Talk:David Gorski

Removed reference to Dr Gorski's self-written bio

Self-reporting does not make a reliable source, and sciencebasedmedicine.org is essentially a blog, definitely not a reliable source. It is a biased website with an agenda. His self-written bio page is especially unreliable for sourcing biographical information on Dr Gorski himself. I removed the two references to the blog, and facts that were solely sourced to it.

In other details, i have personal experience with Dr Gorski and that website, which although it cannot be added to the article, may be relevant as background information on his blog and the nature of his work. He banned me from commenting on his website, because i was citing research studies and making the case that there is a valid hypothesis that glyphosate may disrupt the human gut microbiome, which has not been tested sufficiently yet. I supported this statement with citations of research studies. He banned me from commenting very quickly and would not reinstate my ability to comment there. Therefore, there is a censorship bias in the comments to the blog, which i personally read as an agenda-driven pseudo-science blog, using the facade of rationalism to push an industry agenda. Therefore, i object to its use as a source to support any statement, especially any biomedical statement.

Page restructuring

From the looks of today's activity, it appears a large restructuring is still taking place at the moment, and that a large portion of the removed content that was reliably sourced came from articles and/or interviews tied to the subject's skeptical activism. If after the restructuring is complete reliable sources per WP:RS that are not actual BLP violations are still missing, then I'd suggest restoring them, as the subject is also known (among both his supporters and critics) for his skeptical activism.

The subject's research career, impacts of publications on the field of study, etc should still be expanded. I will attempt to contribute more about the subject's professional career, as well. The subject is heavily involved in various areas of skeptical activism, including what he believes to be medical quackery, but also branching into other areas of extraordinary claims, so I am also suggesting a separate section dedicated to "Skeptical activism," as these are separate from his career as a surgeon and oncology researcher. Nmillerche (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nmillerche, I didn't remove any reliable sources except two cites to questionable source, Lanyrd.com, which was being used to support a sentence which was not disputed and which was already cited to a better source. I did this per WP:OVERCITE. If you think I've removed any other reliable sources besides those two, then please provide diffs to substantiate your assertion. What I did remove were gratuitous quotes by Gorski which violated WP:UNDUE and which used this BLP as a platform for advocacy. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand and concur with the WP:OVERCITE justification if the better source is sufficient and the Lanyrd.com is no longer needed. I was referring to the interview statement by Gorski, which would seem to be a reliable source regarding his own position on the ethics of placebos (if one were to consider a particular alternative treatment a placebo). Looking at the quote, though, I'm thinking it might be better used within the context of describing his advocacy activities, rather than being reproduced in its entirety. I don't think its inclusion went so far as to speak in Wikipedia's voice, but better context could be used.Nmillerche (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what happened here. I would have expected to see some sort of explanation on the talk page before -all- my work was removed. Everything was sourced. If something was wrong why wasn't I at least told what to do to correct it? Cap020570 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cap, I welcome your contributions but you are a somewhat inexperienced editor and there are many things which you appear to have not yet learned about WP policies and guidelines regarding format and content. That's fine, WP is a learning process for everyone, including me. Its a big place. The changes I made today were all in accordance with WP policies such as WP:BOLD, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:QUOTE, WP:IMAGE, WP:EL, WP:UNDUE and others. Most of these I have mentioned in my edit summaries. However, if you have a specific question I'd be happy to discuss and explain any of my edits here on the talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been so many changes made in the last week or so that I am having trouble keeping up with everything. Can we slow down the pace of the edits and reach a consensus before more changes are made? Please? Allecher (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to re-introduce the section 'skepticism', which I had in at one point and which was removed. It seems like Gorski has the cancer MD/professor career going on and a separate skeptical project. The information that's currently regarding he skeptical contributions will have to be improved. Some of what remained is wrong.Cap020570 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cap, I don't have a particular objection to a section/subsection called "Skeptic" which discusses notable events in Gorskis career or hobby as a skeptic. But is should not be a section that espouses on Gorski's views. Rather it could/should list notable events such as keynote speaker at a national skeptics conference or founder of a skeptics society or something like that. And of course we need reliable secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. Brochures and event websites, which are primary sources and don't vouch for the notability of such an event. It should be reported reliable secondary sources. The main reason I removed that section title was because WP:IMAGE says that photos: a) should be in their relevant section, b)they should not begin a section on the left, and c) they should fit WITHIN that section. So to make the photos fit I removed the skepticsm heading/subheading. As you add content please read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE if you haven't already as these are important guidelines on WP and the article is already in my opinion a fluff piece regardless of how the notability issue pans out. So please keep these things in mind as we develop the article together. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, notability issue aside, what do you suggest to help the article to not be a fluff piece? I am aggregating citations and building a summary of research contributions from a university medical library, because it seems to me other people have the "Skeptic" section covered. However, there would seem to be plenty of notable critical reception regarding the subject's advocacy topics (Negative criticism of some the subject's oncological research is more direct in that other researchers simply won't cite or integrate that work into other research). Some of the subject's critical reception is clearly less notable than others, and I don't advocate a separate "Criticism" section as it would seem to go against WP:CRITS, but integrating notable criticism would, in my opinion, take steps to ensure the article does not become simply a platform for advocacy. Nmillerche (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nmillerche and thanks for your invitation to discuss. WP is about collaboration as you well know. I am hopeful that with the new sources that Mr. Bill has discovered the notability issue will be resolved. I haven't seen the sources yet but I am hopeful. Regarding the current list of sources the article relies heavily on sources from Gorski's employers or from blogs that he authors or is managing editor of. Likewise promoters of conferences are also primary sources with limited usage on WP. As you probably know, primary sources are defined as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved whether it be Gorski, his employers or the promoters of a conference. Primary sources can be used but they have limited usage on WP and articles. Also, WP:RS says Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. So its the undue weight being given to primary and low quality secondary sources that make the current article like a resume and rather fluffy. We could discuss more specific issues if you like but that's a start. Thanks for your civility and willingness to discuss and consider together. I look forward to working with you to develop the article further. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've starting working on building up the skeptical content. There is additional work I'll still be adding, and setting up links to other WP pages. Cap020570 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations to support notability

