Talk:John Ioannidis

Notability

I would question the notability of this person. Could someone review the notability guidelines and inform us as to why he merits a page?Jimjamjak (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

He is extraordinarily notable and very influential in the medical field. Hugely so. The substantial coverage he has received, even in mainstream media, proves that out. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from my talk page: Errors in entry on John P.A. Ioannidis

Some information listed on the Wikipedia article about myself is seriously outdated and there are several wrong/biased additions have been made recently. I certainly do not want to be the final judge of edits and corrections myself. I am trying to find an objective independent appraiser/editor. I see that you had carefully edited the Wikipedia entry on me a while ago, and your edits suggest to me that you were very objective, so I am wondering whether you may wish to consider the following and perhaps make changes as you might see fit.

1. The first paragraph says that I am “a professor and chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and Professor of Medicine and Director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center at Stanford University School of Medicine.” I had chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine until 2010 and then I moved to Stanford. Since then I hold the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention and I am Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy, and of Statistics at Stanford University. While I do have an adjunct appointment at Tufts since 2002, adjunct appointments are certainly not as important as the main appointment at Stanford and they should not take precedence over the primary Stanford appointment. I also have adjunct professor appointments at Harvard School of Public Health and at Imperial College London. So, I think the sentence should become something like, “the C.F. Renhborg Chair in Disease Professor at Stanford University, where he is Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy, and of Statistics, Director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and Director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS). Until 2010 he was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine and he has held adjunct professor appointments at Tufts (Medicine), Harvard (Epidemiology), and Imperial College London (Epidemiology and Biostatistics).” 2. In this same paragraph, the references 1 and 2 are outdated and they should be replaced since they pertain to an old webpage from Ioannina and an old CV at the time I was moving to Stanford. They should be replaced by (1) my Stanford webpage https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis and (2) the CV that I have uploaded in the same Stanford webpage (curriculum vitae DOC under “Links” on the right side of the webpage). The webpage and the CV offer full documentation and other web and other sources, if any additional need to be quoted. 3. The majority of my biography seems to cover in an inaccurate and highly biased manner the discussion of a commentary by Goodman and Greenland and a paper by Jager and Leek: “Statisticians Goodman and Greenland agreed that "many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect" but found major flaws in Ioannidis's methods, noting that Ioannidis (who did not collaborate with any statisticians on the article) appeared to have confused alpha level with p value and also built the assumption that most findings are likely to be false into his reasoning, thereby making his logic circular. Therefore Goodman and Greenland rejected Ioannidis' claim as unsupportable by the methods used.[6][7] Ioannidis has responded to this critique.[8] …. In an advance access publication on September 25, 2013 Leah R. Jager of the US Naval Academy's Department of Mathematics and Jeffrey T. Leek of John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Biostatistics did a study based on P-values from all 77,430 papers published in 5 major medical journals from 2000 to 2010 and found that "the overall rate of false discoveries among reported results is 14%, contrary to previous claims. We also found that there is not a significant increase in the estimated rate of reported false discovery results over time". The two concluded that "Statistical analysis must allow for false discoveries in order to make claims on the basis of noisy data. But our analysis suggests that the medical literature remains a reliable record of scientific progress" [10].” I think this is an extremely biased and distorted presentation. According to GoogleScholar, there are over 50,000 citations to my work in the scientific literature (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A9e6sPYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao). The 2005 PLoS Medicine paper that is discussed is indeed one of my most-cited ones (although not the most-cited), and it has received over 1,800 citations to-date (i.e. <4% of my total citations), while it is also the most-accessed and downloaded article in the history of the Public Library of Science (approaching 1 million hits as you can check in the metrics page in http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/metrics/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124). Among the thousands of enthusiastic and supportive quotes/comments about that specific PLoS Med paper, the ones by Goodman/Greenland and Jager/Leek are highly atypical. To give some objective numbers, the commentary by Goodman/Greenland has received only 25 citations in GoogleScholar and the paper by Jager/Leek has received just 1 (by Goodman). The Jager/Leek paper actually was published in a journal where Leek is the associate editor (I doubt any major journal would have published this otherwise), and it is seriously flawed, as I have shown in detail an extensive published rebuttal in that same journal commenting on the data and methods of Jager/Leek. (Reference: Why "An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false. Ioannidis JP. Biostatistics. 2014 Jan;15(1):28-36; discussion 39-45. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036. Epub 2013 Sep 25). I think these two sections need to be deleted. 4. If for whatever reason one insists of mentioning the Goodman/Greenland commentary, one should probably delete at a minimum “but found major flaws in Ioannidis's methods, noting that Ioannidis (who did not collaborate with any statisticians on the article) appeared to have confused alpha level with p value and also built the assumption that most findings are likely to be false into his reasoning, thereby making his logic circular.” As I clarified above, I am professor of statistics and I teach statistics courses at Stanford and in Ioannina I was director (among others) of the Biostatistics-Biomathematics courses. The sentence above sounds as if I don’t know the 101 of the profession that I practice and I teach and where I am so heavily cited in the scientific literature. Also at a minimum, if for whatever reason one wants to keep some mention to the Jager/Leek paper, one should add after any description of their paper that “Ioannidis has published a rebuttal that demonstrates that Jager/Leek used wrong data and wrong methods, and made wrong inferences.” The reference is: Why "An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false. Ioannidis JP. Biostatistics. 2014 Jan;15(1):28-36; discussion 39-45. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036. Epub 2013 Sep 25.” 5. If one wants to maintain focus on the PLoS Medicine paper, one should probably add something about the “average”, “mainstream” current interpretation of that paper: the estimate that most published research findings are false has been corroborated by several empirical studies on reproducibility of different research fields (e.g. in epidemiology, clinical research, pre-clinical research and beyond), e.g. you may cite the recent Economist issue in October 2013 (Reference: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble), the recent coverage in New York Times (Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/science/new-truths-that-only-one-can-see.html?_r=0), and the recent series of 5 review articles in the Lancet in January 2014 that reviewed the accumulated evidence that unfortunately 85% of research is wasted (Reference: http://www.thelancet.com/series/research). 6. Moreover, if one decides to keep the mention to the Goodman/Greenland and Jager/Leek items, I think it is important to clarify that I am a strong supporter and enthusiast of science and the scientific method, otherwise it sounds as if Goodman/Greenland and Jager/Leek are good crusaders defending science against some monster! E.g. you may add that “Ioannidis has repeatedly stated that scientific investigation is the noblest pursuit (e.g. reference: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040215), but he stresses that his work aims to identify how to improve the efficiency of the scientific process. (e.g. Reference: http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=53345)” or something similar. 7. The current section External Links lists the old Ioannina webpage (may be deleted) and the adjunct appointment Tufts page. It should at a minimum show the Stanford webpage (https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis ). If you also want to list Tufts and Harvard and Imperial (there are webpages of mine for all these three) this is OK, but not as essential, my primary appointment is at Stanford. It seems also essential to list the webpage for Stanford Prevention Research Center: http://prevention.stanford.edu/

I thank you in advance for your attention to these suggestions and I would be grateful if you could find some time to make corrections to this Wikipedia entry as you might think fit.

Kind regards,

John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy, and of Statistics Stanford University 76.126.246.118 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Reposted here Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I received a message, apparently from Ioannidis

Here is a message I received, which present without comment:

I realize that in the last few days you have been making some changes on the wikipedia entry about me. I am concerned that they have created a page that is currently off balance and badly inaccurate. First, the entire discussion about an exchange of letters-to-the-editor with Sander Greenland and Steve Goodman should be deleted. It is weird that almost half of the space given to my work (of over 700 scientific publications) is given to a trivial letter exchange. The 2005 PLoS Medicine paper has received over 3000 citations in the scientific literature (as one can find in Google Scholar) and almost all of them agree with it. The letter and local archive draft by Greenland and Goodman has been cited only 41 times per Google Scholar (far fewer in other databases) and my rebuttal to their letter has been cited 44 times, these are low numbers and I don't think these letters are so important. If anything, the statement by Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet (the one that you deleted) is probably more important, and there are many other such statements on the same wavelength. Even worse, as I show in my letter rebuttal, all the arguments raised by Greenland and Goodman are clearly either misconceptions on their part or wrong. Moreover, they have also practically fully acknowledged in the meanwhile that I was right. Sander Greenland has co-authored with me a paper in 2014 in the Lancet that explains why 85% of biomedical research is wasted. Steve Goodman has joined me in building METRICS which we co-direct. METRICS is a center specifically devoted to correcting the problems that were identified in my 2005 PLoS Medicine paper. There is no way Steve Goodman would have done this unless he recognized that the problem with false findings is really a major issue! Therefore, at a minimum, the sentences: "Statisticians Goodman and Greenland agreed with the paper's sentiment that "many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect," but stated that Ioannidis's methods were flawed and did not in fact demonstrate that "most published research findings are false."[9][10] For example, the statisticians identified the following errors: treating significant p-values as equal to .05 even when they were much lower, adding a "bias" term to calculations that effectively made Ioannidis's argument circular, and making the demonstrably false mathematical claim that studies in "hot" fields are more likely to be false. Ioannidis responded to this critique.[11]" should be deleted. I leave it to you, if you want to add back Horton's statement or any among thousands of statements and empirical pieces of evidence that support the 2005 PLoS Medicine paper. Also I see that you have deleted the sentence about the description of my work in the Atlantic. Even though there are hundreds of descriptions of my work in the general literature, if one wanted to list only one or a few, this might not be a unreasonable choice since it attracted a lot of attention by a general public.

Moreover, as I see the current wikipedia entry, there are at least two other changes that need to be made for accuracy of facts. First, several of my key academic tiles are missing: the statement "is a Professor of Health Research and Policy at Stanford School of Medicine" should become "is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences". Moreover, I see that my entry is linked to the category "criticism of science" which I think is quite inappropriate. I am one of the most fierce defenders of science and of the scientific method as the best thing that has happened to human beings ever, and I have mentioned and published this perspective extensively, so I think this categorization should be deleted, as it may be grossly misinterpreted.

Thank you very much for your attention to these matters and for your interest in my work. I hope it should be easy to make these corrections. A million thanks in advance!

