Talk:Americans for Medical Advancement

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Research Defence Society edit

217.206.196.218 (talk · contribs), an IP address that resolves to the Research Defence Society in London, has twice inserted this edit, which I have removed:

The arguments used by Europeans for Medical Progress (the same as those used by Americans for Medical Advancement) are inaccurate and misleading according to a ruling [1] of the Advertising Standards Authority - an independent UK watchdog making sure all advertising, wherever it appears, meets the high standards laid down in the advertising codes.

Problems:

This article isn't about Europeans for Medical Progress (EMA), although allegedly they share a president with Americans for Medical Advancement;
The ruling [[2]] doesn't say (so far as I can see) that their arguments are "inaccurate and misleading";
The case is complex and can't be summarized in a couple of words. The ruling says inter alia: "We accepted EMA had shown the results of animal research often did not help to accurately predict the effects of substances on humans; some substances had adverse effects on humans but not animals, and vice versa. We acknowledged that some people had died because animal tests had not identified dangers to humans. We considered, however, that researchers did not rely on animal tests to accurately predict side effects in humans: adverse effects on humans were identified in clinical trials and animal tests were used to predict side effects only to the extent that research would not proceed to clinical trial if animal tests suggested that the substance was likely to be toxic"; and
The Research Defence Society, from whose offices the edit originated, was involved in bringing the case that led to the ruling.

For all these reasons, I'm going to continue to delete this edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking SlimVirgin objections in order:

1. Although EMP and AfMA are not the same organisation, they are linked, not only through Ray Greek, but also as indicated by their respective web addresses, EMP (www.curedisease.net), AfMA (www.curedisease.com) and use the same arguments. Therefore, comments that are pertinent to one, are relevant to other – particularly when you use them as a creditable reference (as on the Animal Testing page), even though numerous independent bodies, such as the ASA and the reviews listed below, have discredited their claims and the manner in which they are made.

2. and 3. I’m concerned that the only point you pick out of this case needs to be read in context (which obviously it can’t be in your comment) as it is followed by ‘animal tests might well have failed to predict adverse side-effects that resulted from the widespread use of [examples given by EMP], but so had those other techniques’ ie the techniques EMP and AfMA say are better than animal research.

You also fail to mention that all 5 complaints against EMP (formerly EMA/ EfMA) were upheld.

Additional comments from the ASA ruling state:

“We considered that the claim implied recent improvements in the treatment of childhood leukaemia had been achieved entirely without animal research. We considered that readers were unlikely to regard the research conducted in the 1940s and 1950s to be recent improvements. We noted Glivec was a recent treatment for chronic myeloid leukaemia, which principally affected adults and was a rare form of leukaemia in children. We also noted animal research had been carried out in the course of the development of Glivec. We concluded that the advertisers had not shown that recent improvements in the treatment of childhood leukaemia had been achieved entirely without animal research and told them to amend the claim.”

… which shows that EMP presented examples 50+ years old as ‘recent improvements’, and that the drug concerned was (i) principally used to treat adults, not children, as EMP claimed, and (ii) was based in part on animal studies rather than ‘achieved entirely without animal research’. Clearly, this is both misleading and inaccurate.

And yes, the case is complicated to a newcomer but the ASA’s position isn’t that difficult to determine. Anyone who finds it difficult to make sense of the arguments should not be moderating this page.

4. As our complaints (and those of another organisation) were upheld by an independent authority, it shows that we have considerable knowledge of this area and should not be dismissed out of hand purely because you do not agree with what we say. If someone with a background knowledge of a subject is unwelcome to comment, then how can Wikipedia hope to gain informed entries? This would also invalidate all of your own comments and edits, as your interests list Animal Liberation (or used to … this seems to have been removed since concerns about your conflict of interest were raised).

If you genuinely want to find out what independent bodies think about the scientific validity of animal research then I suggest you look at these three independent reviews (which involved scientists - not all of whom conduct animal research -, animal welfare experts, politicians and other independent thinkers, etc):

House of Lords 'Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures' (2001-2)

Animal Procedures Committee 'Review of Cost-Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research' (2003)

Nuffield Council on Bioethics 'The ethics of research using animals' (2005)

