Talk:American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Potential reference

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15aging.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=Anti-Aging&st=cse was added and then immediately removed as a reference. I think it might be useful for future expansion of the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding http://www.a4minfo.net/articles/Futurist_SeptOct2001.pdf for background explanation from September-October 2001 issue of THE FUTURIST about urgent needs to handle elderly patients and anti aging mission as stated in the article "Rather than treating the problems of frail elderly, the mission of antiaging physicians and researchers is to slow, stop, and reverse the processes that make elderly people frail in the first place" Bratasena (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the fall 2001 Futurist interviewed the A4M president and others on the topic of aging; The Futurist does not take a position on the issues it covers. Any use of this source should reference the actual article (not an A4M website) and make clear that Klatz's statements are from Klatz, not The Futurist. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Futurist article says nothing about A4M except to quote from A4M's own materials -- no value. Since A4M itself has no recognized standing, the statement "The Academy's two certification boards test and certify doctors...." is misleading. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards and criticism

The purpose of this section is to point out awards and criticism that the organization has received. Any non-ironic awards or certifications belong here, but rants and biased statements of support need to be made more neutral, properly sourced, and placed in other more relevant sections. - JeffJonez (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

They have no evidence a4m sells or endorses any commercial products (where is their reference for this?) and all those comments on the IJAAM-International journal of anti aging medicine. As a4m did not own, print or publish magazine (was done by non a4m parties who published in connection with conferences they owned-Primedia Intertec). A4M merely contributed editorial support copy. And only 4 issues ever published.last time was 8 years ago. So what validity does this have in describing an organization that did not own, print or publish a few issues of a magazine, owned by a commercial enterprise in conference business (not owned or operated by a4m) and not even printed for last 8 years and this is 50% of comments on our organization of today and comments made by hostile parties and business competitors who participated in direct competitor's conferences (the Australia longevity show they all went to and did the sham silver fleece awards at). 125.166.103.227 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state that A4M directly sells or endorses any commercial products, but, instead, that critics accuse A4M of promoting such products. The position of A4M critics is supported by the sources, in some cases in the form of direct quotes from individual critics. The Illinois source states that the journal was a publication of A4M. A reliable, independent source stating that the journal is not connected with A4M in any way would be a welcome addition for the sake of balance. Since you admit a connection with A4M ("our organization"), I would encourage you to consider WP:COI and suggest such sources as well as other proposed alterations on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Response is difficult to 125.166.103.227's run-on sentences and conjunctive sentence fragments. According to http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag98/april98_media3.html A4M went to battle over the name Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine with another organization, which was planning a periodical with the same name. A4M's Klatz is quoted as musing, "Maybe we'll call it the 'Official' Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine." Apparently in the end they chose 'International' Journal. http://www.anti-aging-guide.org/journal-of-anti-aging-medicine.html refers to the "International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine...published by A4M and Drs. Ron Klatz and Bob Goldman." Whether or not it's now defunctor, IJAAM' was clearly a creature of A4M. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing one sided opinions "The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine is not a recognized scientific journal. What I find reprehensible about this 'journal' is that advertisers who publish in it can then claim there is scientific evidence to support their outrageous assertions by pointing to the publication in an alleged scientific journal." Who is in charge to state this? almost all journal have advertisements. Then how does 4 issues of a publication, last published 8 years ago, not even owned by the organization reflect on it today, especially when negative statements were made by those involved with director competitors of the organization. completely biased and one sided and false 125.161.64.100 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you think some of the contents of the article are false and would like to help correct this if it is true. The comments made by Leonard Hayflick are verifiable (ie he did make them) and seem to me to be mainly statements of his opinion. However, the statement that the journal is not a recognized scientific journal is a statement by Hayflick on what he believes to be a fact. I do not know of any information that would refute this statement, but would be happy to include it in the article if you provided this. Such information might include statements from respected scientific organisations endorsing the journal, its listing in PubMed or the ISI citation index. I have searched for such information myself, but have so far been unable to find any. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: reliable sources

Several editors of this article have been blocked in the last few months for legal threats and/or sockpuppetry, including one editor who is apparently a paid advocate for the anti-aging supplement industry and another who has claimed to be a leader of A4M. In the past week alone, three new editors have edited in succession: an IP editor, 71.239.242.105, and two new accounts, User:Haurissa and User:Bratasena, none of whom has edited outside this topic. These editors are of course welcome to make constructive contributions as long as they are not engaging in sockpuppetry or other deprecated activities of previous single purpose editors.

