Talk:Trevor Marshall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

WikiProject Biography	(Rated B-Class)	BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles
Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Australia / Adelaide	(Rated B-Class, Low-importance)	AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Australia portal v • d • e Trevor Marshall is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide. This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as Low-importance).

WikiProject Alternative medicine	(Rated B-Class)	Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Alternative Medicine portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

WikiProject Rational Skepticism	(Rated B-Class)	Rational SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject Rational SkepticismTemplate:Rational SkepticismRational Skepticism articles
Philosophy of science portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rational 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Contents 1 Reference to "Is An" Adjunct Professor - Please do not harass Murdoch staff 2 To Editors of This Bio 3 Need for removal 4 Importance of Dr. Marshall's molecular biology research 5 Factual Error 6 NPOV 7 non-RSs. 8 unsigned 9 EL & NPOV 10 Marshalls work as CEO of Yarc 11 Self-referential 12 Alternative medicine

[edit] Reference to "Is An" Adjunct Professor - Please do not harass Murdoch staff

I removed the reference to "Is an" and replaced with "was" - because if you check the link that is cited to that page, or contact Murdoch University, Marshall is no longer an Adjunct Professor there. Therefore it is incorrect to continue to refer to that position in the present tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.85.48 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the living subject of this Bio, and I am correcting the record personally so as to prevent further harassment of Murdoch staff. Max Cake, Dean of the School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, has received a number of emails from Wikipedia editors who have read this bio and wish to verify that I have indeed been honored with an Adjunct Professorship. I have therefore placed a copy of the letter of appointment on my homepage at URL http://trevormarshall.com/wikipedia/murdoch_appt_ltr.pdf Trevmar (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the "is an". IMO, the best way to get rid of such pests in the future would be for someone at Murdoch to update the system so that the search function for "Prof Trevor Marshall" (second ref in article) operates properly; right now it returns "Sorry, there are no entries matching your search criteria", as does a search for simply "Trevor Marshall". --CliffC (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To Editors of This Bio

Given that many members of the National Academy of Sciences don't even have wikipedia biographies I hardly see how a person with one published paper in an obscure journal deserves such a wikinfomercial article. Can we mark this biography for deletion? 152.10.112.1 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used to publish original thoughts. It should only provide a neutral point of view which is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissachome (talk • contribs) 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing puts me in the spirit quite like the annual Christmas request for deletion. Personally, I find these arguments-- and I presume they come from the same small group-- just the least bit disingenuous. So, members of the Academy don't have Wikipedia bios? So what?

Let me break this down: no member of the National Academy of Sciences has suggested a pathology for chronic illness in as bold and clear terms as Trevor Marshall has. The thing that is most shocking about a man whose work you say is out of the mainstream is that he gives lectures to the FDA, he's chairing a session at the Conference on Autoimmunity, he was invited to write an article on vitamin D supplementation policy by a prestigious high impact factor journal. It's not just one "obscure journal." Have you looked at the bio?

Besides that, there are thousands of people doing this man's treatment, and for each person doing that treatment there has to be a prescribing board-certified physician. By any standard, this man fits the criteria of inclusion.

Frankly, I am tired of these requests for deletions and I would like to hear a definitive vote of confidence from any responsible administrator(s) out there, which would put an end to this nonsense once and for all.Palbert (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should mirror it on BrewJay's Babble Bin.BrewJay (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor Marshall's research involves complex molecular biology, and it can be a tough job for wikipedia editors to condense that level of scientific complexity into words which are encyclopedic, and hold to a neutral point of view. Further, WP:DE policy explains:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

Articles which speak favorably about Marshall's work are becoming numerous: a Japanese presentation on the MP, a presentation at American Academy of Environmental Medicine, from Bio21, a book chapter on Vitamin D, Townsend Letter #1, #2, descriptions of recovery, a Norwegian article, FDA orphan drug status won for Minocycline and Clindamycin, etc. Hundreds of physicians have acclaimed Prof. Marshall's work and many have joined in the Phase 2 study.

Individual wikipedia editors should refrain from expounding an opinion until they have set aside the time to review the science in detail, and they should certainly refrain from pushing a minority POV. Finally, as an academic who frequently presents his findings at scientific conferences, Prof. Marshall should always be afforded respect, and given the benefit of the doubt. --Palbert 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

there are more people who know molecular biology here than you might think, and they have expressed their opinions at the AfD. See below. Not a single one of the items cited above are peer reviewed work--the orphan drug status is not for the indications for which he uses them. Undue weight does indeed apply, and it would cause quite a change in the article, because it is his theory which is the fringe one with an almost total absence of peer-reviewed evidence. DGG (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Those references are peers of some stripe. I've seen townsend concerning Aspartame. I don't remember his credentials. {{cite web}}BrewJay (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This article must not be deleted, as is evidenced by the controversy it has stirred. I agree that the article is one-sided, and this is where we need to focus. My understanding is that the point of wikipedia is to provide free information to the public, not withold one or both sides. If it is at all true that no other members of the National Academy of Sciences have Wikipedia biographies, then perhaps someone with knowledge of these other individuals should begin writing pages about them as well. As a student of the world, my first stop is always wikipedia to get a clear summary and a jump start to other sources on the web. I believe that deleting this article (or any other, for that matter), rather than revising it, does a disservice to the public. Respectfully, Lfiacco (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)lfiacco

[edit] Need for removal

This article was nominated for deletion on December 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I agree. I have done a small amount of research on this guy and it does not appear as if this is a bone fide researcher who has performed what would be considered medical science. What I have read seems to indicate a) he misuses bone fide research as "proof" of his hypothesis and b) seems to dislike the medical establishment. As for his "Marshall Protocol" -- he need to come back after it has gone through a double-blind study before starting up websites... Lloydsargent 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Another article critical of Marshall's work: [[1]] This article, which is peer reviewed, states: "Marshall and Marshall investigated treatment of approximately 50 patients with a mix of cutaneous, pulmonary, and nervous system disease with minocycline 25 mg to 200 mg every 48 hours.53 All but 3 patients reported progress induced by minocycline alone or in combination with olmesartan medoxomil (an angiotensin II receptor blocker). This study has serious deficiencies, as there is no quantification of results and the data is non–peer reviewed."