Newspaper articles

• Szabo, Liz (18-06-2013). "How to guard against a quack". USA Today. Gannett. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
• Gorski, David (07-06-2009). "Is Oprah Winfrey giving us bad medicine?". thestar.com. Toronto: Star Media Group. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
• Taylor, Lesley Ciarula (14-10-2011). "Alternative treatments led to Steve Jobs death, says Harvard researcher". thestar.com. Toronto: Star Media Group. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
• Amarasingam, Amarnath (25-05-2011). "Oprah: High priestess of the New Age". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Journal articles that are highly cited

• Gorski, D. H.; Beckett, M. A.; Jaskowiak, N. T.; Calvin, D. P.; Mauceri, H. J.; Salloum, R. M.; Seetharam, S.; Koons, A; Hari, D. M.; Kufe, D. W.; Weichselbaum, R. R. (15-07-1999). "Blockage of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation". Cancer Research. 59. American Association for Cancer Research: 3374. ISSN 1538-7445. PMID 10416597. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) Cited by 949 (PubMed) or 777 (Google Scholar).
• Gorski, D. H.; Mauceri, H. J.; Salloum, R. M.; Gately, S.; Hellman, S.; Beckett, M. A.; Sukhatme, V. P.; Soff, G. A.; Kufe, D. W.; Weichselbaum, R. R. (15-12-1998). "Potentiation of the antitumor effect of ionizing radiation by brief concomitant exposures to angiostatin". Cancer Research. 58. American Association for Cancer Research: 5686. ISSN 1538-7445. PMID 9865723. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) Cited by 118 (PubMed) or 208 (Google Scholar).
• Mauceri, H. J.; Hanna, N. N.; Beckett, M. A.; Gorski, D. H.; Staba, MJ; Stellato, K. A.; Bigelow, K.; Heiman, R.; Gately, S.; Dhanabal, M.; Soff, G. A.; Sukhatme, V. P.; Kufe, D. W.; Weichselbaum, R. R. (16-07-1998). "Combined effects of angiostatin and ionizing radiation in antitumour therapy". Nature. 394. Nature Publishing Group: 287–291. doi:10.1038/28412. ISSN 1476–4687. PMID 9685160. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) Cited by 128 (PubMed) or 549 (Google Scholar).
• Chen, Y.; Gorski, D. H. (01-02-2008). "Regulation of angiogenesis through a microRNA (miR-130a) that down-regulates antiangiogenic homeobox genes GAX and HOXA5". Blood. 111 (3): 1217–1226. doi:10.1182/blood-2007-07-104133. ISSN 1528-0020. PMID 17957028. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) Cited by 143 (PubMed) or 224 (Google Scholar).

