Talk:Hallwang Clinic

Medical tourism

Discussion of the practice of medical tourism in general belongs at Medical_tourism#Germany not here.Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In response to your correction, which contains false information:

"with 80% deposit that had to be paid privately, as the clinic is outside the German health system and doesn't work with insurance companies, both of which are unusual in Germany."

The German Healthcare system which are obviously different in UK and US in comparison to the German healthcare system:

Private Clinics are part of the German health system, the sentence "as the clinic is outside the German health system" is wrong, since it is also a GmbH and therefore highly regulated by the supervising health organisations and the courts. The German health insurance system consists of 3 parts 1)governmental insuranced, 2)private insuranced and 3)self-payment for international patients who do not have an international coverage.

Since this private clinic offers their service mainly to international patients based on your comment on Wiki medical tourism: "The Hallwang Clinic GmbH is said to be the most high profile clinic in the European private cancer industry, centred in Germany, which attracts patients from the US, the UK, Australia and the Middle East,[95]" a pre-payment system is applied always with 100% pre-payment after receiving the cost estimate and prior to the therapy start- I'm citing here from the largest renown stem cell transplantation center "DKD Wiesbaden" (International office): "As soon as you decide to start your treatment, the amount stated in the cost estimate has to be transferred to us as a 100% prepayment before admission." The other citation comes from the University Hospital Heidelberg which also states a full prepayment of the cost-estimate. Checkpoint18 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to remove the bit about "the clinic is outside the German health system ", which doesnt seem to have any clear meaning. I dont see that asking for payment in advance is a big deal, if that is the normal arrangement in other hospitals. But I dont think we should put stuff in this article which applies to all medical tourism in Germany. Rathfelder (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to deletion by Phil Bridger of content that might not be linked to the Hallwang Clinic

Suggestion: Since the case refers to the Patient Paul-Thomas Peter - http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk, http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk/?s=hallwang+clinic from the Hallwang Clinic and the controversial section is missing any controversies (negative versus positive), a positive example should be cited in contrast to the negative example from David Gorski: (I have included that it is "a very exceptional case", as wished).

In contrast, a very exceptional case of the Hallwang Clinic has been commented on BBC Look North: Professor Dr. Christian Ottensmeier [16], Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine and director of NIHR (National Institue for Health) and CRUK (Cancer Research UK), Southampton, describes the patient´s therapy response to a specific Immunotherapy at the Hallwang Clinic as a "dramatic benefit" and "durable" and "as dramatic as it gets with any oncology treatment".[17] Professor Dr. Ottensmeier is highly reputated medical oncologist and is at the forefront of research into cancer vaccines.[18] Checkpoint18 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That is a blog by someone who is not an expert in their field, and hence not a WP:RS, I'm removing. Spike 'em (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

And I would add that we go by what reliable sources, such as book chapters written by experts in the field, and certainly not fundraising blogs, say. We don't try to create a false balance by including unreliable content to balance reliable content. And it's, you, Checkpoint18, who introduced this "controversies" title and split this off into a separate section. If you just reverse that change the problem that you identified will no longer exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Question? I agree with the blog source. The blog source should just give you both the evidence that the citation used from BBC is about a Patient from the Hallwang Clinic. The BBC prtesented a leading medical UK oncologist, Professor Dr. Christian Ottensmeier, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine and director of NIHR (National Institue for Health) and CRUK (Cancer Research UK), Southampton, who independently evaluates and describes the therapy response of a patient from the Hallwang Clinic. Why would the opinion of a leading oncologist from the NHS about therapy responses at the Hallwang Clinic as an independent evaluation be of no interest for a cancer patient or reader to get a balanced view on the article about "Hallwang Clinic"?

Currently, the article is lacking an independent feedback of an medical oncologist and the BBC, as highly valued source, is providing here an independent feedback by Professor Dr Ottensmeier.

