Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 158

I am one of only a few editors actively working on the BLP of Martin Kulldorff, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Because Kulldorff is a controversial figure, involved with a controversial topic, in a politicized pandemic, it is difficult to wade through all of the wiki rules involved (BLP, MEDRS, etc...) and maintain a neutral article that is fair to the subject (Kulldorff) and the mainstream views of some of his ideas.

Sourcing is one of the key areas of contention between the current group of editors. Most recently we have been discussing a statement placed in the lead of the biography:

"In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups with the impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus."

I contend that the clause "impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus" is WP:BMI because the statement is;

"...information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health" and specifically, it qualifies as "Population data and epidemiology."

Is that a correct interpretation of BMI in this context?

This is also my first BLP to edit and the first time I've waded into articles pertaining to medicine—so thank you in advance for your comments and patience!

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Great Barrington Declaration" (GBD) Is a WP:FRINGE eugenics-adjacent political text which has been roundly condemned by scientists. Of course it relates to human health so by a strict reading of BMI (which is not a WP:PAG but intended to help) none of the concepts in the GBD could even be mentioned in Wikipedia without a MEDRS source. There is a desire to mention the GBD at the Martin Kulldorff article and in particular its WP:FRINGE goal of "protecting the vulnerable" while letting COVID-19 rip through the rest of the population. As Robert Lechler wrote, this very idea is "unethical and simply not possible".[3]

To present the GBD as some kind of valid respectable scientific alternative would be to fall afoul of WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI (both parts of NPOV, which is core policy). Therefore, if its precepts are mentioned they must be called out, and for this purpose a source of WP:PARITY may be used, since the GBD is obviously not MEDRS itself. It doesn't really matter which source is used for calling-out purposes, but yes Science-Based Medicine is a viable choice. Another option is not to mention the idea behind the GBD at all in Kulldorff's article, because then they wouldn't need to be qualified.

The situation is analogous to many other types of fringe medicine where there is a nonsense concept (drinking diluted bleach to cure cancer) not commented on in MEDRS sources. In such cases WP:PARITY of sourcing allows Wikipedia to find some knowledge to reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not post here to rehash or revisit the discussion already ongoing on the appropriate talk page and I don't think it is constructive to do so (we need to keep that discussion centralized).

Rather, I am seeking an answer to the question above, which is simply; Is the statement BMI or not. I believe hope this is an appropriate forum to discuss that.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC); edited 03:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, that's a complex sentence. The first clause, "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration", is definitely not biomedical information. The second (that the document advocated for something) is probably not biomedical information. If it were, then you couldn't write sentences like "He believed the cancer was caused by a lack of sleep" without first proving that there was scientific evidence that his belief was correct.

I assume you think that this description is unfair, i.e., that it would somehow be possible to remove public health restrictions from low-risk people without any of those low-risk people spreading the virus to the high-risk people in their households, at their workplaces, in the store, etc. Since we haven't been able to do this even with various restrictions (such as banning infected people from attending events, going to the store, etc.), I'm not sure why any rational person would think that it would be possible with no restrictions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, thank you for the reply.

I agree that the first clause is not BMI. I am not, however, claiming unfairness of the second statement, nor am I arguing anything related to my personal opinion of how to control the virus.

My contention is with Gorski's statement that is used to support the clause in question:

...it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population...
— David Gorski , Science-Based Medicine (SBM)

I contend that Gorski's statement—and by extension the clause inserted in the BLP—is BMI regardless of my feelings for it, for the GB Declaration, or Kulldorff himself. It is a statement regarding epidemiology and that qualifies it as WP:BMI. As BMI, it must comply with WP:MEDRS, which requires "third-party published secondary sources" such as "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields." Gorski does not cite any sources for the statement and he is not an expert in the relevant field of epidemiology.

David Gorski is an oncologist specializing in breast cancer surgery. He is not an expert in epidemiology. Therefore his statement should not be used as supporting evidence for this clause in the wiki article.

I contend that if there is a WP:MEDRS-compliant source to support the clause "...with the impossible aim of keeping vulnerable people safe from the virus" then it should be used instead of the SBM article or the clause should be removed immediately as contentious material per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

To illustrate that I am not editing with a specific POV, I'll tell you that I recently proposed this statement in the talk page as a way to avoid the use of BMI:

"In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while adopting measures to protect the most vulnerable. The Great Barrington Declaration has been characterized as "fringe epidemiology" and not mainstream science."

And again, my goal here is simply to determine if there is consensus that the clause is BMI. It should not matter what my opinion is on its fairness nor should it matter what others believe my motives to be. Gorski's statement can be evaluated on its own, in the context of the applicable wiki policies.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

By your ingeniously strict reading of BMI you'd need a MEDRS source to invoke the concept of "measures to protect the most vulnerable" - and this is the nub of it, since this concept is like the famed "no-pee lane in a swimming pool". It's logical nonsense, multiple scientists have said so, and Wikipedia needs to reflect that. If however you can find a stronger source that Gorski or Lechler that would be fine too. What we cannot do is air bogus ideas in article space as though they were legitimate because of WP:NPOV, which is core policy and non-negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the assertion that it is logical nonsense rather than empirically nonsense, particularly as we move from a pandemic phase to an endemic phase. If you look at the long-standing policy for chicken pox in the UK, for example, this is precisely one of allowing spread amongst the young - with the intention of building immunity - while shielding the vulnerable (with vaccinations for them and their family). Chicken pox is not COVID: it is endemic, immunity is potentially more "sterilizing", and we have the opportunity to have people acquire immunity in their childhood, but argument of the logical impossibility of immunity would have to distinguish this policy or assert that the decision making for a good 30 years in the UK was not just wrong but logically absurd. Endemicity and sterlizing immunity and the existence of a vaccine, seem like good distinctions, but COVID appears to be reaching endemicity and vaccines now exist. Similar arguments apply to how flu vaccines are used, though I am less convinced that the policy of herd immunity through infection is as deliberate in this case. We should not allow accurate biases from the beginning of the pandemic to prevent us from accurately following the literature towards its end. Talpedia (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

About 20 kids in the UK die every year from chickenpox, and hundreds end up in the hospital, some with lifelong disability as a result. Widespread vaccination would prevent about 90% of those deaths, plus about 90% of the hospitalizations for complications. Maintaining a policy that results in ~18 unnecessary pediatric deaths every year is not what I would call "shielding the vulnerable".