Marshall's article is also self-contradictory in that it states Marshall developed sarcoidosis in 1978, but became aware of his flare-ups in 1974 (not sure this information contributes to wikipedia in anyway either). Stellex 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

see below. Perhaps unless some NPOPV can be introduced, the article will need another AfD,.DGG (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Marshall's study is being made under the auspices of the FDA. This lends it sufficient credibility to preserve the article, if for no other reason, than to allow people reasearching the issue of sarcoidosis the knowledge of the **existence** of this study. People who disagree with the article's tone are free to edit it it and provide references for its weaknesses, so the reader can make up their own mind. But to delete it outright constitutes suppression of scientific research, and of knowledge, which defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia: To share knowledge and make it available to all. As for the lack of articles about members of the Academy of Sciences, well, for heaven's sakes, why doesn't someone **write** them? I'd sure be interested in reading them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.4.210 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG, you have a strong record for being fair, but what you seem to be implying doesn't make sense to me. You can't be saying that someone needs to be negatively criticized in a peer-reviewed source to be notable. In September 2008, Marshall was invited by conference organizers to chair the "vitamin D" session at the International Congress on Autoimmunity in Porto, Portugal, a multi-day Congress which had 1000+ researchers and physicians attending. If that doesn't suggest some manner of notability, well, geez.... If you wish, you can Google videos of the session. For our purposes, I actually regret that the session does not contain the negative criticism that you feel this profile is lacking. My personal opinion is that this science has not yet been addressed by mainstream medical research, but, in the meantime, it is of sufficient prominence that to eliminate this article does a disservice to WP readers. I'm sure if you could check the server logs, you would see this article gets a surprising amount of traffic. Palbert (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of Dr. Marshall's molecular biology research

Dr. Marshall's research is definitely "bona-fide". Dr. Marshall has many more publications other than those published in PubMed. His molecular modelling science of the vitamin D receptor provides considerably high insight into the heart of innate immunity. His work carries great importance on recovery from chronic diseases and has a global network of reviewers and consultants made up of physicians and researchers and the medical community at large. It is a tremedous shame that those above and others have tried to remove all of Dr. Marshall's work to update and participate in many of Wikipedia's pages. These people have their own suppressive agenda with which they weild with considerable ease here on Wikipedia. This page need not ever be nominated for removal for any of the misleading and contemptual statements above. Dr. Marshall is incredibly forward thinking and his reputation as a successful researcher is agreed upon by a very real and large community of patients, physicians, and researchers. Cuda918 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

any evidence for the above praise? See below. DGG (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a peer-reviewed article from the Townsend Letter: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_285/ai_n19170371 The author notes apparent efficacy in a range of conditions ranging from RA to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The Townsend Letter represents alternative medicine, not mainstream medicine, but as you can see below from the Bioessays article and the conference session he's chairing, this researcher is active in the mainstream-- surprisingly so given the uniqueness of his ideas, I might add. Palbert 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Myself being a molecular biologist and competent in the use of molecular dynamics simulations it is apparent that Mr. Marshall's work is incorrect and he consistently refuses to provide any parameters used in his simulations. See comments on:

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/52/version/1

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/164/version/1

PS. Nature precedings is Non-peer reviewed

The article says "Marshall developed sarcoidosis in the seventies and pursued a degree in biomedicine". He received a degree in Electrical Engineering, the statement that he pursued a degree in biomedicine does not add to the article and is missleading. Jzayner 11 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.11.172 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an M.D. whose attention was drawn to Trevor Marshall recently. Going to his website, he appears to be an intelligent, somewhat charismatic person who has sold some interesting ideas to a bunch of chronic disease sufferers and in the process has created the usual cult of hopeful pseudoscientists who are drawn to such efforts. There are a few interesting ideas presented there, and in fairness I suspect he may even be onto a few things with respect to sarcoidosis and maybe one or two other conditions that actually are exacerbated by high levels of D/calcium. Otherwise, it's apparent that there's a lot of sloppiness, speculation, and spin, and frankly I find many of their claims with respect to Vitamin D's harmfulness to be not only unsubstantiated but downright scary and having the potential to do great harm--particularly since he/they have a paucity of evidence for their positions and seem to disdain a great many actual clinical research studies that contradict their thesis that Vitamin D supplementation is generally bad. (A greater value is apparently placed on his 'in silico experiments'. That smacks of just a wee bit of hubris in my book.)

His topics are deep (seeing as how they deal with biochemistry and molecular biology on a level that's too complex to be properly followed by any who aren't versed in those subjects), but despite the richness of detail of his arguments there are some important errors. For any of his followers who happen to be reading this, one such example would be talking about binding constants and the measured competitive antagonism of calcidiol (aka 25-OHD) on the VDR. Such antagonism may be measurable in vitro, but in vivo it's actually irrelevant. As Marshall's followers all well know, VDRs are NUCLEAR receptors, and as such they aren't directly exposed to circulating (plasma) calcidiol. In the plasma, calcidiol is bound to DBP (D binding protein) and (to a much lesser extent) albumin. Following transport through the plasma, DBP and calcidiol in turn bind to megalin proteins that are expressed on some cell surfaces, which binding in turn triggers clathrin to induce endocytosis. Following endocytosis, calcidiol is released from DBP into the cytoplasm, where it is immediately bound to hsc70 (a constitutively expressed chaperone protein that binds many things, including other D-metabolites such as calcitriol). From there, different metabolites of D appear to be selectively directed to specific intracellular organelles. Most relevantly, hsc70-bound calcitriol (aka 1,25(OH)2D, aka the "active D metabolite") has a higher binding affinity to a nuclear chaperone called BAG-1 than hsc70-bound calcidiol does (see http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/2/81?ijkey=3426519b86f7979795a0526b55b893bde1bae8c0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha). This is important because since BAG-1 guides D-metabolites to the VDR, it means that high calcidiol levels won't significantly interfere with VDR binding of calcitriol--and thus Marshall's "in silico"-supported hypothesis that exogenous Vitamin D supplementation interferes with VDR activation turns out to be erroneous. (For his fans, I also don't know what the significance of this VDR-presenting mechanism might be with regard to Marshall's proposed use of Benicar as an artificial VDR agonist. It might or might not be relevant.)

