Talk:William Donald Kelley
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Donald Kelley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Gonzales defending his work
I added the Mercola interview and quotes defending his work back in the article. Unless you're looking to keep the article biased and non-neutral, I ask that we keep this info in. --Travis Thurston+ 18:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's Gonzalez with a "Z", and we don't include honorifics like "Dr." per WP:CREDENTIAL.
- An online interview at a notably partisan site is not on the same level as a peer reviewed article. "Neutral" does not mean "both sides get equal treatment". WP:NPOV means representing what scholars think - and that is that the Gonzalez Regimen failed testing. Not to mention this is not a page about Nicholas Gonzalez, so the level of detail should be even less - arguably there shouldn't be any rebuttal at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
i don't know if this is the right place but i agree with travis. and why is it ok to cite ralph moss from william kelley's obituary but you don't cite him in defending the work of nicholas gonzalez. that trial was set up to fail from the beginning. this page could have been written by the cancer industry. i have read much about william kelley's work and have never seen anything so one-sided or incomplete. you do a disservice to those who could use some neutral information with which to make life and death decisions. - sa'ada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding NPOV, I agree with the two posters here who say that some rebuttal should be included of Gonzalez' work. Otherwise, the article reads as hopelessly biased. It doesn't meant the rebuttal should get equal treatment, but it should at least be mentioned for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnival Honey (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Gonzalez Clinical Trial
I also agree with the above comments that this current page is very biased. I have tried to update this site to include the references providing a more accurate and descriptive view of the clinical trial. The trial was affected when the principal investigator assigned was a doctor who helped develop the conventional GTX chemotherapy regime, a clear conflict of interest. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17440727) The investigator's group sent patients to Gonzalez that did not qualify for the treatment, but they were still considered failures for his protocol in the trial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ-diONXCZc) This was reviewed by the Office of Public Health and Science that found 40 of 62 patients in the trial had been admitted inappropriately. (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR08/jun08a.pdf) The study was allowed to be published despite conflict of interest, and the fact that it was known the patient populations were not comparable. (http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/engel_1_05.pdf )
This information regarding the trial should be included in the page to provide a more complete view of the history. The Gonzalez protocol has not had a full unbiased randomized stage III clinical trial. To say it has is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
Tell me please what is being considered "fallacy"?
The Dept of Human Health & Services letter states:
"have resulted in accrual into the two study arms of patient populations that are not comparable. As a consequence, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to ascertain treatment effect with certainty."
"it is virtually certain that the controversy surrounding the study will not be settled by the data from it."
So clearly this study is not sound, this research is not undeniably valid. The fact that you are presenting this research as true, found, fact is an incredible disservice. Either provide the whole story or remove the mention of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Medical Claim Sources
The reliability of the source must be acceptable to the claim (WP:RS), and claims as impactful as cancer-treatments thus require rock solid highly professional and respected resources. The majority of information to date on this subject has come from the following sources which are problematic as follows:
Quackwatch fails the WP:USERGENERATED criteria as it's opinions are self-published in this particular matter, and secondly it's editorial control and fact-checking are not proven to be more than the site owner, Barrett himself, failing the qualifier for allowing biased sources (see WP:BIASED). Thirdly although quackwatch has in past been recognized by the FDA as being accurate in general about quacks, that was in no wise a guarantee going forward by current medical authorities as a delegation of authorities in specific matters of health - in that way it fails the "ideal source for biomedical assertions" WP:MC. In fact the only professional accreditation associated with any of it's known members is an M.D. in psychiatry as held by Barrett (and this is not a psychiatric matter). In short Quackwatch:
- is not an accredited expert in the each field of medicine (example: oncology, which is the subject noted here)
- is not a respected peer-reviewed journal, nor is awarded professional respect equivalent to that of a peer-reviewed journal
- opinions are not validated in a verifiable peer-reviewed setting by experts in each field which it attempts to influence
- and it's opinions are self-published, and has no verifiable distinction between it's author, editorial board, and fact-checking.
Any one of those criteria should invalidate it as a reliable and worthy source in this setting, and yet it fails all 4 criteria. For these many reasons any opinions that source quackwatch as the original source will require more legitimate sources appropriate to the serious matter of health guidance.Davea0511 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- QW has consistenly been found to be a RS on the topic of altmed. See
Use of Quackwatch as a source
An Amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source.
Other significant discussions can be found at:
-- RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery
-- RS/N: How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?
-- DR/N: Medical uses of silver
- It's a fine source for use here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center an a source for medical claims for their website content
Although 3rd part published opinions of SKCC do in fact qualify as a legitimate resource for medical claims, in contrast the claims noted on it's website are self-published, and have no verifiable editorial board, nor verifiable fact-checking process WP:USERGENERATED. Furthermore as it is a for-profit entity, opinions for which a financial incentive might do in fact exist, and according to wikipedia specifications they then at a minimum must require a clear "in-text" reference for whenever their opinion is being statedWP:BIASED. As they are in fact a "cancer center" that part of their identity must be included as that is the part that identifies them as having a vested financial interest.Davea0511 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In short, if the only resource for a certain opinion about a particular medical practice can only be found from quackwatch or a for-profit competitor to that treatment (like a sloan-kettering cancer center website) ... one must consider the impact of cancer-treatments and thereby require the strictest reliability of sources. It's thoughtless and stubborn editing to try and make such citings as web-based claims from unregulated private enterprises and for-profit entities and stand on their own in matters as critical as cancer-treatments.Davea0511 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- As a "nationally or internationally recognised expert body" MSKCC is a strong source by WP:MEDRS standards. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is clearly biased. the fact is that regarding alternative methods, they can never really be proven right or wrong. I happen to know many people cured by methods similar to this, and would suggest that the MDs are the quacks because they keep touting drugs to cure cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodKingJohn (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article is clearly biased. Phrasing such as "quack" and "ineffective treatment," as well as the emphasis on the irrelevant fact that he was an orthodontist, demonstrate a clearly non-neutral tone. Terms such as "controversial" and "unproven" would still clearly communicate that these methods haven't been demonstrated trustworthy, without demonstrating a clear, pre-established bias against alternative medicine (which bias, incidentally, makes the claims in article seem less trustworthy, rather than more trustworthy). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased. I am not sure who the moderators are, but the fact that nothing has been changed even though several people have disputed this tells me that it will remain biased.
even aside from EVERYTHING else, the fact that the wording
"By the 1980s, his marriage had broken up" is included shows a bias. why is that not said of the millions of divorces on wiki pages. broken up clearly has a negative connotation.
the rules state to be courteous, and I will be, but again, I would love to know.. who are the moderators?
also, I am not saying that his 'marriage had broken up' is the only thing biased about this article. just about everything is. there are different stories of the McQueen situation, and the fact is that one can never 'prove' one way or another which cancer treatment is better. sure mainstream media is going to side with the establishment. the establishment is often wrong, or at least does not have a monopoly on the truth.
thanks for listening