Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

  1. Archive 1 - 13 Dec '06
  2. Archive 2 13 Dec '06 - 26 Dec '06
  3. Archive 3 19 Dec '06 - 30 Dec '06
  4. Archive 4 26 Dec '06 - 31 Dec '06
  5. Archive 5 31 Dec '06 - Jan '07

NCAHF's relationship with AMA[edit]

NCAHF functioned as a subcommittee to AMAs forbidden committee agains quackery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Möteimonsunen (talkcontribs) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that untrue statement is from a libelous source (Lisa's writings have been the subject of lawsuits, IIRC), on a non-RS we can't use here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
DR Lisa is not guilty to any crime.Why dont you give sources to your slander.--Möteimonsunen (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe Barrett sued Lisa for making such statements but was unsuccessful, which is a quirk of American law. As a public person, Barrett isn't protected against libel very well. Lisa has never provided any evidence that his statements were true, but many have quoted him. It's just his conspiracy theory. Since there is no evidence, the statements aren't considered reliable for use here. That's just the way it is. As potentially libelous statements, they violate our BLP policy and have been removed every time someone like you has attempted to add them. Even if they were true, it would be an honorable thing, since it's a good thing to oppose quackery and health fraud. It is only those who support and defend it who trot out these old writings by Lisa. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The book "The Assault On Medical Freedom" a book by P. Joseph Lisa c 1994 is a reliable source you can buy the book in every country including USA. You know Stephen Barrett lost a law suit to Ilena Rosentahl and he had to pay her costs, and there is a ongoing process against stephen Barrett today. Doctors Data versus Barrett. Stephen Barrett is he really a reliable source? He is connected to the lobby organisation ACSH. You give NO sources at all only personal opinions, and that is NOT reliable source.--Möteimonsunen (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source.
Please check your English, as much of what you've written is hard to make sense of, including what you've tried to include in the article.
This page is to discuss improvements to this article. Other discussion, especially defamatory comments aimed at others, is inappropriate.
Please refrain from making defamatory comments and otherwise presenting dubious information about living persons in violation of WP:BLP.
Please stop restoring the material. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The article have many weaknesses. How many members are there in NCAHF? Or is a "Potemkin" organisation. The NCAHF is suporting mercury in dental fillings. In Scandinavian Countries is that forbidden. WHO is trying to decrease the use of mercury. Pro mercury propaganda seems as health fraud to me.--Möteimonsunen (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Opinions not verifiable by reliable sources don't belong here. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

NCAHF and the law[edit]

A section about NCAHFs legal actions is necessary. See  : Censored by wikipedia !!!--Möteimonsunen (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to agree with you, but we would need a reliable, nonlibelous source commenting on NCAHF's participation in lawsuits. In particular, the Ilena lawsuit was interesting, in regard Ilena's action, but not really in regard Barrett's and NCAHF was not a party at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Check these documents:

Case 1:10-cv-03795 document#:105 Filed:04/17/12 Page 10f 7 Page ID #:1154

In the united states District court for the northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.

Doctors data, inc Plaintiff


Stephen J. Barrett, M.D., National Council against Health fraud, inc., and QACKWATCH, inc., A dissolved corporation, Defendants.

You can find the document on internet. --Möteimonsunen (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is one link to the latest case: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Möteimonsunen (talkcontribs) 06:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)öteimonsunen (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I was wrong about NCAHF not being a party. My mistake. However, We have an article about that case. There's little reason it should be more than mentioned here, and the actual court documents are primary sources, unusable per WP:BLPPRIMARY, at least insofar as you are confusing NCAHF with Barrett. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to hide all the legal cases NCAHF are invold in ? This for exampel  ?--Möteimonsunen (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this source must be a reliable source, if any: --Möteimonsunen (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It (justia) is essentially a primary source. There's no commentary about the lawsuits, and whether they are justified. (Being dismissed doesn't mean it was unjustified; Barrett v. Rosenthal was a "case of first impression", although it appears no lawyers now claim to have doubted the outcome.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Burton WP:SYN[edit]