Book Chapter

Gorski, David H.; Mauceri, Helena J.; Wiechselbaum, Ralph R. (4 April 2002). "Chapter 28: Strategies for Combining Gene Therapy with Ionizing Radiation to Improve Antitumor Efficacy". In Gerson, Stanton L.; Lattime, Edmund C. (eds.). Gene Therapy of Cancer: Translational Approaches from Preclinical Studies to Clinical Implementation (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 435–448. ISBN 978-0-08-049136-3. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Gorski is cited in the following books

• Roach, Mary; Folger, Tim (4 October 2011). The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2011: The Best American Series. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-547-67846-7. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Ward, Philip (1 June 2012). The Book of Common Fallacies: Falsehoods, Misconceptions, Flawed Facts, and Half-Truths That Are Ruining Your Life. Skyhorse Publishing Company, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-62087-336-6. Retrieved 21-06- 2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Davis, Catherine G. (1 January 2012). Alternative Medicine. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7613-8854-8. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Specter, Michael (29 October 2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives. Penguin Group US. ISBN 978-1-101-15102-0. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Berezow, Alex B.; Campbell, Hank (September 2012). Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-61039-165-8. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Kay, Alison J. (20 November 2012). What If There's Nothing Wrong?. Balboa Press. p. 283. ISBN 978-1-4525-6147-9. Retrieved 21-06-2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Patent

Inventors: Gorski, David H.; Walsh, Kenneth, Patent: Growth arrest homebox gene, Publication # USRE39219 E1 (Grant), Application # 09/755,320, Publication date; 01-08-2006, Filing date; 05-01-2001, Original assignee; Case Western University.

MrBill3 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

His H-Index appears to be about 19, which is generally fine for academic notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you MrBill for that listing. I'm hoping sources of that caliber will be the primary means by which the rest of the page is developed. I have expanded on the Career section, dropping one secondary source (Daily News Egypt) that wasn't terribly descriptive of the subject's work, and I suspect was initially included to cite a position title.

Keithbob, while I am optimistic that any remaining issues regarding the subject's notability have been resolved, I will take care not to prematurely remove any tags. I was a little unclear whether the matter at hand was the subject's actual notability or the subject's notability as reflected in the developing article. Nmillerche (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nmill, I need a few days to look over the information that Mr. Bill has presented. The four news sources presented at the top of the list are not very impressive since one is written by Gorski and the other three have only a one line mention. However I haven't check the sources below, but I'll look at them and see what they have to offer. I also need some time to go through the Citation Metrics [1] as the one metric I checked only yielded two results for Gorski. [2] I think we are moving in the right direction though and I thank Mr. Bill for all the time he has put in to assemble this information. Thanks for moving forward in a collaborative and patient manner. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned here, I don't think you're using Web of Knowledge correctly, but I'm at a loss to figure out exactly where you went wrong. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What number of citations for a single article in the field of cancer research satisfies notability? A single article article has been cited 949 times per PubMed, 777 times per Google Scholar or 560 times per Web of Knowledge. How many articles with over 50 citations would satisfy notability? What H-index meets the requirement of notability? IRWolfie- stated Gorski's H-index was 19 and that met the notability criteria. Consensus should be fairly easily reached if those involved express some clear idea of what they feel meets the criteria.MrBill3 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I am finding myself quite behind on some real life responsibilities as well as various WP projects and promises. This is resulting in my not having sufficient time to give proper attention to this rather lengthy discussion and its corresponding data and analysis. I don't want to hold up the progress of the article, which seems to be getting a lot of attention now from several editors. So I leave this particular discussion and decision regarding the assessment of notability and the removal of the notability tag in the hands of other editors who are active here. I'll be back when I have time, and participate in future discussions and article improvements, as needed. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The four news sources at the top of the list include an article by Gorski that features an adaptation of one of his blog entries into an article in a major news paper. Two of the others are NOT one line mentions: The USA Today article, “"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," Gorski says.“ and “Personal stories can be extremely misleading, says Gorski, managing editor at the blog Science-Based Medicine.“ and “A handful of success stories may show only a small part of the larger picture, Gorski says. For every few patients who testify that a treatment helped them, there could be dozens or even hundreds who got no benefit, or were even harmed.“ By my count that is four not one. The Star article, “David Gorski, an oncologist and controversial medical blogger who calls himself an “Apple fan-boy,” produced his own graphic-heavy analysis this week on Science-Based Medicine. Org. “His delay in treatment (might have) contributed to his ultimate demise. We don’t know that it did, which is one reason why we have to be very, very careful not to overstate the case.”” This is a citation of Gorski's blog followed by a quotation, not a one line mention.-MrBill3 (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional References