Anyway, history may yet vindicate some of Marshall's other ideas and prove me wrong about him, but for now I see every indication that this guy is well-meaning but dangerously overconfident about the veracity of his theories. If I'm right, then unless/until such theories are thoroughly discredited he will remain an intelligent and articulate person who can convince a lot of other people to join him in his misguided crusade to get the "truth" out about the dangers of Vitamin D. For his fellow co-sufferers of sarcoidosis (and possibly those few other rare conditions exacerbated by high calcium levels) this might be forgivable. For the other 99+% of us, such efforts may have potentially grave consequences. If the thrust of the emerging body of peer-reviewed Vitamin D research is to be believed, a billion people on this planet currently suffer from Vitamin D deficiency, and many of those will enjoy longer and much healthier lives (less cancer, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, possibly even asthma and depression) as a result of getting proper Vitamin D3 supplementation. With that at stake, I'd just as soon let people who look up Trevor Marshall know that his ideas are not necessarily as well-respected within the mainstream scientific community as some people here might suggest. He certainly deserves to have a bio, but his claims remain *quite* controversial. Slowgenius (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Marshall's work is mainstream. He has been asked to speak and publish by a wide section of the leading scientific community. In September 2008, Marshall will co-chair a session at the International Congress on Autoimmunity to be held in Porto, Portugal. This is a conference, I might add, that is being attended by some 2,000 of the top physicians and scientists from all over the world. He presented at Aging 2008 at UCLA (video here) as well as Days of Molecular Medicine 2008 (video here). DMM, as you may know, is co-hosted by the Karolinska Institute, the same body that hand out the Nobel Prize in medicine. Also, Marshall was invited to submit a paper to the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Bioessays (PMID 18200565) about vitamin D supplementation.

I notice this is your first WP edit. You may not have seen what the administrator DGG said on this page: "This is not a page for arguing over the merits of the MP, so almost all the discussion on this page too is irrelevant. Stick to the RSs and nothing else."

The correct place to discuss this science is at the medical conferences where Marshall speaks. WP is not capable for that role. Because this is a biography of a living person (see BLP), I ask you to please retract your comment of "quack." It really is intemperate and has no place on a Wikipedia talk page.

Palbert (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Palbert, you are quite correct that that was my first Wikipedia edit, and I was unfamiliar with the standards regarding BLPs, particularly in regard to the applicability of such standards even to 'talk' pages. I have no definitive proof that Dr. Marshall is a quack, and I therefore retract that comment. He may very well be an honest scientist, although I believe that he is ignoring a great body of experimental evidence that suggests his pet theory is very, very, wrong. I remain concerned that some people here (you in particular) seem intent on whitewashing his Wikipedia bio so as to remove all hint of taint.

I hope that whatever compromise is eventually arrived at will continue to at least make note of the fact that his eponymous Protocol (which is truly the only real reason he has acquired the fame that merits him getting a Wiki bio in the first place) is extremely controversial and as yet scientifically unsubstantiated, and that it flies directly in the face of a huge (and growing) body of experimental evidence that suggests that widespread massive Vitamin D supplementation will save a great many lives. This will remain the case no matter how many conferences he speaks at, no matter how many hopeful patients report anecdotal benefits, and no matter how many editors he convinces to accept his papers. Slowgenius (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error

Under the section heading "Interest In Sarcoidosis," the writer states that sarcoidosis "usually kills within one or two decades of diagnosis."

That this is completely erroneous is easy to check on any number of medical information sites for laymen, as well as scores of other more in-depth articles, etc. In fact, mortality is in the range of 5%. Also, sarcoidosis is no longer considered to be an auto-immune disease.

It is an odd error to make, considering the seriousness of the subject.

Also, although I don't really know anything about Dr. Marshall's work, a quick search suggests some criticism by other researchers of his not observing accepted standards for study design to insure objectivity of reported data. How a scientist is received by the science community is extremely relevant in a profile such as this.

A final point...one detects a certain enthusiasm for Dr. Marshall in this wikipedia entry, which, in the light of the errors and omissions, suggests that this article may not be written in an objective way. It comes across as being more of an infomercial for the subject.

65.5.219.75 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue (but not here) that there is severe and systematic underreporting when it comes to sarcoidosis-related mortality, but I don't have a good source, so I think you are mostly right to point out how that statement ought to be changed, and I will in a few minutes. Thanks for noticing that.

With regard to "criticism by other researchers" I think you are making a mistake and this is one that has followed the subject of this article for some time now. You see, right now, Trevor Marshall is conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial. Phase II trials are not randomized, double-blinded, or placebo-controlled. What's more, they are supposed to be this way! Any criticism to this end represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of such a trial. 140.251.15.85 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but peer reviewed means a review by independent experts in the field of research. A "pyschologist" and "researcher" do not qualify. Further, the review cannot be solicited by those being reviewed, but assigned by an impartial third party, such as the editor of a journal. Hence the comment that this work has been peer reviewed is illegitimate. Secondly, case studies are interesting, but they do not substitute for blinded randomized controlled studies. Finally, the implication that sarcoidosis is uniformly fatal is jibberish. Most cases spontaneously resolve. 68.11.46.188 (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No "pyschologists" [sic] are cited in the article itself. The sources supporting the article itself are peer-reviewed. If you find one that isn't, please bring it up for discussion. As for double-blinding, are you really saying that a multi-year treatment for people suffering from *chronic diseases* - a class of diseases with high morbidity and (yes, indeed) high mortality - should go undergo blinding? Number one, if you knew about this man's treatment protocol, you would get that the patients would know which arm of the trial they're in immediately. Number two, it's unethical. You may want to read this article about when it's inappropriate to run a randomized trial.Palbert (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to bernie mac he died from sarcoidosis. august 2008

---

Without making any judgements as to the factual basis of this article, I feel it's worth pointing out that the information on sarcoidosis in the section "Interest in sarcoidosis" contradicts that of the Wikipedia article Sarcoidosis.

The citations for that information seem to refer to Dr. Marshall's own institute. Is there any independent citation for the disease prognosis claims? ALloydFlanagan (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Coming to this article from the non-consensus AfD, I see that there were multiple comments there that the article did not express a NPOV, in that there was no mention of the criticism of his work, multiple sources being listed there to the effect that it is a fringe view, not generally accepted, and there were very little peer reviewed work. I see above "he has written many more than the things in PubMed."--this is an indication of the problem, since PubMed covers all standard and respectable fringe peer-reviewed work in medicine. . The close specifically commented that the article needed work. Perhaps those familiar with the article can start on this. DGG (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, DGG, but, I would submit that this article is not one that needs a makeover. Let me give you the situation as I see it and you can judge for yourself.

The most significant body of Trevor Marshall's research is actually quite recent. Only since 2002 or so has the subject of this piece been arguing that sarcoidosis and other autoimmune illnesses are caused by infection. In that time Dr. Marshall, has made a series of provocative arguments, the theory of which is supported by published molecular modeling research and a large body of clinical case studies.