However, because of the recent editing patterns, I would like to remind new users of Wikipedia's reliable sources suggestions. Statements about controversial organisations such as A4M are best derived from sources independent of the organisation itself. Several such sources, including the New York Times, have been used extensively in crafting this article. In contrast, sources close to the subject of the article, such as claimed A4M websites or anti-aging industry trade publications, are of only limited utility as sources of verifiable information.

Please discuss any such questionable sources and reach consensus with other editors before additional major changes to the article. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion.

1. I don't agree with the the paragraph criticism in the lead of article. The criticism has it own subtopic.

2. Goal "never going old", I think this is an opinion. Not a formal statement. So, we have to put the fact of the goal with the formal goal or vision.

3. I don't agree ih statement: "Scientists studying aging reject the claims of A4M as unjustified and unscientific, and accuse the group of using misleading marketing to sell expensive and untested products. The A4M's founders and merchants who promote products through the organization have been involved in several legal and professional disputes." Scientist? Who? Too ambigous. I think we cannot generalized something because of only some people said like that.

4. I don't agree with: "anti-aging medicine," a field not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties". I think that's better we write as: "Has not recognizes". A medical specialty need a time to become a specialist. I think that's enough for commenting for redoing my editing.

5. I cited the article with Life Extension Magazine. That's independent magazine. You should check about them at http://www.lef.org/about/. Why we should not cite publication from anti-aging publications? I diasgree with that. For example, when we want to search information about medicine, so we go to medicine site not gossip site, don't we?

Thanks. Regards, Haurissa (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Haurissa, responding to your points,

1. The reliable sources for this org consistently cover the organisation's controversial nature. As such, the controversy should also be addressed in the lead.

2. This quote from the New York Times article sums up the founders' motivations. It was their opinion, covered verifiably in a reliable source, and thus it should be presented here.

3. The "scientists" in the statement are named in the cited sources.

4. "Anti-aging medicine" is not a recognised specialty. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can't predict whether or when this area will become a recognised specialty. For now, scientific experts on aging have extensively criticised "anti-aging medicine". That's what we need to cover.

5. Life Extension Magazine is not at all independent; it is the newsletter of a supplement vendor. Its opinions on this topic can hardly be construed as independent or reliable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, Mr.Keepcalmandcarryon.

1. Hm okay.

2. I think that's just an opinion that just a dialogue. I think we have to put the formal goal, which is their mission. What do you think?

3. If the article is written a criticism from the "scientist". So, it's fair for written the response from the A4M about the criticism, isn't it? So, it will be a neutral point.

4. Hm...

5. Is there a warranty that The New York Times is independent too?

Thanks. =) Haurissa (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is defined by Wikipedia as a reliable and independent source. If you have problems appreciating the difference between the New York Times and an A4M website or a strongly-worded editorial in a low-impact journal by an obvious partisan in the debate, please consult WP:RS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments on the above:

1. The lead is supposed to repeat material found in the main article.

2. Comments by an A4M founder are absolutely appropriate to include, especially where they contradict the carefully-worded official statements of the group. We can't read minds. We can't say what the A4M's mission is. We can only report what A4M and the people who run it say it is. Of course, it also helps readers when an article reports on what the group (and its leaders and members) do, as well as what they say.

3. A4M's own responses to criticism have little weight. If there are genuinely two defensible sides to the debate, there should be scientists who are reputable as well as independent of A4M who can explain and defend what it's doing. It would be great if you (Haurissa) could come up with something like that, though as you've found out (see section below re Arch. Gerontology and Geriatrics) it's easy to get burned on this.

4. In addition to Am Bd of Medical Specialties, there are two other umbrella medical-specialty organisations in the US. None recognizes A4M. Whether this is because A4M hasn't asked for recognition, or has asked but been refused (either of which is significant in its own way) in the end not recognized means not recognized. Haurissa, you mention that PubMed returns 1500 entries for the keyword "anti-aging," apparently as evidence that "anti-aging" is a medical specialty. But articles such as "Calorie restriction initiated at a young age activates the Akt/PKCzeta/lambda-Glut4 pathway in rat white adipose tissue in an insulin-independent manner" (which concludes, "The present results suggest the presence of an age-specific insulin-independent mechanism that is induced by CR to regulate energy metabolism in white adipose tissue") merely imply active research, not that such research has produced a coherent body of clinically useful results. Maybe there is such a body of results, or maybe not, but if there is, an article count on PubMed isn't the evidence for it.