• Miller, Naseem (16 March 2011) [14 May 2010], "Most drug trial results analyzed by FDA hidden from view", Accountability, The Center for Public Integrity
• Whelan, David (9 February 2011), "AOL-Huffington on health: Does Tim Armstrong think vaccines cause Autism?", Forbes.com, Forbes Media
• Husten, Larry (1 April 2013), "The Raging Debate Over The NIH's TACT Chelation Trial", Forbes.com, Forbes Media
• Fahey, Jonathan; Whelan, David (14 January 2010), "In Pictures: Celebs Who Take On Science", Forbes.com, Forbes Media, p. 8 (Bill Maher)
• Miller, Henry I. (21 December 2011), "Can tiny amounts of poison actually be good for you?", Forbes.com, Forbes Media
• Herper, Matthew (31 August 2010), "Bedbugs, Avastin, and a fight at the FDA", Forbes.com, Forbes Media
• Salzberg, Steven (15 February 2010), "Battlefield acupuncture: Pseudoscience for wounded troops", Forbes.com, Forbes Media
• Rosch, Michael (5 January 2010), "Skeptic of the year", The Gotham Skeptic, NYC Skeptics
• Schneider, Lee (30 September 2009), "Snake oil medicine", The Huffington Post
• Munger, Dave (2 September 2009). "Controls for acupuncture studies are improving. Their results are not. How are peer reviewers reacting?". Seed. Seed Media Group. ISSN 1499-0679.
• Bremner, Doug (19 September 2008), "Blogging doctors rock on!", The Huffington Post
• "2007 - 2008 Grantees" (PDF). Pink Press. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Winter 2008. p. 8.
• "2008 - 2009 Grantees" (PDF). Pink Press. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Winter 2009. p. 9.
• "2009 - 2010 Grantees" (PDF). Pink Press. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Winter 2010. p. 8.
• "Our Network – Bios (David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D.)". Better Health: smart health commentary. Better Health. 2013.

MrBill3 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

More citations

• "Expert panel trashes "alternative medicine" concept", Consumer Health Digest, no. 12–29, The National Council Against Health Fraud, 23 August 2012, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Shomon, Mary (2 June 2009), "Media and bloggers accuse Oprah of medical malpractice", About.com: Thyroid Disease, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Miscellaneous Quackery-Related Comments, Quackwatch, 6 March 2011, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Lee, Linda (13 April 2012). "Bridal Hunger Games: Losing Weight in Time for the Wedding". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
• Greek, Ray; Menache, Andre (2013). "Systematic reviews of animal models: Methodology versus epistemology". International Journal of Medical Sciences. 10 (3). Ivyspring International: 206–221. doi:10.7150/ijms.5529. ISSN 1449-1907. PMID 23372426. (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
• Zimney, Ed (8 July 2008), Master Cleanse: Still crazy after all these years!, Dr. Z's Medical Report, Everyday Health, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Fiore, Kristina (28 December 2011), "Jobs leaves lessons for cancer care", MedPage today, Year in Review, MedPage Today, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Jones, Val (4 June 2009), Kevin Pho (ed.), "Hostility Towards Scientists and Jenny McCarthy's Latest Video", KevinMD.com, MedPage Today, retrieved 25 June 2013 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help)
• Pho, Kevin (15 October 2009), "Two nurses face jail time for reporting a doctor to the Texas Medical Board", KevinMD.com, MedPage Today, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Hansen, Lacy Jaye (7 December 2012), "The GAPS diet claims you can eat away Autism. But can you really?", Diets in Review.com, retrieved 25 June 2013
• "David Gorski, Md, PhD", OrganizedWisdom.com, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Khorana, Alok (16 September 2009), "Alternative medicine and trials of dubious ethicality", OncNotes, Medscape, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Page, Leigh (12 June 2013), "What to do when a patient wants 'alternative' medicine", Medscape Business of Medicine, Medscape, retrieved 25 June 2013
• Kaur, Hitchintan; Mao, Shihong; Shah, Seema; Gorski, David H.; Krawetz, Stephen A.; Sloane, Bonnie F.; Mattingly, Raymond R. (2013). "Next-generation sequencing: A powerful tool for the discovery of molecular markers in breast ductal carcinoma in situ". Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics. 13 (2): 151–165. ISSN 1744-8352 1473-7159, 1744-8352. PMID 23477556. Retrieved 25 June 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)
• Keller, Daniel M. (15 February 2012), "Integrative Medicine Use Up, but Outcomes Still Uncertain", Medscape Medical News, Medscape, retrieved 25 June 2013

I hope these additional references are helpful in establishing that Gorski is a notable skeptic blogger. Although the volume of text devoted to discussing Gorski may be limited this is frequently as he is cited and his blog entry is linked. Multiple citations describe his blog as thorough, accurate, insightful etc. His blog is cited in a peer reviewed article above. The relative level of WP:RS on the various references should be evaluated per the policy, of note are sites that have clearly stated editorial policy, the notability and authority of the authors on the specific subject.