Kind regards,

73.158.117.39 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)John Ioannidis, MD, DSc73.158.117.39 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Ioannidis. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721083539/http://www.dhe.med.uoi.gr/data/cv/CV102010D.pdf to http://www.dhe.med.uoi.gr/data/cv/CV102010D.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721083539/http://www.dhe.med.uoi.gr/data/cv/CV102010D.pdf to http://www.dhe.med.uoi.gr/data/cv/CV102010D.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) 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nutrition debate

Here are 3 articles which summarize the debate between Ioannidis and Willett, which is a good example of how Ioannidis applies a stricter standard of scientific evidence that the researchers believe is unnecessary.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902024_print
Is Nutrition Research Seriously Flawed? Can Hazelnuts Really Add Years to Your Life?
Tara Haelle
Medscape
September 14, 2018
(John Ioannidis wrote in JAMA that nutrition research needs large randomized, controlled trials, and epidemiological studies which claim causation are flawed. Walter Willet says that Ioannidis doesn't understand epidemiology, and that epidemiological methods are being improved by reducing measurement error through correction and replication.)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2698337
Viewpoint
September 11, 2018
The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research
John P. A. Ioannidis
JAMA. 2018;320(10):969-970.
doi:10.1001/jama.2018.11025

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2654401
Viewpoint
October 17, 2017
The Misuse of Meta-analysis in Nutrition Research
Neal D. Barnard, MD1; Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH2; Eric L. Ding, ScD2
JAMA. 2017;318(15):1435-1436.
doi:10.1001/jama.2017.12083

--Nbauman (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

revert

As mentioned in the edit summary, the information I deleted was redundant or not relate to his research. For example, the article calls "Why Most Published Research Findings are False" "the most downloaded technical paper from the journal PLoS Medicine and is considered foundational to the field of metascience", and then in the second paragraph goes on the call it "the most downloaded paper in the Public Library of Science, and has the highest number of Mendeley readers." Is this really necessary? --2600:6C44:117F:D631:ECFE:953A:E49D:CBFB (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the diligence and thoughtful edits! If you weren't an IP user, I'd give you a barnstar. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 research & controversies

I was the first to introduce a section in this article over Ioannidis' research on the Covid-19 pandemic and it got more attention that I anticipated. I think these events are significant and deserve a place in this article. Events are ongoing, so suggestions on neutrality are well-founded. However, there's probably ample of research contrasting conclusions in Ioannidis' research. If others feel the same, it'd be great if those more knowledgeable on the matter could cite appropriate research to reflect this inside the article.

In my initial addition, I had tried to reflect that Ioannidis is also recipient of criticism for expressing strong opinions (especially on the matters of lockdown and transmission) in the media. Frankly, he was expressing an opinion on the matter even prior to his research being published. So let us discuss if those media appearances are worthy of inclusion in the article.

Lastly, as the paragraph focuses on the published research with current edits, I think the accusation of a conflict of interest due to the funding source can't be forgone. It comes from a reputable source and the incident was widely reported. Finally on the note of the paragraph's focus, ideally the heading of the paragraph should be more descriptive, especially as it expands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkgr (talk • contribs) 04:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favor of expanding the section. This guy is quite infamous at this point for making claims that most people at the time thought were wrong to the point of endangering lives, which we now know for sure were wrong. E.g.:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/?fbclid=IwAR2Z7LbEZizN5w-Jl9HBJ65whnLBnicyRUuttUhUllatF5upUUeN-K_bWAs

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams.

Basically he was using his Stanford credentials to try to convince people not to respond to a gigantic global crisis in the (false) hopes that it wouldn’t be that bad, and the article should note this. One might have believed his argument was reasonable at the time (although this is quite a charitable interpretation in my opinion), but there shouldn’t be an issue with neutrality at this point noting that he was wrong.

rdl381 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would violate WP:OR to make these conclusions. In any case, in reading the study, it's consistent with exactly what's posted on the CDC site (that ILI cases are indeed lumped together). However, this too would be OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainePatriot (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Focusing on Covid‘s lethality (or lack thereof) misses the point that even with non-fatal outcome large-scale infections and subsequent loss of essential workforce (albeit temporary) poses a national security risk. That said, even his recurring insistence on downplaying the immediate risk seems to lack a peer-reviewed base [1] Webmgr (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As the factuality of the events mentioned in the the related section has been discussed, and sources have been looked into, I would like to invite other authors to refrain from an edit war until there is consensus. The events did take place and the sources are reliable. I'd say, please don't remove the entire section without reason until the discussion has concluded. Gnkgr (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

In other words: "Please let us win the edit war."

The removal was not "without reason", it was with a reason you failed to understand because you did not seriously try to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And we now have the WP:CLOP/WP:COPYVIO protected:

Guardian Source[2]	Wikipedia
John Ioannidis, who used the results to promote the controversial view that the coronavirus is “not the apocalyptic problem we thought” and that societal lockdowns were an expensive and potentially deadly overreaction.	Ioannidis concluded from the study that the coronavirus is “not the apocalyptic problem we thought” and that societal lockdowns were a costly and possibly deadly overreaction.

I am also concerned about WP:SOCKING by the IP that edit-warred this back in. However, the primary problems with this edit are that it is undue and spun around an unreliable medical source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the peer reviewed article on which Ioannidis claims are based that there is no significant effect on Covid19 spread by more restrictive non pharmacological interventions compared to less restrictive NPI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484 Could we list it in this article? It would also be great if we could add a peer-reviewed paper that argues against these findings. Than it would fit in the controversy section very well. Petkraw (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The original article has been discredited. We should not include it, but if decent WP:MEDRS covers the controversy at large, that could be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, could you point me to articles that discredit this work? thx! Petkraw (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn & Roxy the dog , I don't quite understand why my source is considered unreliable. In my brief paragraph which details Ioannidis' rebuttals to criticisms levelled against him, I quote him ver batim twice. Surely in that case it's more appropriate to link directly to the podcast episode (again, this is not a random podcast, it's an interview with Ioannidis conducted by Vinay Prasad, a fellow academic) rather than to a secondary source. I don't see how it could get any more compliant with "No original research" than directly quoting Ioannidis. Plenary Session Episode 3.41 - 3.41 Building a Meta-Research Career and Constructing COVID-19 Health Policy with Dr. John Ioannidis Seanonicholas (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be built on secondary sources. We reflect what those sources have published about Ioannidis, rather than deciding for ourselves what's significant. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So an interview with the very subject of the page responding to the exact criticisms detailed in this section is not considered significant enough? I understand that care has to be taken in situations like this to avoid vandalisation, but I don't quite understand what source could be considered more appropriate than this one.Seanonicholas (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If it was significant, secondary sources would be using it; we could then use those. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It was significant enough for a separate person (Vinay Prasad) to interview him and release it as an episode of his podcast. Would it be more acceptable if Prasad interviewed him, and then published a transcript of the interview as part of one of his written editorials in MedPage Today? I don't think you've made a convincing argument as to why citing an interview with Ioannidis is inappropriate. What would one of these secondary sources that you prefer look like, a review of the interview written by a third person? Seanonicholas (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In secondary sources we are looking for analysis and synthesis, to give us "knowledge". Given Ioannidis is said to have been espousing fringe views Wikipedia certainly does not want to be giving them oxygen without some reliable secondary sourcing to give validity/context. Alexbrn (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that he was interviewed and the interview was published by another academic (Vinay Prasad) provide validity and context? I understand your point about fringe views, which is why I haven't edited the rest of the section to obscure criticisms and align everything with Ioannidis' opinions; the section is titled COVID-19 Research & Controversies for good reason, because many people disagree with him. But you must understand why I think disallowing direct quotation of Ioannidis is a bizarre position to take, right? Surely any section titled "Controversy" shouldn't exclude the subject's direct rebuttals to criticisms levelled against them.Seanonicholas (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's bizarre until you remember this is encyclopedia. This article is not directly about Ioannidis but is meant to offer a summary of what reliable sources have said about him. Thus any controversy will be controversy framed as such in secondary sources, it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what it is and present it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so in this case Prasad (or some other relevant person) would have to produce some other published work besides this interview (like say, a different podcast episode) that synthesises Ioannidis' points into their own original rebuttal of the criticisms levelled against Ioannidis? Is the issue here that Ioannidis himself is directly involved in the content of the podcast? I just want to make sure I understand, thanks.Seanonicholas (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It would need to be better than a podcast - in particular self-published sources (WP:SPS) are absolutely prohibited for biographical content. We are looking for reputably-published material generally from third-party sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. The rule against self-published sources in biographical pages was the missing link for me. I can understand why that rule exists. Cheers. Seanonicholas (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Content

User:Llll5032: You recently undid my edit. It is recency bias to dedicate more text to his COVID-19 research than to the rest of his career combined. In particular, we could do without this "Warning to Trump" than never happened. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:66.244.121.212: Although the meeting attempt is relevant (reported by WP:RSP), I deleted its sub-heading, because you are right that it gave too much weight. But other editors in the discussion directly above have called for more information on COVID-19, which has led to new interest in this article. The WP:RECENTISM essay offers a balanced view on the costs and benefits. Llll5032 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Llll5032: You may have a point. It is possible that we could resolve the undue weight problem not by removing COVID info, but by adding more info about his other work. I'm a bit busy with other articles, but I'll see what I can do. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

User:66.244.121.212: Thanks, and I agree with you that his earlier work may merit more info. Llll5032 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"global response"

In an editorial on STAT published March 17, 2020, Ioannidis criticized the lack of informed decision-making in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic

This is pretty useless to the uninformed reader who wants to know what is what. The "global response" was extremely various - from cautious governments which tried to stop the pandemic early, to careless morons who called it "just a flu", did not even believe in its existence, or claimed that it would "go away" of its own, depending on the time of day. The sentence does not tell the reader which part of the global response Ioannidis disagreed with. From a non-fringe standpoint, somebody who "criticized the lack of informed decision-making" would be someone who criticized governments like those of Brazil and USA. But that is not what Ioannidis did - he is on the other side. Therefore that sentence is very misleading. I added "and argued against lockdowns" to remove the ambiguity.

In the editorial, he lamented that actions were being taken without data on which to base them. He wrote "Given such timelines, the consequences of long-term lockdowns are entirely unknown." But the consequences of letting the virus roam free were also entirely unknown. In other words, he did not have anything better to offer, and "criticizing the lack of informed decision-making" was actually "recommending another type of lack of informed decision-making". Therefore, the wording is WP:PROFRINGE POV, and I removed it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Theranos

"He was credited with being the first to question the research of Theranos, the blood testing company that later collapsed after it was revealed much of their claims were false. "

References

I removed this from the intro, because it does not belong there until it is somewhere in the article. It should probably have its own section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

how long did it take to delete and how long would it have taken to make a section? 1 second vs 15 seconds? i don't understand this form of editing. Covidtonthemurderhornet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Making a section that is identical with the sentence in the lead is easy, but bad writing. To do it right takes more time. I had other things to do, believe it or not, I have a job.

How long did it take you to revert and search the net for stuff you were already familiar with? How long would it have taken someone who just heard of it? Longer, I can tell you.

So stop complaining. Name-calling ("lazy") does not demonstrate a cooperative attitude either. I will not answer further to this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

can someone add this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/03/the-insanely-influential-stanford-professor-behind-biotech-firms-push-to-get-fda-approval-it-probably-doesnt-need/ to the Theranos section? i can't unrevert apparently or i will get in trouble. Covidtonthemurderhornet (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Add it to what statement? Did you read my edit summary or the links I gave? Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

statement??? i said section. the section you wholesale deleted. i am asking if someone wants to add the relevant parts from the article i linked to the section that you deleted. i would've quoted the parts of the article that i would like to add, but it feels like whatever i say will just get deleted instantly. did you see that this article is written by a Staff Writer at WaPo and says the same things as the other links? Covidtonthemurderhornet (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Santa Clara study

[3] "consensus on discussions has been such that this part of the article should remain as is"

Which consensus on which "discussions" is this? Guy gave a good reason for deleting ("Medical claims must be supported by sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS").

[4] "not a WP:COATRACK; Ioannidis is mentioned by nearly every reference"

WP:COATRACK applies. If Alexbrn had cited WP:OFFTOPIC, "not a WP:OFFTOPIC; Ioannidis is mentioned by nearly every reference" would have been a good response.