74.92.43.201 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re recent changes by Haurisaa (Jul 7-8 2009): Haurissa, I believe you are trying to improve the article in good faith. However, statements by A4M itself, or in promotional materials and "puff pieces" in commercial magazines such as Life Extension, can only be cited to verify that such-and-such is what a controversial organization such as A4M says it does, or says to be its purpose -- they're not verification of the truth of such statements (except possibly where such statements are "admissions against interest." Reliable, independently published, third-party sources, as discussed throughout this Talk page, are needed. As I already said, "If there are genuinely two defensible sides to the debate, there should be scientists who are reputable as well as independent of A4M who can explain and defend what it's doing. It would be great if you (Haurissa) could come up with something like that...." If you're still having trouble doing that, that doesn't make it OK to fall back on other than reliable sources. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Obscure Journal"??

I disagree with Keepcalmandcarryon editing that delete my editing that been cited from Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics! He said that that journal is obscure journal. This journal is printed by Elsevier! You may check: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/506044/description#description And you may check the pubmed.com (database of health journal from NIH). The article journal is published at pubmed. So, that is scientific journal! Thanks. Haurissa (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Elsevier is currently involved in a scandal for publishing fake journals no less (Elsevier#Fake_journals)...

The article is an editorial. If nothing else, it's undue weight to use this source in such a way. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Haurissa, I must agree with Ronz. Pubmed is merely a database, not a list of "approved" articles or sources. And sadly, the old and honored name of Elsevier can no longer be relied upon as an imprimatur, for reasons such as those pointed out by Ronz. As it turns out, A4M founder Ronald Klatz is an editor of Arch. Gerontology and Geriatrics as seen here and Nagy (author of the editorial Haurissa wanted to cite) has been a featured speaker at numerous A4M-sponsored events (try Google). The fact that Nagy defends A4M by name in his editorial, yet fails to disclose his relationship to A4M in his Conflicts of Interest section, is troubling. So that should be the end of that. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree: Nagy's editorial is not an independent source and probably not high on the reliability scale, either. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Nagy is an expert on aging, and his opinion is verifiable. This shows at a minimum that the scientific community is not unanimous in its condemnation of the A4M. I wouldn't give this as much weight as the position paper, since it is the opinion of one author, but I've added a summary of Nagy's editorial the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the IP editor's comments, a summary of Nagy's editorial should mention any verifiable relationship between Nagy/Nagy's journal and A4M. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, but I couldn't find any sources that discussed Nagy's relationship with A4M. If such a relationship did exist, we might be able to find indications of it ourselves, but adding any such material ourselves would be implying that Nagy acted in bad faith, and would be making a novel link between that information and Nagy's comments. I am being very careful to only add verifiable material to this article as it may come under close scrutiny in the future, so I think we have to be particularly conservative in how we select and quote our sources. If you can find a source stating "Nagy said X, however Nagy has a relationship with A4M, as shown by Y" then that would be fine, but without such a source we can't comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need to protect Wikipedia by taking special care with this article and inserting "alternative views" from wherever we can find them. I also don't wish to imply "that Nagy acted in bad faith". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Nagy is acting in good faith and would not wish to imply otherwise. However, we obviously can't give equal weight to this man's opinions and the preponderance of reliable sources that take a much more critical view of the A4M. Your recent edits seems to strike the right balance in my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

TimV and KeepC -- you're doing a great job of holding this article to the highest standards. Two comments:

First, I must modify my statement above that "Pubmed is merely a database, not a list of 'approved' articles or sources." In fact, titles are selected for indexing on Pubmed's Medline according to [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/jsel.html published criteria. Of course that does not mean all content in journals so selected is "correct" (whatever that might mean). Individual articles must be considered in light of all the surrounding facts -- which brings me to the Nagy editorial.