MrBill3 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Restored oncological research

I have restored portions of the Research section, though I have left the copyediting intact. The material is not of "zero interest" to the reader of an article about an oncological researcher. The significance of the selective tumor cell destruction in order to reduce dosages is of substantial interest, and there are many methods by which researchers attempt to do this, so including information about tumor hypoxia is germane. Further, the modification of endothelial cell behavior (via miR or other means) is also a subject of significant import within the field, as regulating blood vessel development to developing tumors limits significantly increases the chances of remission.

That said, I understand the material can read a little dryly, and while I have some graduate background in biomaterials and material science, it may be helpful to improve the terms by which these topics are communicated for those new to the topic. I also have included wikilinks where appropriate, or where new terms may be introduced to the reader. I'm not averse to trimming material which has not been reliably sourced, but I do not see a rationale for truncating oncological research descriptions for not being interesting enough. Nmillerche (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Article reads like a resume or press release

It seems the notability issue has been sorted out: a number of secondary sources have been added and the notability tag has been removed. I agree with those actions and offer my thanks to all who helped with that process. On the other hand I think the removal of the Resume Tag was a bit premature and that there are still issues in that regard. User:DGG has echoed some of my original concerns in his recent post at WP:BLPN. I'm reprinting the relevant portion of DGG's comments in case they are useful to those editors who are currently working on the article.

• The problem with the article, as mentioned is the degree to which it resembles a press release. I suppose the opposition is to some degree because of this. What we do in such cases is edit.
• The section of "Skeptical advocacy" needs editing. First, the title, skeptical of what,? The criticism of what he dislikes are not clear, e.g.the totally meanigless sentence, "He has analyzed and commented on the ethics, methods and results of the study of alternative medicine" , but their significance is shown not by his own writings, but what others say about it.
• There's too much repeat of Dr.--we do not do that.
• There's too much notability-by-association with other famous people--we remove that also. it doesn't matter who also attended a meeting.
• There's too many adjectives. No adjective of judgement can be used here without a specific third party cited source, preferably a quotation in context. e.g. "in-depth analysis" Or "the use of proven therapies for diseases" -- even utter quacks think their remedies are "proven"
• A judgment by someone is only meaningful if they are an authority--who is " David H Freedman that his opinion is meaningful?
• As some minor points:
  • Gorski has been cited for his work" is ambiguous. If we're talking in academic terms, which paper got how many citations? if we're talking in in common parlance, it means he has been given a prize for it.
  • we do not include the thesis title in the infobox;
  • Is the "Advanced Clinical Research Award" a notable award? we usually call an award notable if its the highest level national honor, but what this seems to be is a research grant.
  • if a book is being cited, especially for controversial information, a p. number is needed ("may have been responsible for the death of ...")
  • Too many of the references are not reliable sources, but are organizations associated with him of advocacy groups supporting his positions.''
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does lack the encyclopedic tone and conciseness appropriate for WP. I look forward to the contributions of User:DGG. I am providing the information below to address the points made in this section here and on BLP here and to facilitate editing the article for improvement (the references are already in the article in citation format):

• What Gorski is skeptical of (I have edited the section title to reflect this). These references are what others say about his skepticism. You will find more in the other references that follow:
  • Munger describes Gorski as having, “a passion for shredding medical myths” here.
  • Page calls him a skeptic of Complimentary Alternative Medicine, saying he calls CAM techniques quackery, the article, Page also cites Science-Based Medicine blog as a source for findings on CAM here.
  • Paulus and Feldman provide a detailed explanation of Gorski's criticism of “alternative methods for combating cancer and the oft-published testimonials from cancer survivors that that exploit emotions and twist facts.” here
  • Shomon says, “David Gorski at Science-Based Medicine, for example, writes off all complementary and alternative medicine as "mystical New Age thinking" and "woo." “ here

• Too much repeat of Dr.??? I do not see Dr. used in the article at all. Please explain this comment. It's presence in the references is in the titles of the references, I don't think it's WP policy to edit the title of references.

• Notability-by-association one instance I see. A single instance may be characterized as unnecessary but “too much”? The members of a panel discussion have some relevance or importance, or maybe not. If someone feels strongly edit.

• Too many adjectives, I have edited proven remedies. I think all the adjectives used (especially in depth analysis) are supported by the references listed below. Please provide specific examples of adjectives that need direct references.

• "may have been responsible for the death of ..." actually appears in the article as "the use of alternative medicine as a possible contribution to the death of" this may be an unclear item. The possible contribution of... is the subject discussed by Gorski and others not an assertion of fact. Please read the references and provide a suggestion for how to make this more clear. This is the subject of a section in the 'Falacies' book in the references.