So, the Santa Clara study section has good reasons against it, but none for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We could instead write a well-sourced separate article for the Santa Clara study (which was influential in the Spring 2020 lockdown debates) and link to it from a shorter mention on this page. What do you think of that? Llll5032 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I re-removed the section. The sources do not comply with WP:MEDRS, and per WP:BLP and WP:ONUS, the content should not be included without consensus. Lev¡vich 07:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Where does this this obscure bit of research get this Grand title "THE Santa Clara Study"? It's discredited primary research, unpublished. This is about the most unreliable/undue thing it's possible to imagine in Wikipedia terms. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

In the United States the preprint was widely publicized [5] by people arguing that COVID-19 would be no more dangerous than the seasonal flu. Llll5032 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, so is this something that's been big in COVID denial circles (like the "masks don't work" study)? If we can find something mainstream pointing out the fringe nature of their enthusiasm, a sentence or two may be due - but probably not here since Ioannidis is but one name at the arse end of a long list of contributors. Perhaps at Denialism#COVID-19? -- which will I suspect become a standalone article at some point. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes -- this Wired article ("John Ioannidis laid bare the foibles of medical science. Now medical science is returning the favor") [6] describes the context. Llll5032 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I say leave it out. Llll5032 might benefit from reading the advice at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I've expanded the material we already had from the existing Wired piece. There is no need to cite the unreliable source(s) - meaning this can be done in an appropriately NPOV manner which makes it plain to our readers that fringe is fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"we could write a well-sourced separate article for the Santa Clara study (which was influential in the Spring 2020 lockdown debates) and link to it from a shorter mention on this page." I think that is a very good idea. A single sentence mention of the study on this page would at least be necessary because it is so important in his research on covid. Gd123lbp (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for specificity and for people searching for information on it, I think we ought to name the study here, even if we decide not to cite it or link to a new article. Llll5032 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless it is consistently named that in RS I think that would fall afoul of NPOV and maybe even be confusing, since some other Santa Clara research on COVID-19 is already infamous, as mentioned in our Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic article, which - incidentally - would be the perfect place for a fuller discussion of this. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It was cited with a link in Nature the day after preprint [7], and a few days later discussed (not linked to) in Science [8] Llll5032 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A journal article would have to be super important to justify a standalone article (have we any such articles?). An unreliable piece of primary research (which we couldn't even cite as WP:MEDRS) is about as far away from that as it's possible to be. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps this should be in our Preprint article? That article doesn't have any coverage of the downside of preprinting. BTW, when Cold fusion hit the press was that an actual preprint, or did they just go straight to the press release stage? If it was an actual preprint, that could go in the preprint article as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Pre-printing isn't necessarily a bad thing. People glomming onto unreliable pre-printed research for dubious purposes, is. There are many examples. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You are free to join the discussion above and express your thoughts on which parts of the consensus find you in disagreement or start a proposal to be voted on if you'd like the entire section removed. Reverting edits and dwelling into meta-discussion that splits the original thread is only counter productive. Gnkgr (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't "vote" on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTAVOTE). Per policy, the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Since the content is in active dispute, there is no consensus for inclusion. Also, do not copy and paste verbatim extracts from copyright sources, as it is WP:COPYVIO and a serious problem. Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Guy Macon, Levivich and Hob Gadling, can you tell us more about which of the currently cited sources may fail WP:MEDRS, and to what degree they must be excluded? I ask because WP:MEDPOP says, "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source," and "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." SFGate, for example, is a website of the San Francisco Chronicle, near Stanford, so it may be higher quality than most. Llll5032 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This[9] is an unreliable medical source. In general yes, it is sometimes a good idea to cite a lay source alongside a high quality medical source; but there are no high quality medical sources in play here. Citing lay press alongside low-quality sources is the opposite of what we want to do (and results in the kind of "beards cause cancer! says landmark study" nonsense we are habitually pushing back on). Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I see. So we should omit citations to the preprints. And, when possible, we should replace or supplement lay press with WP:MEDSEARCH, correct? Llll5032 (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The key thing is not to state or imply anything in the realm of WP:Biomedical information that is not backed by an appropriate WP:MEDRS source. Sometimes, once such a source is cited, lay sources may, in addition, help explain the material. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. The WP:Biomedical information article you linked to looks like a very useful guide to finding those appropriate sources. Llll5032 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should abide by WP:MEDRS in the way that User:Alexbrn described in his two replies to me above, replace unreliable sources with reliable ones, delete facts unsupported by WP:MEDRS, and eliminate any WP:PLAG, when the article is unfrozen. Does that sound reasonable to you, User:Gd123lbp and User:Gnkgr? Llll5032 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Following the guidlines of wikipedia is a given that we should all follow, the criticism made by myself and others has not been of guidlines like WP:MEDRS. I am sure we will be able to find good sources for Ioannidis on the santa clara study, since it is published work, however till we do that I suggest we work with what we have got and improve on it incrementally, rather than totally white wash the page of any evidence of it. Some good quality research is really needed for this article because Ioannidis is one of the worlds leading epidemiologists. I believe he wrote an article that was on the WHO bulletin recently that is worth looking at. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• The page is unfrozen now, so I made some urgent fixes described above. Llll5032 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The page seems pretty good now, though I do think we should name the study (the santa clara study) because it is called that in numerous sources. Also, a sentence seemed a little odd: "the study was praised by right-wing outlets" - that seems like a strange injection of politics into an article about medicine. It seems like a politicization of a scientific issue. Cant we keep politics out of this, it damages discussions about science and medicine and thats dangerous. Also, since the santa clara study is staying in this page, it should be re-added to Jay Bhattacharya's page. Gd123lbp (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How has this rubbish found its way back? Editors are reminded that this topic is under sanctions and adding biomedical material sourced to non-WP:MEDRS can be grounds for a ban. Removing from the Bhattacharya page. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I asked whether it was okay to add it back to the page on the 2nd of December and since I heard no objections and it had been added back to this page, I considered it fair to re-add it to Bhattacharya's page. Clearly more discussion is needed on this. If it is rubbish, why is it still on this page? Gd123lbp (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's at least contextualized here. The way you piled in unreliable content to the Bhattacharya page was unacceptable. In any case, proposed edits to the Bhattacharya are not discussed here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I could not add the "contextualisation" to his page because it was too specific to this page since each source was specifically about Ioannidis in relation to the study. If the study is written about here, then it is perfectly reasonable to think that it could also be written about on a co-authors page! (please assume good faith rather than threaten bannings) Also, why should we "contextualise" rubbish? If it IS rubbish then it is still rubbish even if its contextualised and not worthy of being on wikipedia. I agree with you on that stuff that doesnt pass WP:MEDRS shouldnt be included, in which case this study should be removed. This clearly needs to be discussed further. Gd123lbp (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree that this study would be relevant to the Jay Bhattacharya article, Gd123lbp (with appropriate context, Alexbrn). This could be discussed on its own merits at Jay Bhattacharya's talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis removed

Specifically, it was added in this series of edits, and reads In October 2020, The World Health Organization published and hosted the Ioannidis peer reviewed study "Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data". The study concludes that, for those over 70, the COVID-19 infection fatality rate is no more than seasonal flu, and for those under 70 the infection fatality rate is around 0.05%, half that of seasonal flue. The reference provided doesn't appear to contain the word "seasonal" (or indeed, season), and the mentions of flu or influenza are The human antibody response to influenza A virus infection and vaccination in the title of a publication, and Blood donors without flulike symptoms within 30 days of donation; had close contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in the 30 days before donation; or had travelled abroad in the past 30 days in Table 1. Eligible seroprevalence studies on COVID-19 published or deposited as preprints as of 9 September 2020: dates, sampling and recruitment. Clear and obvious violation of WP:SYNTH, and I'm unsure of whether we need to be cherry picking any statistics from the document either. FDW777 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This scathing review of an earlier version of the paper is interesting, concluding This important work must be rejected as unsalvageable. FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way of including the references without the original research "synthesis" aspect? The criticism should probably be included. Gd123lbp (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the criticism is that it's from July, and the paper has (I assume, due to the claimed "peer review") been amended to its current form that was published in October. Due to the prior criticism I don't believe the conclusions should be allowed to stand in this article without adequate rebuttal, so it's a case of what other people think of the October version that's important. FDW777 (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Llll5032:, @Alexbrn:, @Levivich: and @Guy Macon:, any ideas on how to proceed regarding this? FDW777 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I say take the easy route by leaving out Ioannidis and anything related to that paper. We have a boatload of high-quality sources regarding Covid-19 fatality rates and infection rates for various age groups -- sources that nobody will object to. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I support removal of the paragraph. The study could be listed in a "selected works" section along with other publications, and/or the review could be cited for content about the study in our article. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Good work FDW777 for removing that egregious WP:SYNTH. In my opinion this study is best left out for now, until it gets more high-quality WP:SECONDARY commentary as some of his other work did. Llll5032 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• If this paper is mentioned at all it needs to be clear its been debunked, and we should not be basing any WP:Biomedical information on it. We shouldn't even list it as it's an unreliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I wish it was that simple. The scathing review is for the preprint dated 14 July, whereas the WHO hosted version with claimed peer review is dated 14 October. While there are some minor changes in the figures, the broad conclusions seem to remain the name. Certain people could argue we can't use the earlier criticism for the later version of the paper. So I think the less we say about the paper the better, although listing it as one of his publications would seem reasonable as suggested by Levivich. FDW777 (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• If we can't contextualize it, leave it out I think. It's not reliable in itself and so the only due weight would be from such "context". Alexbrn (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

More original research

That new text [10] is not encyclopedic.

"It was subsequently confirmed that Ioannidis was the target of smearing" - This is just someone's opinion. Not encyclopedic.

"have been published at the top scientific journals" - This is just bragging. Not encyclopedic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So if "It was subsequently confirmed that Ioannidis was the target of smearing" - is just someone's opinion and not encyclopedic, why is "the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis' previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis", which is also someone's opinion, encyclopedic? Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not original research because it's an attributed quotation. Alexbrn (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This was not a discussion of original research , just a question if someone's opinion is encyclopedic. To clarify: Would it be ok then to say that "according to so-and-so, writing in the Washington Post, Ioannidis was the target of smearing" "? If not, how is that different from "according to so-and so , writing for Wired, Ioannidis' previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist ..." ? Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

what is the exact wording from WaPo, is "was the target of smearing" really what it says? Have their writing standard slipped that much? What exactly is being proposed here? Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, it's behind a paywall, I assumed the quote above was from there (the link is in the section below). But I am more interested in the principle - assuming we find the exact quote and use it .Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

FFS! I read the WaPo piece when it came out and it's good. As I recall it did recount the fact the JI has received some very unpleasant communications as a result of his activity, but also emphasized the point that his views were seen as maverick/ironic/unfortunate. To be fair I think the article could reflect all these aspects. Alexbrn (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Please add them if you still have access to the article.. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is cached here. Looking at it again I am reminded that I thought it could be difficult to add some of this stuff (particularly about JI's mother) for BLP reasons. What do you think? Overall this article could be used to "upgrade" the sourcing all round. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

John Ioannidis Page

Hi Hob Gadling, I have been adding some fact based information on John Ioannidis's page and you have been removing them as personal opinion. Can you please let me know which of the text below is personal opinion and what amendments can be made to add this important info on his page?