It's true that to date, the fact that Nagy has been a speaker at several A4M conferences is established only by web sources. For example the WAAAM's (World Anti-Aging Academy of Medicine's) "Summer 2007 Session of the 15th Annual International Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies" was "co-sponsored by the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M)" and post-conference promotional materials include a photo captioned, "Following an introduction by Dr. Ronald Klatz, A4M President, Dr. Imre Zs.-Nagy, a founding scientist of cell biology and human longevity and the founder and editor-in-chief of Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, presented data..."; the photo shows Klatz and Nagy behind a lecturn displaying the A4M logo. WAAAM's "Advisory Board Chairman" is (or was) Ronald Goldman, listed there as also being Chairman of A4M, and other photos show Klatz and Goldman "open[ing] the General Session." Thus the usual concerns about reliability of web sources evaporate in this case, because it is the A4M and its officers which promote their connection to Nagy via thier own published materials and personal actions.

To point out Nagy's dealings with A4M is not to ascribe "bad faith" to him. An opinion can be offered in perfectly good-faith yet be subtly affected by personal and professional relationships (whether financial or not) and it is informative to cite such relationships; so that readers can judge for themselves, it is also appropriate to mention that Nagy felt those connections were not significant enough for listing in his editorial's "Conflicts of Interest" section.

Since we are discussing an Archives editorial, the fact that Klatz is a member of the Archives editorial board (citation above) is also appropriate to mention. Keep up the good work. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to noting any significant relationship between Nagy and A4M, but if we list any of his appearances at A4M conferences, why would we only do this for him? I'm sure some of the other people we cite have attended such conferences (Jay Olshansky for instance). What justification is there for singling out his relationship (which seems tenuous to me) and not listing it for others? I'm concerned that any such special treatment might appear to be an attempt to discredit his opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More on non-recognition, and more on A4M officers praising A4M

“The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) is a 501(c)(3) organisation that promotes anti-aging medicine.The A4M is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, which currently recognizes 130 medical specialties in the US.” Please see the Wikipedia description of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/abms where only 24 approved boards are listed. Thus ABMS approves only 24 of over 270 specialist medical societies and medical boards like A4M. The last specialist board approved by the ABMS was in 1979, over 30 years ago (emergency medicine). To state that A4M is not one of 130 recognised specialties is to infer lack of credibility and is incomplete and misleading. 125.166.103.227 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly A4M does not have or make any claims. The organisation only co-hosts medical conferences and symposia throughout the world and arranges educational programs which are taught by world class board certified physicians and surgeons. Secondly, if A4M were responsible for making unjustified and unscientific claims it is scarcely likely that the medical conferences and scientific symposia (such as A4M co-hosts) would be approved by the American Council of Clinical and Medical Education (ACCME) to receive 17 consecutive years of Category 1 AMA/PRA physician recognition award CME (Continuing Medical Education) credits -the highest level available worldwide for physicians and surgeons. Such CME credits are awarded to physicians and medical specialists at A4M conferences around the world. See also attachment related to Joseph Maroon MD, Vice Chairman of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburg, School of Medicine, and one of the top neurosurgeons in the world, as to his opinion of the high scientific level of the A4M. 125.166.103.227 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR; you make some good points, but Wikipedia uses reliable, independent sources, not original research, other Wiki articles, or the opinions of individuals. If you know of a reliable, independent source stating that A4M, or its program, has been recognised by the Amercian Board of Medical Specialities, we should certainly add it. However, the current, high-quality sources for this article seem to contradict such a statement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

According to NYT as quoted in the article, A4M certainly does make claims, such as "never growing old." As already described, other than ABMS there are two other medical-specialty umbrellas in the US, and they don't recognize A4M either. Joseph Maroon, "Vice-Chairman of Neurological Surgery...and one of the top neurosurgeons in the world" is also (surprise!) a vice-Presisent of A4M (see http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/dr_joseph_c_maroon_m_d wherein Dr. Maroon is said to practice "complimentary" medicine -- perhaps meaning the practice of fulsomely praising medical organizations of which one is an officer. Or did Dr. Maroon mean "complementary medicine"? Meanwhile, 125.166.103.227 doesn't know infer from imply so there seems to be a lot of language trouble today.) ACCME appears to offer accreditation to organizations which say they meed certain standards, but doesn't actually check; but again, this is OR -- if you can find something reliable and independent explaining the worth of ACCME approval, please do so. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we have to be very sure that everything in this article is verifiable in a published source. Therefore the assertions of an anonymous editor on Wikipedia could never be used as sources for factual statements bout the A4M - even if they claim to be members of the organisation. We need reliable, independent sources - such as newspaper articles, articles in scientific journals or books. Please provide some of these and we will be happy to include them in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal and Profesional Disputes