I would venture to say, DGG, that the NPOV criticism is old hat. Any look through the history including a certain edit a couple days ago will tell you that this article has been subjected to numerous examples of vandalism (e.g. Hitler, sex, etc.), and that article suffers less from the absence of a NPOV and more from personal attacks on the subject of the piece.

If the criticism that Dr. Marshall does not play an active role in scholarly medicine a few years back held water, it certainly doesn't now. Here's a man who has given a lecture to the FDA on vitamin D supplementation policy (see footnotes). In 2008, Marshall will chair a session at the 6th Annual Conference on Autoimmunity entitled, "The Vitamin D Receptor, Vitamin D, and Immune Disease." http://bacteriality.com/2007/11/10/portugal/

In February 2008, Dr. Marshall will have a full-length article published in Bioessays: "Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision-making." I hasten to add that publication in Bioessays is by invitation only.

This bio is of great merit to mainstream doctors and researchers considering it is referenced often by the hundreds of doctors who have their patients on the protocol and was even translated into French at Wikipedia French, undergone some revisions, and passed muster by a member of their Project Medicine: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Marshall http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Grook_Da_Oger

In fact, it is often the case that those researchers who have assessed the MP have chosen to use it even on family members. Dr. Robyn Russell, has a PhD in immunology and is Research Program Leader of Enzymology & Synthetic Biology for the Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, in Canberra, Australia. You can read about Dr. Russell's unequivocally positive view and experience with the Dr. Marshall's treatment here: http://bacteriality.com/2007/10/28/interview6/

140.251.15.85 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

my opinion holds that the article does not adequately represent the criticism. In fact, it does not even mention it. Put it in, --at least the parts listed at the AfD, and ask again. I have not yet looked to evaluate whether or not his view is the accepted one, but it is clear that it is at least disputed. It is the view other qualified people take of his work which determines its standing. We evaluate what is said about it, not whether or not it is actually true--see WP:V. It will be easier to see that when the adverse literature is also mentioned in the article. DGG (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I mention a few non-arguments: personal testimonials, even from MDs, are not RSs at enWP; what another WP does is interesting, but does not determine what we do here; the Bioessays article will be taken into account when published--it is a mainstream review journal, but we need to see the context in which they publish it; and conference presentations are not peer-reviewed papers in journals. DGG (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't quibble about your objections, DGG except to say that I find the phrase "the context in which they publish it" to be a bit curious. I'm not sure I get what you mean by this. I've gone ahead and included a new section-- "Criticism of the MP." Rosen and Bagwell discuss the MP in just a paragraph or two so we don't have too much to go on, but I went ahead and specified their exact stated objections. Also, I included a reference to an appraisal of the MP appearing in The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients (see first pp). Please let me know if you judge these changes to give this article a more neutral POV. Thanks, Palbert (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiScanner is boring on this bio. No CIA or White House edits. But hey, the edit from IP 140.251.15.85 "Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College and Graduate School of Medical Sciences of Cornell University" is kinda cool. Palbert that was you, right? Are you a student or staff member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.253.50 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

we do not attempt to determine the actual identity or ip address of a WP editor. Nor can anyone be asked to do so. This is considered a reason for blocking from Wikipedia, and the above question is getting pretty close to it. In any case, COI is a reason for close scrutiny, not rejection. DGG (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-RSs.

Conference presentations are not acceptable sources, unless they are published in peer-reviewed otherwise reliable sources (the Nature on e is fine, the others have been removed). Facts supported only by them need better evidence. An article fulley supported by unquestionably reliable sources will be stronger -- I am trying to improve the article. DGG (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Townsend Letter" =does not strike me as a reliable source--its contents seems to be devoted to he republication of anecdotal evidence from a variety of sources. Can any evidence be supplied of it being cited in mainstream journals?

Material published by the "Autoimmunity Research Foundation", of which he is director, would seem self published. i am going to remove these next, unless some justification can be given.

We will be left with peer reviewed articles and authoritative reviews from truly third party sources. That's the sort of material needed. DGG (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG: I've looked through your edits and I'm fine with them. Regarding further edits, let me address a couple of your concerns:

1. Townsend Letter-- If you look at their media kit, you'll see TL has a current membership exceeding 10,000, 80% of which work in healthcare and 60% of which are MDs. Sure, it doesn't have the same vetting process as NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, etc. but the TL article is simply the best third party basic description of this Protocol. You want to get away from a non-NPOV? This is the best way to do it, don't you think? Besides, if you look at where TL is cited it is for really elemental stuff: "The MP is used treat to sarcoidosis, fibromyalgia," etc. I put TL in the same category as Newsweek, maybe even higher given that its editorial board is full of MDs.

2. The Autoimmunity Research Foundation citations-- I count three of them. I don't have a problem with getting rid of any of them.

Note: that I've swapped out the Nature Precedings cite for a (slightly) more authoritative source.

Palbert (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nature Preceedings is not peer reviewed Please see: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/new

It reads and I quote "Submissions are not subjected to peer review."

Jzayner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.11.172 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my comment was deleted, but there is no cite from Nature Preceedings nor has there been for almost a week now. Palbert (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unsigned

I am a Hematologist from Spain. After reviewing the publications of Dr. TG Marshall and other papers on sarcoidois, i can affirm that there is a full absence of scientific evidence showing that the Marshall Protocol Works. I only found some little evidence in the paper of Bachelez and colleagues, which showed responses to minocycline and doxycicline in 10 of 13 patients with isolated cutaneous sarcoidosis. Certainly, the use of tetracyclines may have a scientififc background and may be justified in some cases, since it is a general thought that some intracellular microorganisms (and other) may play a pathogenic role in sarcoidosis. However, the Marshall Protocol has no scientific support. In addition, we can´t talk about a scientific trial (phase 2 or somewhat) since there is no monitoring visits, no statistical analysis planned, no objectives, no sample size, etc...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.201.52 (talk • contribs) Jan 6, 2007

[edit] EL & NPOV

The following links I had added were removed by User:Trevmar:

• Marshall Protocol @ lassesen.com
• Is the MP Treatment for Sarcoidosis Helpful for Other Chronic Diseases?

User:Palbert justified the removal with: "Those pages are completely unsourced, unreliable, etc. The Lassessen page for example was written and maintained by a man who was found guilty of libel in a California court of law against the very subject of a biography upon which he intends to comment. That and the absence of any kind of sources should make anyone think twice about linking to his site." [2]

However both these pages look highly sourced to me. The London page particularly takes a very objective approach, and makes no personal comments so WP:BLP doesn't apply. I don't see any problems with London's article in relation to WP:EL at all. I would like to see evidence of Lassesen being found guilty of libel.