"It was subsequently confirmed that Ioannidis was the target of smearing and it was independently verified from Washington Post that he had no conflict of interest and did not receive any funds personally". Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioannidis-coronavirus-lockdowns-fox-news/"

"The Santa Clara study was eventually published in the top scientific journal in Epidemiology" Reference: https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab010/6146069

"Moreover, Ioannidis’s studies on COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate and the ineffectiveness of the most restrictive shutdown measures in relation to more targeted restrictive measures, have been published at the top scientific journals and have altmetric scores rendering them at the top 20 publications of all times among more than 117 million publications included in dimensions.ai" References: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13484 and https://dimensions.altmetric.com/details/97143657#score --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I moved that here from my own User Talk page.

User Talk pages are not for discussing article content. That is, unsurprisingly, what article Talk pages are for. Like this one.

Mentioning that some journal is "the top scientific journal" is non-encyclopedic bragging, and "Ioannidis was the target of smearing" can never be written here as a fact based on a single source claiming it is. Both are not "important info" but pure pro-Ioannidis WP:POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: "Ioannidis was the target of smearing" can never be written here as a fact based on a single source claiming it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But it can certainly be attributed to that source. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It could, except for the fact the Washington Post never said it. FDW777 (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it didn't say exactly that. So let's quote what the WaPo did say. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - Right now there is another single source in a notable position (lead intro) based on a single person's (David Freedman's) claim that he could read the faces of medical students accurately enough to deduce that Ioannidis' study supported conspiracy theories. Furthmore the face reading claim has magically transmorphed into a claim that Ioannidis himself promoted conspiracies (rather than his published study supporting some conspiracy theories).

I wonder if you called out this issue as well given your apparent concerns about low credibility sources? 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh? So you read only the first paragraph of the Freedman article, the casual intro, and draw weird conclusions from that? Don't be silly. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Inconsistent approach

We have seen repeated attempts to remove the quote attributed to the Wired article by David H. Freedman. I presume that's the same David H. Freedman who wrote the Atlantic article at John Ioannidis#Press coverage which is being used for the quote that Ioannidis "may be one of the most influential scientists alive"? FDW777 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. the personal opinions of any reporter have no place in the biography of a living person. Should we start adding quotes of any reporter that has referred to Ioannidis's work? What is the purpose of insisting to keep this quote in his page? PantelisPatra (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In another article, another author (Norman Doidge) Writing for Tablet, said that Ioannidis was greeted with intense anger, pilloried nonstop, caricatured as implying COVID-19 is not severe (he actually said it was “the major threat the world is facing”) and generally demonized ...That was a smear (so-called because the idea is to dirty a clean reputation)." If we keep the David H. Freedman in Ioannidis's page, shouldnt we add Doidge's quote for balance? To what end? A living's person biogrpahy shluld be encyclopedic about their work,. not about the opinions (positive or negative) others may or may not have. --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

At the same time, users Alexbrn and Hob Gadling have been removing from Ioannidis's page the following facts: It was subsequently confirmed that Ioannidis did not receive any funds personally (Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioannidis-coronavirus-lockdowns-fox-news/), and the Santa Clara study was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. (Reference: https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab010/6146069). These are undisputed facts the bring closure to the issue, and the fact that they are constantly removed from his page by these users opens questions for their neutrality and objectivity about this page. --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you still didn't remove the fawning quote by the same person despite it being specifically pointed out, which is quite revealing. FDW777 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

being quite revealing is according to your opinion. Its not a fact, its a personal opinion and has no place in the page --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The message found favor with right-wing media outlets

The following statement in Ioannidis's page "The message found favor with right-wing media outlets..." is hearsay and has no reference or source to support it. I have repeatedly replaced it with a more accurate statement with a reference which reads as follows: "The message found favor among news outlets such as WSJ (Reference: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bearer-of-good-coronavirus-news-11587746176) but attracted criticism by other commentators". Again users Alexbrn and Hob Gadling have been bringing the previous unsourced and unsubstantiated statement back on the page.

In the end, this study was published in one of the most reputable scientific journals in the field (International Journal of Epidemiology), which is again a fact that is constantly removed from Ioannidis page. Is there an agenda here? --PantelisPatra (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seemed okay before. We reflect secondary sources, not the views of editors here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

On Covid-19, a Respected Science Watchdog Raises Eyebrows is cited at the end of the sentence referred to and says These arguments have earned Ioannidis widespread attention in conservative media. I personally think "right-wing" is a reasonable rewording of "conservative", but would have no objection if it is deemed preferable to use the exact word the reference uses. FDW777 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

An what makes "Undark" reliable for facts, or notable for opinions? Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to try and argue Undark Magazine is not reliable, you are welcome to waste your energy doing so. FDW777 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I might do that, But thought I'd ask you first, but you seem to have no actual response. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The following statement is neither fair nor impartial and will be removed till it is corrected: "...but the paper dismayed epidemiologists who said its testing was inaccurate and its methods were sloppy.[30][31][32]" The people listed in these quotes are for the large majority not epidemiologists. It is also counterintuitive and cannot say that it dismayed epidemiologists in general, when the paper eventually was published in a very competitive epidemiology journal (https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyab010/6146069). --PantelisPatra (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked the credentials of those quoted in the article- what are they if not epidemiologists? In general, I think it is better to qualify it, with something like "the paper dismayed some epidemiologists like <name> " (surely not all were dismayed, but some certainly were.) Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That a study was published in a very competitive epidemiology journal does not exempt it, nor its authors, from criticism. FDW777 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

agreed, but it does mean that not all epidemiologists were dismayed by it, as the current wording suggests. Kenosha Forever (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It was clearly promotional, —PaleoNeonate – 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

the fact that the study was published in a highly reputable scientific journal, guarantees it has followed peer review by other expert epidemiologists who have examined and confirmed the methods and findings. Certainly some epidemiologists may disagree with the results, and so can any non subject-matter experts, reporters or anyone else, whose opinion you may decide to bring into Ioannidis page as more relevant than the peer reviewers of the reputable scientific journals. This will not change the fact that scientific process is clear and undisputed. Scientific papers are reviewed and approved or rejected by peers. Anyone else can have an opinion which however cannot overturn in any way that of the scientific publication, unless it will be done by another scientific publication. Scientific debate by Wikipedia users, twitter, or on your local grocery store, is equally meaningless and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Concluding, it may be news for you, but the fact that it was published in a highly reputable scientific journal, has a huge value of its own. Epidemiologists or anyone else disagreeing on tabloids, twitter or news agencies has no real scientific or even encyclopedic value and its nothing other than rumors and gossip. A scientific publication can only be contested by another scientific publication that will provide evidence for its flaws. For everyone's sake, Science is evaluated in scientific journals and not on twitter or blogs. --PantelisPatra (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:5P before replying any further. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Interview

Unclear why we need a sentence that says Ioannidis defended his positions against criticism with an interview with one of the 3 journalists who wrote the critical piece, since that says effectively nothing. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially if not reported/analysed by a secondary source or if it didn't result in corrections or redactions, —PaleoNeonate – 17:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So you consider totally democratic and fair to include the criticism against Ioannidis but not his response on the issue just because you dont agree with his response. That says a lot about you! --PantelisPatra (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not "democratic". They are based on reliable sources and not on the opinions of the majority of its readers. Otherwise, they would contain all sorts of crappy popular beliefs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. But Democratic here refers to the basic principle of fairness in citing the response to an accusation, when you cite the accusation itself. Unless you meant to say that Encyclopedias are not supposed to be fair either? --PantelisPatra (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It a common misconception that Wikipedia does "right of reply". Just duly report what reliable sources say, and make sure anything WP:FRINGE is properly contextualized or else omitted. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The addition is pointless, since as I pointed out at the start of the section it doesn't say anything at all. Since the addition of is has been reverted, it is up to the editor wishing to include it to gain consensus for inclusion. As such, I have removed it again. FDW777 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

New article from Science-Based Medicine

• Gorski DH (29 March 2021). "What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?". Science-Based Medicine.

Should be a valuable source, particularly for the WP:FRINGE aspects of this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A hit piece is not and should not be a source. The author of the article is also the owner of the site. That is conflict of interest and definitely NPOV. Also to call Ioannidis, 'fringe' is absurd. Maximum70 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

A good source, is SBM, as has been determined by community consensus many times. Nobody is "calling Ioannidis fringe" - that would't make sense. But there are fringe aspects to this topic, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Underreporting

On May 11, the study's authors revised the study with new figures, settling on a figure of 54% underreporting, whereas the original study gave a range of 50%-85%, is this correct? The reference cited says After originally reporting that coronavirus infections in Santa Clara County have been underreported by a factor of 50-85 and In a second draft recently uploaded to medial preprint website medRxiv, the Stanford University researchers settle in on a weighted prevalence of 2.8 percent, which translates to an underreporting of infections by a factor of 54. Similarly the reference from the section above says That estimate was drastically larger, 50- to 85-fold larger, than had been estimated up to that point using swab testing and but as much as 85-fold higher. Surely his figure is not that the figure is 54% underreported but 54 times more? FDW777 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You are right, good thinking FDW777. While we think about adding "54 times more", I deleted the 54% figure, which is certainly an error. Llll5032 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and reorganised it slightly. I've included the original estimate, then the revision in a note. I wasn't happy with the initial claim-criticism-revised claim structure, since it tended to give Ioannidis the last word, when underreporting by a factor of 54 doesn't actuallly rebut any of the criticism. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, what shall we do with the sentence beginning In March 2021 Ioannidis estimated the global infection fatality rate from COVID-19 at 0.15%? It doesn't seem to add anything other than what's already been stated earlier with putting the virus's fatality rate as low as 0.1% to 0.2%. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

5000 dollars

It was later reported that authors of the study received funding from JetBlue's founder, which led to criticism over a potential conflict of interest. -- When did Buzzfeed become a reliable source? JetBlue did not fund the study. It was an anonymous donation. So how is that sentence still there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximum70 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Maximum70, you can see Buzzfeed News' rating as a reliable source at WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting directly referenced matarial

The editors of this page are deleting directly referenced material, in favour of their POV and attempt to smear Ioannidis with sensationalist media articles. I posted these inserts below in the COVID section, and they were deleted. This page will be reported if they are not included now, as they are quotes from the actual published material being discussed, and also a reference to a W.H.O published study:

"He estimated a lower infection mortality rate than most at the time. Quote:Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%." - https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ " ———————

" (later posted by the W.H.O in October 2020 - https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dxXTwhdtH1-BqCWvZVheVZco2LJ9ZovT6DQ9hjW4TOaxI1K6olyO6j1M ) "

————
" In October 2020, after further peer-review, the W.H.O. published the study - https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dxXTwhdtH1-BqCWvZVheVZco2LJ9ZovT6DQ9hjW4TOaxI1K6olyO6j1M " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.104.150 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the significance of a long quote by Ioannidis, that's coincidentally from an article authored by Ioannidis? Promoting his discredited views perhaps? FDW777 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it says what he actually said…clearly and precisely, rather than the POV and misrepresentation of that article that is being perpetrated by the COVID section, and the mis-information being aggressively pushed therein. For such a controversial subject, it is very important readers get what the article being referred to, actually clearly stated, instead of a misunderstanding of a statement about ratios.