Two sources... One says Burton said something critical about NCAHF; the other says Burton is a friend to the supplement lobby. The second source has nothing to do with NCAHF, but it is being used here to imply a qualification about Burton's ability to offer a neutral opinion about NCAHF. This is a clear SYN vio and it thusly creates a BLP issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply not a syn violation by any stretch of the imagination. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Textbook SYN. This is A + B to imply some conclusion C. Worse, it is causing a BLP issue as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
How many more sources do we need to demonstrate Burton's perspective on the supplement industry? --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is his perspective on supplements relevant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is his perspective notable at all for that matter?
As I wrote, " lots of sources available for almost identical characterizations" [1] --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
But why is a characterization of Burton's ties to the supplement industry relevant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
NPOV. Specifically, context. By removing relevant context, it's a NPOV violation. But without a secondary source, it doesn't belong to begin. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Are we going to start labeling and removing all primary sourced info from this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Can we stay on topic please? --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just making sure you are going to be okay when I apply the same reasoning you are making to other parts of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You have not exhibited any reasoning. The addition of Burton's credentials may be a WP:SYN violation, but it is required to avoid WP:NPOV violations. Burton's POV is relevant to the weight any statements of his may be given. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Explain why NPOV is applicable here. I would argue that introducing the SYN violation also creates bias and therefore also violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Have you read the explanation already provided? Please indicate you have and what additional clarification is required for you to understand what we're discussing. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have, and I don't require further clarification. I perfectly understand that including Burton's relationship to the supplement industry without a source telling us why it is relevant to his position on NCAHF creates a SYN violation. Do you understand this? Have you read my responses? Please indicate you have and then feel free to respond to those directly.
If you are not going to address the questions, we have consensus to revert back. We can block the article from any editing as well if needed. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Which questions would you like me to address? I sure have a few above which you have not addressed. And we don't have a consensus. I don't consent to it being reverted to a SYN violation. Arthur Rubin agrees that it is a SYN vio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I said it might be a SYN violation, but your preferred version is a clear NPOV violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thinking it over, it does appear to be WP:SYN. Removing entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Back to this article again... A quick check reveals a different type of problem. The sources don't seem to back up the content! At some point in time this seems to have been changed. I was remembering a different version all along, where the content had exact quotes which backed up the content. If I'm the first one to add this content, then it was done properly in the beginning, because I'm very careful about sourcing. It's a pet peeve of mine. Several years ago it was okay. I don't know what's happened since, but the sources may have been edited. I agree with Arthur's solution. Let's leave it out for now and fix it before restoring it, if ever. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional Sources[edit]

Maybe we can use ? should be fine to use. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These sources say nothing about NCAHF and thus would also cause a SYN violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:17, 11 September 2013
Why do you believe they have to? Have you read this article? --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll rephrase for you: These sources say nothing about Burton's relationship with the supplement industry being relevant to his position on NCAHF and thus would also cause a SYN violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Please explain why you think there's a syn violation in further detail. Yes, he's made criticism of NCAHF. Yes, he's a notable proponent of the supplement industry, ( and anti-vaccination proponents for that matter). How someone can think the facts aren't relevant is beyond me. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Because the information about Burton's relationship with the supplement industry is being used to imply a conclusion that his opinion of NCAHF is tainted. This conclusion is synthesized. It doesn't exist in any source. This is a prime example of SYN. Do you see it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
There is absolutely no doubt that Burton's association with the supplement industry is relevant to his attacks on "enemies" of that industry. I wouldn't call it a "taint", but I can why you might think that. It's clearly an NPOV violation to list Burton's comments on NCAHF without noting his association with the industry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Now tagged both for importance and the NPOV violation being discussed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the debate is moot, given that neither Ronz nor myself can verify the criticism in the source provided. Regardless, I would maintain my position if it were verified. I've taken you step-by-step through the SYN policy to illustrate the violation (which in turn causes a BLP violation, so Brangifer's kind warnings about vandalism are not applicable). Please do the same to show me why you believe it is an NPOV vio to leave it out. Bear in mind that while you can feel that information from a tangential source is relevant, Wikipedia is not built on editors' feelings. You need a source which verifies the relevance. Step back and think about this. You're saying that in order to maintain a neutral POV, we need to synthesize a biased POV. That is completely paradoxical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Verify please[edit]

I cannot verify the statement. Can someone please quote the relevant information from the reference? --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't verify it either. Maybe this whole thing in synthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Searching the history, trying to figure out why it was added:

I'd say it was a mistake. Is there something from Dynamic Chiropractic that we could use instead? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on this, we should lose the Quack Watch source all together and mention of Rep. Burton. We can still include the criticism, but source it to The chiropractor website, which generally makes that critique — that NCAHF is not a government agency. But I don't think the source criticizes it for that. The most critics comes in the form of the NCAHF's data on chiropractic being dated and inaccurate. I actually think the chiropractor website article is surprisingly neutral with regard to NCAHF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the first, but the chiropractic websites are only usable for their own opinion, which is not similar to that of Mr. Burton. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

U.S. Representative Dan Burton, a strong advocate of the dietary supplement industry,[1][2][3] has stated that it is not in the public interest for a health fraud watch group such as NCAHF to operate unrestrained and unendorsed by the government.[4][citation needed]


Sock puppetry problem[edit]

See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of

We have a case of an IP hopping editor, most likely a dynamic IP, but that automatically creates a sock puppetry problem. Please create an account. Normally registration is required, but in these situations that is the only solution to avoid policy violations. I recommend an anonymous account and then always log in.

