editors here like Alexbrn keep deleting this information from well-sourced outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, raise it at WP:BLPN. Otherwise, go away. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh-oh. That's a rule violation. And yes, I will. 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

More neutral verbage

In the "career' section, their was a line noting that his whistleblower report "is considered inaccurate by experts"

I think this verbage is too strong considering only a single source, which only cites two vaccine experts. Reading that article I would go a step further to say that the criticisms in the article do not support such a broad statement about Thackers report. I've revised it to "Has been criticized as being inaccurate by some experts." Frankly I think it should be further revised to "The significance of Thacker's claims has been disputed by some experts" which is more in line with the criticisms made in the cited source.

edit I've thought about this more and feel further revisions are warranted. the article makes three somewhat specific claims about Thacker's report.

1. Paul offit is quoted as criticizing the allegations as "vague", its a bit hard to parse his quotes but i think he's taking issue with a lack of hard evidence in the report

2. An unnamed expert is quoted as saying some of the allegations have little to do with data integrity --> I think this argument is a distraction at best and not worth mentioning, yes some of the items raised in Thacker's report do not involve data integrity but many of them do.

3. Paul Thacker allegedly did not contact ventavia ahead of publishing the article -> I'm 50/50 on mentioning this one, on one hand it ties into Paul offit's point that the criticisms may be vague/without hard evidence, but on the other hand ventavia has had plenty of time to offer a proper rebuttal since.

The original verbage that "the report is considered inaccurate by experts" is clearly misleading imo, I will go ahead and revise it to the following which i think best reflects the report.

"Some experts have expressed skepticism over the allegations made in the report. Prominent vaccination expert Paul Offit has criticized the issues outlined in the report as being vague and has cautioned against assuming the claims made in it are true."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:95A2:5100:2495:B5BF:13A8:775C (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 

Please indicate references that support such changes. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)