I understand that some authors seem to be more on a negative site, and of course there always exist several opinions that influence us how we are writing and how we balance the facts, but since I want my part also to be respected, what is your suggestion, how to include an independent and therefore important information from a leading UK oncologist? Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, what is not independent about David Gorski? And, secondly, if you want to cite Christian Ottensmeier then please do so by citing his academic publications, rather a television programme that doesn't even mention the Hallwang Clinic. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm doubting the independency of David Gorski in order to judge German clinics, private clinics and particularly clinics that obviously use complimentary therapy. Furthermore, he appears not be familiar with the German health system. Looking at his Wikipedia page, it becomes for everyone clear that he is critical about clinics with a complimentary therapy possibility. This is for sure not a problem at all, since he gets a reasonable part in this article. But therefore the article is lacking a balanced and neutral weigh for everyone to get independent information about the criticism and the positivity. I think that cancer patients and readers who do not have such a strong opinion about complementary medicine as David Gorski does would be influenced by the one-sided presentation. Since Gorski is getting literally cited from a blog, he runs, I would suggest to include the BBC news in the same way for Prof. Ottensmeier. Phil, I think a BBC report is as valuable as a citation from a blog. And since the article is mainly covered by media reports, I don't see any argument against it. As proven before Dr. Ottensmeier is presenting a case from the Hallwang Clinic, or there any doubts?Checkpoint18 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Where on Earth do you get the idea that a chapter written by an oncologist in a book edited by another oncologist and published by an academic publisher is a blog? And the fact that Gorski bases his writings on evidence rather than mumbo-jumbo indicates that he is neutral, not that he is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The sentence cited is not from his book chapter and he is not a medical oncologist. Since you take this quite personal - I'm not interested to delete David Gorski. But there is no argument to not include another valued opinion by the BBC, Prof. Ottensmeier, as you wish to include the opinion of David Gorski.Checkpoint18 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

[[1]] makes no mention of hallwang.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The patient from the Hallwang Clinic himself is referring to this video about him and about Prof. Ottensmeier commenting his case: https://vimeo.com/247520605 (@3:05) http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk/author/paultp/ Together with the patient link it should become clear, that this video is an interesting part about the clinic. Sunitinib (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This looks all a bit synthy, if a source dos not say it we cannot say it says it (see wp:v), especially given that you are using very primary sources. Nor does clinicalResearchinSouthampton source seem to mention Mr Peters.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC

Is this the piece [[2]]?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea for the discussion: Gorski is writing that the journalist of the BBC has confirmed the deletion of this article. Any doubts?Checkpoint18 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it the same story as this link?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Checkpoint18: Please learn to WP:INDENT your posts. Twitter is not a great source, but sure the original BBC news piece is not there. But that does not mean it has been "retracted" - news content can vanish for a variety of reasons. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Agreed! But as I wrote, taking on the one hand Gorski as a reliable citation everywhere in this article and ignoring on the other hand his own posts and corrections about his publications is wrong. We maybe cannot cite his Twitter but we should be critical about keeping information that is obviously wrong. That BBC has deleted a content everywhere is a big thing, come on its BBC, the whale in the media business and leads to the assumption that the journalist has made major errors. Now we have even gorski´s feedback here: the journalists confirms that the story got pulled.Checkpoint18 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion and retraction are not the same thing (for a start the BBC were only allowed to keep content available for 30 days in some cases). You need a source saying the BBC retracted its claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ohh and it is still archived here [[3]], so the story has not been redacted, its just no longer available on BBC player.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Another archive here [[4]], more lack of retraction [[5]]. There is no evidence they have retracted this story.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately that means you know from the same source who gets extensively cited, even mentioned by his personal name, that the article has been pulled by BBC and although we know it now better you want to keep this potentially misleading article as a ciatation? What is the basis for not taking Gorski´s corrections seriously when taking his other comments for granted? Or with your knowledge about the Twitter information, are you thinking that there is a technical problem with BBC? Checkpoint18 (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The archives you arte citing are not from BBC. These are just historical publications. One counts is the BBC website and the comment from their journalist to source that counts reliable.Checkpoint18 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Means the story got pulled.

Neither of whom say it was retracted (and whilst the show is no longer available its clear the BBC still refer to it, and have pages dedicated to it), only that it was removed. You need a source saying it was retracted, and the BBC saying this. As I have pointed out the BBC only make show available for a certain amount of time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hallwang Clinic GmbH

Why do we have GmbH? surely it would be better to just call it the Hallwang Clinic?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

FT/N

FYI, I have opened a thread about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

NEUTRALITY ASPECTS: What is the interest to violate a balanced descriptionCheckpoint18 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)?