Dr. Klatz and Dr. Goldman basic science courses are done in Belize and that course work was completed at American Medical Institutions and accepted by the University and also additional year repeating clinical speciality rotations that they had already completed in American Hospitals, making that their 8th year of medical and surgical training. More than double the amount of time training for standard MDs and that all MD candidates of the Medical University did those mandatory clinical rotations at the same mexican hospitals. The Illinois Departement of Professional Regulation states clearly in writing that the state and Board recognizes the MD degrees of the doctors as Valid and their school as an approved proper medical university and that they are free to use their MD after their name and that there was official dismissal and closing of the cases and files closed and charges dropped. 125.161.64.166 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know. but the obstacle to including this information in the article is the current lack of an independent source for it...along with partially contradictory information reported by one of the most reputable news sources in the business, the New York Times. Do you have a source for your statements that's independent of the Klatz and Goldman website? If so, we could certainly provide it along with the NYT. In any case, the NYT-sourced sentences should not be deleted and replaced with claims from a website maintained by the individuals in question. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are presented hard official document evidence that follow on non disciplinary Order from the Illinois Dept of Professional Regulation states clearly in writing that the state and Board recognizes the MD degrees of the doctors as valid and their school as an approved proper medical university and that they are free to use their MD after their name and that there was official dismissal and closing of the cases and files closed and charges dropped..and also that their medical and surgical licenses have been in good standing for over 20 years......then is not the statement of the old Order a false and misleading and negative biased incorrect statement and should be deleted? 125.161.64.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also re statement of an additional year repeating clinical speciality rotations that they had already completed in american hospitals, making that their 8th year of medical and surgical training... which stated above as more than double the amount of time training for standard MDs and that all MD candidates of the medical University did those mandatory clinical rotations at the same mexican hospitals and thus should be removed as false misleading. Basic science courses are done n belize and that course work was complete at american medical institutions and accepted by university. Course requirements for MD are set by University not the student. Further both doctors are licensed as MDs in numerous nations. 125.161.64.100 (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you may have all the certainty in the world that what you're saying is correct, and I appreciate that. However, for your knowledge to be placed into the article, we need reliable sources that can be verified by others. Currently, the only reliable source that's been presented for this particular topic is the New York Times article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cited Klatz and Glodman's court deposition to support their position on this incident. However, The Times, CNN and the New York Times all describe this incident in different terms, so unless we have a independent reliable source contradicting these newspapers accounts, all we can do is note that Klatz and Goldman dispute this. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A legal pleading is a notoriously poor source. Fred Talk 19:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, since this pleading has no independent review I think we can only cite it to support the statement that "X has stated Y". It is basically a WP:SELFPUB source. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As this is a serious accusation that was made by NYT, we need to check this very carefully. I've searched in the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation and this appears to confirm that they ""Agreed to cease and desist using the designation "M.D."" and paid fines. The department state that "discipline that has been stayed or reversed will not appear in the summary of discipline." So my interpretation of these database entries is that this finding was not reversed. All I can find that disputes this accusation are the statements of Klatz and Goldman. Has anybody else bee able to find dissenting sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper articles are a source for the situation on the date they were published. They do not contain information about subsequent events (They are not updated in the manner of a wiki page). When an anonymous editor, transparently either the principals or someone associated with them, asserts on the talk page that the situation has changed, unless there is a reliable source containing information that it remains the same, the situation is that there is information in the article, contested by the persons affected, for which there is no reliable source. I know this is rather convoluted reasoning and hard to grasp, but I believe it is sound reasoning. Expecting someone to provide a published source for a negative is simply not fair. Fred Talk 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The licence database is updated, since it states "discipline that has been stayed or reversed will not appear in the summary of discipline.". Therefore the fact that this discipline is still listed in the state database necessarily implies that it has neither been stayed or reversed. We do note that the people involved dispute this apparent fact, but without any source beyond this bare assertion, we can't say anything else. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked yesterday and I couldn't find it. As to "we can't say anything else", if there is no reliable secondary source, you must say nothing; that database is a primary source and may or may not reflect the current situation in detail. Fred Talk 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this link, licence numbers 036074384 and 036064669. I'd say the governmental body that regulates physicians and allied professions is a very reliable source on the topic of professional regulation myself, but if you are still unconvinced of whether this organization is a reliable source for this question, I could raise it at WP:RSN. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is is:

12/5/2009
Information found on:
ROBERT M GOLDMAN DO, 36074384, CHICAGO, IL
Action	Discipline
Start Date	Discipline
End Date	Reason For Action
Fine	12/06/2000		Agreed to cease and desist using the designation "M.D."
in addition to the appropriate "D.O." title. He received a degree as a doctor of medicine,
but was never properly licensed to use the title "M.D." in Illinois. $5000 FINE DUE AND PAID

and:

12/5/2009
Information found on:
RONALD KLATZ DO, 36064669, CHICAGO, IL
Action	Discipline
Start Date	Discipline
End Date	Reason For Action
Fine	12/06/2000		Agreed to cease and desist using the designation "M.D." in
 addition to the appropriate "D.O." title. He received a degree as a doctor of medicine,
 but was never properly licensed to use the title "M.D." in Illinois. $5000 FINE DUE AND
 PAID

So what is the document in writing that the anonymous editor speaks of? "The Illinois Departement of Professional Regulation states clearly in writing that the state and Board recognizes the MD degrees of the doctors as Valid and their school as an approved proper medical university and that they are free to use their MD after their name and that there was official dismissal and closing of the cases and files closed and charges dropped." Fred Talk 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen any such document. All the sources I have seen agree that they both paid fines. Interestingly, even the deposition does not deny this statement (if you read it closely)

Defendants state, quoting an article that appeared in The New York Times, that “[llicensing authorities in Illinois did not recognize the [Plaintiffs’] Belize degrees, and in 2000 fined the doctors $5,000 each for adding M.D. after their names.” However, in an order dated February 28, 2006, the Division of Professional Regulation of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation determined that Dr. Goldman and Dr. Klatz are “licensed physicians and surgeons of osteopathic medicine in good standing in Illinois for over 20 years, which allows them to practice and carry out all duties equivalent to what a medical doctor, an M.D., may do in Illinois.”

I've been puzzling over this for a while. Note that the statement does not say "The claim made by the NYT about a fine paid in 2000 is untrue, they did not pay a fine and the case was dismissed." Instead it talks in general terms about the situation in 2006, six years later. I suppose you could argue that this is a non-denial denial. Alternatively, it might accidental and these highly-skilled and experienced lawyers just happened to choose a poorly-phrased and surprisingly vague wording for this critical part of their deposition. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, a D.O. is a licensed physician. That's not an issue. Although I did see something in either the article or on the talk page about not being able to write prescriptions. That doesn't seem right unless it is some special Illinois rule. Fred Talk 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the circumstances around that are either, but this was what CNN said in this 2007 article:

Robert Goldman and Ronald Klatz, the co-founders of A4M, are osteopathic physicians who in 2000 were ordered by the state of Illinois to stop identifying themselves as MDs. Last July, they did receive licenses to practice as MDs, although a spokesman for the state licensing authority said they are not allowed to write prescriptions.

I have no way of checking CNN's facts independently, so the article just reports what they said. I summarised the source as saying CNN reported in 2007 that the A4M co-founders have since received licenses, but are not permitted to write prescriptions. although I suppose it might be clearer to say CNN reported in 2007 that the A4M co-founders have since received licenses to practice as MDs, but are not permitted to write prescriptions. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Never growing old"

From the NYTimes article, "We're not about growing old gracefully, said Dr. Ronald Klatz, 43, the group's president, who practices in Chicago. We're about never growing old." Klatz is one of the original founders, and, by using the plural, is not speaking only of himself. I wouldn't object to including additional language here, but this quote is not, as has been claimed, from an unrelated individual interviewed for the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tax evasion