Further Palbert is keen to have the NPOV tag removed: "One of the frustrating matters with this page is that a lot of work has been done in the spirit of a NPOV yet that tag still remains. Now that you've made a round of changes, is there anything you can do to make that tag go away?"

I did not add the NPOV tag, however, I don't feel the article is quite NPOV yet. The impression I get from marshallprotocol.com is that not only is MP practiced only by a relatively small number of doctors but MP and Marshall himself are in some ways shunned by the medical community and leading experts.[3] Several of his journal articles were rejected from peer-review journals[4] and he seems unable to get funding from NIH etc.[5] Because of the nature of Wikipedia (see WP:OR and WP:V) this needs to be expressed more clearly. The article was (or is) too reliant on selective use of primary sources. RB972 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

nope, -- nothing from http://lassesen.com/ is even remotely a usable source here. It's a personal web page by someone participating in the debate. Ditto about London's site. I personally think he makes a lot more sense than Lassessen, but that's as irrelevant here as anyone else's opinion here. This is not a page for arguing over the merits of the MP, so almost all the discussion on this page too is irrelevant. Stick to the RSs and nothing else. I don;t think the article is anywhere near NPOV yet. But I will read the Bioessays paper next week--I mentioned about context, because as the title indicates, it is a journal for speculation. Intelligent speculation, but speculation. DGG (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion regarding the libel issue. The fact does remain that the Lassessen page is completely unsourced (and the London page is not much better), so yes, I do agree with DGG that there's no place for it here, and I really wonder why any editor would include it as a link.

I invite further discussion on how this piece can be better. In the meantime, I've re-included mention of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation's goal of winning "orphan drug status" for some of the drugs on the Marshall Protocol treatment. I don't know how one could argue this is not significant. Achieving this designation is quite an ordeal and hinges on the judgment of scientists and public health people at the FDA. If you have questions about what orphan drug status, please ask and I'll see if I can dig up some info from their site.

Finally, I'll say that I think the key for all of us to be happy with this apparently controversial profile is to limit our sources to reliable ones. We can do this, and I want to be part of the solution.

Palbert (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Two more things for now-- do we really need that "citation needed" tag next to the "claim" that Trevor Marshall is a biomedical researcher? Give me a break. Check out this link listing citations in PubMed. The four most recent are his (plus these PMIDs from yesteryear 6135766, 6662523, 18200565). I realize some researchers have over 600 papers to their name-- but 7 certainly is enough to call this man a biomedical researcher. Hence, the removal.

Here is verification of the Murdoch appointment, which was questioned in the last series of edit. Next time, might I suggest just looking it up? :) Palbert (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marshalls work as CEO of Yarc

I inserted the fact, in Marshalls background, that he spent 12 years as CEO of Yarc systems, from 1988 until 2000 (being the time of the bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation of the company). Both points were backed up with sources (links to Yarcs archived webpage, and a link to the SEC filing of the bankruptcy). This entry appears to have been removed. I can't see any reason for its removal? 220.101.100.80 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear 220.101.100.80: Thank you for your interest in this Wikipedia article. I think CliffC has it right when he says in his revision comments, "irrelevant." The subject of this piece is notable because of his work in medicine. You know, Trevor Marshall also wrote a column for Byte.com and designed an early version of the electronic synthesizer, but you'll notice that stuff isn't included either. Palbert (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that it is irrelevant. The subject of the article is a biography - it is not (and should not be according to the wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons) an article written purely to detail the work of an individual in one area. Given that 12 years of this individual's life were spent as the CEO of a company (12 years being a significant portion of time), then it is relevant and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.15.69 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mozart and Michael Jackson went bankrupt at one point as well, but I don't see that mentioned in their articles here. It's irrelevant. I find it interesting that your edit, your first ever, emphasizes the bankruptcy and failure of the business while expending only four words, "production of printer technology" to describe it. --CliffC (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is POV, why not edit it to fix the POV? If this was 12 years of his life, then it's on topic to include, as this is about the person, not what the person may or may not be best known for. How about something along the lines of 'CEO for the full time the company was in operation'?

220.101.100.80: Thank you for bringing this in here instead of risking a revert war. -- Strangelv (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly opposed to including mention of YARC but if you're going to include how this company met its untimely end, it only makes sense to mention certain successes it had including, just as an example, a coprocessor design that showed up in one of the first PET machines and, of course, its time machine.... I'm just kidding about that last one, but the coprocessor design is bonafide. The problem, of course, with this line of discussion is that it's only of marginal relevance. Trevor Marshall is known for the Marshall Protocol. That's his claim to fame. Reliably sourced content which is consistent with that, (positive and negative) is why this article takes up a couple K of bandwidth on Wikipedia's servers. Palbert (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This information is very interesting and pertinent. Do you know of any convenient and detailed online sources we could use? -- Strangelv (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried again on the YARC entry. I attempted some more research on YARC's achievements, and have inserted a mention about the YARC-XP print server, with a reference. Unfortunately it is essentially a self referential mention (from Trevor's Resume). Please change if you come across something better. I also gave brief mention of its principal operations (Postscript Raster Image Processor Sofotware).58.178.67.73 (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't let me dampen the enthusiasm to improve this article, but I have two main points to raise with some of the changes that have been made recently. In no particular order...

1. Mention of YARC-- there are some serious problems here. Here's a quote from my personal [talk page] written by the subject of this piece:

"It is incorrect to say that I was Chairman, CEO and Principal shareholder during this time. YARC became a publicly traded corporation in 1998, a President was appointed, founder stock was dispersed, and I no longer had effective control of the corporation (a reasonable person would have inferred 'effective control' from the above statement). The products of the corporation are not properly presented and there is no attempt to present the awards and successes achieved by that corporation. IMHO, it is misleading to fail to note that YARC was recently revived by Court order, and that I was absolved of any personal fiduciary responsibility during that litigation. Indeed, it is not possible to condense the life cycle of a corporation into a short statement, and I would urge you to resist attempts to do so, especially when an editor appears to have taken inadequate steps to ensure the accuracy of statements made."

If you need to confirm that what the subject of this piece says is the case, have a look at this SEC filing. Page 42 lists the division of shares. One will also note that as early as 1998, Marshall was not president of the corporation.

One other matter on this YARC business-- there is no mention of YARC's work in producing one of the firstcoprocessor designs (and in the process winning a technology award called the Eddy) which was at the heart of the first PET machines from Hamamatsu photonics. Here's a cite for that.