Every one of them has found that in carefully considered cases, animal research can provide useful, scientifically valid information. Thorough investigations by independent bodies with access to all the information have left no doubt about the role of properly conducted animal research. These are more creditable sources than AfMA and PeTA which have an agenda. 217.206.196.219 16:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I'll look carefully at your post later when I have more time. In brief, I have no objection to genuinely knowledgeable people editing articles: quite the reverse. I do have an objection to single-issue anonymous IPs arriving to push a particular POV. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and unfair, but that is how you're coming across. Your summary of the decision was misleading. If you want to supply solid, sourced evidence that the two organizations are basically one and the same, and then write a more accurate summary of the ruling, I'll have no objections, but bear in mind that the ASA is a notoriously woolly-headed organization anyway, so criticism from them isn't much to write home about. This is the organization that wouldn't allow Friends of John McCarthy to advertise on British television because their campaign was "political." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, I'll take these points in order (I'm afraid it's another long one, but I want to do justice to the points you raised):

1. How can giving an IP address be anonymous? It means anyone can verify the text source and affiliations – as you did. If I were signed in with a login name then people would only be able to go on the information provided in my user profile, which they would be unable to verify.

2. Re POV:

My edits have all been 'solid, sourced evidence', eg I did not say that I personally found EMP/AfMA's arguments misleading, but that they were 'according to a ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority' (with a reference to the appropriate ruling). This is not pushing a personal POV, it states that an independent body was unsatisfied with their claims.

3. Can you explain why you think my summary of the case was misleading or inaccurate?

For each point made, I have either (i) provided unembellished information such as 'all 5 complaints against EMP (formerly EMA/ EfMA) were upheld' which can easily be checked, or (ii) provided supporting evidence to support the point, eg direct quote from the adjudication showing that the arguments used were inaccurate and misleading.

You noted that you have not had the opportunity to look at my previous comments in depth – hopefully closer examination will show that my summary is an accurate one and we can achieve a consensus.

4. Re the ASA:

They only deal with complaints [3]; they are not responsible for deciding which organisations are not allowed to advertise. Ofcom [4] determines the statutory standards codes, and it is they who would prevent an organisation from advertising if they were considered ineligible according to the codes (whether the codes are sensible is another debate entirely!)

'…[organisations] must continue to observe the codes, but, if advertisements mislead or cause harm or distress, the matter will be dealt with first by the ASA, and not Ofcom.' [5]

I'm not sure why you would say that the ASA is a 'notoriously woolly-headed organization'? It is generally recognised that the ASA does a good job monitoring a self-regulatory industry:

'Code Compliance levels are extremely high. The ASAs recent research shows that 98% of poster advertisements, 96% of press advertisements and 85% of direct marketing advertisements comply with the Codes.' [6]

This is particularly impressive when you consider that it costs the taxpayer nothing, and many adjudications arrive after an advertising campaign has already run.

Whilst I realise that Wikipedians must be vigilant to prevent POV, I am not interested in pushing POV - merely in having accurate entries. I look forward to this being achieved.

Re SlimVirgin's point above about extra evidence that EMP and AFMA are related organisations/ founded by the same individuals:

As previously mentioned, their web addresses are related; EMP (www.curedisease.net) AFMA (www.curedisease.com) and they use the same arguments.

I have found two sources showing that Ray Greek (the president of AFMA) was the founder of EMP (EFMA/ EMA as it was formerly known)

1. AFMA's own website [7]; and

2. the ASA ruling[8] states:

"[EMP] drew attention to relevant chapters from the books ‘Golden Geese and Sacred Cows’ and ‘Specious Science’, by the founders of EMA."

These books are both authored by Ray Greek and his wife, Jean.

As such, analysis of EMP's line of reasoning clearly also applies to AFMA as they use the same arguments.

For these reasons (and those discussed above), I am inserting the following:

'The arguments used by Americans for Medical Advancement are the same as those used by Europeans for Medical Progress. They have been deemed inaccurate and misleading according to a ruling [9] of the Advertising Standards Authority - an independent UK watchdog making sure all UK advertising, wherever it appears (broadcast, leaflets, direct mailings etc), meets the high standards laid down in the UK advertising codes.'

On a separate note, I've also found that missing citation for the AMP quote and added it in.

Thanks to SlimVirgin for their input on this page, it is better sourced as a result.217.206.196.219 15:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (just realised I forgot to sign the entry above - sorry, still getting the hang of this)[reply]

Revert

Please do not revert edits without prior discussion here. Reverting back again. MedicalScientist 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have concerns that the "aims" section reads a bit like an advert. Lines like "AFMA has a unique mission in illustrating the lack of validity in the animal model in drug testing and animal-based research for human disease" need the word "believe" or "argue that". Many similar lines exist throughout the article. London prophet (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Americans For Medical Advancement. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asp99 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Has Wikipedia kept an eye on this article? Have they considered deletion due to underdevelopment of the page?[reply]