Talk:Paul Offit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books[edit]

None of the books listed is authored by Offit, considering that this is an article about Offit. Though the books listed do have a POV flair to them! Andrew73 13:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still remains to be clarified why these books should be listed, as he has not authored these books (please correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise, should this list be on every person connected with vaccine research...the list is ultimately relevant, but not in an immediate fashion that would lend itself to being included in the article about a researcher. Andrew73 13:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Offit is not the author? Merk seems to have purchased at least one giant lot to spread what apparently is the gospel on vaccines according to Offit. Please explain why you think his books were authored by others. Ombudsman 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you're correct...I'm a little embarrassed! It's just that his name was left out of the entry, making it look like the book was authored by someone else! Andrew73 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Having visited Ombudsman's user page, 'his' bias is quite obvious. The views expressed and the representations made are questionable and belong in a blog or a personal page, not an encyclopedia. I would hope that he recognizes the role of this site as something greater than his own personal platform. If not self-edited, I will clarify the errors and eliminate the sections in question.

Dubious external links[edit]

The following external links do not meet the criteria in WP:LINKS:

None of them satisfy any of the criteria in WP:LINKS #What should be linked or WP:LINKS #Links to be considered. They are just other sources about Offit. If they're important, they should be cited as sources to support claims in the article; otherwise, they should be left out. For now, I've removed them. Eubulides (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELYES #3 specifically authorizes interview transcripts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True: didn't see that. Still, this particular interview should either be cited (to support a claim in the article) or left out. It shouldn't be in External links. Eubulides (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and two other bloggers have been provided by Offit with a statement by Offit giving very specific information on what he and two other inventors received. I have tried to post this information twice. It is important to us that Offit's income be firmly established as public record. I urge the replacement of deleted statement and link to the effect of, "Paul Offit was paid $6 million." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.6.124 (talk)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite clear that biographical material based on questionable sources, such as speculation in blogs, should be removed immediately. Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this information cited as well, but these facts need to be established on a site that meets the requirements for Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, at which point they can be cited here. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My latest attempt at an edit, simply stating that the share would have been 10% of gross and divisible between multiple employees, was rejected. My ref was Bench to Bedside, a professional publication. Whether or not this is accepted, I wish it to be noted as an attempt to answer previous objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.6.124 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bench to Bedside reference is not directly related to this article. Every organization can (and often has) different patent policies, and these policies can even vary from one employee to the next. Any claim about Offit needs to have a reliable source that is directly related to Offit. Eubulides (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

WPMED rates articles on individuals as low importance. If you disagree, please take it up at [[Wikipedia talk::WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment]]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving accuracy of summary of McNeil 2006[edit]

This edit replaced a more-accurate summary of McNeil 2006 with an less-accurate one. McNeil 2006 says:

"In 1999, Wyeth pulled its rotavirus vaccine, Rotashield, from the American market after it was blamed for very rare cases of intussusception, .... A later National Institutes of Health study argued that Rotashield might not have been responsible—intussusception can happen spontaneously for unknown reasons—but by then the damage had been done. Once the vaccine was ruled unsafe for Americans, it was politically impossible to offer it in poor countries, even though it might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives while possibly being to blame for a handful of deaths."

The more-accurate summary said "an earlier vaccine withdrawn after being blamed for very rare cases of intussusception". The less-accurate summary said "an earlier vaccine withdrawn after numerous cases of intussusception resulted from administration". The cited source did not at all say there was a cause-effect relationship; on the contrary, it suggested there may have been no relationship at all. I replaced the less-accurate summary with "an earlier vaccine withdrawn after being blamed, perhaps incorrectly, for very rare cases of intussusception".

This edit replaced "kills as many as 600,000 children a year worldwide" with "contributes to the deaths of as many as 600,000 children a year worldwid (primarily in third world countries plagued by poor nutrition and lack of sanitation)". But the cited source says "rotavirus kills as many as 600,000 children a year" (not "contributes to"), and it doesn't say anything about "lack of sanitation". I restored the original summary and then adding the phrase "most deaths are outside the West", which summarizes the source far more accurately. I fail to see how a disease that kills 600,000 children year could be called "benign", as the edit's change log stated.