The article should be built on secondary sources. We rely on them for what's worth mentioning, and should avoid the selection choices of Wikipedia editors, which can take us in bad directions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Theranos

Nothing on his criticisms of Theranos? Why? Maximum70 (talk)

The above half-signed contribution was from 21:35, 27 July 2021.

Maybe we do not have any reliable secondary sources for it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Editorial Bias

A direct quote from a cited source (STAT article from Ioannidis) was repeatedly removed by User:Llll5032 in an abuse of WP:OR. The quote is directly from the article being discussed, there is no additional editorial or explanatory content involved, and in fact, the content originally present prior to the edit was a quote of the comment taken out of context, to mis-represent the intent of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.7.159 06:35, 23 September 2021‎ (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:74.71.7.159. We assume good faith here (WP:AGF). Treating other editors with respect is a pillar of Wikipedia (WP:PILLARS). We discuss major changes on the talk page per WP:CAUTIOUS: "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page." We prefer independent secondary sources over primary sources per WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Per WP:SECONDARY, "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." We minimize quotations per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE: "Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy." I reverted your editing because it ran afoul of WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:PSTS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:LONGQUOTE. Llll5032 (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We also go by WP:MEDPRI: "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." Llll5032 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, new stuff goes to the bottom. Moved it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In my revert, I wanted to link WP:BRD, not BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's very much likely that the two respondents above who as evident by this talk page are obsessing over this article and also going against consensus have editorial bias. The reasons given for removal of articles criticizing Ioannidis are often laughable and it has happened repeatedly. It's likely that we're witnessing an attempt to erase history here for the sake of protecting someone's image. Oddly enough it keeps happening even now that Ioannidis' dangerous claims and reasoning for anti-lockdown political activism have been thoroughly debunked and proven to be unscientific to say the least. Gnkgr (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who "the two respondents above" are supposed to be, but if one of them is me, you could not be more wrong. Ioannidis' most famous work was about avoiding false positives. I think he does not care about, and does not know how to handle, false negatives, and when it comes to COVID-19, he is firmly in the wrong boat because of that.

Maybe you should have a look at the actual reasoning and take that seriously, instead of casting baseless and fruitless aspersions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Per Science Based Medicine, an article he wrote contains ad hominem attacks on someone who disagreed with him. That the current version of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation article doesn't contain that any more is irrelevant, Science Based Medicine is a reliable reference and confirms it did. FDW777 (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

article picture

anyone very familiar with Ioannidis will have to laugh when they see this profile picture. i don't know any scientist who smiles as much or as warmly as John. grow up, wiki cabal Mbsyl (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

New publication

In [11] he writes about Great Barrington Declaration and John Snow Memorandum.

[12] Rebecca Watson comments: "Now, you’d think that more than a year later anyone with eyeballs and two neurons to rub together would see that one of these declarations was extraordinarily stupid and one was rather reasonable, but you’d be wrong, because we live in the worst timeline. Enter John Ioannidis, who has, in February of 2022, decided to quite bravely NOT look at the success of countries that had real lockdowns and the failure of countries that did basically nothing, and to instead evaluate each of these dusty artifacts of a bygone era to determine which document had the most famous people sign it. Yes. Yes, really."

I have no useable sources yet, one is WP:PRIMARY and the other a blog, but I guess the subject will sooner or later end up here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The responses at the journal are not to be missed. XOR'easter (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this published research finding is like Most Published Research Findings - false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Science-Based Medicine has something too: [13] --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

At least one of the Telegraph links in [14] seems to be about that same paper. The wording who supported that harsh and extended Covid-19 lockdowns were detrimental to the economy, education and mental health is misleading. Of course lockdowns are detrimental to those! Is there anybody who thinks otherwise? The reason the anti-lockdowners are frowned upon is that at the same time they downplay the dangers of the pandemic, with dubious methods, of course. I cannot access the article, so I don't know who picked that cherry: the Wikipedia editor, the journalist, or Ioannidis. In any case, that sentence needs to be aligned with WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the published replies that captures their overall tenor. XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, all criticism of that stupid paper has been deleted. At least [15] is useable, but we seem to have a few users who want to whitewash Ioannidis and do not allow any contradiction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That source looks good. Honestly I still think a quote from the published comments was passable enough -- the relevant people quoted were subject-matter experts, which is an exception to WP:SPS, and if all the published comments regarding a paper were extremely negative in tone that is in general probably a noteworthy thing. But Gorski's article is probably better. Endwise (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If your edit commentary What's mainstream and what's fringe isn't decided by our opinions on things/WP:OR, but by reliable sources. If such sources exist that demonstrates this paper falls under WP:FRINGE then they should be included here, if such sources don't exist then there's nothing for you to base your assessment off other than OR were valid, we would never be able to delete any propagation of fringe views.

WP:FRINGE says, In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. When Ioannidis specifically writes a paper trying to find an excuse why the GBD is not mainstream, then that paper is fringe by definition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I see two questions to be resolved here. One is whether this particular paper is notable enough to mention among Dr. Ioannidis' body of work, the other is which sources we use to describe it.

The former question makes me think WP:TENYEARTEST, and question whether COVID discourse is going to be long term notable, and if this paper is particularly notable within that COVID discourse. I lean towards not being particularly notable long-term, and more notable on the GBD and JS articles. There's also a sub-question of whether the notability depends on the controversy/criticism, and how we address it if so.

The latter is a question of WP:PARITY. BMJ Open is peer reviewed, but also intended as a quick-turnaround alternative to the higher-impact BMJ, with ease of responses. This appears to be a bit of an edge case, as PARITY suggests that if it is fringe, it needs to be refuted by sources of similar (or stronger) weight, which SBM and rapid responses (in my view) are not. That said, it's also a weird WP:PRIMARY study itself: the data itself is just Twitter followers vs citation impact, followed by the 'extremely online' discussion proposing that Twitter firepower may have helped shape the narrative. Is this claim in the Discussion section a strong enough claim to consider reliable, or just the underlying K-index vs citation impact results? I suspect we're potentially giving undue weight to the 'just asking questions' of the discussion. This also applies to the Telegraph article cited, is popular press reliable for such a study, or feeding into the issues Ioannidis is arguing exist?

My personal view, Dr. Ioannidis' support of evidence base medicine would suggest he wouldn't want strong conclusions drawn from his discussion, and instead see further research probing the differences seen in his results. As he concludes: Critical differences between them should be probed with rigorous science rather than defended on partisan grounds and with social media warfare. Are we making a mountain of a molehill? Is this really notable enough for the article among his body of work? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead disagreement

It seems the lead could use some discussion, rather than reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The length of the Awards and honors section seems atypically long. I often find it helpful to look at articles pre-COVID to get an idea of the notability prior, and there was no such list at the time. I'll also note, there are only two awards with their own wikilink, suggesting they may not be as notable as one might hope, and potentially indicating it's MOS:PUFFERY. Unless there's a strong argument made to retain the entire list, I'm apt to remove or at least significantly trim. And unless there are enough significant awards and honors to justify mentioning them in the lede, the same criteria would apply there.

The "He later stated that he had no intention of mocking those concerned" sentence feels out of place, as a bit of a non sequitur from the prior sentence which does not give the impression of 'mocking'. It probably makes more sense in the expanded section.

Speaking of the COVID-19 section, perhaps it makes more sense to couple the 'we need more data' topic with the Santa Clara study below? Treating them as a pair seems more relevant: needing more data, attempting to collect that data, and the issues with the data. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the awards necessarily need to be notable in and of themselves, but they should have secondary sources to show that it's WP:DUE for inclusion. Some of them just look like times he was invited to speak somewhere, which isn't really an award or honor either. That said, I think He is the recipient of numerous awards and honorary distinctions from medical and science institutions around the world and has served on the editorial board of over twenty scientific journals. is probably due for the lead, as that's one of the things that establishes notability, per WP:NPROF, and even if trimmed there are enough visiting scholarships, medals, honorary doctorates, and other stuff to cover that mention. The COVID mention in the lead is fine, but should probably be a better summary of what's in the article, rather than He was wrong. He tried to mitigate being wrong later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the awards and honors need criteria for inclusion, like secondary sources. Is there a policy, guideline or board discussion about awards? Llll5032 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that I've ever seen, but I generally go with "can find secondary sourcing, or seems notable enough to use the primary source." A lot of the academic awards don't really get any media coverage, so it can be exceedingly difficult to find it covered anywhere independent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding matches SFRs: no guideline that I'm aware of, but broader content PAGs (WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE) still apply. The most common arrangement I find is absolute chaos, with a distant second-most common being an inclusion criterion of needing a secondary source. I'd advocate for the latter here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of it looks like it could be broken into prose as well, to not just have a giant C.V. style list. Ioannidis has received honorary degrees from X, Y, Z, and A universities. He is an elected fellow of B, C, and D. He has been given honorary lectures at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Could also be collapsed more from there, Ioannidis has received honorary degrees from and been invited to give honorary lectures at several universities across the globe,[refs to actual degrees] and is an elected fellow of sundry and diverse scientific and medical associations.[refs again] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:NOTDATABASE. Llll5032 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my concern was with the lengthy CV-style list, and not knowing which of the list were actually notable enough to keep. I generally think the 2-5 most notable awards and recognitions should get listed, and not get bulked out with more than a dozen minor ones in an attempt to flatter with quantity. I'm going to trim the 'numerous awards' MOS issue, and we can discuss which specific awards are notable for a lede later. Broadly speaking, the article appears to suffer from the typical WP:BALASP issues of contentious figures, where notable negative coverage gets countered by additional positive coverage of dubious notability. The additional content on his work in meta-analysis and meta-research is clearly a good addition due to the increased pandemic attention, I'm not sure expanding his meta-research topic into single-paragraph sub-topics for each paper he wrote or mentioning a 2016 lecture at the University of Utah are good encyclopedic coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget this crazy sea of blue:

Ioannidis has served on the editorial board of a number of scientific journals, including the European Journal of Clinical Investigation (editor-in-chief, 2010-2019), BMC Medicine, International Journal of Epidemiology, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Journal of Infectious Diseases, International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics, International Journal of Epidemiology, Journal of Translational Medicine, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Clinical Chemistry, Physiological Reviews, Royal Society Open Science, Research Integrity and Peer Review, BioMed Central Infectious Diseases, Biomarker Research, Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JNCI, and Science Translational Medicine.