There are complexities: chickenpox vaccines probably do result in a small-to-medium-size increase in shingles risk among older adults. Flu vaccines in kids prevent primarily their grandparents' deaths rather than their own. Those preventable deaths might turn out to be the right choice (although I tend to doubt it). What I object to is adopting a policy that is known to result in more severe illness and more deaths among vulnerable people while pretending that the policy is protecting them. If the correct tradeoff is an extra 18 little graves each year, then the policy maker needs to own those costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think your figures are a little high. This paper (which isn't very recent) shows around 20 deaths but only a few of those were children. The risk of increased shingles cases can be offset somewhat by a shingles vaccination program (UK already offers this age 70+ but that could be extended) and will only last for as long as there are people alive who caught chickenpox. There is another risk, though, which is to shift the age at which one gets chickenpox from infancy to adulthood. Then it is a much more serious disease and potential hazard for a baby if the mother catches it while pregnant. This paper seems to offer an up-to-date review. It says "if vaccination coverage is maintained between 30% and 70% for a long time, the shift in the age of infection can lead to an increase in morbidity and mortality in high-income countries" and later "in countries where varicella represents a major public health problem, WHO recommends taking into consideration the introduction in pediatric immunization programs, provided that at least an 80% coverage rate is achieved." So the challenge then is to get it combined with other vaccines and accepted as part of the routine program with very high take-up. If one only got a 60% take-up, say, then that's a lot of people catching chickenpox as adults, and that's no fun at all. -- Colin°^Talk 20:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I took that number from a news source, which says "hundreds of children are badly affected every year in the UK, with around 20 deaths". This matches other recent lay sources, e.g., "We know that up to 20 - often previously healthy - children every year die from chickenpox in the UK," explains Professor Judy Breuer, professor of virology and head of Division of Infection and Immunity at UCL. "In addition, a significant number will get really severe secondary skin infections like streptococcus which, in rare cases, can cause the flesh-eating necrotising fasciitis." However, it does not match this recent source, which is limited to England and Wales (so missing ~11% of the UK's population, I think?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That first quote could be read ambiguously: are the 20 deaths in children? I wonder if there's been an assumption that chickenpox is a childhood disease, and the overall death figure has been assumed to be for children. But then, your other quote is from a professor of virology and I'm just a random person on the internet, so a bit rude of me to suggest they are wrong. The ONS figures go by the ICD code on death certificate. Possibly this is missing cases where chickenpox is a complicating factor in a death? It would be more comforting if the vaccine wasn't a live virus with a very small risk of reactivating as shingles. While that does seem to be mainly a problem for children with leukaemia, it is yet another factor that could discourage vaccination. I wonder if the "I prefer to get my immunity naturally" meme that has taken hold during Covid is a problem for any chickenpox vaccination programme? -- Colin°^Talk 15:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

When the chickenpox vaccine was new in the US, I heard third-hand about mothers (it always seemed to be mothers, not fathers) wondering whether natural immunity was better. I have not heard that for maybe 20 years now. I think it might take a couple of years for people to adjust their expectations. Pre-vaccine, I think parents expected to spend a week or two dealing with a miserable, scabby, itchy, feverish child (and then for the other kids in the house to fall sick just about the time the first one is recovering). It was just inevitable. After the vaccine became normal (it's been mandated here, for any child over the age of 1, in childcare or school for so long that the first toddlers vaccinated under the mandate are old enough to have their own children now), I think parents expect to not experience chickenpox. There were just a couple of years in between, during the transition, when I heard people talking about it. The uptake is very high now. In California, about 98% of five year olds met the vaccination requirements for chickenpox (that figure is pre-pandemic and includes medically documented evidence of immunity), which was the highest rate of any vaccine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it MMRV? Combined with MMR? If so, that's impressive figures for all those diseases. Our MMR stats are just below the 95% target. We don't generally do vaccine mandates in the UK (the Covid one for NHS staff looks like it is about to be repealed, but too late for the care workers who already lost their jobs). -- Colin°^Talk 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

MMRV seems to be a popular choice, but I believe it's possible to get each thing separately. The measles vaccination rate is almost as high.

The mandate seems to work: either your child is vaccinated, or your child doesn't go to school (or daycare). If you have a sufficiently good reason (e.g., leukemia), then your child can go to school, but you have to get a doctor to sign off on that reason. Merely requiring the parents to schedule a doctor's appointment and get a signed form seems to have substantially reduced the number of claimed exemptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"It's impossible to stop the virus" is probably biomedical information. "This declaration said it would do the impossible" is primarily a statement about the document's contents, not about whether this is actually impossible. But if you are that concerned about it, then there is a simple solution. The same source quotes an epidemiologist who calls it "ridiculous" instead. Maybe slightly re-write it? "They advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups, with the ridiculous belief that it would then be possible to keep vulnerable people safe from the virus."

The bottom line is that there is no way to make this sound sensible while accurately describing it. They proposed an approach that was guaranteed to result in the preventable deaths of vulnerable people. It's one thing to say "My individual right to spread germs is more important than anything else, and anyway, I'm not my brother's keeper, so I don't care who dies as long as nobody's bossing me around". Or they could have pointed out that there are formulas for comparing different types of harms, and that they guessed that the balance was in the wrong direction, so someone should do the research and figure out if it was time to worry more about things like the mental health of teenagers and young adults than about the ability of their elders to stay alive. But that's not what they did. Instead, they tried to pretend that people could spread even more germs than they already were, and that some unspecified program or power would somehow keep the virus from killing vulnerable people. This is ridiculous, and impossible, and stupid. Or perhaps it's absolutely brilliant, if you're assessing it purely in PR terms instead of looking at whether it's a rational and self-consistent proposal. Tell people what they want to hear, and don't worry about whether it's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 08:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

yep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, thank you again for your additional comments.

I think we are getting closer to a consensus here that the statement is probably BMI and given that it's for a BLP we should be extra cautious and get it right.

It would be extremely helpful to get additional comments on this question, especially from more editors with strong experience in medical BLPs as well as editors with expertise in medical matters, especially COVID-19, as I am new to editing BLPs and medicine-related pages and the politics of the issue are making things difficult.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the discussion is trending towards a consensus that this description of the document is probably BMI?