Also, as Marshall indicated in the above statement YARC is being revived by court order. Sorry no cite there. I'm sure I could find one. Do you see why this part of the article is problematic? Personally, I think it's both complicated and irrelevant, and I would be happy if it were excised. Otherwise, these serious deficiencies will need to be corrected. I hesitate to correct them myself lest I stall any kind of momentum towards eliminating the NPOV tag.

2. Criticism of the Marshall Protocol-- There are two main points from Rosen and Bagwell: that the results haven't been quantified and that the data wasn't peer reviewed. If you go to the JOIMR site where you'll find a copy of this paper and go to the bottom, you'll see that it was peer-reviewed. Evelin Gerda Lindner, MD, Dr. med, Dr. psychol. the recipient of the 2006 Swiss Prize in Applied Psychology was one of the peer reviewers; and Friedrich Flachsbart MD, a German researcher, was another. I know Rosen and Bagwell are peer-reviewed themselves, but it's pretty clear that at least this part of their paper is, on its face, inaccurate at best. Also, the results are quantified. So... I don't really know what to say here. Palbert (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the YARC points. I examined the SEC filing http://www.secinfo.com/dsVsb.5Tu.htm#1x80). You'll see at that link, at "Item 9", that Marshall is stated as being Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President. Infact, the SEC filing also states "Dr. Trevor G. Marshall has been Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer, since he founded Yarc Systems Corporation, Inc. in 1988". That filing is for the fiscal year ended 31 January 2000. I examined the share ownership which is on page 41 - It shows that Marshall held 26% of the shares of the company. If you also examine the definition of "principal shareholder" (say for example in the investor dictionary http://www.investorwords.com/3844/principal_shareholder.html) You'll see that it refers to a shareholder that holds more tahn 10% of a companies stock. As far as I can see all of those references are correct? I also checked the newspaper article from findarticles - and to the extent that it is inconsistent with an SEC filing (stating that a different individual was president) - I assume we go with the SEC filing? I also looked at the SEC filing which is cited for the bankruptcy which is dated 17 April 2001. Marshall signed off on it as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. If we haven't got evidence that he was President then lets remove that. But he was clearly CEO and Chairman the entire time.

I checked the eddy award link. The article "High Resolution Cardiac PET in Rabbits" mentions that the reconstructed images were obtained using a parrallel processing system made by YARC - but I don't see any mention of the Eddy Award. It would be good to include if its a highlight of YARC's achievements. Can you get a cite re Eddy award so that we can put it in?

The purpose of a bio as I see it would not be to condense the life cycle of the corporation into a short paragraph - afterall, the bio is about Trevor Marshall not about the corporation. Perhaps it should just include the highlights of his involvement. Maybe someone should start a separate wikipedia entry on YARC? But if he did spend 12 - 13 years of his life involved with the company and did some relevant and or significant things, then it would seem pertinent to his biography? I am not sure how we achieve this balance. 210.8.15.69 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please be patient while I reply to your points. Palbert (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I concede your point about principal shareholder, but as it stands the language implies Marshall was wholly responsible when YARC started to falter. This is a rather complex situation. The subject of this piece would likely make the case that when the company went public in 1996, he lost "effective control" of certain key management choices. By way of example, if you look in that 2000 10K, you'll note that shareholders installed, for a time, their own president, a guy by the name of Joseph LaBruna.

Thank you for your detailed reply. Ive replied here, about the company management, and further below to the other points. First off, I don't agree that the language implies Marshall was wholly responsible or had "effective control". It is clear that Marshall was CEO, Chairman, and Principal Shareholder. That doesn't imply effective control anymore than stating anyone is CEO and Chairman of any company does. It does indicate that Marshall had a role - the role of Chairman and CEO, which are both corporate titles that indicate a certain responsibilities within a company - [title]). Furthermore, the board of directors are responsible for day to day management of a company. Shareholders do not have any say in day to day affairs. Shareholders can elect the directors during a general meeting, but have no say in day to day management. (See, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors)) That is a basic and long standing principle of corporations law. So I think the effective control issue is a moot point - Marshall had a certain stated role within YARC, a role that is reflected by stating he was CEO, Chairman and principal shareholder.58.178.31.91 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the shareholders did not elect their own president, that statement is incorrect. Joseph Labruna was hired by Marshall (a point illustrated in this SEC filing, where Labruna subsequently sued Marshall and YARC see http://sec.edgar-online.com/2000/08/07/14/0000843650-00-000002/Section6.asp) A President is not a position on the board of directors, it is not a position elected by shareholders, a president is someone hired for a senior management role for a division within a company - in this case Joseph Labruna was responsible for sales and marketing. So again, I see absolutely no inaccuracy in stating that Marshall as CEO, Chairman and principal shareholder. It is completely consistent with the SEC filing.58.178.31.91 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also concede that 12 years isn't exactly a flash in the pan and a fully fleshed out biography would necessarily include a better description of YARC. I propose including a new brief section titled "Work in Engineering and Electronics." I am hoping you'll agree that it strikes the appropriate balance in terms of content and tone. Obviously, if everyone is okay with this, I'll include the citations in proper format. Feedback welcome.

Work in Engineering and Electronics

Marshall has done work in the area of emerging technologies, especially in the fields of electrical and software engineering. Early notable events include in 1963 becoming the youngest person in Australia at the age of 15 to be issued with an amateur's radio operator's license (http://trevormarshall.com/old_papers/Amateur-Operators-Licence.pdf) and in 1965 setting an Australian UHF long distance communications record (http://trevormarshall.com/old_papers/WIA_576_Record.pdf). In 1973, Marshall designed an early version of the electronic synthesizer. (http://trevormarshall.com/old_papers/rock_article_1973.jpg)

In 1988, Marshall founded YARC Systems, a corporation based in California, which went public in 1996. Throughout its 12-year lifespan, YARC researched, developed and marketed novel methods for increasing the versatility of personal computers, particularly in the areas of graphics and, in later years, printing.(http://www.secinfo.com/dpNsd.5e.htm)

YARC developed software in partnership with a variety of hardware and software suppliers including Microsoft, Apple, and Hamamatsu, the latter using it for PET imaging (http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/39/12/2022.pdf). YARC supplied Linotype AG with software drivers used for pre-print graphics. YARC's 1992 joint development agreement with Pixar (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9256615_ITM) resulted in the development of multiprocessing drivers for Pixar's RenderMan, a graphic 3D rendering application, which was an early example of multiprocessing on the Macintosh platform (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9373875_ITM). In 1993, YARC was awarded the MacUser "Eddy" for the "Best Accelerator Card of 1993." (http://www.secinfo.com/dpNsd.5e.htm)

From 1986 to 1999, Marshall was a Contributing Editor for BYTE Magazine. In 1999 he transitioned to writing as a columnist for BYTE.com. (http://trevormarshall.com/byte.htm)

Palbert (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some useful material here and good job in locating it. The first concern I have with how it is presented, however, is NPOV. It is not expressed in an encyclopedic tone, but rather, in a manner that adds subjective language which appears to promote, sell or accentuate the achievements.

