Talk:John Rock (physician)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skylarfogerty, Kambjacks, LudaDzyuba, Nhi.bui04, Olivia Smedes, Sydneycremer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

This article was lifted word for word from an article in the March 10, 2000 issue of the The New Yorker. The title of the article is "John Rock's Error" and the author is Malcolm Gladwell.

Yes, it was. Is that legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.202.109 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Like a rock

Can anybody say what year he first extracted a fertilized egg? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he did. The only time I've read about an embryo being extracted from a human was in uterine-washing studies done a couple of days after ovulation in studies investigating how the IUD works. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Conception of the natural and its implications

I removed the "Conception of the natural and its implications" section added November 11, 2010 by Jgrinblo (talk | contribs) that cited Malcolm Gladwell's unreliable fanciful yarn-cum-advertisement for Balance Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:
• Gladwell, Malcolm (March 13, 2000). "John Rock's Error". New Yorker, p. 55.
• Gellene, Denise (October 6, 2003). "Money trouble ends pursuit of cancer drug. Balance, after 11 years and $25 million, runs out of cash to seek FDA approval for Libra". Los Angeles Times, p. C1.
• Marsh, Margaret; Ronner, Wanda (2008). The Fertility Doctor: John Rock and the Reproductive Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9001-7

p. 156:
Pincus had suggested the simulated monthly cycle because he wanted to know for his own purposes that the women were not pregnant.⁴⁶
Rock was happy to go along with his colleague both because his own patients often developed the false hope that they were pregnant and because Pincus thought that potential pill takers would fear the same thing when they did not menstruate monthly.
Rock would have been amused to find himself, a half-century later, imagined to have had religious motivations for developing what he and Pincus viewed as a simple solution to two practical problems.
Pincus the scientist just wanted to know if the regimen was working, and Rock the kind physician did not want to get his patients' hopes up.
But in the early twenty-first century, journalist Malcolm Gladwell characterized their decision as a tortured religious rationalization by Rock and a bad scientific decision.
"In John Rock's mind," Gladwell argued in the New Yorker, "the dictates of religion and principles of science got mixed up."⁴⁷
Rock had given no thought at all to the Catholic Church when he made this decision, but it comes as no surprise that even today people might still have trouble figuring out his relationship to his religion.

p. 333:
Notes to Pages 152–157:
46. Gladwell concluded from this practical decision that the pill was "a drug shaped by the dictates of the Catholic Church—by John Rock's desire to make this new method of birth control seem as natural as possible." Rock took advantage of the cyclical administration of the pill in the 1960s but never thought about it in the 1950s. Malcolm Gladwell, "John Rock's Error," New Yorker, March 13, 2000. 55.
47. Ibid.

Lynn4 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported statement and "source"

John Rock added a medically unnecessary seven day break in the pill in an attempt to secure church approval. [4]

Both the statement and the link as reference lack actually factual evidence or supporting documentation.

It clearly appears this note was added after the easily disprovable article published post Twitter blow up last week on Glamour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.97.42 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

21/28 ?

No mention of the pill's packaging, as 21 doses and 7 placebos in a cycle of 28? AIUI, this was the Catholic Dr Rock's (failed) attempt to make the pill acceptable to Catholicism, and yet it has become standard practice ever since. Medically there's no reason for it, and no reason for women using it to continue menstruating, as indeed is the contrast with the otherwise very similar hormonal implant.

As this is (from Bea Campbell's writings) Rock's legacy, shouldn't it be mentioned here? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)