• The judgement of someone... Who is David H Freedman that his opinion is meaningful. Are you claiming that Freedman has no authority or relevance? Shouldn't such an assertion be in some way supported? Freedman is a contributing editor at Inc. and a published author [3]. What standard of authority is needed to validate or make important enough for inclusion in this article. His authority may not rise to that level but the question should be informed by at least cursory reseach.

• Gorski has been cited for his work... I have edited the sentence to reflect the title of the article and the number of citations per PubMed. However the content of the paragraph contained specific examples of the citation and building upon that article which was a reference. Perhaps the research section could use some editing to explain Gorski's contribution in a more direct manner. I thought it provided a fairly clear technical explanation of the way his work has been used to increase the efficacy of chemo and radiation therapy and reducing side effects. Suggestions on how to explain this more clearly would be welcome. His other main (related) focus on modifying the genetic behavior of endothelial cells has also made a contribution that has continues to be built upon by his team and others. Suggestions of how to put this into an encyclopedic entry are very welcome. I look forward to the contributions of others that I might learn to write about medical research in WP appropriate style. I have added the article titles, citation numbers and sources.

• The the thesis title in infobox. The template WP:Template:Infobox_Scientist clearly includes the thesis title parameter. What is the basis for stating “we do not include the thesis title in the infobox”?

• The Advanced Clinical Research Award. As this award is not being used to establish notability it's inclusion is probably warranted. What criteria defines what awards are notable enough for inclusion in a BLP? It is a national level award. Details of the award can be found here. Gorski is also the beneficiary of several highly selective national research grants. As these grants are awarded on an extremely limited basis subject to a highly competitive national selection process by the highest level of research evaluation should those grants be added to the article?

• Page numbers for books. Some books are not paginated in their electronic form. Where available page numbers are given. For book references that do not give page numbers a search for “Gorski” will return the relevant sections.

• References, this is a subject of some confusion for me. WP:RS clearly allows citations of self pub material to establish non controversial facts. WP:RS also makes clear that each citation be evaluated on it's individual merits. You will note several references are notable people with authority in the subject for which they are cited. That said the article clearly suffers from overcite. I apologize for my editing that has contributed to this. I welcome a careful and considered editing of the references. Some of my confusion stems from the desire to support the adjectives used and the more general statements made, please see below.

• The criticism of the sentence, 'He has analyzed and commented on the ethics, methods and results of the study of alternative medicine.'

This was meant to summarize his work as described by others. I am providing the material upon which I based that sentence in the hopes that someone can constructively edit the article to reflect the information below.

• Ethics:
  • Page discusses (with Gorski) the ethical question of providing the best treatment vs providing the care the patient is interested in here.
  • Khorana says, “A clinical trial, funded by the NIH/NCI, initiated in 1999 and reported now in an article epublished ahead of print in the JCO actually offered patients a control arm of "pancreatic enzymes, nutritional supplements, detoxification, and an organic diet" and no gemcitabine. I should preface this post by saying that I first read about this article on the website sciencebasedmedicine.org, in a blog post by Dr. David Gorski' here.
  • Paulus and Feldman's article includes the assertion by Gorski that a patient who abandoned chemotherapy succumbed to “cancer en curasse, a horrible situation that we do not see anymore “ here.

• Analysis:
  • Taylor calls Gorski's blog on Job's death a, “graphic-heavy analysis” here.
• Khorana says, “Gorski who explains in detail and with just the right amount of indignation, the politics behind how such a study got funded. Here's a link to the post which deserves to be read in full.” here.
  • Paulus and Feldman say, “Gorski applied a framework for analyzing cancer testimonies developed by an Australian oncologist” and “Using a medical prognosis calculator...” here. (This seems to be analysis and I am not sure how to paraphrase more appropriately).
  • Salzberg suggests a newspaper writer who authored a piece on battlefield acupuncture, “should read Dr. David Gorski’s excellent article on battlefield acupuncture at Science-Based Medicine, in which Gorski dismantles the extremely thin evidence that Niemtzow claims supports his practices. It’s like using a boulder to kill a flea, but if you really want to see the “evidence,” take a look.” here.

• Methods:
  • Schneider, “David Gorski, writing in Science-Based Medicine, slammed the methods of one study...” here.
  • Greek and Menache (in a journal article) use Gorski as an example of the need for a feasible mechanism to be a requirement for scientific review of a treatment ('I think that's an accurate paraphrase') here.
  • Munger describes Gorski's analysis ('my word') of an acupuncture study thusly, “Yet, as Gorski points out in his post discussing the study, there was no difference in pain experienced between the two groups. So although brain activity was changed by acupuncture, the main concern of the patients—relief of pain—was not.