For example, "Marshall has done work in the area of emerging technologies, especially in the fields of" is probably better expressed as "Marshall has worked in technology related fields such as". One reads more like self promotion, the other more neutral. Another, re YARC "novel methods for increasing the versatility" might be how YARC described their products, but it isn't neutral and encyclopedic. It would be more suitable simply as "YARC researched, developed and marketed products in the areas of graphics and printing." This issue of language is important, but should be easy to correct with the adoption of a more neutral tone.

The second issue I have is that if we describe YARC in that level of detail, about its achievements, we are also going to have to include its negative publicity and criticism and failure. To do so would extend the length of the YARC mention, which might not be suited to the bio page about Marshall - which again leads me to think that it might be better of starting a separate entry for YARC. What do others think?

I think the next issue is that we have gone to another extreme re Marshall's involvement in YARC not describing his involvement at all beyond founding it.

I have no issue at all with the Byte citations, and do on the whole think the "Work in Engineering and Electonics section" is a good idea to include. But I have the concerns raised above regarding inserting them in the manner they are currently desribed.58.178.31.91 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Does this revision address your concerns?

Marshall has worked in technology related fields such as electrical and software engineering. Early notable events include in 1963 becoming the youngest person in Australia at the age of 15 to be issued with an amateur's radio operator's license (http://trevormarshall.com/old_papers/Amateur-Operators-Licence.pdf) and in 1965 setting an Australian UHF long distance communications record (http://trevormarshall.com/old_papers/WIA_576_Record.pdf). In 1973, Marshall designed an early version of the electronic synthesizer. (http://trevormarshall.com/old_papers/rock_article_1973.jpg)

In 1988, Marshall founded and became CEO of YARC Systems, a corporation based in California, which went public in 1996. Throughout its 12-year lifespan, YARC researched, developed and marketed products in the areas of graphics and, in its later years, printing.(http://www.secinfo.com/dpNsd.5e.htm)

YARC developed software in partnership with hardware and software suppliers including Microsoft, Apple, and Hamamatsu, the latter using it for PET imaging (http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/39/12/2022.pdf). YARC supplied Linotype AG with software drivers used for pre-print graphics. YARC's 1992 joint development agreement with Pixar (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9256615_ITM) resulted in the development of multiprocessing drivers for Pixar's RenderMan, a graphic 3D rendering application, which was an early example of multiprocessing on the Macintosh platform (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9373875_ITM). In 1993, YARC was awarded the MacUser "Eddy" for the "Best Accelerator Card of 1993." (http://www.secinfo.com/dpNsd.5e.htm) The YARC-XP, released in 1997, was the first Internet-enabled Print Server.[11] In 2001, YARC became insolvent and was liquidated.[12].

From 1986 to 1999, Marshall was a Contributing Editor for BYTE Magazine. In 1999 he transitioned to writing as a columnist for BYTE.com. (http://trevormarshall.com/byte.htm) Palbert (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have had a really busy week at work and not had a chance to look at this yet - but I will give my comments on the weekend. Thanks220.101.100.80 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry-- got tired of waiting, made the proposed changes. Palbert (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self-referential

Every wikipedian has a biography of themselves, but rarely does anyone ask and do a fact check on it (bigger fish are to fry). Resumes aren't necessarily full of lies, either, because there's always that section for character references. What I see in the references section is a lot of names other than Marshall, who are overseeing his treatment. It works even better if those same researchers get results without Marshall, but it's not absolutely necessary. It's Science. If you're wrong, then sooner or later, someone will show it. How long has he lived with a terminal diagnosis?

Science is not about replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It is about replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtley wrong. BrewJay (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right on, BrewJay. To expound on your thought, this article has been the subject of way more contentiousness than it needs to be. The sources referenced in this article and the content upon which it is based are credible and reliable. Those of us who keep an eye on this piece would have no problem including more, shall we say, critical and relevant appraisals of this subject or his work, provided of course they come from credible and reliable sources.

In fact, I would argue that this piece captures, without the fluff, the key points of this subject. It's funny-- every time someone comes to this article and says, "Hey, this is not NPOV," I say "Great, what can we change? How can we improve it?" Check out the history. Changes are made. Most of the time (this last anonymous edit being an exception), I agree to them. Then, editors lose interest. I was hoping that we could take this blip in interest as an opportunity to decide what needs to be added, and if the answer is nothing, maybe we could remove the NPOV notice. Palbert (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion to remove the NPOV tag for now. -- Strangelv (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've come back here after a while the NPOV tag is fully justified--the article is essentially uncritical praise. I did a few minor edits, removing overemphasis in the lead on 2 conference talks, and changing about a dozen uses of his name to "he", as I do in most bios where the name is used more than once a paragraph. There's a good deal more that needs doing. I'll comment here as I go along. I do not consider the very elementary biochemistry involved here to be beyond the understanding of any ordinarily educated editor. Nor do I consider the inadequacy of some of the sources a matter requires special knowledge. (although I do have some background for both). DGG (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG, as somebody who says in their own bio (DGG) they have a "distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science," you would understand the importance of not introducing bias or POV into WP articles. Marshall having given a keynote speech at a conference on gene technology, even though it was in China, and been chairman at a session of an autoimmunity conference, even though it was in Portugal, are notable events, and could help a WP reader make a more informed decision whether his concepts are "quackery" or not. The positioning is not over-emphasis, it provides a NPOV for the text commencing "the protocol's critics .. " I have updated the references and posted up a new version of that balancing text. I hope you like it this time. I also second (third) Strangelv's motion to remove the NPOV notice, it is serving no useful purpose at this point. 12.175.88.249 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative medicine

If something is promoted in the Townsend Letter and discussed as a form of alternative medicine in this book, then I'd certainly class this as alternative or complementary medicine. However if you could provide some mainstream medical studies of the Marahall Protocol's effectiveness, a peer-reviewed RCT or a literature review for example, or some official organisation recommending this treatment, I might change my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to try to improve this article, but your edits are confusing the science. Originally, the article said, "He concluded that these models show that the vitamin D receptor (VDR) must be activated in order for the body to mount a correct innate immunity response." You changed it to, "These models predicted that ARBs may be useful as anti-inflammatory agents: Marshall hoped that these predictions might be addressed by future experiments." I think Marshall would agree that ARBs are useful as anti-inflammatory agents, but if you consider Marshall's body of scholarly output, that's is not even a side consideration.