I'm not sure how relevant noting Dean's conviction for this is. Is Dean still a member of A4M? How do we check membership? Tim Vickers (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, is Dean even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about A4M? I see that he is not. Is the A4M mentioned in the IRS source? I see that it is not. Is the A4M mentioned in the CPA source? I see that it is not. In fact, I see that the IRS source indicates that one "Ward Dean" is a former Navy Commander, but the Complimentary Prescriptions site describes (perhaps) another "Ward Dean" as an Army specialist. Therefore, to sort of dredge this up and present it as ("not sure") relevant in some way, on a Top Five website, strikes me as a bit of an unfair pile-on and original research in its worst form for an encyclopedia. What is your motivation? Perhaps I have attached motives to your actions that are unfair, so illuminate me. -- Thekohser 17:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If Dean's claims are correct, and he was a founding member of the organisation and a leading expert in life-extension, then this might be relevant. However, what is lacking is independent confirmation of the relationship - Dean might be exaggerating his role in A4M. I had a look for sources but everything that mentions both Dean and A4M seem either very fringey or directly linked to Dean. I don't understand your comment about original research, since Dean's website mentions both the tax evasion case and A4M, did you read that source? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the source material now, thank you. Now, answer my question: What is your motivation here? Is it important that this Wikipedia article include every person ever affiliated with A4M, or only those who have had federal indictments against them? Is it not sufficient that Dean is serving time in Pensacola? -- Thekohser 02:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Notable positive achievements of people affiliated with this organisation would be welcome material as well. Perhaps you could see if any of the board members have won any prestigious scientific awards for their research on anti-aging? I haven't been able to find any myself, but perhaps you'll have more luck. I see Goldman for example states he received an award called "The Gold Medal for Science" in 1993, but unfortunately omits to mention what body awarded this honour, so I haven't been able to verify this independently. I've come up similarly blank for the "Grand Prize for medicine" that appears on his CV link. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the argument against including this is that it really isn't very relevant to the organisation. As Dean doesn't appear all that notable in the history of A4M (unlike Goldman and Klatz) discussing him at length is wandering off-topic. Tim Vickers (talk)

Quackwatch source

As the licensing dispute continues to be a contentious issue, I searched for additional sources. I found on the site "Quackwatch" a copy of the consent order relating to Goldman and Klatz. The document is here. However, I am unsure if this document passes our WP:RS guideline. Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch can probably be used in some circumstances, since its authors are recognised experts, but I'm not sure about this specific document. When in doubt...? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what guarantee do we have that it is genuine? I haven't been able to find any other copies of this supposed agreement on the internet. I'm leaning towards not including this. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A4M rebuttal on "antiaginginfo.net"

I searched for a published rebuttal of the LA Times article Troubling Record for Anti-Aging Doctors and found this article on "antiaginginfo.net". However, this isn't the official A4M website, and the owner David Bloom seems to have little to do with the organization, so I an unsure whether to treat this as genuine. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editorial comments

I think the sentence that begins "The field of anti-aging medicine is not recognized ..." should be moved from the first paragraph and be made the first sentence of the second or third paragraphs. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia sued for libel over the editing of this article

Probably the first time as far as I know[1] MaxPont (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know. That's noted in the section on Regulatory and tort issues (although it isn't the first such case (link). This is why we have been fact-checking the article so intensively and trying to make sure that all statements are attributed to reliable sources. Is there anything you think we have missed? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream recognition

In this edit the lack of mainstream medical recognition was described as "irrelevant information". The article summarises three sources that comment on this point

1. The New York Times
2. MSNBC
3. The gerontologist

Since three independent reliable secondary sources comment on this point, I can't see why you think it is irrelevant. Have you found a new source that says this fact is not relevant? If so we could include it in the article as a counterpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Determination of relevance is a function of editorial judgment. One must ask why the information was included in the cited articles before determining whether the same reason, arguably, bias, ought to be considered in making an editorial decision on Wikipedia. Fred Talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should mention this, but the last Medical Board certified by the ABMS was Medical Genetics, in 1991. (see ABMS and ABMG) Although this seems to contradict the statement in the A4M deposition that "In fact, the ABMS last approved a medical specialty - emergency medicine - over thirty years ago, in 1979." the ABMS is a primary source and nobody else has commented on this question. Including this might therfore be original research. What do people think? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Including that information is over-elaborate. As it is now, in the second paragraph of the article, a long exploration of certification is inappropriate. Fred Talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether a medical specialty is recognized as such is relevant, but consider the treatment at Mohs_surgery#Associations. Such specialties, especially new ones, are not ordinarily recognized by the boards mentioned in the article. A note a the foot of the article would be much more appropriate. Notice that the three major certification boards are not mentioned, as certification by them is not to be expected. Fred Talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, which sources discuss this? What sources have you found that discuss when new specialities are usually recognised? I ask since I had a look and couldn't find anything solid. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to rephrase and reposition the information. Fred Talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Criticism and controversy sections are particularly poor style and are not recommended, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure. If a criticism is notable, it needs to be made in the appropriate section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Describing the organisation in the first sentence as notable for its training of doctors is somewhat misleading if we follow the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources about the subject. The medical specialty, as noted by Tim Vickers and based on multiple RS, is not widely or authoritatively recognised, and other activities of the org have received more extensive coverage. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We have numerous sources that numerous physicians have been trained and certified. A common pattern seems to be that they seek treatment themselves and then become certified as practitioners. That phenomenon has received a great deal of prominent coverage, see "Mainstream docs join anti-aging bandwagon". Fred Talk 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing one source here. Would you mind citing the others? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the article that states much of the anti-aging agenda is still based more on hope than evidence. We can summarise more of it in this article if you want, but in common with the other reliable sources on the topic it seem to take a highly-critical view of the activities of anti-aging practitioners. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This edit seem designed to cast the subject organization in a bad light. Perhaps you might reconsider. Certainly the organization has its critics, but it also has a following, a professional following. There is a need to balance the opinions of one or two critics against the thousands of physicians who have received training and certification. Fred Talk 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view means following reliable sources. Criticism in a medical journal will necessarily receive greater weight than a news report mentioning physician training. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Certification and training is discussed in the first section of the lead. This section of the lead summarises the section of the article that discusses the reception of the A4M amongst its professional peers. As I said above, this reception section is a summary of