Most of these are not available on the United Kingdom's NHS. The clinic is accused of exaggerating the likely effectiveness of the treatments it sells.

Professor Dr. Malvy from the Institute Gustav-Roussy, one of the leading cancer centers in Central Europe, and Professor. Dr. Christian Ottensmeier, director of the Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) UK, have commented on therapy strategies at the Hallwang Clinic. Prof. Dr. Malvy defends so called off-label therapy strategies at the Hallwang Clinic.

Prof. Dr. Ottensmeier has been cited by the BBC "Look North" that immune therapies at the Hallwang Clinic have achieved treatment responses "as dramatic as it can get in cancer treatments."

There has been further noticeable attention that patients and physicians from other European countries are asking for second opinions from the oncologists at the Hallwang Clinic. Dr. Gerard Lascols, a physician from France, who herself suffered from triple negative breast cancer, reported to have achieved a complete remission with immunotherapy that is currently non-approved in France, so-called off-label therapy.

The article must follow the sources, paying heed to WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The clinic has come to prominence for its unevidenced treatments, so Wikipedia reflects that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You are citing one- sided and redundently citing Gorski as you main source. Publications and comments from leading scientist are getting repitatively deleted although they would be of importance to provide a neutral information. The Hallwang page is not providing any neutral balanced information and appears completely one-sided. You have obviously a conflict of interest. I‘m surprised how you can accept a such one sided presentation of a topic that would in this form only harm the reputation of Wikipedia. Of course you are responsible yourself for this one sided presentation but I would recommend to increase the quality by neutrality Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So post each of your sources here and we can discuss why (and if) they fail.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see the citations as outlined. Happy to discuss but now I got blocked ? Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Really wired :) asking for a balanced and neutral description in the sense for readers and it appears that if one is not attacking a firm with new shut, it should not be added ?? This is wiki or is this rather you can through with shit better contest :)) Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Professor Malory is a highly decorated and international reknown scientist and director of the leading cancer center in France and his defense for the Hallwang clinic is not accepted ??? Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Come on! Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A BBC local interview is not MERDS complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Director of Cancer Research in the TV is personally saying that therapies at Hallwang are outstanding but expensive- and his comment is less worthit than a surgent talking about oncology in his blog news?? And personal pseudoscience army? Come on !!! You get it Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Then you should accept the news paper article from professor malvy or not? Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I should write a pdf and get a book number - this seems to be a more relevant citation for wiki :))) Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That‘s crazy and unfortunate- particularly for people looking for balanced and neutral information Checkpoint18 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think if the "Director of Cancer Research" is a notable person, it is worth including a quotation from an interview. It may well be the case that some of the clinic's therapies are effective in some cases, in spite of those therapies that make the clinic notorious. However, Checkpoint18 seems to be misunderstanding what "neutral" means in the context of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean false balance, giving equal weight to minority or fringe views. It means balancing the coverage in proportional to how reliable sources (and in this case MEDRS-compliant sources) cover the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was Category:Health fraud removed?

I note that the addition of this category was reverted. Why? This seems to fit fairly and squarely in the category. Pinging User:Kashmiri, who added the category, and User:Trivialist, who removed it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Trivialist: I'd like to know why also. The category seemed appropriate given the content of the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

New Updates to comply with NPOV

I am making some edits as below. If any issues, please post your opposition reasons here:

1) To comply with WP:NPOV and MOS:WTW I have removed the negative info from the intro to make it more neutral. The book citation also cannot be verified. It probably has no info on Hallwang and is talking about the alternative medicines in general.

2) I have added two new paragraphs of info

3) I have removed section below referencing "David Gorski." Technically it is considered a primary source. Another publication must say that "David Gorski wrote..." in order to post it that way. In addition, since we have only one source about this info from an unknown small website, this can be considered unreliable info. We would need at least 2 sources for something like this.

