Talk:Arthur Krigsman

Neutrality

This article really ought to be rewritten to include critisisms of the subject's work and his links to Andrew Wakefield. I actually came here from a The Guardian article on badscience.net. aLii 12:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Deer pov

Brian Deer is not a reliable source for medical articles, as he readily admits his dismal lack of any understanding of vaccine research (his degree is in philosophy), much less the medical research processes over at the Royal Free Hospital. The Andrew Wakefield article still looks like a Smear campaign hit piece, largely because of material sourced to Deer, a grave problem that shouldn't be allowed to spill over here. The whole issue of Deer pov should probably be referred over to the WikiScanner folks for investigation. The General Medical Council has disgraced itself and the UK medical community by taking Deer seriously, and it is about time for the Wiki to begin recognizing the folly of following Deer down the rabbit hole. Ombudsman 05:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your POV, but the very fact that the General Medical Council takes Brian Deer seriously supports the fact that he is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes on these topics. Deer is a journalist whose work has been published by major media outlets; that material is therefore usable as a reliable source. Of course, his work should not be presented in isolation (and it is not), but striking it from Wikipedia on the basis of your contentions would be inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the Brian-Deer-related content being discussed includes

1. A link to a transcript of a portion of a United States Court of Federal Claims hearing [1]; and
2. A link to a portion of the minutes of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners Licensure Committee Meeting [2].

Link #1 is being used to substantiate claims that Krigsman made particular statements in open court. That the transcript is hosted on Brian Deer's blog does not impugn its value, unless someone here suggesting that Deer has not faithfully reproduced the transcript. If someone can find a copy of the transcript hosted on an 'official' web site of some sort, substituting such a link would be appropriate—but not necessary for the present.

Link #2 is again an extract from an official document; that it is hosted on Deer's web site does not automatically render it less valid. In that case, however, I'm not sure I can see how it is directly linked to the article—it would help if someone could describe any licensing disputes in the article body. Such disputes are certainly relevant in discussing a medical doctor's biography. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fraud

CNN featured breaking news on January 5th, 2010 claiming Krigsman's work with Andrew Wakefield was "an elaborate fraud." Here's the gist of the article:

(CNN) -- A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday. An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.

This was apparently a journalistic investigation, not a scientific one. Someone should include more details about this in the article as well as what Krigsman's connection to the alleged fraud was. GOD is an underachiever [Talk to him] 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

Had this on my watchlist for a while, and decided to re-write most of it to improve the sourcing and add some information. Comments/suggestions for expanding welcome. Yobol (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite and discussion on fraud

I agree with God... Just because Krigsman is researching issues with GI tracts and how it relates to autism doesn't mean or insinuate Krigsman perpetuated the fraud by Wakefield. Wakefield, much later, joined Krigsman at thoughtful house. Neither of the two incidents had anything to do with the fraud.

In fact, Yobol did a very good rewrite, however, Autism Speaks acknowledges the issues with Autism and GI tracts and lack of Studies, but concede by publishing in Pediatrics what I'll call doctor notices:

"Gastroenterology consensus recommendations provide recognition of the need for specialized approaches to GI problems in children with autism" http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/02/23/525-23-gi/

What I'm essentially saying is that although there may not be a definitive medical term as "Autistic Enterocolitis", there still are issues with children on the autism spectrum and treating the various GI issues. "Pediatrics Gastrointestinal Consensus Statement & Recommendations Provide First Step Toward Needed Guidelines for Children with Autism - Autism Speaks Advances Standards for Care to Alleviate Medical Problems of Children with Autism" http://www.autismspeaks.org/press/gastrointestinal_treatment_guidelines.php

If nothing else, the case studies that Krigsman has published (and not noted here) point to raising awareness and treatment within the medical community. (and my sincere apologies for not putting in the relevant wiki-ish html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.64.67 (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From the Pediatrics guidelines linked from the autismspeaks blog: "The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to persons with ASDs (eg, "autistic enterocolitis") has not been established." While there may be GI specific problems with ASD individuals, it is not established or recognized as a discrete diagnosis by the vast majority of the medical community. I will likely be adding this position statement to the article here and at the autistic enterocolitis article to emphasize this point. Yobol (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Iliocolitis and Autism

This article has come out showing the connection between Autism and Iliocolitis. The relevant section should be edited to include this article in some fashion. It is in PLoS ONE, which is a reputable journal. Not to include this leaves the Wikipedia page unbalanced. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058058 Daniel Helman (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Krigsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/vaccine/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529065823/http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR06/nov06a.pdf to http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR06/nov06a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)