If the IP editor wishes to be taken seriously (and their concerns do deserve attention), they should edit properly. As it is, all their edits, regardless of their legitimacy, can be deleted and/or reverted on sight, since sock puppets are not tolerated here. Only editors who follow our policies have a right to edit or comment here. Please cooperate. You have a lot to gain and nothing to lose. You will have more privacy, more abilities, tools, rights, and privileges, and gain the respect which IPs do not enjoy. Like it or not, that's the way it is, and for good reason.

I have requested page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No sock puppetry here. I have a dynamic IP. I don't have nor want a user account. I think it is terrible that you can't treat me respectfully without me creating an anonymous account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
It appears you do not understand what we mean by a sock puppet. "The general rule is one editor, one account," and multiple accounts are generally not allowed. All accounts or IPs other than one's main account are referred to as socks/sock puppets, regardless of whether they are "legitimate" or not. We do allow a very limited use of socks for "legitimate" and relatively specific reasons which don't apply to you in this situation.
I suggest you read about the advantages of creating an account. You are at a distinct disadvantage without one.
Regardless of your intentions, using multiple IPs violates our policy against "avoiding scrutiny":
  • Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
Your edit history is split up all over the place so other editors (and yourself!) would have great difficulty in reviewing your contributions. We don't do things in secret here, and you have no right to secrecy.
When an editor's actions create disruption, other editors have a right to request that they stop the disruption. Your use of multiple IPs is doing just that, and you have been requested by several editors and administrators to create an account so your edits are collected into one contribution history. Because of YOUR actions, an article is now semi-protected because of persistent sock puppetry, so your actions are indeed disruptive.
Failure to comply indicates a lack of the collaborative spirit demanded of all editors. That alone means you don't belong here, so show some sign that you can collaborate. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I interpret this as: "I can't defend my POV edit, so instead I will assume bad faith about an IP editor, and prevent him from editing the article. Meanwhile, the SYN/BLP vio gets reinstated, but I'll look the other way because it supports my POV." And now you will say that I am assuming bad faith, but deep down past your feigned righteous indignation, you know that I am right about this SYN/BLP. Regardless, I think the whole thing ought to be removed since it is not supported by the given sources. Edit history shows you were the one to add it in the first place. Care to comment? I have offered detailed explanation of the SYN violation. All you've done is revert warred and commented on me. You want collaborative spirit? How about you start by discussing content policy with me? Until you do, I will assume that you are avoiding the discussion because you know I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You can interpret it as you will, but you're wrong. Your edit clearly violates WP:NPOV, as Dan Burton's opinion has no notability except as a supporter of the supplement industry, and it would be wrong to omit the fact. My opinion is that Burton's opinion should be omitted unless a reliable source can be found which both notes the opinion and his background. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As for sock-hopping, I disagree with Brangifer. Your edits would be disruptive whether or not you opened an account, but an account could be blocked, and we don't want to block your entire community for your misdeeds. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
What did I do that was so disruptive? You now agree that there was a SYN issue... specifically concerning a living person. I removed the obvious SYN and thus a likely BLP. What I did was perfectly inline with Wikipedia. I would say that the response I received was disruptive. The edit warring without addressing the SYN violation in a collaborative way was disruptive. The disrespect I received because I don't have a registered account was disruptive. It's funny, because in the end you agree with what I've been contending from the start. You even took the precise action I recommended. Well, my work here is done. Time to vanish. POOF! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Your violation of our sockpuppetry policy is disruptive. That was and still is my objection. Regardless of the rightness of your cause, you have no right to edit or comment while violating that policy. Period. You only have a right to read content. Can you understand that? Because of that, whatever you said was immaterial, even if right. I really wanted to consider your concerns because they might have legitimacy, and they apparently did. Good for you. Your concerns would have been taken seriously by me if you hadn't been socking. Your violation of policy prevented me from extending a courtesy you did not deserve. I do not support sock puppets. I'm surprised other editors did not do what we have often done, and that is to simply delete all comments and revert all edits. Your disruption caused the semi-protection of this article to ALL IP edits. To that degree, your disruption was taken seriously.
I made it quite clear in my opening comment in this thread that I was not assuming bad faith, as you falsely accuse me. I stated: (and their concerns do deserve attention),.. Yes, your concerns deserved attention, I admitted that, and I was hoping that you would cooperate so we could move on and do something about them. You refused to cooperate. That's not the spirit we need here.
Other than all that, you have good potential. You could be a good member of our community if you would only follow policy. If you're not willing to do that, you don't deserve any help and will be watched with a decidedly negative eye by many because you deserve nothing better. Socking is a serious matter. It's your call. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)