American oncologist David Gorski wrote about a case where the clinic estimated a treatment at $120,000 with 80% deposit that had to be paid privately, as the clinic does not work with insurance companies. Gorski also criticized the policy that patients are asked to not talk to the press and that the clinic "routinely couples unproven treatments with business practices that exploit the seriously ill"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddjanna (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ddjanna Your edits are contrary to reliable sources and are unacceptably promotional. I have verified the book citation. Your assertion about the book is baseless. Dr. Gorski is an oncologist and an expert on quackery. His writings are not primary sources and are fine per Wikipedia rules, like WP:PARITY. I'd suggest getting agreement on the talk page prior to making any further edits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@ScienceFlyer OK, I will refrain from adding the disputed sections until it is discussed here and we get some more feedback from others, but I have re-added the 2 paragraphs, which is not revising any prior content, but adding more information to the page. You cannot possibly have an object to that, as they are well sourced.

Regarding the other parts I am just trying to make the intro to comply with WP:NPOV and also Dr. Gorski seems to be very biased, so we need more than one citation for some of the parts stated and we should not rely on one person's findings. Even his wiki page says that "Gorski is an outspoken skeptic and critic of alternative medicine and the anti-vaccination movement." which means that he is biased, so he cannot possibly be used as a reliable source.

I am going to do further of research regarding this page and its citations and will post another response with my findings later. Ddjanna (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

which means that he is biased No, it means he agrees with the state of the evidence and represents the scientific consensus, just as Wikipedia does. You should read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

New Information Addition

I made some edits here that were reverted by @Bon courage, so this message is mainly for him to explain why I cannot add the additional info below, which were well cited. This info is about what the company does and has done, so it is also historical info. This is common info that most similar pages have.

'Hallwang Clinic has received patients with brain tumors, prostate cancer, and bowel cancer. Because Hallwang Clinic has received many international patients, patients often travel to the clinic through air ambulance flights. Hallwang Clinic also conducts clinical trials for cancer treatments.'

'The clinic’s treatments also make use of immune-boosting therapy, liver detoxes peptide injections, chemotherapy, and vitamin detoxes.'

Ddjanna (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we don't mention quack treatments without contextualizing them with quality mainstream sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Which sources you have an issue with and why? These are facts and company offering as reported by the sources that I have found. How could they be false information? Ddjanna (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "facts" it's for "knowledge". If you want to talk about bullshit treatments like "vitamin detoxes" you need a source explaining why this is bullshit prominently included also. Otherwise this material has no knowledge value (and/or is misleading). This is not negotiable. You have been alerted this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

OK well that argument is only for the last sentence. You may have a point there for now. I will do some research to see if "vitamin detoxes" are a real thing or as you say B.S., so lets leave that out for now. I was simply reporting on what information I found. Whether something is BS is not for me or you to decide. If it is a fact that they offer "vitamin detoxes" then it is a fact. I am going to do some research to see exactly what that means.

There are 4 sentences there, how about the other 3 sentences? What is wrong by saying they offer "air ambulance flights."?

What is wrong with saying "Hallwang Clinic also conducts clinical trials for cancer treatments.' ?

What is wrong with saying "Hallwang Clinic has received patients with brain tumors, prostate cancer, and bowel cancer. ? Ddjanna (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY sources would be needed to establish weight. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok so apparently I messed up on the verbiage, it is not called "vitamin detoxes," It is called "vitamin infusions." There is an article about it here which says that no studies support that it has treated any disorders or diseases, so I totally see why you have an issue with such a thing. However, the fact is that they offer "vitamin infusions" and that is all I am saying. There is a citation that supports it. Whether the treatment actually works or not, is not for me and you to decide. We are already saying in the intro that they offer some unproven therapies, so why can't we specifically say what exactly they offer? . Perhaps there needs to be a page on wikipdia about "vitamin infusions" which states that there are no studies supporting its effectiveness and than we can link to it. Ddjanna (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I believe this is another name for it Myers' cocktail, so we can link the word to this and that way the reader can know what it is and whether it is effective or not. Ddjanna (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage so how is it that we need WP:SECONDARY sources for what I say but we don't need WP:SECONDARY sources when Dr. Gorski's research is the only citation for part of the intro and body content. Wouldn't we also need secondary sources for that? I believe Dr. Gorski to be biased. Shouldn't we have a second source to confirm the info? Ddjanna (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SBM is an excellent source for fringe medicine. Your "beliefs" about people are totally irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify, it is not that I believe he is biased, his own Wikipedia page says "Gorski is an outspoken skeptic and critic of alternative medicine and the anti-vaccination movement" that is based on citations. That means he is against "alternative medicine" and biased. Ddjanna (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, WP:GOODBIAS - Wikipedia likes that. Bon courage (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together is against "alternative medicine". That's not bias. Aren't you thoroughly ashamed to be supporting the stealing of money from people with cancer? I know that I, and anyone with even a tiny bit of conscience, would be. If you work for this bunch of charlatans then you are no better than a thief yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to say, from my hospital bed, how correct Bon courage, and Phil are. Roxy the dog 21:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Name