Why was brain activity different? It’s hard to say what the mechanism for the difference was, but the key difference between these groups is that the real acupuncture group actually had needles puncturing their skin, while the sham group did not. Gorski suggests that this real physical difference between the groups may be all that’s necessary to cause the divergent brain activity.” here.

• • Salzberg quotes Gorski, “I noticed that a lot of what they tracked as outcomes was patient satisfaction .” here
  • Miller says, “There are some epidemiological studies that have been touted as offering real-world illustrations of hormesis in humans, but they have palpable shortcomings. (You can read an excellent analysis of them by surgical oncologist David H. Gorski here.)” (note Miller's description as “analysis”) here.
  • Spector says, “Gorski describes some of the weaker grants, including one funding a study called Polysomnography in Homeopathic Remedy Effects. “Yes, you have it right. Your tax dollars are going to fund at least a study this year on homeopathic remedies (a. k. a. water). But it's even worse than that. [One grant was] actually awarded to study homeopathic dilution and succession” - the act of shaking liquid each time it is diluted - “and how they effect the dose-response curve of homeopathic remedies. I kid you not. I just about spit out my tea onto my laptop keyboard when I read it. Naturally, it's at the Integrative Medicine Program at the University of Arizona” (which is run by Andew Weil). here. (Sorry for the lack of page numbers, some versions of books on Google Books do not have page numbering). Ward discusses Gorski's evaluation of the possibility of alt med contributing to Steve Jobs death as “argues” and “playing the devil's advocate” here (this source does not list page numbers).

• Commentary:
  • Fiore quotes Gorski's comment on Job's death, “My best guess was that Jobs probably only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that.” here.
  • Miller quotes Gorski on clinical trials, “It’s important to know the results of all the trials.” here.
  • Szabo quotes Gorski, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” and cites him, “personal stories can be extremely misleading””A handful of success stories may show only a small part of the larger picture” here.

• Descriptions of his blog:
  • “insightful and witty” by McGill University here.
  • “prominent medical blog” by Roach and Folger here.
  • ”The always incisive David Gorski, an oncologist, takes a detailed look at” by Herper here.

As you can see I have gone to some effort to improve the content of the article and improve it with sourced material. I look forward to collaborative effort to refine the article both for my edification and the the quality of the article.--MrBill3 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

status

I see no need to argue specific points at this sort of length; regardless of what I see as the irrelevancy of some of what you say above, you did improve it. I will improve it further, putting the information in our usual format. I'm also condensing a little; we no longer need a major publications section, because they're discussed in the main text, as they ought to be, with the appropriate links in the references; similarly, the places where he spoke & titles of his talks are in the refs, His importance is sufficient that there is no need for an attempt to include minor material, or praise he gets from others. The place to list all his lectures and interviews is his web site--I recognize from the prior discussion you added some of this to justify notability , but that was not necessary--the academic notability is unquestionable. A reasonably concise to-the-point article is better & more effective --overkill gives the appearance of PR. So does anything that looks like name dropping. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

But as I rewrite, I notice there is some missing material, some of it very basic. We need the year of birth, the place, the name of his college, the year & college for his undergraduate degree, and the dates of his various appointments--at least the years. We will protect privacy by omitting such things as exact date of birth and current place of residency, and similar personal information, but the information listed above are the basic public identifiers for everyone; they go both in the text and the infobox. (I am quite aware of the need for privacy here considering some of the postings of his opponents.) I think I can hunt some or all of it down, but it's much better to have a regular source. The usual one for such things is a formal CV such as every academic has as a matter of course, but his pages at the university and the Institute do not have this information.

As a minor point, I am not clear about the nature of his contribution to the eBooks mentioned--he is listed as coauthor on the website. Since they are not in Worldcat, I have no formal source. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is also no need to mention how many cites his papers get, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for their contributions. The article's content, tone and neutrality all seem to be steadily improving. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

DGG thank you for your contributions to this article and to my learning. I apologize for the TLDR nature of several of my posts. You have really made this article much more encyclopedic and readable. I have a couple of questions/opinions remaining.

• Analysis – I think the description of his skeptical work should refer to the level of in depth analysis he brings to a subject. This is supported by the sources who cite him. I think this is what makes his blog notable.
• The Steve Jobs subject – notable enough for inclusion?
• Ioannidis paper was presented to medical colleagues, worthy of mention?
• Citation counts – I agree with IRWolfie- they should go. Can we just call the first paper discussed highly cited and let it go at that?

Addenda: The Science Based Medicine guides, I think the current statement is correct. He is editor or co-editor of several and creator of much of the content. Can the red link for Science-Based Medicine website be restored? Suggestions for cleaning up the citation list?