The whole article is in pretty rough shape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Are we following WP:BRD? If yes, then the lead is way out of line following the watering down edit I reverted. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I made a significant trim to the Awards and Honors section to only awards, medals, prizes, and fellowships. My first impression is that only two of these actually meet notability criteria: the Einstein fellow (as a blue link) and the Hellenic Society Lifetime Achievement Award (as the only one with secondary sourcing). But I want to give others a chance to improve the sourcing on the remainder which would justify their notability with respect to Ioannidis (for example, the Novim article is shorter than this one, and makes no reference to their Epiphany Science Courage Award, which appears to have been awarded only twice) before I cut that remainder. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, I only just caught on to the discussion here, as I was away from WP for serious reasons and was shocked to see how the awards & honors sections has been stripped of most of its content. Would your criteria for which award is notable or not apply to Anthony Fauci as well? If so, there is some serious trimming that needs to be done (e.g. all the honorary doctor awards need to go). Is this really the way bios are written on Wikipedia? Genuine question, as this is the first time I've been editing the bio of such a prominent scientist. Also, I have made some efforts in trying to maintain a balanced account for the lead, but they have been continually reverted to reflect the negative aspects that most editors involved in the article want to promote. Ioannidis indeed was cautious in the beginning of the timely development of vaccines and treatments, but later stated that he was elated to have been wrong on that account. Why is that being removed from the lead? Finally, there is a policy about libelous content in biographies. The entire paragraph "Covid-19" is brimming with libel, most of it coming from a SELF-PROCLAIMED BLOG in articles written by its managing editor, yet these editors will not even accept the mention of "blog" or "managing editor". In other words, a "notable" scientist setting up a blog and writing signed articles with libelous content against another scientist is the way to go for reliable referencing on Wikipedia? I've been an editor (mainly on Greek Wikipedia and Wikidata) for 15 years and really, I have never before seen bias of this sort. Hoping I will get an honest, unbiased reply, at least here in the discussion section. Good day. Saintfevrier (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I did my best to split my edits to awards and honors to make a selective revert easier, if we agree on a change.

The Fauci article provides some reasonable precedent (here's a pre-COVID version), particularly regarding honorary degrees (the old version lists 30 doctorates, the current one lists only the highest profile), and guest speaker/lecturer roles. My concern is less the length of the section, as it being an un-selective, all-inclusive list. As I said previously, and just like we see in the Fauci article, we should list the most notable honors rather than listing minor ones. Any from the list I removed that you feel are particularly notable and in line with what we see on the Fauci article? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Lectureships are "a big thing" in academic circles, some being the equivalent of induction to a hall of fame. That said, I am certain there are lectures that are "less notable" than others, however who would be the qualified person to judge what is to be included and what not, when the lecture is fully referenced? The same lectures often show up in other articles as well, I did a search for several of them. For example, the Haldane lecture is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia so I really do not understand why you removed it. As for elected memberships, these are also highly coveted distinctions for academics, and more often than not, difficult to achieve. Finally, if Fauci deserves honorary professorships in his list, I don't see why Ioannidis (or any other scientist, for that matter) does not. So I would appreciate it if the full list I created were reinstated. (P.S.: I have seen Ioannidis's CV, I can assure you that the list is most certainly not all-inclusive.) Thank you. Saintfevrier (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you've got a case for them being truly notable (which it sounds like you do), then I'm not opposed to your adding them back in. My only request would be that you do a pass and ask if any are a tier or two below on prestige that those be trimmed. Wikipedia should provide some level of filtering on what's included or not (otherwise we'd include everything in his CV, which you mention we don't). Maybe the answer is that all these honors are similarly notable and we can't reasonably draw a more stringent boundary, but I suspect there's at least a handful that when compared to the most notable could be perceived as filler. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. Let's break this down, shall we? 1) Ioannidis has five honorary doctor titles, Fauci has ten. I think you will agree that these should be reinstated. 2) Haldane Lecture goes back in. As for the other lectures, I would suggest they are included, with red links as stimulus for editors to write articles similar to Haldane. I looked at several of the lecture series, e.g. the C.R. Stephen lecture is currently in its 33rd year. I think a generic article about the invited lectureship concept in academia is missing from Wikipedia, and individual lecture series could be linked to it, or compiled in a list. I believe this would be a useful addition to the knowledge covered in Wikipedia. If it turns out that some of these lectures are not really notable after all, they could be removed afterwards. But they are definitely worth a chance, if our aspiration as Wikipedians is to encourage registering the sum of all human knowledge. 3) Same for Gordon award, as it turns out to be a lectureship as well 4) About elected memberships: again, this seems to be equivalent to an induction to a hall of fame, see here for example. As for your suspicion of filler, I will return to my original question: who's to judge? If these awards and honours were "invisible" and/or shoddily referenced in unreliable outlets, then yes, I would agree there's a lot of hype here. But they seem to be well-recognised in academic circles. Personally, I wouldn't be eager to remove them.

That said, I'd like to point out once again that the criticism addressed to Ioannidis in the covid-19 section heavily relies on ONE outlet, namely the blog Science-based medicine in articles signed by its managing director David Gorski. I suspect there's a policy against the overuse of a single outlet with articles signed by a single author for referencing criticism in an article, especially in a bio of a living person. Is there not? Genuine question: wouldn't you agree that this is an outright example of libel? I would add that using criticism by a person who practically "owns" a website as referencing on Wikipedia is equivalent to the damage done by using praise from primary sources. This is NOT in line with the Wikipedia I have known and loved for the past 15 years.

Awaiting your feedback before I reinstate the removed material, thanks again for the civil discourse. Saintfevrier (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you've got the right rationale, and I support your reinstating whatever you think makes sense, and I'd ping you on talk if I have any remaining concerns.

Personally, my threshold would be that we have an independent source for the honor (not the subject or organization awarding), though this isn't followed by the Fauci article either. Which would get us out of potential CV territory, and firmly into "how this person is described" territory. But I'll stew on that, it's probably a broader policy discussion that would make more sense to get broader consensus than just this page. That said, if you grabbed independent sources for any of these rewards, I don't think anyone would dispute adding them back. Same with the awards which themselves are blue linked, that's a clear indicator the award is notable.

Regarding SBM, the most applicable policy would be WP:PARITY, with a recent source discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Science-Based_Medicine. On a quick look, the two major locations it's used are about right (and there does appear to be a fair bit of context from elsewhere). One providing context about a journal article (attributed to Gorski) rather than refuting it, the other responding to what seems to be private statements. But checking with WP:RSN or WP:FTN on these topics might make sense again. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Saintfevrier: Broader conversation started at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Awards and honors, notability and sourcing. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

As the lede disagreement about the early estimate continues, and seems incredibly difficult to summarize (as it implies a POV), I'd like to suggest replacing it with text about his calls for more/better data (inherent in this estimate) and the criticisms of his flawed Santa Clara study. Broader, and more specific. Any objections? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Praxidicae and Saintfevrier. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I favor Bakkster Man's suggestion, if it summarizes WP:BESTSOURCES. Llll5032 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Bakkster Man for the ping. POV should definitely be avoided in the lead, by all means. But I really cannot see the point of mentioning the Santa Clara study in the lead: it's an early-Covid and USA-specific study, hardly offering any valuable information to the international reader. May I point to the article of another eminent scientist with quite similar views, Jay Bhattacharya. The COVID-19 details in the lead are neutral, well-sourced and offer the reader all he needs to know in a nutshell. Readers interested in learning more can go on to read the Covid-19 paragraph.Saintfevrier (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

'fringe' accusation

Unproductive comments from now-blocked IP

may i note that author is one of the most cited scientist in the history, his main field of research being meta studies and quality of research. a prejudiced opinion by some insignificant science writer should carry no weight when compared with hundreds of scientific citations proving that his publication is far from 'fringe'. in addition, such labeling could easily fall under WP:Libel. i urge wikipedia editors to control their impulse to discredit top scientists because they personally don't like his research and have found on the whole Internet one author who does agree with them and think citing such author justifies labels and libel. Top 20 scientists by citations: L S Vygotsky 581036 Ahmedin Jemal 563294 Geoffrey Hinton 546924 Yoshua Bengio 500486 Daniel Kahneman 473874 Ronald C Kessler 466308 Gregory Lip 463331 Bert Vogelstein 459791 Richard M Ryan 458699 Noam Chomsky 451044 Michael E Porter 447272 David Moher 446850 Michael Graetzel 419520 Herbert A Simon 417939 Salim Yusuf 417306 Robert Tibshirani 409804 Shizuo Akira 409348 John P A Ioannidis 405455 Philip Kotler 401116 Frank B Hu 400594 173.165.58.85 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Anyone can have fringe opinions, even people who have lots of citations. Linus Pauling had a Nobel and believed that taking megadoses of Vitamin C could cure cancer. And your personal beliefs about Ioannidis's level of respectability are not a valid reason to remove properly sourced content. - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) How about we put then this opinion about Fauchi "...The swindler-salesmen are Biden, Fauci, et al. The magical clothes are their deliberate “pandemic of fear,” and the duped emperor is the American public. ..." 173.165.58.85 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Vitamin C and cancer: [16], [17] "... Additionally, a series of case reportsindicated that high-dose i.v. vitamin Cwas associated with long-term tumorregression in three patients with ad-vanced renal cell carcinoma, bladdercarcinoma, or B-cell lymphoma (19).Clinical plausibility has been repeatedlysuggested, and Chenet al.(1–3) nowhave convincingly demonstrated bio-logic plausibility and are poised to ex-plore the potential value of ‘‘pharmaco-logic ascorbate in cancer treatment’’ inhuma ... ". Seems you know next to nothing about Vitamin C and cancer and what is fringe and what not. 173.165.58.85 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC) You can find a couple of citations for all kinds of nonsense. Like Montagnier or Josephson's (two more Nobel winners!) belief in homeopathy. We're going to follow the preponderance of reliable sources. I'm just about done responding here, enjoy the inevitable block you will receive if you continue to act as you have been so far. MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Oh, I see it happened while I was typing. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

User:Saintfevrier insists on their own version and thinks that justifies an edit war. I think it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we may need to get page protection on the stable version of this page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible primary research?

Wanted to mention that he further revised the infection fatality rate to 0.034% For anyone under 60 years old. The study is called "Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies". It hasn't been peer reviewed yet. Patty J H (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

The lead states:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."

I looked at the three sources: The BuzzFeed article does not use the word "conspiracy" at all. The Wired article uses the word once: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." The author does not seem to accuse Ioannidis of promoting conspiracy theories. Instead, it appears to be a speculation about how he might be perceived by a group of medical students. The use of "may" marks the subjunctive mood, describing a hypothetical situation. The third source is an article by Ioannidis himself and does not mention any "conspiracy." Am I missing something or do the sources not support the claim of Ioannidis being "accused of promoting conspiracy theories"? 2A01:C22:8515:D800:BC65:5CFE:416A:E00 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is well supported by the plain language of the sources cited. Your misreading of the sentence is not convincing. The lead also summarizes the article - so this is also additional supported by the text and citations found in the COVID 19 subsection. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Okay, but is one source really enough to support a general note of this accusation in the lead section? From what I've seen, only the second source (The Wired) mentions conspiracy theories. Is a single article really enough to support such an accusation as a general introduction?

2. Could you briefly explain why my reading of the passage is not convincing? The sentence starts with "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist...". By standards of scientific stature, Ioannidis is obviosuly not a fringe scientist (Stanford University professor with more than 500,000 citations). The article suggests that the author was aware that Ioannidis is not a fringe scientist. As I wrote, the author seems to describe a subjective perception of the students in question rather than making a factual claim about Ioannidis himself. Is this really enough to serve as the only source for the accusation of having promoted conspiracy theories? 2A01:C22:8549:5700:7424:D896:132:BE0 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I have to reject the premise of this question - I do not agree that there is only one source here.