I agree that it'd be better to cite a peer-reviewed journal, but that's no reason to inaccurately summarize the source we have. Eubulides (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific consensus[edit]

This edit replaced "scientific consensus with "opinion" in the phrase "scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and have no association with autism". However, the cited source (Avril 2008) says "The mainstream scientific and medical communities overwhelmingly agree there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism". This supports the wording about lack of association with autism; it does not support the "are safe" so I will remove that.

The comment for the edit asked, "where are the oft-requested studies comparing vaccinated vs non-vaccinated populations?" This question doesn't need to be answered to figure out what should go into Paul Offit, and I'd rather not go into that side issue here.

I made this edit in accordance with the above remarks.

Eubulides (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of lives and RotaTeq[edit]

This edit, with the comment "reference does not support this statement, and I don't think Paul Offit can be credited as sole inventor the rotavirus vaccine", removed the sentence "Offit's invention has been credited with saving hundreds of lives every day.(Kalb 2008)" However, Kalb writes "'Here's someone who has created an invention that saves hundreds of lives every day,' says Hotez, whose daughter, 15, has autism, 'and he's vilified as someone who hates children. It's just so unfair.'" This is a quote of Peter Hotez, a distinguished vaccine researcher and professor at George Washington University. Surely this is sufficient to support the "hundreds of lives" part of the quote. So I guess the objection is to the "Offit's invention" part? In that case, a simple rewording of that phrase from "Offit's invention" to "RotaTeq" should fix the problem, so I did that. Eubulides (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with this, I couldn't find "rotavirus" in the source (probably because I didn't read it properly). I haven't seen the patent, but I doubt that Paul Offit claims the idea as solely his own. I am more than happy with the "hundreds of lives" part—had I been asked, I would have said "thousands" :-). Graham Colm Talk 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update to books[edit]

In the second paragraph I've added that royalties from his most recent book are being donated. --Kovar (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved that to Paul Offit #Life where it seemed to fit better. Eubulides (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article needs a controversy section[edit]

Here is a reference to start with:From Philadelphia Magazine "Will This Doctor Hurt Your Baby?"[1] MaxPont (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an additional source that might be usable as background info:[2]MaxPont (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be preferable to integrate well-sourced material on controversies surrounding Offit into the article. That approach is generally preferable to creating a "Controversy" or "Criticism" ghetto in the article (see the relevant part of the NPOV policy). In fact, we already take this approach: the attacks on Offit, up to and including death threats, are mentioned in the lead of the article.

Regarding the two specific sources you mention: The Philadelphia magazine article is a useful source, and we should incorporate it. It seems to be making the point that Offit has become sort of the Emmanuel Goldstein for the anti-vaccine movement, among other things. Ageofautism.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, and its use here raises WP:BLP issues as well. MastCell Talk 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the undesirability of a Criticism section, and about the quality of those two sources. I added new material supported by the Philadelphia article, including some material that criticizes Offit. Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny McCarthy[edit]

I don't see why it's necessary to add what she used to be rather than just "actress" unless it's to marginalize her in some way. Auntie E. 04:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was a Playboy model first and then repeatedly even after beginning her acting career. Not to mention She was not "just" a playboy model but playmate of the year for '94 as well as having appeared in playboy videos as recently as 2006 and 2009.Darqcyde (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired article[edit]

A new article in Wired about Offit is very interesting:

-- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! I used it to improve the article. Eubulides (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "Go to Wikipedia to read his bio and, as often as not, someone will have tampered with the page. The section on Offit’s education was once altered to say that he’d studied on a pig farm in Toad Suck, Arkansas." Perhaps semi-protection would be a good idea? *** Crotalus *** 21:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article and had the same thought. S-protected for one week. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul A. Offit, M.D. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia belongs to ACSH BOARD OF TRUSTEES http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.139/default.asp.That is a fact that is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.193.210 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ACSH is a very successfull lobby-organizastion and it is important for the public to know. Why do you want to hide that?? It is an important fact. Please why you remove that? Many leading members of ACSH have worked for the sceptical movement, and they really have had an influence on that movement. A real success story for the organisation, and then Dr Offit is a leading meber in ACSH why not mentioning it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.195.185 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that it's not really notable enough to mention in the lead. I get that you want to highlight his membership for what appear to be personal reasons, which is a bit inappropriate. But objectively, I don't really have a problem mentioning it; I just think it should be mentioned in an appropriate part of the biography. MastCell Talk 18:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" I get that you want to highlight his membership for what appear to be personal reasons, which is a bit inappropriate."It is not a question about membership. Why do you say that??Why do you writing:"you want to highlight his membership for what appear to be personal reasons"?? That is insulting. Why do you say that?What is your point?:Paul A. Offit, M.D. belongs to ACSH BOARD OF TRUSTEES. That is not only being an ordinary member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.196.204 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the problem that ACSH is using the sceptical-movement as a frontorgnisation in order "to sell" ACSHs questions? But everybody knows that by now,so that is to late.Why not allow wikipedia to be the encyclopedia it was meant to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.196.204 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is exactly what I said it is above, and what other editors have told you in their edit summaries. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about including this factoid in the body of the article, but it's clearly not notable enough for the lead. Does any reliable, secondary source even mention ACSH in their discussion of Offit? The problem is that because you personally find this of extreme importance, you want to place it somewhere it doesn't belong. MastCell Talk 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti vaccination movements. Featuring Paul Offit[edit]

Interesting:

Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Complementary and Alternative Therapies Merit Study? - Medscape[edit]

Interesting article:

Brangifer (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Studying Complementary and Alternative Therapies - JAMA[edit]

Another interesting article:

Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New material[edit]

A new editor has been placing material regarding the RotaTeq vaccine in this article, which I have already moved to rotavirus vaccine. I believe this material does not belong here as it doesn't directly involve Offit and is largely off-topic for this article. I invite the new editor to explain why it belongs here. Yobol (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Life" Section[edit]

More on this person's upbringing is needed. What were his parents names and religious and philisophical beliefs. This is important to understanding this man better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:4550:B833:218F:4397 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about him do you not understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.134.57 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The normal biographical info is missing. He's 62 apparently at the time of this comment but there isn't the remotest indication of where or when he was born in current text. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage on NBC[edit]

New piece on Offit on NBC News. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

This article needs two things: His date of birth and his full middle name (it could be a non-commital initial, like Harry S. Truman, but that's unlikely).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious Article[edit]

This is an unusual article. It sounds like it's his fan club page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B811:CAE0:2CB4:C96E:4C55:BD58 (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific suggestion (or a more specific criticism), you're welcome to propose it here, but this is far too vague to be useful. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a biography of a living person and mainly presents factual information about his more notable work, in line with Wikipedia policy.Martinlc (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
it looked to me to be slightly bias in his favor, i think this sentence seems particularly POV "Offit and other leaders at the Children's Hospital are leading the effort to expose a 22-billion-dollar industry and challenge the use of non-regulated drugs" I have changed this and a few other things, to try to bring this article into alignment with NPOV. If anyone thinks there is a bias problem in the article as it is now, consider adding a tag Tornado chaser (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines and autism[edit]

I added [citation needed] tag to a sentence stating that vaccines don't cause autism as there was no source cited, I am looking for a source but have not yet found a MEDRS that is not primarily about MMR, If anyone knows of a good source that is referring to more than just MMR please add it. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Offit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carson[edit]

Somebody inserted a section about DDT in the article. Offit seems to be on the wrong side here: For example [3]. Did anybody read "Pandora's Lab"? Any other sources about this? What is the deal? We should not promote fringe theories in Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or make it appear as if Offit supports them, if he explicitly doesn't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish ancestry[edit]

There should be mention of Paul Offit's Jewish ancestry in the article. 2601:8C:417E:26A0:11A9:BF11:4D45:D1DA (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant? Are there reliable sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Offit&oldid=1204190126"