1. The New York Times
2. MSNBC
3. The gerontologist

Another source on the same topic is this LA Times article, and that MSNBC article you cite above, which states that mainstream medicine looks askance at anti-aging practices. We cannot let our personal opinions about the A4M dictate any part of the article, instead we need to accurately summarise the reliable sources on the topic, giving most weight to secondary sources that are independent of this organization. What source are you basing your comments about a "professional following" upon? I'm seeing interesting opinions in your comments Fred, but rather fewer verifiable facts. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream docs join anti-aging bandwagon" is the source. Fred Talk 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What sentence in this article states that the organisation has been accepted by mainstream medical organizations? The overall message of the article seems to be that some mainstream doctors are starting to offer anti-aging medicine (which necessarily implies that it is not part of mainstream medicine) and that this has met with general disapproval. The article does make the interesting proposal that the people who do offer this modality are motivated by profit “the interest in anti-aging practice is mainly based on economic considerations” which isn't mentioned in the article at the present. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Credentials dispute

Although there are journalistic sources for the credentials dispute such as CNN, I have removed this section as it casts the founders of the organization in a false light. They are licensed physicians, there is no dispute about that. CNN has different editorial policies from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not entertainment. Fred Talk 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of material

This edit removed a summary of five reliable sources (including the NYT and The Times) for the stated reason that the information in these sources cast the people concerned in "a false light". What reliable source stated that this information cast the people concerned in a false light, or was this just a personal opinion? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just following Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in particular. Our editorial policy differs from that of the journals you cite. Fred Talk 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation differs from mine. I've raised this at the BLP noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If Fred's interpretation of BLP is correct, all negative information, indeed any information perceived as negative by any editor should be excluded from BLPs. I disagree strongly with this interpretation. If the New York Times has reported something, it is not Wikipedia's business to investigate its accuracy, only to source the information correctly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, just irrelevant information with an obvious purpose. These gentlemen are licensed physicians. Fred Talk 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, they are licensed osteopaths. As the NYT stated in 2007 "the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation says they are not permitted to designate themselves as M.D.’s in the state." Their current records, which you kindly copied above, also state they are DOs, and does not mention any MD degrees. The fact that they still describe themselves as MDs on their website link is interesting, but we can't use that as a source since it is not independent of the subjects. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's editorial policy is not stricter than that of the New York Times. If we can't cite the NYT as a reliable source, who can we cite? I see Fred's edit as a WP:BRD test myself, that has not gained consensus, much like the earlier attempt to cut the lead down into a short description of the A4M's activities and move the rest into a "criticism section". Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's editorial policies are both stricter and different; we are not in the habit of printing "leaks". A Wikipedia editor is expected to use sound editorial judgment with respect to journalistic or biased sources. Fred Talk 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy is notable (=reported), and clearly a notable source sees the controversy as integral to the understanding of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. Hence, should be kept in. By the same argument, irregularities in many articles that might be germane to the understanding of the entity discussed could be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

HGH controversy remotion

I deleted the section releted with hgh controversies, because simply THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES on GH effectiveness against osteoporosis, baldness, erectile disfunction and so on. It is ridicolous to speak about GH for life extentiom only