I see four editors (including you) in that discussion. One of them is Alex, who doesn't think it's BMI. Another is Alexander Davronov, who writes under a subsection heading ===Not BMI=== that it "doesn't require WP:MEDRS". The third is @Llll5032, who wants to make the sentence clearer "without changing the content/balance significantly". The only person in the discussion who is openly advocating for treating the description of the document as biomedical information is you. In fact, it looks to me like pretty united opposition to your proposal. Which comment in the discussion makes you think anyone else is agreeing with you on that point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the description of the document.

The discussion at the talk page lost the plot and that's why I came here; in hopes that this group could disconnect the politics of "but muh rights" vs "the pandemic of the sullied" and we could evaluate the statement made on SBM. That was the original post here and that was the original post at Kulldorff's talk page. In no way did I conceal, obscure, or misrepresent the full context of the discussion being had there.

In both discussions (the talk page and here), people have retreated to their camps, signaled to their teams and have taken an ideological stance by assuming editors' intent before evaluating the quality of a source, as if to say 'before I decide if this is BMI, how are you going to use that decision?'

The heading "Not BMI" was placed there by me to organize the discussion. Below that heading you can see that I was seeking to understand why AXONOV thinks it is not BMI. They have since clarified their position and said the clause likely needs to conform to WP:MEDRS or should be clearly attributed to Gorski using "alleged." I have no problem with either of those solutions.

I said "I think we are getting closer to a consensus here that the statement is probably BMI..." The word "here" meant in this discussion, in which you have said:

"It's impossible to stop the virus" is probably biomedical information.
— User: WhatamIdoing 06:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If the opinion " ...it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population..." is shared by many scientists, as User:Alexbrn asserts, it should be easy to get a solid, third-party published secondary source that quotes an expert in the relevant field making the claim. Doing that will solve this problem.

And to restate the problem; an Oncologist who specializes in breast cancer is not an expert in the relevant field of epidemiology and therefore to conform with WP:MEDRS the source should not be used as it currently is.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well Gorski specializes in quackery, grift and pseudomedicine so is perfect to comment on the GBD. Your mistake is to think this is some kind of legitimate epidemiology which requires a weighty rebuttal. No. This is the whole point of WP:PARITY for fringe material. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there's also a problem with assuming that "the document proposes something impossible" is the same as writing "it's impossible". What's in the article is an accurate description of the document's contents, rather than a description of COVID. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two important points we should be focusing on to determine the right course of action:

1. Writing with neutrality and an impartial tone mean wiki contributors don't make judgements on what is accurate. Rather, we describe a dispute.

2. Gorski is clearly writing "it's impossible." That is a direct quote, which is a statement about epidemiology that he is attributing to unnamed "epidemiologists and public health scientists."

I am disputing the "source-ability" of Gorski's statement, not the accuracy of his statement. Because he made a statement that likely amounts to BMI, it carries different sourcing requirements by Wiki policy. One way to avoid that is to state the fact that Gorski said it. To paraphrase an example; 'Kulldorff co-authored the GBD and Gorski says its goals are impossible.' That form is neutral and impartial and not something I would dispute.

To boil it all down, if you listen to epidemiologists and public health scientists, you’ll soon realize that it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population, even if the risk of death or severe disease is much lower in the young.
— David Gorski, Science-Based Medicine

I sound like a broken record at this point but I am not disputing that the GBD represents a fringe and controversial position. I am also not disputing that if contributors mention the GBD they should not give it undue weight, as it is a fringe and controversial position.

I am not an epidemiologist. Therefore I can not judge the accuracy of a claim about epidemiology. I can judge the accuracy of whether Gorski made the claim or not. That subtle difference is what writing with neutrality is all about.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"We describe a dispute" But it's not even a legitimate scientific dispute (WP:GEVAL matters). —PaleoNeonate – 07:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Our reliable sources are not required to have reliable sources to back up their contents. See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A key problem here is that your arguments are based on the idea that there is a "dispute" about the GBD. The principal aim of the GBD (as with climate denial) was to create the fake narrative that there is such a dispute, that there are "two camps" of scientists when in reality there are not.[4] As with climate denial this then gives those with certain interests a talking point for their campaigns. By taking the line you're taking you are acting as a champion of the GBD, because there is no dispute.[5] The GBD is based on a vague false promise that has been dismissed by scientists. We don't need a super-strong source to refute such nonsense but as it happens (and you keep ignoring this point) Science-Based Medicine is an excellent source for fringe medicine, grift and pseudoscience of which the GBD is a quintessential example. I have no objection if you want to add more sourcing, but what we are not going to do is mention the GBD without pointing out that it's bullshit (whatever source is used), because that is core policy. Alexbrn (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: In the interest of staying focused on this specific discussion (regarding potential BMI), I think it would be better if you move your comment above (dated 03:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)) to the Kulldorff talk page, as it does not address the question of BMI at all. That way we can remain focused on the topic here and not further devolve into even greater confusion as to what is the question we're trying to answer.

Once you do so, I'll clean up (remove) this new section.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No, because it is relevant. A problem is that you don't see that. The GBD's "goals" are not biomedical information so their rebuttal isn't either, it's just an application of Hitchen's razor to nonsense. This whole discussion about BMI is a canard, especially when we have core policy that cannot be wikilawyered away. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, I will re-state what I understand you to be saying.

You are asserting that because the GBD is fringe, contributors need not abide by the core policy of neutrality when describing fringe antithesis or the mainstream thesis. And anything used to counter fringe is also not governed by any wiki policies because...fringe.

Is that a fair assessment of your position?

And to make sure you are aware, this invitation will remain open unless you explicitly decline.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I needed to "assert" the GBD is WP:FRINGE, because that is surely a given which nobody will dispute (unless you do?). It's not an "antithesis/thesis" situation because that would be a classic violation of WP:GEVAL. Scientifically, the GBD presents no "thesis": it is just political nonsense which has been dismissed/condemned by all sane scientific sources (there's a reason why it was done as a PR stunt and not published in the scientific literature). It precisely because of this that we must apply NPOV and make sure it is prominently described as the BS it is. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

About "because the GBD is fringe, contributors need not abide by the core policy of neutrality when describing fringe": No. Whenever a subject (GBD in this case, but anything) is fringe-y, contributors must abide by the core policy of neutrality, which requires articles to describe nonsense as being nonsense.