If you want to change this article, please look at the more recent papers and presentations. Marshall has given two keynote presentations at international medical/scientific conferences in the last six months, and published three to four peer-reviewed scholarly papers in the last couple years including a couple within the last few months. All of them are online.

That brings me to a second point. The Townsend Letter is indeed an alternative medical journal, but that article was published in 2007 and not even by Marshall. To say nothing of the keynote presentations, there are at least four or five papers which discuss different aspects of Marshall's proposed pathogenesis in peer-reviewed journals.

You note the lack of a trial, but Marshall recently signed a collaborative agreement with West China Hospital, the largest clinical center in the world – and a center for the evidence based practice of medicine in the Far East.

Even without your edits, there are a couple of weaknesses in the article. For example, l-form bacteria are just part of the microbiota Marshall implicates in inflammatory disease. No current and accurate description of Marshall's work would be complete without at least a mention of biofilm bacteria.

I'm going to leave this comment up for a period of time and then make some of the changes I describe here.Palbert (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A key point is that molecular modelling studies cannot provide evidence of anything - they are a guide for future experiments but nothing more. This is what Marshall said in PMID 16403216, so we cannot go any further than that limited statement in this article. Apart from his 2006 letter to the Lancet, the only recent publication by Marshall in PubMed is the 2008 Bioessays review. Could you provide links to anything more recent? As to conference presentations they mean nothing, the abstracts are not reviewed in any way and they cannot be used as sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I do believe you are taking some liberties with Marshall's paper. I don't see anything that says "molecular modelling studies cannot provide evidence of anything." Second, I don't know that you can exclude any kind of in silico work on the grounds that it is "invalid." For example, Marshall has shown elsewhere that an ARB such as olmesartan docks into a human Vitamin D Receptor in a completely different way than it does in a murine Vitamin D Receptor. To me, that's valuable data. When I hear that in silico results are "nothing more than a guide for future experiments," I would say that that is a non-neutral point of view. If we categorically dismiss in silico studies, then why not go through the Wikipedia articles on molecular biology and omit discussion of any kind of evidence derived from in vitro studies? My point is that these different modalities have strengths and weaknesses.

I don't agree that conference presentations, especially keynotes, are "worth nothing." There's no reason why you can't look to a keynote presentation, for example, to get a clearer indication of what the subject of this article is putting forth. It certainly beats relying on a relatively old paper. Further, these conference invites belie the statement that the Marshall Protocol is merely "alternative or complementary medicine." There are few, if any, people whose treatments are described in Townsend Letter and go on to keynote the World Gene Congress or chair a session at Congress on Autoimmunity.

As for more recent papers describing the Marshall Protocol and Pathogenesis (please remember there are both), you have the following papers, both of which are in press:

• Autoimmune disease in the era of the metagenome
• Vitamin D: the alternative hypothesis

There's a third citation that I'm having trouble tracking down. Hopefully, I can find it soon enough.Palbert (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In silico studies such as using AutoDock to match ligands to proteins make suggestions and provide hypotheses, they do not generate real data - if you have a "hit" you need to confirm this by actually measuring if the two do bind to each other. I do agree that conference presentations can be used to show what somebody believes, but they cannot be used to reference facts. For instance, I could stand up at a conference and say "Leishmaniasis is the cure for cancer", that presentation could then be used to reference a statement that described my belief, but this could not be phrased in any way that suggested this belief might be true! Those new reviews look like very reliable sources, using these should allow poor sources like that Townsend letter to be removed from the article entirely, which would give it a much more solid foundation. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I made a round of changes. Let me know what you think. Palbert (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

An improvement. I've made some more changes. I'm still unhappy with the use of conference presentations as "balance" for serious peer-reviewed papers. I have made enough of those presentations to know that non-peer reviewed preliminary results are often wrong. Once these researchers have written and published this work it can be cited, but not until then. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I get the rule about conference presentations not being used for putting forth statements of scientific truth. In most cases, I relied upon them as a source for what Marshall is putting forth. Also, I don't know if they'll last until then, but some of those conference presentations serve as a temporary proxy until three peer-reviewed papers published by members of Marshall's research team are published. They've been accepted but right now they are "in press."

One question: I wonder if you thought it made sense to remove the "WikiProject on Alternative Medicine" tag. You don't seem terribly impressed with conference presentations, but this man's pathogenesis for disease and various aspects of his treatment have been described in various peer-reviewed publications, which is not the case for most, if not all, "alternative treatments." Palbert (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it really true that Marshall has advocated this as a treatment for cancer, TB, AIDS etc? If this is correct then I'd certainly class this as alternative medicine, since that kind of claim seems seriously off-the-wall. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I could make a case that diseases are probably caused by pathogens. I could tell you that according to the NIH's Human Microbiome Project, 90% of cells in the human body are non-human. I could argue that it makes evolutionary sense that these pathogens would subvert the innate immune response. But, IMHO, that's not the point.

The difference between alternative and conventional medicine comes back to the scientific method. Instead of wondering if a therapy "seems right" or passes some kind of ill-defined "smell test," I would ask the following. Is the treatment being described at medical/scientific conferences? Is there a scientific rationale for why it may be effective? Is it being prescribed by licensed physicians? Is it being tested in clinical trials? Is it being presented in peer-reviewed journals?

You mention cancer, TB, and AIDS. I know that inflammation and cancer are strongly tied to each other. We know that bacteria cause inflammation. Why wouldn't a researcher see at least a plausible connection between the two? That's not wholly unreasonable, is it? When it comes to TB, I know that Marshall talks about it in his Bioessay, but only in the context that vitamin D metabolism plays a role. If you read his Bioessay, you'll see he's making a pretty tepid series of statements. In fact, he concludes that section by saying, "The answers to these questions are urgently needed."

Re:AIDS - Marshall works at Murdoch University, which is at the forefront of AIDS research internationally. His colleague, Simon Mallal, is a WHO collaborator. And the two did collaborate on a joint publication from 1983. It seems likely that Mallai and Marshall remain close collaborators. Palbert (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)