What is this edit supposed to be? It should be obvious that in formal writing such as in an encyclopedia we use surnames rather than first names, and I can see nobody else with this surname mentioned which would make disambiguation needed. If this is not obvious to you I'm sure it's written down somewhere in policies and guidelines, probably in the manual of style. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Evaluation of statements and their sourcing in the article - VRT Ticket 2024072610008627

The Foundation is defending against a suit brought in Germany over the content of this article and has requested review and input by the volunteer community of certain statements and sources in the article. The request is to "review the Contested Statements and/or update the secondary resources or the citations if required. Your input would be constructive for the Foundation in preparing its defense strategy." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The specific issues are (statements in the article and comments about issues raised/sourcing):

Article Statements	Comments
It is known for… unproven and ineffective therapies.	While there are sufficient resources to defend the claim regarding "unproven therapies", please review whether there are sufficient sources to back the claim regarding "ineffective therapies."
It offers wide variety of unproven and pseudoscientific treatments ….treatments including homeopathy, orthomolecular medicine and ozone therapy.	Please confirm if the source regarding homeopathy is current and not outdated. Please confirm if the sources regarding unproven and pseudoscientific treatments are relevant and sufficient as we may require further detail (including medical expertise) to verify and defend this.
The clinic claims that team…oncologists, hematologists , and internal medicine specialists	Please consider if the current statement is adequately sourced and whether in its current form may be considered biased/casting doubt on the accuracy of the claim.
As of 2019…specializing in homeopathy.	Please review and confirm that it is cited appropriately, in particular, whether the shareholder owns one pharmacy or a chain of pharmacies.
One father was charged £600 ….12 euros for two.	The cited source (BBC article) was pulled down by the BBC. Please review and consider providing any additional source.
American oncologist David Gorski … that exploit the seriously ill	Please review if this is appropriately sourced.
Mentioning "Quackery" in References	Please review if this is appropriately sourced.

I'm passing these along for review, comment and potential revision, if appropriate, by the community. Feel free to continue this discussion below and/or to edit the article as appropriate. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

lets wait till after whatever this court case finds. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, while we don't often comment on requests, I do want to ask if folks have time that editors do a review of the statements now, rather than waiting on the court case. The reason that Foundation Legal sometimes asks for a community review in advance of a case is that we don't want to defend material that doesn't conform with normal Wikipedia editorial policy. If something would be changed or deleted by the community once someone gave it attention, it's much better to have it happen before a court case because that avoids negative precedent that can invite further lawsuit and wasted legal fees defending something the community wouldn't actually want to keep. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've done some digging but I haven't found the reason for why the BBC pulled its 2019 article. It's not mentioned in their Corrections & Clarifications page. David Gorski, an oncologist mentioned in the article and cited twice, wrote a thread about the removal when it happened and shared emails (supposedly) from Hallwang, one of which claims that it was "retracted and deleted". I cannot find any retraction, and I suspect that the BBC was bullied into silently removing it.

Reading the article, I believe this to be acceptable to use. Statements are appropriately attributed, and the clinic is implied to have responded to a media inquiry. Unless the BBC makes a statement on it, of course, detailing what was incorrect. Hallwang seems to be particularly litigious.

I've reorganized some things in the controversies section, particularly emphasizing that the father claimed a high cost. (The BBC did not state they independently verified that.) SWinxy (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)