One of the common misunderstandings of NPOV is thinking that "neutral" means the Wikipedia article shouldn't take sides. That is, people think that the Wikipedia article must sound like it has no opinion. This is wrong. Instead, the NPOV policy defines a neutral article as one that accurately represents the views of reliable sources. If reliable sources are using words like "impossible" and "ridiculous" to describe something, then a neutral Wikipedia article also uses words like "impossible" and "ridiculous" to describe it. This is true regardless of subject matter. We write about "ridiculous" children's stories and "impossible" optical illusions, just as much as we write about "ridiculous and impossible" assertions. It looks like 1300 existing Wikipedia articles use both of those words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The policy of neutrality requires due weight and for editors to describe the dispute, not engage in the dispute. Specifically:

"An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." [emphasis added]

The example provided in Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines is Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

The water fuel cell is a technical design of a "perpetual motion machine" created by American Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 20, 1998). Meyer claimed that an automobile retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

The key statement that makes the above neutral is "Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996."

A biased version would be similar to this:

"The water fuel cell is a technical design of a "perpetual motion machine" created by American Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 20, 1998). Meyer claimed that an automobile retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline. Anyone selling a water fuel cell is a fraud."

The change in the last sentence is what makes the second version biased and the first version neutral.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no scientific dispute on this point. Therefore, there is no dispute to describe.

There is a scientific and a philosophical dispute about whether to value the lives of vulnerable people more than the non-fatal harms of other people. There is no actual scientific dispute about whether highly contagious diseases will spread from the "healthy" people to their "vulnerable" household members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To write neutrally on Wiki, contributors describe the dispute rather than to engage in it. For me, understanding that point clicked when I read part of the WP:NPOV/FAQ; the section titled Writing for the opponent, specifically this:

The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.

When one writes with NPOV, they don't have to defend either position. But defending positions is what is going on largely in these debates we're having in the talk pages; one side thinks the GBD is so bunk that it requires very little to debunk and the other side thinks there is a serious debate worth having and it should happen on Wiki.

When in fact neither side is absolutely correct. Both sides should be documenting the dispute that is happening outside of wiki. In the case of Kulldorff, editors should be describing the dispute between his fringe/alt opinions and the mainstream opinions. Whether he is right or wrong is not for wiki editors to decide.

When a wiki editor writes "it is impossible to protect the vulnerable" they are writing it as a statement of fact and are then forced to support it with citations that prove "it is impossible to protect the vulnerable." That is much harder to do than to prove that "Gorski said "it is impossible to protect the vulnerable.""

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

←

I think WhatamIdoing et al. miss certain features of the debate in the summaries above. What is called into question is whether it is possible in societies (either high or middle/low income, or democracies with legal certainty - or not/without) to implement strong enough measures that they are effective in hindering spread to such a degree that it will lead to fewer deaths in the longer term. The declaration writers assert that it is not, which as a statement can certainly be called into question. We should however remember that the declaration was published before the WHO or any country (apart from China and Russia) had authorized vaccines - and presented a question for which there was/is no answer.

We may assert that the declaration is viewed as marginal by the broader community, but that does not mean that all criticism goes - as some critics are also quite marginal, including for instance some that espouse zero Covid. It seems to me wholly inappropriate to reference self-published site Science-Based Medicine as prominently as is suggested above, not only as there is an issue with application of WP:MEDRS/WP:BMI - but also as per WP:WEIGHT. There is far more reliable criticism, and GBD is not unequivocally considered fringe in all medical literature (even in literature that criticizes it, e.g. PMC8266426), as some of the other phenomena that Gorski often criticizes are. This goes also for what Alexbrn suggests, when he cites an opinion piece (well-published enough in the BMJ) from Gorski as absolute evidence that there "is no dispute". It is still an opinion piece and does not account for a full refutation - and is nothing near as strong as those sources used to define or refute climate change denialism.

There are quite a few personal views and some off-topic discussion above, which probably doesn't belong - as the question at hand is how we should summarize the debate, not what we personally consider moral about deaths from chicken-pox or other infectious disease.

What is important to remember is that while the declaration may be politically marginal, the sources necessary to refute scientific statements or assertions made in it are not the same as those which express political views of it. Semmelweis was considered fringe by his contemporaries - and a thought experiment would be to consider how we would have summarized the scientific literature upon his assertions. Would there "be no dispute", or would we be better off by stating that the scientific consensus does not support his assertions?

There is also the entire topic of the Swedish, Japanese, and Korean voluntary and no-general-lockdown responses, and the Ugandan total societal closure with curfews and closed schooled for 2 years, versus the Tanzanian "Covid doesn't exist"-approaches that place on either extreme of the scale. At least the former three should under no circumstances be considered "solely fringe" or "non-debatable". A broader perspective may be useful if we are to target neutrality and not just a narrow summary of the situation in high-income anglocentric nations. Distrait cognizance (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The above is more typical uncertainty narrative, something we call "false balance" on Wikipedia (WP:GEVAL). The following includes more mainstream news that are not WP:MEDRS but are generally reliable secondary sources that can be used per WP:PARITY to confirm that the declaration is not considered a serious proposal. These were very easy to find, among first Google search results. Its concept of herd immunity is considered unrealistic and was long recognized to only potentially be possible in some areas after massive vaccination. Another issue is that while youth is generally less vulnerable to severe disease, they easily transmit it back home to parents. To not transmit it to the elderly would mean keeping them in isolation, including from the family. Lastly, some measures are required when the health system is overloaded and in general practice, these are relaxed as soon as possible.