2. The Wired source is clearly accurately summarized by what we have written here, particularly if one reads the whole article and doesn't focus on trying to pick apart the use of a single word. This isn't an English lit class, we don't do close reading to try to guess at the author's hidden motives. MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I see you added another source. What seems a bit ironic is that this new source comes to the conclusion that Ionaddis did not promote conspiracy theories: "We show, however, that these two readings are equally supported under uncertainty and in particular that the second reading relates to the issue of how much transparency is needed to ensure the legitimacy of the values involved in decision-making." (Abstract) "However, we argued that though both of the above should be flagged, none of them renders a scientific dispute part of misinformation or disinformation. In science there is room for reasonable disagreement." (Conclusion) 2A01:C22:8549:5700:7424:D896:132:BE0 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What the article actually says is he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories and it supports that perfectly well. Your cherry picked quotes are also a bit misleading. I would suggest any interested parties read the whole thing to see what the 'two readings' and the 'both of the above' actually are in context. MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Your cherry picked quotes are also a bit misleading." My initial concern was: Is the label "conspiracy theory" supported by the sources? The word "conspiracy" does not appear in the first source. It does not appear in the third source. It appears once in the second source in the questionable manner I described. I don't really see why this would constitute cherry picking when specifically looking for the sourcing of the label "conspiracy." The new source you provided mentions some accusations against Ioannidis and concludes that he is not guilty. However, the introduction here only mentions the accusation. The question is, why mention only one claim (someone accused him) and not the other (someone found he was not guilty)? The new source presents the accusations themselves in a critical light: "But, instead of focusing on the questions and arguments that Ioannidis posed, many took him to be the black sheep of scientific community." My criticism would be that the current sentence is one-sided - it mentions the accusation but does not mention the extent to which the controversy has been considered "a reasonable scientific disagreement," as the new source concludes. 2A01:C23:882E:8500:4164:E9E9:66B5:9307 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie - just a bit of fact checking and concerns here:

1) it's not an scientific article - it is a blog post by a single writer.

2) Also, the claim itself is based on Freedman's personal reflection on how he interprets the faces of a group of medical students according to an anecdote (!).

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

Is a single blogger's anecdotal interpretation of med student facial expressions a notable wikipedia source to you? Please explain why you think so.

3) The article claims that he was accused of promoted conspiracy theories. This is false. He was accused of making a sicnetific study that is now peer reviewed and published, that, according to a single blog poster's interpretation of some med student's facial expressions, was "supporting conspracy theories".

Making a scientific paper that is used by conspiracy theorists is not the same as promoting conspiracy theories yourself. If so, any downstream misuse of scientific papers becomes the scientists themselves promoting the misuse? This is not only false and defamatory, it is also deeply anti-science and very harmful, if generalized to all scientist articles on wikipedia given that very many studies have been misused by e.g. antivax or industrial interests.

I urge you to respond to this concern giving that you are defen bding these narratives.

4)

Please kindly see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

This is exactlky what is going on here. If not kindly explain why you don't think so.

If you disagree with these primary concerns suggesting improvement of the article, please be specific.

Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

By standards of scientific stature, Ioannidis is obviosuly not a fringe scientist Your logic is bad. Doing one thing right does not prevent you from doing something else wrong. Linus Pauling and Fred Hoyle are also both accomplished scientists but also promoters of fringe ideas. I could name several dozen other examples. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You think Linus Pauling, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, is a "fringe scientist"? Have you considered the difference between expressing fringe views and being a "fringe scientist"? If you don't think it's correct to label Pauling a "fringe scientist," your post constitutes a straw man fallacy, as I never negated the view that Ioannidis or Pauling expressed fringe views, but only argued that the label "fringe scientist" does not apply. Maybe your logic is bad? 2A01:C23:882E:8500:4164:E9E9:66B5:9307 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to questions like 'Does Vitamin C cure cancer?', Pauling is 100% a fringe scientist. MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Linus Pauling is not a fringe scientist, he received the Nobel prize and made some of the most important discoveries in science. To make a single claim that is a minority position may be called posing a fringe view, and evidence today suggests that his view on vitamin C is not scientifcally supported by systematic reviews- but to extend this to calling the professor in total a fringe scientist is a so-called extension fallacy that indicates bias and is inappropriate. This fallacy comes on top of the misleading statemt on conspiracy theories in the lead text, which is also concerning - together these edits and fallacies do not seem appropriate. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I can name multiple Nobels who believe in ESP and water memory. A Nobel is not some kind of guarantee that nothing that comes out of person's mouth in the future won't be utter nonsense. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie - With all respect, you forgot to consider the key point - the fact that you use extension fallacies to overgeneralize from a single minority view to making the person in his totality "fringe". This type of extension fallacy runs contrary to science and good faith editoring. Please see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

"A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon."

You (mis)use a single case of a minority view (scientists have hundreds of views) to claim that the professors (Pauling and Ioannidis) in their totaltity as such, are fringe scientists, in direct contrast to their accomplishments and scientific records. While we can agree that some of their views are controversial for sure, this wording is misleading and wrong, Wikipedia is not a place for fallacies espeically in biographies of living persons, where this becomes defamatory. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

More silliness, more bad logic. The fact that one can be a good scientist regarding one subject and a bad one regarding another is still true and will stay true, no matter how much you distort what people say. Please WP:FOCUS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are interested in facts, science, and good faith wikipedia engagement, please explain this distortion claim of yours that is entirely unsupported.

Again, the substance: If you as a scientist have 100 different views, and one of them is a minority (fringe) view, then the scientist as a whole is not a fringe scientist by any reasonable logical standard. Then very many scientists are fringe scientists and the term reduces to a derogatory form without scientific meaning - something we should always guard against in science given the many hidden interests and personal biases that exist.

Thus, Linus Pauling is not a fringe scientist, and Ioanniddis is not either, as their publication records also show.

Extension to the full person is a logical fallacy and in this case probably defamatory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Unless you can explain clearly where I distort something above, I kindly suggest you in good faith accept the position that "fringe scientist" is inappropriate extension fallacy of a potential defamatory nature.

Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Pauling was an excellent physical chemist and a medical pseudoscientist. He is also completely irrelevant to this Talk page. He was used as an example to help you understand why Ioannidis is now off the rails, as confirmed by several experts who admired his earlier work. Since you still do not understand that and also talk about Pauling a lot, that example failed and you can forget it.

It does not matter anyway. We have enough good sources confirming Ioannidis' outsider status, and your faulty conclusions would be irrelevant even if they were correct conclusions because of WP:OR. Stop using this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

your example on Linus Pauling is wrong - noone with any sane understanding of science would call him a pseudoscientist or fringe scientist. These are defamatory statements on a champion of science and harmful to the family of Pauling, based on your personal nonscientific opinion against a vast body of scientific literature suggesting otherwise. FYI you can also read wikipedia's own page about Pauling, it notes that New scientist ranked him one of the 20 most important scientists and mentions his medical views only as non mainstream (Not fringe or pseudoscience). You need to respect that sicnetists have hundreds of views, they cannot all be (and should not all be) mainstream.

Also, Ioannidis published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coauthors the last few years, directly debunking your claim that he is somehow "fringe" (however you define it)- the data show he remains central in the scientific record. There is direct evidence against your claim. A few enemies of his do not make scientific evidence, the plural of anecdotes (as the only source claiming an Ioannidis link to conspiracy theories) is misinformation. Scientific publication records on the other hand are systematic data.

In short, the article is in clear violation of wikipedia policies on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Wikipedia states: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."

A personal nonscientific opinion that Ioannidis is fringe (debunked by systematic publication records), and another misleading statement with defamatory content implying a link to conspiracy theories via David Freedman's personal reflections on reading med student facial expressions interpreting them as them thinking that Ioannidis' work supported conspiracy theories, is exceedingly poor source (mis)use -Thus violating wikipedia policy, especially because the statements are defamatory, and I would add, border on anti-scientist / anti-science sentiment.

I strongly suggest improving this article to protect the trust in wikipedia and leave it for others to decide -I have raised my concerns at this point and presented them for the record.

Thanks. 80.62.117.37 (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

noone with any sane understanding of science would call him a pseudoscientist or fringe scientist Again, bullshit. Again, not relevant for this talk page. I do not need to read the rest of your rant, it is probably worthless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's an extension fallacy, generalizing from one or a few views to a general characteristic of the person. Presumably almost all scientists have, among their many views, some views that are minority views or "fringe". Some have very many fringe views but most have only a few. Making a minority of views extending to make the scientists as a hole "fringe" is not only extension fallacy, it is also anti-scientist defamation, since it goes against the evidence in the publication record and contains the extension fallacy at the same time. Anti--scientist defamation is a grave form of anti-science that e.g. Peter HOtez has talked about - we usually see it with antivaxers but it exists ion many forms of vested interests and biases.

So the article's use of "fringe scientist" violates Wikipedia rules:

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

I am noting this only out of academic interest to see if the page is corrected after these concerns being brought forward. It is a good test of the quality control on wikipedia against vandalization, which I think is worthy of scientific study by itself (this being a notable case study), given wikipedia's prominence. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures.[5][6][7][8]"

I just saw this and it is hugely problematic. The claim about conspiracy theories is misleading, uses poor sources to the point that thgis is just the opinion of one single writer, and thus it is defamatory. The way it was constructed and added to the lead text is further aggravating and indicative of a bias entirely orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission of objectivity.

1) The sentence applies misleading citation practises: Upon inspection only 1 of the 4 references actually implies a link to conspiracy theories (!). Honest editors would put the references to the particularly grave claim on conspiracy theories separately, after these words. This choice of citation method fakes a stronger evidence for the defamatory statement than actually exists (1, not 4).

2) The claim uses poor sources and the claim itself has low credibility: The actual claim turns out upon inspection to be this single (not four) personal witness account: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." Wow.

So this is a single claim by a single writer (David Freedman) and it is based on - let's see - his personal reflection not in his own head, which would still not a be notable source, but how he interprets (!) the faces of a group of medical students (!). Aside from being impressed by Freedman's ability to decude facial expressions at such precision and semantic detail, this is *not* appropriate sourcing.

3) Even the claim itself is misrepresented (actual misinformation). The wikipedia text introduced and defended by some accounts here states that Ioannidis was "accused of promoting conspiracy theories". Beyond low source confidence noted above, the actual statement in the source is "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." So the accusation is that he made a study that supported conspiracy theories (a study that is now peer reviewed and published in a leading epidemiology journal, which is - interestingly - omitted, also suggesting lack of objective balance) - not that he promoted conspiracy theories himself, which is entirely different. This is misinformation, and by the way it targets a notable living scientist, thus also defamatory.

4) Several of the accounts that defended these claims have now been deleted, suggesting a focused effort to mislead Wikipedia readers, which is disturbing. It will be important to explore this further including the accounts involved in this - personally I'd estimate this justifies banning given that defamation and misrepresentations are deeply toxic to Wikipedia's aims and credibility.

I think this case study of multiple violations of good editing conduct is notable enough to be considered in a review or newspaper article on misinformation and biases in Wikipedia pages. It is an important topic both for science and for democracy.

PS - Note that Prof Ioannidis has published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coautghors the last few years - claiming him to be fringe is directly disproven by his continued centrality in science publishing. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the same inaccurate claims won't get the article changed - the sources are reliable and are accurately summarized. As explained above, prior good work does not somehow mean a person's later work will never be fringe. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What is inaccurate about what I state above? Your claim on inaccurary is false, which is very concerning given yolu should know the substance of a topic you decided to edit.