Again thanks to everyone for their effort. – – MrBill3 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider IR Wolfe quite wrong about citation counts. At AfD discussions on scientists, they're the basic proof of WP:PROF, upon which the decision usually hinges. Whenever I come upon a challenged academic article in a field where journals are important, the first thing I do is to add them. Since the notability as a scientist was in fact challenged, they're essential. As for the other wording mentioned, I do not see what it adds. We do not normally make red links except when we are certain of notability ; in this case, what you would need to do is write an article & we'll see if it gets accepted. It's not all that obvious it won't be challenged. AAs I mentioned on my talk p, the place for the Steve Jobs material is in the appropriate section of the article on Jobs, since this was a matter of controversy. Adjectives like "in-depth" are in my opinion always promotional, even when there's a source for them. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice how you are giving them importance only because of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Material should be based on what secondary sources care about, and they don't care about cite counts (if they did they would tell us :> ). The cite counts are being gathered and are essentially original research. Cite counts is an argument for AfD, not something to clutter an article with. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to also agree with IRWolfie on the citation counts. I understand that they're useful for confirming the subject's notability, but the question that comes up for me when reading that section is: Is the article written for Wikipedia readers, or for editors looking to confirm the subject's notability? If the latter is the case, then I'd expect to read the citation counts in the article. To be clear, I fully understand their importance on this talk page; that's why those numbers guided my contributions to the section. But unless memory fails me, I've never read an encyclopedia with biographical articles that listed how many times each scientist was referenced in the professional literature. Nmillerche (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree, if this was Stephen Hawking or something, I think the absurdity would be more apparent. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

you've never read an encyclopedia other than WP which documents each statement other than by the authority of the person writing the article or that of the editor. Our articles are written for WP readers, who must know in the article itself the basis of everything said, and be given the evidence that shows notability. I'm not going to argue over this article, but i people start removing such information from the hundreds of articles where many editors have put it, we'll have an interesting situation. The way it is normally worded: is the person's most cited articles are..., with the counts to show it, or the person's most important articles are ... with the evidence for most important being the counts, not our own opinions. The alternative is to accept the subject's own evaluation of what he chooses to list on his web p, if he makes a short selection there. Some of the other WPs link to a Gscholar or other list, just as they link to a national bibliography rather than list someone's books, but such links are very strongly discouraged here as unrepeatable. (If they're thought obtrusive, they can always go in a footnote.) The Hawking article has a list of selected academic papers, but for someone like Hawking, there was a published source written by a competent science journalist, tho it took some hunting to find where it was added and it isn't referenced in the article, as it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That article doesn't have the cite counts which we were discussing, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Caution

Some editors are overstating material contained in sources, for example:

• A Forbes blog has two sentences on Gorski: The always incisive David Gorski, an oncologist, takes a detailed look at the data for Avastin in breast cancer. His conclusion: it probably doesn’t help breast cancer patients, and that attempts to pin the decision on ObamaCare represent “utter demagoguery of the most vile and despicable sort.”
• And that Forbes content (above) is used to cite this text (in bold): He advocates for the openness of the results of clinical trials[40] and the use of only evidence-based medicine to treat diseases.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Source says: regarding International Integrative Medicine Day it's (an “infiltration of quackademic medicine,” blogged David Gorski, a surgical oncologist at Wayne State University and one of the more prickly anti-alternative-medicine warriors, in despair). [[4]]
• This supports the WP text: He has criticized the American Medical Student Association's co-sponsorship of International Integrative Medicine Day and was described by the popular science writer David H. Freedman as "one of the more prickly anti-alternative-medicine warriors.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob I think there has been some editing without proper rearrangement of the sources. For, “and the use of only evidence-based medicine to treat diseases. “ Many of the reference support that statement (see Page and Sholom for highly specific descriptions, Greek and Menache for his contention that without a feasible mechanism of action alternative treatments are not appropriate for inclusion in a scientific review). Two sentences later in the same paragraph Gorski's opposition to the study of “treatment modalities that are inherently unscientific, being as they are based on prescientific or demonstrably incorrect understandings of human physiology and disease” a cited quote. The citation for second item you mention supports Gorski's opposition to alternative medicine. Virtually every reference for the Skepticism section supports this statement, are you really challenging it's factual and verifiable nature? This statement reads to me like basic encyclopedic summary (not spin or WP:OR).

I have edited the sentence on Integrative Medicine Day to reflect exactly what is said in the article. I don't see what you thought was an overstatement. – – MrBill3 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the second example is not apparent. It appears to verify the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)