• https://www.alberta.ca/herd-immunity-and-the-great-barrington-declaration.aspx "the inaccurate assertion that if we segregate the old and the young, and let the young live 'normally', potentially getting infected along the way but not passing the virus to older people, herd immunity could be achieved with few costs in health related to COVID."
• https://www.thelancet.com/article/S2213-2600%2820%2930555-5/fulltext Rather early 2020, but: "restrictions to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 as 'essential to reduce mortality, prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission'.", "No-one is suggesting that lockdowns should be the default position. They are a last resort. But if we just let the virus run free without mitigation strategies, such as masking, our hospitals will overflow and that would mean we would no longer be able to take care of the population's health across the board"
• https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/latest-call-for-herd-immunity-draws-scorn-from-public-health-experts-1.5137679 "It has been estimated that achieving herd immunity in the United States would mean two million deaths from COVID-19.", "The World Health Organization and most major nations' public health leaders have said that a combination of individual prevention, widespread testing and contact tracing, and harsher lockdown-like measures when and where community spread is rampant make for a better approach to combating COVID-19 than letting the virus run rampant in an attempt to build up mass immunity.", "Opposition has come primarily from scientists and public health experts. Gregg Gonsalves, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Public Health, described the declaration as 'wrong in so many ways' in a tweet thread, arguing that it would essentially kick the elderly, the immunocompromised and those living with disabilities out of society.", "'There are countries who are managing the pandemic relatively well, including South Korea and New Zealand, and their strategies do not include simply letting the virus run wild whilst hoping that the asthmatic community and the elderly can find somewhere to hide for 12 months,' he said. 'Ultimately, the Barrington Declaration is based on principles that are dangerous to national and global public health.'"

—PaleoNeonate – 13:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate - That is anti-scientific drivel. To dismiss discussion as an "uncertainty narrative" is to dismiss even discussion as fringe of the policies of multiple high-income democratic nations (Japan, Korea, Sweden, now also Denmark and Norway, and the UK). With your mock-schooling on false equivalencies you return to what is not at debate, (no one is calling into question that the declaration was and remains politically marginal).

The science of how effective severe restrictions (especially lockdowns) are - is extremely uncertain, and that is not a narrative - and is not refuted by mainstream-media googled sources or Gorski's opinion pieces.

That said, I'm not suggesting we refer to the horrible Krieger School/Johns Hopkins pseudo-metaanalysis (which has also been all over the mainstream media).

What I'm saying is that for the sake of neutrality - we need to keep track of what the scientific questions are, and be clear about where uncertainties lie. To dismiss uncertainty as false equivalence is a typical prosecutor's fallacy. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me. You're mistaken, epidemiologists have more and more statistics and have improved their models since the beginning of the pandemic, nothing recent has indicated that this discredited idea would suddenly become a legitimate public health strategy. Waves have come back, measures have demonstrated their effect on them, world statistics have shown the difference between cities in the world in relation to their approach, etc. Science is not an opinion poll... As for WP:GEVAL it's just Wikipedia policy of not claiming there's an equivalence when it's not the case, like: "some scientists say [...], others say [...] the idea received mixed reactions [...]". —PaleoNeonate – 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to be very clear PaleoNeonate, who I am responding to, as I am hoping it is possible to drop attempts at derailing the discussion.

I am afraid that you are the one who is mistaken. Without reference to any authority on my side, what you state about accumulating more statistics and improved modelling in support of strict restrictions - is false.

The reason the Krieger/JH paper was picked up by so many news-outlets was not that the paper was especially good - but that those scientific articles you refer to in support of strict restrictions - don't even exist. Why would otherwise such as poor quality study even be mentioned? (It doesn't however unfortunatly fullfill MEDRS-criteria).

The fact is that very little in the form of scientific literature gives support for severe restrictions. It's quite telling, for all your reference to "accumulated data" - you aren't actually referring to any specific scientific articles or reports.

To name just some modelling that entirely opposes what you state - there is the Danish Authority's 28/1 '22 modelling and risk assessment, and the Norwegian 09/02 '22 risk assessment, both of which specifically refer to the strategy of targeted interventions for high risk or vulnerable groups - in line with the declaration's recommendations.

This is not about false equivalences - this is about how to express a known uncertainty about the underlying science and epidemiology in a neutral manner. The political division on the matter is muddying the waters, but doesn't mean that we can totally discredit Martin Kulldorff, who was an authority in the field prior to the pandemic.

Frankly the published defence by Kulldorff against Gorski is just as suitable a reference, or possibly more so than Gorski's BMJ opinion piece. Both, in turn, are lesser to the comments from the WHO or scientific articles on the topic. However, I do suggest you read Kulldorff's defence: it could be quite illuminating.

Also, to clarify what I meant about the prosecutor's fallacy - it is that the mere existence of false equivalencies - does not imply that any mention of a scientific dispute here is a false equivalence. There is no consensus of the efficacy of severe restrictions, and I will repeat once again: the fact that multiple democratic nations with rule of law and due process, including in informing decision makers on pros and cons of severe restrictions - have chosen not to implement them - is indicative that there is a debate. To assert that "there is no debate" is anglocentric anti-scientific codswallop. Distrait cognizance (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. With regards to what you, PaleoNeonate reference from the popular press - it isn't even relevant. (I felt at first that this didn't bear mentioning, but I now feel it needs to be touched upon, as it might be what is confusing you.)

No one has suggested that individuals should be entirely without restrictions, or that they should live without any behavioral changes - but rather that some types of restrictions are both damaging and ineffective, especially in the long term - and should be avoided.

So not only is the science being misconstrued here - but so it the policy interpretation and political base for the declaration's arguments. The declaration is still marginal, but the interpretation that it suggests no adaptations at all (when it specifically has a list of measures) is possibly even more marginal. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Distrait, the assertion that there is a real debate about whether laissez-faire viral spread among the less-vulnerable can be combined with protecting the more-vulnerable is, itself, a false story. There is no credible group of scientists advocating for this. The only people pushing this are politicians and people who can't bring themselves to face the ugly facts. There is no credible evidence that this idea works. There is credible evidence, especially as seen in Sweden, that it does not work.

The BLP in question is Swedish, and you mention Sweden. In addition to having one of the best and highest-capacity healthcare systems in the world and a social services sector that was willing and able to provide remarkably high support services, Sweden also had a remarkably high death rate among vulnerable people before the vaccines became available. They also did not have anything like the young "living normally"; the main difference was that most people closed their businesses and stayed home voluntarily, rather than most people closing their businesses and staying home because the government required them to do so. This distinction between voluntary choice and government orders will certainly matter to anyone with oppositional defiant disorder, but that distinction has no effect on whether the preventive measures resulted in less viral spread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, when you reference "credible evidence" from Sweden, do point out your sources. The official Swedish position is that death rates during the first wave were unremarkable in relation to initial seeding through travel during the sports vacation during week 9 2020.