Do you really want to deny that only one of the citations relate to a conspiracy claim and that this claim is based on a single person's interpretation of face expressions of medical students? When you have the exact source here:

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

Do you really argue that this source - a single person's interpretation of facial expressions according to an anecdote (!) is acceptable notable source according to Wikipedia guidelines? That is remarkable.

PS - In my view it is also defamatory because it relates to a living person. Not engaging with serious and factual concerns and claims of inaccuracy without examples is against the spirit of factual debate to resolve issues, so please be specific and help remedy the potentially defamatory misinformation asap - your reluctance to engage is fairly concerning.

As mentioned, this example and the talk page in its totality may be an important case study of defamation and misinformation by bad faith actors on wikipedia pages. Anti-scientist hate and hidden influencing by vested interests is a major threat to society, and Wikipedia's credibility could be threatened given how notable this person is. If you won't consider this, I expect others will. Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What is inaccurate? With all respect, I think your claim of inaccuracy is inaccurate. Substantial issues are raised oin an important topic of potential wikpedia defamation. Please be specific about your disagreement rather than making unsupported claims of "inaccuracy".

So again: The conspiracy claim is in a blog post by a single writer (David Freedman) - but the citation method makes readers think that there are four sources supporting this claim- why would anyone do that? This citation malpractice is easily fixed by moving the 3 other references to the first part of the sentence about lockdowns - it's a bit hard to understand why this more accurate citation method would not be endorsed by you? Please explain why you favor putting the three other citations after the conspiracy claim.

Also, the claim itself is based on a blog post by a single person, Freedman's personal reflection on how he interprets the faces of a group of medical students according to the anecdote (!).

https://www.wired.com/story/prophet-of-scientific-rigor-and-a-covid-contrarian/

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

I assume everyone in here agrees that this use of source is in violation of wikipedia policies especially when potentially defamatory. Do you really endorse a single blogger's interpretation of face expressions in an anecdote as reliable source? Please explain why then, and kindly see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

If you have arguments against these serious concerns, please let me know by being specific. Thank you. 87.49.43.69 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I (and others) have been specific. I decline to repeat myself. I also decline to debate someone who is throwing around words like 'defamatory' - using legal language to try to stifle dissent is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Feel free to take the last word here if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit ironic? One could equally assume that you're using the phrase "conspiracy theory" to stifle Ioannidis' dissent. You did not choose "controversial claim," "disputed theory," or "speculation." You chose "conspiracy theory," a phrase generally charged with emotion, carrying highly negative connotations, and suggesting something incompatible with scientific principles. In political discourse, the term is frequently used polemically to discredit opposing viewpoints. Given that the phrase isn't even used in two of the linked sources, this editorial choice becomes even more apparent. 77.0.73.28 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Just read what people wrote above. And take it seriously instead of dismissing it. Wikipedia has rules, such as WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NOTFORUM, and you are ignoring them. Also, read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the posts. My criticism is this:

There are probably many valid sources that would support a claim like "Ioannidis' received significant criticism for his views on..." or something in this register. In contrast, who specifically accused him of "promoting conspiracy theories"? There's the Wired article [6] (with its indirect subjunctive framing). And [8] mentions that in 2020 Nassim Nicholas Taleb "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' views to conspiracy theories. That's all I see in the sources. The majority of articles critical of Ioannidis' views have not accused him of promoting conspiracy theories. The current Wiki phrasing is the result of having cherry-picked two sources in order to apply the damning label "conspiracy theory" on Ioannidis in the lead section. IMO this contradicts RSUW (representing "views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject") and NPOV ("representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views"). Another point is the lack of representation of sources defending Ioannidis against some of the criticism he received, such as [8], which concludes that he did not promote conspiracy theories. In both cases, the current version seems to contradict the policy of proportional representation. 2.241.26.194 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If by [8] you mean Antiochou, your statement which concludes that he did not promote conspiracy theories seems to be false. The conclusion, chapter 4.6, does not say it, and none of the four instances of the word "conspiracy" says it. If you disagree, quote the sentence you are talking about. If you can't, there is no point in listening to someone who fakes what sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems strange to instantly dismiss my entire ciriticism.

Quoting the conclusion:

"We used the recent Ioannidis-Taleb debate concerning the pandemic to achieve two things. First, to show how the quality and strength of argumentation is often clouded by the metaphorical use of language and the use of the rhetorical devices as well as logical fallacies. Second, to show how the substance of their argumentation involves reliance on various non-epistemic values and considerations. However, we argued that though both of the above should be flagged, none of them renders a scientific dispute part of misinformation or disinformation. In science there is room for reasonable disagreement."

In other words, Taleb had "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories in response to argumentative strategies that the authors conclude to be a reasonable form of scientific dispute (cf. page 74).

See also:

"Ioannidis (2020) accuses—rightly—Taleb and social media of having misrepresented his positions."

And:

"But, instead of focusing on the questions and arguments that Ioannidis posed, many took him to be the black sheep of scientific community." 2.241.26.194 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Even when disregarding this reading, my criticism stands:

"The majority of articles critical of Ioannidis' views have not accused him of promoting conspiracy theories. The current Wiki phrasing is the result of having cherry-picked two sources in order to apply the damning label "conspiracy theory" on Ioannidis in the lead section. IMO this contradicts RSUW (representing "views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject") and NPOV ("representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views")." 2.241.26.194 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"The majority of articles do not say X" is not a valid reason to reject those that do. Your logic is bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Straw man. I have not advocated for rejection but for balanced representation. Cherry-picking minority claims to lead with the term "conspiracy theory" violates RSUW and NPOV. Can you explain how leading with the term "conspiracy theory" constitutes a view "in proportion to [its] representation among experts on the subject" (RSUW)? It's based on two sources. Meanwhile, the majority of sources critical of Ioannidis' views on COVID address his views without accusing him of promoting conspiracy theories. Thus, the current lead violates RSUW's and NPOV's policy of proportional representation. 2.241.26.194 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says, he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories. This is true if even one reliable sources says it. If other sources talking about JI do not mention that, that does not turn the fact that he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories into a "minority view". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That conlusion is yours and yours alone. It is WP:OR. Antiochou et al. do not say it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how my reading is wrong? Funny, you didn't seem to have a problem when Freedman's "crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" (singular) was paraphrased as "conspiracy theories" (plural) in the lead. It was only after I questioned this in January that a second source [8] was added. This source additionally mentions only that Taleb "indirectly" connects Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories. Again, a precise use of language would not equate this with the accusation of "promoting conspiracy theories". It seems your calls for close reading only apply in one direction. 2.241.26.194 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Trying to summarize:

1. In January, the lead sentence in question, claiming that Ioannidis "has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" referenced three sources, but only one of the sources actually used the phrase "conspiracy theory". A single source for the claim of having been "accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person, while two of the three citations do not support the claim? This seemed to be poorly sourced.

2. Additionally, the source ([6]) states "conspiracy theory" (singular), but the lead sentence changes the meaning to "conspiracy theories" (plural).

3. The source claims that Ioannidis published a study that "supported" a "conspiracy theory." The lead sentence claims that he was accused of "promoting" conspiracy theories. Again, these are two different claims: a study supporting a conspiracy theory is different from personally promoting conspiracy theories.

4. After I questioned the validity of the citations in January, another source was added ([8]). Apart from quoting source [6], the new source additionally claims that in a publication from 2020 Taleb "indirectly but clearly connects Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories". Indirectly connecting Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories does not equate "promoting conspiracy theories". Neither Freedman nor Taleb actually accuse Ioannidis of promoting conspiracy theories, according to these two sources. Additionally, the authors of [8] themselves seem to defend Ioannidis against Taleb's criticim. ("Ioannidis (2020) accuses—rightly—Taleb and social media of having misrepresented his positions.")

5. The COVID-19 section currently claims: "... future generations of scientists may remember him as 'the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis.'" But [6] states that the subject in question "are medical students at Columbia University," seen during a Zoom call. The paraphrase distorts the original meaning by expanding the subject from "medical students at Columbia University" to "future generations of scientists".

6. The question of proportionality: The majority of sources critical of Ioannidis' views on COVID seem to critique his views without accusing him of promoting conspiracy theories. A minority of sources critical of Ioannidis' views critique his views by linking them to a conspiracy theory/conspiracy theories (at least the two sources mentioned, [6] and [8]). Why put a minority view in the lead section (falsely paraphrased)? Placing a minority view in the lead section instead of representing the majority view does not seem to be "in proportion to [its] representation among experts on the subject" (RSUW) and thus seems to violate RSUW's and NPOV's policy of proportional representation.

IMO these editorial decisions appear to be biased against Ioannidis, in violation of NPOV and BLP. 95.112.162.70 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Several have provided evidence on the talk page of violations of RSUW and NPOV, with potential defamatory consequences for a biography of a living person. But it is mworse than that: There is also use of poor source use on living persons (a single blog poster's anecdote), citation malpractice (combining references after conspiracy claim to make it look more supported) and even misinformation in the lead claim (the scinetist did not promote conspiracy theories and was not even accussd of doing it - this is the pure invention of a Wikipedia editor):

Even if Fredman's anecdotal interpretation of the med student faces was acceptable source (!), the lead text is misinformation. He was *not* himself accused of promoting conspiracy theories - he was accused of, according to facial interpretations of med students by one blogger (Freedman) - publish science that supported conspiracy theories. That's absolutely not the same. To promote conspiracy theories you need to actively spread a specific version of a conspiracy theory.

Science that is used to support crazy conspiracy theories is not equal to scientists themselves promoting conspiracy theories - the claim in the wikipæedia article is not just misinformation, it is potentially very harmful to science broadly.

Every reviewed paper can be misused by extremists on both sides first in a blog as "support" of conspiracy theory and then cited in another blog in response as the original authors's work supporting conspiracy theories. Such blogs are not notable sources for living persons. The extreme ends of any debate can then hijack in principle any biography on any living person with just 1-2 blog posts each.

Despite many clarifying this, HobGadling and MrOllie continue against the majority to defend the defamation attempt, without engaging the substance.

In my estimate we are looking at attempts at defaming a living scientist by a small group of accounts with a clear real-world personal bias against the scientist (evidence available in this talk page). The methods they used are evidence: citation malpractice, misrepresenting sources, use of minority views / false balance, and subjective claims to characterize a notable living scientist.

They are very devoted deflecting the substance of criticism by very many observers here with dismissive one-liners ("not reading your rant" "your logic is bad" etc.)

Regardless of the motives behind these actions, it's anti-science and against wikipedia's spirit and policies. The time that passes before the page is corrected is also essential here in terms of damage done to the offended, and the two accounts are doing a lot of work to delay that outcome.

PS - If of interest to anyone, the archived page is here for all the evidence of the conversation and how it was dismissed (for scientific and legal purposes:)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240716043726/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Ioannidis 80.62.117.69 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how my reading is wrong? I don't need to. It is WP:OR, that is enough. Wikipedia editors do not draw conclusions from sources and write those conclusions in articles. You have no clue of how Wikipedia works, and you are grasping at straws. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)