• The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in Stockholm – Technical report Public Health Agency of Sweden

(See page 6 "Many families from Stockholm travelled to the Alps for skiing when the schools had their winter holiday week from 24 February to 1 March. This coincided with the outbreak in the region Lombardy in northern Italy, which reported its first case on 21 February and the first death on the 22th, indicating that the infection was already widespread at that point. Many Swedes, and persons from Stockholm in particular, were infected in Italy, Austria and to some extent in Iran, where an outbreak started around the same period. Stockholm was thus seeded by many returning travellers in the beginning of March, and the pandemic took off rather quickly")

• Summary in English Swedish Corona Commission Interrim report 2

Page 3 "2. The virus probably spread to Sweden as a result of people travelling, chiefly from Italy and Austria, during week 9. "

• Impact of winter holiday and government responses on mortality in Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic European Journal of Public Health

With regards to the voluntary behavioral adaptation, that is certainly true, but also slightly beside the point.

Where the scientific debate lies, is not of whether any behavioral adaptation is effective - but whether the strict restrictions are always more effective than e.g. voluntary or targeted interventions. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not about "always"; it's about "COVID specifically". There is simply no scientific debate about the impossibility of letting teenagers get infected with COVID ("living their normal lives" and "promoting natural herd immunity") while simultaneously keeping his high-risk family family members safe from COVID infection. It can't be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of scientific debate about it and that is what Distrait cognizance has demonstrated. Gorski's blog post has neither definitively determined nor adequately demonstrated that "it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population."

On the face of it, if Gorski's statement was true, why bother with vaccinations?

Vaccinations help protect the vulnerable. Therefore it is not "impossible to protect the vulnerable." Therefore the statement is factually false because it lacks nuance. It is poorly written, un-sourced WP:BMI and Gorski is not an expert in the relevant field. Therefore, using Gorski's statement as supporting evidence for the 'impossibility' statement does not conform to Reliable Sources (medicine) guidelines. Because the Kulldorff article is a biography, poorly-sourced, contentious material violates core policy and should be immediately removed, without discussion.

There are Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in effect for both BLP and COVID-19 content and Kulldorff's page falls under both. We've all likely had the DS banners placed on our talk pages. Both banners state the following:

Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

No one here has argued that we shouldn't neutrally point out the mainstream view of the GBD when mentioning the GBD. However, we must strictly follow policy when doing so and the current statement does not.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Why bother with vaccination" this is ridiculous. Because it's the only way to attempt eventual herd immunity at lesser risk. Because it helps prevent infection. Because when infection still occurs, its severity is reduced. Because vaccination is a usually harmless way to provide some degree of immunity, versus the danger of an inital infection without prior immunity. It doesn't only protect a few people when it is massively given. Because a vaccination campaign doesn't fill hospitals, too. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As you have just articulated, the vaccines protect the vulnerable, right?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Gorski's comment was (obviously) about the GBD, not vaccination. So that line of argument seems dishonest. You keep mentioning discretionary sanctions; if you think any editor has not observed them you need to make a request at WP:ARE. I note that so far the only editor in this discussion who's needed admin intervention is you.[6] I also note the Kulldorff article has now been to six noticeboards in recent weeks. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The point about vaccines was to illustrate one of the problems with Gorski's statement; it is factually incorrect on its face. Vaccines protect the vulnerable. As PaleoNeonate pointed out, when delivered en masse, they can even extend protection by easing pressure on medical facilities. Gorski even contradicted the 'impossible' statement himself, later in the same paragraph.

The point about discretionary sanctions (mentioned only once here) is to illustrate that content in Kulldorff's biography must strictly follow policy and it currently does not. PaleoNeonate was kind enough to let me know about the sanctions by placing a banner on my talk page. I thought it was a good idea for others here to know as well. As the template documentation recommends, its use here is as a 'neutral courtesy.'

"[T]he Kulldorff article has now been to six noticeboards in recent weeks"...sounds like somebody is doing the hard work to improve an article.

Lastly, when one resorts ad hominem, it usually means they have nothing substantive to offer.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's only "incorrect" by an illiterate reading, because the context of commentary is not about vaccines but specifically about "focused protection". You're wrong about BLP. If it really were the case that editors were violating BLP that would be serious and worthy of reporting to WP:ARE. But it's not happening, so this is just a WP:CRYBLP tactic, of the kind we see all the time on pseudoscience articles. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The debate, which is certainly not pseudoscientific, but underlies the totality of all pre-Covid research and policy on pandemic preparedness, is most certainly alive and kicking. It is a straw man to shoot down the analogy of vaccines as irrelevant - it is simply using an extreme example prove a point. There are many other reasonably effective interventions as well. Real examples of focused protection that have been used include cohort care, financial support for risk groups to stay at home, as well as food deliveries to risk groups. That is just off the top of my head from what I've seen in my community. Alexbrn - you are being extremely disingenuous, as the declaration was followed, just a few weeks later in November 2020 by the following on focused protection:

e.g., frequent on-site testing and limiting staff rotations in nursing homes, free home delivery of groceries for the home-bound vulnerable, providing disability job accommodations for older vulnerable workers, and temporary accommodations for older people living in multi-generational homes. The prospect of effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines offer an additional avenue for improved focused protection of high-risk individuals, both directly and by vaccinating caregivers. Still, better protection of the elderly cannot and should not wait until a vaccine is widely available.
Focused Protection: The Middle Ground between Lockdowns and “Let it Rip.”
Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorff
November 25, 2020

Many arguments here are just going around in circles, and don't even attempt to discuss the issue at hand, which I find Michael.C.Wright encapsulated quite well with his analogy. It almost seems like no one has read the declaration, with most making up their minds based off of lay press summaries. Distrait cognizance (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a random Wikipedia editor think the GBD somehow isn't pseudoscience; what matters is that relevant scientists think it is. Guess which view Wikipedia follows? This is all fairly basic stuff, we are here to summarize decent sources, not push POVs and attempt to WP:RGW. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the crux of it. It seems random Wikipedia editors are labeling something as pseudoscience, that while certainly contentious, has not in the scientific literature been deemed pseudoscience - apart from in one single opinion piece by Gorski et al.

Each and every facet of the declaration is debated in the scientific literature, and none of it is pseudoscience, but rather basic pre-2020 pandemic preparedness as defined by the World Health Organization, and other prominent organizations such as the CDC, ECDC, etc.

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, or isn't politically marginal - but the words "impossible" and "pseudoscience" do not belong. That, and the science is certainly not settled as there "very much is a debate" and it's alive and kicking. Distrait cognizance (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Gorski has called it "pseudoscience", but Michael Osterholm has. You obviously have your own beliefs, but they don't count here and yes that is indeed the crux of it. Wikipedia follows reputable mainstream sources and puts fringe stuff in its proper context according to those sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I equated calling it "impossible" with saying it was "pseudoscience" - but I see now that you refer to an additional poor quality source that has been added to the article on Martin Kulldorff, which is a quote in the lay press The Hill.

As for my beliefs, those are entirely irrelevant and not something I have expressed here - nor anywhere else. The fact that you reference such a obvious statement as that I have beliefs, is telling of a lack of WP:AGF. The goal is a neutral summary, not to have one's positions forwarded. I am not in favor of the declaration, but things in life are not so black and white as that I can state that it is pseudoscience, just because I do not agree with it.

The underlying science can't be disregarded with lay press sources and bite-sized quotes, especially when the scientific literature is far from as definitive. The arguments set against this are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and WP:RS. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There you are again about what you agree with, and what is or is not "black and white" in your personal world view. To repeat, this is irrelevant. The sources rebutting the GBD are fine. You're not going to find peer-reviewed science bothering to rebut the GBD because it's not peer-reviewed science, but a political document launched as a PR stunt by a political think-tank. That is why we have WP:PARITY of sourcing on such occasions; it's the same with most types of grift, quackery and pseudoscience. Luckily we have many appropriate sources and wise scientists saying that the GBD is nonsense, and reflect it accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. It doesn't matter if you are convinced. We have to accept what the sources say. The sources say that successful "focused protection" is impossible. Even some GBD supporters agree that it's impossible. (They just value improving things economically and socially for healthier people over minimizing total deaths.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki editors must critically read and consider every source they cite.

In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate. [emphasis added]

The way I remember it is:

Generally verifiable ≠ bulletproof

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Assessing sources is an important skill for the folks in the Wikiproject Medicine: WP:MEDASSESS

When writing about any health effect, assessing evidence quality helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight, and identify accepted evidence-based information.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

These are just personal attacks from Alexbrn and WhatamIdoing. I stated that my view is irrelevant - whereupon I was met by a total disregard for this and a refusal to discuss the underlying science, or even papers or studies that did go into the science.

What makes this especially egregious is that such accusations are in the face of their own personal views prominently at display in the prior section on childhood vaccination against chickenpox. I would hope that such blatant bigotry lead to at the very least an apology.

This isn't about convincing me at all, especially seeing as it is rather those who suggest that GBD is pseudoscience that seem convinced of this despite the fact remaining that the science is not being refuted in that manner anywhere apart from a few errant lay press quotes and an opinion piece, whereas it has frequently been considered in the professional press.

Nonetheless, this is not about saying that either the GBD or Kulldorff weren't wrong, or aren't controversial or that the proposal was not set aside after review of pros and cons.

What this is, is about not calling it pseudoscience, impossible, debunked, not seriously considered or whatever.. because those statements are not only false, but do not have the Wikipedia-sanctioned WP:RS or WP:MEDRS to back them up.

The fact remains that it has been considered a serious proposal, discussed at length in the scientific literature. The underlying tenets are all scientific and hold for scrutiny - whereas the choice to forego it is often based off the determination that mortality would be too high or that implementation is to hard or costly (not impossible).

Just some examples of the scientific literature taking the proposal seriously (albeit some rejecting it after consideration):

• COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink
• Precision shielding for COVID-19: metrics of assessment and feasibility of deployment
• An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic
• The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health ethics: conflicting evidence, or incommensurable values?
• Model-based analysis on social acceptability and feasibility of a focused protection strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic
• SARS-CoV-2 transmission across age groups in France and implications for control
• Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy
• Modelling the impact of age-stratified public health measures on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada
• Physicians’ Role in the COVID-19 Infodemic: A Reflection
• Effect of Non-lockdown Social Distancing and Testing-Contact Tracing During a COVID-19 Outbreak in Daegu, South Korea, February to April 2020: A Modeling Study

Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the first three. If you think "taking it seriously" equates to invoking in the context of "fallacy ad populum", not mentioning it at all, and pointing out that it never explains how "focussed protection" is meant to be achieved, then the mind boggles. Your argument here is exactly the same as those producing reams of journal articles about homeopathy and saying "Look, they don't mention pseudoscience, so it isn't". This is why WP:PARITY exists - none of these journal articles have the depth of analysis and synthesis of a good skeptical debunk by an expert on pseudomedicine. Some of these sources may, however, be useful for further information about the GBD, for which, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I see "Lockdown Groupthink" and know that this source's argument is not about science. The BMJ one seems better, but is not about the declaration. Enough for me to see that this is not a very constructive use of my time to improve Wikipedia... —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're moving the goal-posts, as this was a response to you, Alexbrn, who suggested that the scientific literature was not bothering to address the declaration - as it was bunk from the get-go.

The list serves to provide precisely scientific articles taking the time to address the declaration.

I am all for clearly stating that a large number of articles (even the majority) calls into question the feasibility of focused protection as suggested in the declaration. This is however not the same as calling it "impossible" or "pseudoscience".

Many of the suggestions and principles detailed in Great Barrington Declaration - Focused Protection are actively implemented, including vaccination (and vaccine-prioritization).

It is entirely ridiculous to suggest that there is parity of sources between the declaration, which was written by three academics (professors) from respectable institutions, and who are considered leading in the field of infectious disease epidemiology - with an opinion piece from an expert on alternative medicine. There is precisely not WP:PARITY of sources here. This is especially evident when you take into account that the declaration was signed by hundreds, if not thousands of well-respected and published experts (professors and academics) in epidemiology, virology, and public health.

Gorski's opinion piece, and an errant quote from The Hill - are not examples of WP:PARITY of sources.

You hit the nail on its head in identifying the relevant Wikipedia-policy, but make the wrong call as to what that means.

Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a political tract drafted under the aegis of a science-denying think tank. There are useful idiot scientists in most disciplines, but an argument from authority doesn't dignify any claims. Pretty much any sane source would do to debunk nonsense like this, as it would with an antivax, new earth creationist, homeopathy, chemtrail, etc. document. Basically your play is the same as we see with every defense of pseudoscience. Let the expert sources like SBM decide on fringe medicine, rather than trying to push your personal WP:PROFRINGE beliefs. Wikipedia reflects such reliable, on-point sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly a political tract, but that does not de facto invalidate the underlying scientific principles, which is what is necessary in order for something to be pseudoscience. This is also not about whether Gorski called it that, but about whether we should place such a statement in the lead of a BLP, whether such a source has parity, and whether such a source has weight, when multiple scientific articles treat the declaration as a valid proposition (even if only to refute it).

I have not appealed to authority in anything apart from to suggest that the number and rank of the signatories matter per WP:PARITY.

It is ironic therefor that you do appeal to the authority of the blog Science-Based-Medicine an expert resource in all of science, including epidemiology, and that it may therefore be relied upon as sole arbiter and definitive jury. That is not only wrong, but ignorant and anti-science. It also is most certainly in violation of WP:MEDRS.

I implore you to stop bringing my person into this. This is not about me or my views. I have made this point repeatedly, and the sole reason for bringing my views into anything was to repeatedly state that I do not endorse the Great Barrington Declaration. If you do not refrain from casting aspersions in this manner, there are venues to turn to, as you are not engaging in good faith. I have not once made any statement that would suggest I am not going at this with anything other than the intent to clearly state that the declaration is marginal and that the literature is not in favor of it. That is however not the same as using a blog-post source to, in the lede of a BLP, state that the fundamentals of the declaration, including targeted protection, is pseudoscience.

Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You matter because your personal views evidently underpin your battle against reliable sources, in particular your belief in the "underlying scientific principles" of the GBD. Science-Based Medicine is not an authority on "all medicine", but it is a go-to source for pseudomedicine, of which GBD is a example. As to the rank of the signatories, again it's your belief they somehow count (or are even genuine). I give you - Dr Johnny Bananas.[7] Anyway, I've had enough of this. You are entitled to think the GBD is TDB, but have not convinced anybody else. Please do not take my lack of further responses to indicate any agreement with your position. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I will say that I echo Distrait's concern that there is too much focus on editors in an ad hominem fashion and not enough focus on content (WP:FOC).

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor.

That doesn't mean that problematic conduct can't be mentioned or discussed, but it should not be the entire focus and it should not be used as a form of attack, defamation, or ad hominem.

As I've said previously, I think many in this group are making a lot of assumptions of what "the other side" intends. This is a politicized, polarized, contentious topic and it is very easy to get heated (and I'm talking to myself as much as anyone else).

We should all work hard on collaborating to make a neutral article that neither side can read and then complain of bias. That means honoring due weight of fringe/alt (WP:FRINGE/ALT) topics while respecting that fringe/alt does not ipso facto equate to either bunk or pseudoscience. Calling it "bullshit, bunk, crazy, woo, etc" is used intentionally (and transparently) to enflame the discussion and avoid engaging in a meaningful discussion about content.

Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I agree that the GBD is textbook WP:FRINGE/ALT and by definition that means it is not pseudoscience in wiki parlance. The problem I see in this current disagreement is that Osterholm called it "pseudoscience" and the article can state as fact that he said that while giving attribution. That does comply with neutrality policy. Osterholm was not talking in wiki parlance but he is an expert in the relevant field. His comments were also dismissive, political theater meant to demean and denigrate the GBD. We could get into a discussion about the fact that simply including such inflammatory rhetoric in a wiki article engages in the dispute, but that is scope-creep from the original post and possibly not welcomed by other project members on this noticeboard (though I would willingly participate in such a discussion in an appropriate setting). Maybe that discussion is better had on Talk:Martin Kulldorff (or I could be wrong and this location is equally acceptable).

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. It is not inappropriate to mention that Osterholm called it pseudoscience, but to have that statement plastered in the lede of a BLP, especially as attributed to the diffuse collective "Scientists have said" is not neutral.

I am less inclined however to state that this is textbook fringe, as the signatories and supporters of the declaration are far enough removed from the crowd that normally supports fringe theories. I have no issue calling it marginal or "widely rejected".

A potential reason to keep discussion here is that it related to multiple pages, not just Martin Kulldorff. Distrait cognizance (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate to mention that Osterholm called it pseudoscience, but to have that statement plastered in the lede of a BLP, especially as attributed to the diffuse collective "Scientists have said" is not neutral.
— User:Distrait cognizance

I agree that in the lede is becomes undue weight, especially for an article about Kulldorff, not the Declaration.

I am less inclined however to state that this is textbook fringe...
— User:Distrait cognizance

When I call it "fringe/alt," I am referring to the wiki classification, which includes this in the definition:

Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I feel that accurately describes the Declaration and coming to a mutual understanding of how to classify the GBD within wikipedia's spectrum of fringe theories will help us, as a group, reach consensus about wider topics related to its lack of mainstream acceptance.

A potential reason to keep discussion here is that it related to multiple pages, not just Martin Kulldorff.
— User:Distrait cognizance

That is a good point with which I would also agree.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we are entirely in agreement as to this Michael.C.Wright. I wonder if the best way to proceed is to summarize the places where there is inappropriate language or sourcing. There is first and foremost the lede of the BLP Martin Kulldorff, where low-quality and non-parity sources are used to suggest that the declaration is pseudoscience or that focused protection is impossible. The neutrality of even mentioning those statements from Gorski and Osterholm is questionable, and certainly WP:UNDUE for the lede of a BLP. Distrait cognizance (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

After slogging through this lengthy discussion and FWIW, I concur with the arguments put forth by Alexbrn, WhatamIdoing, and PaleoNeonate. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 07:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Took me a while to get through it all, but I concur as well. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a shame that you will not make us privy to the arguments that were convincing for you - as without them these statements only amount to WP:VOTEs. Distrait cognizance (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The arguments were spelled out at great length above; I don't see how repeating them again would be helpful. Concurring is not voting. XOR'easter (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur. ;^) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)