Talk:Hal Huggins/Archive 1

how to cite legal actions

I want to cite the hearings against huggins where he was struck off for negligence and performing unnecessary procedures. what the right mark-up for citing the law?

I want to add it to this:

Huggins lost his license to practice dentistry as a result of being found guilty of gross negligence and performing unnecessary and unproven procedures by the Colorado State Board of Dental Examiners ^[1]. His criticisms of dental amalgam were featured on 60 Minutes.^[2] --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a secondary source.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the book (which mentions the court case) I've already used as a source is secondary to the actual court case (which is primary). --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Time magazine source discusses this hearing. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Staudenmayer, Herman (1999). Environmental Illness: Myth and Reality. CRC Press.
^ CBS's 60 Minutes, December 16, 1990.

misleading and potentially unjust wording

The Time article reports that Huggins had diagnosed "mercury toxicity" in patients "without amalgam fillings." This may be extremely misleading, as it it can be understood to mean in patients who had never had amalgam fillings, while it may actually mean who no longer had amalgam fillings. Diagnosing mercury intoxications in patients who had been exposed to massive amounts of mercury, and had not yet recovered is entirely plausible. This fact either needs to be explained in the text, or the misleading claim must be removed.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct quote, the interpretation of the quote is the responsibility of the reader. If you have a reliable source that discusses the meaning of this quote, then please add it to the article. However, our own opinions on what the quote might mean are not useful material, per WP:NOR. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we stick to the sources. This is one of the wonderful things about editing here. By coming into contact with all these RS, we are provided the opportunity to learn by bringing our POV into line with them. It's a great learning environment that leaves us with a broader understanding of the many facets of a subject. -- Fyslee / talk 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need for WP:MEDRS here

We need to use the WP:MEDRS guidelines here, since Huggins' dubious and fringe claims are being advocated here:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

I am not saying that none of these claims should be mentioned, but they should be balanced by mainstream sources that show their erroneous nature.

This is an edit where the MEDRS guidelines are being used appropriately. Kudos to Tim Vickers.

We need to be careful that this article doesn't revert to its original soapbox for fringe opinions which can endanger the public. -- Fyslee / talk 08:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining NPOV

We need to either include the fact that some advanced countries have banned amalgam fillings, which lends credence to Huggins' skepticism, or else remove the fact that the ADA does not concur at the end, which on its own casts Huggins' claims in a misleading light. Which shall it be?--Alterrabe (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is simply a case of the "countries" mention being used in the wrong article. I have lived in Denmark for many years now and I can get amalgam fillings from most dentists. The extent of bans has been exaggerated. In this case I'd say some "naive" and overly cautious countries, rather than "advanced" countries, but that's just my opinion. -- Fyslee / talk 09:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bans are also not due to the amalgam controversy, rather they are to do with manufacturing, disposal, and the fact that there are now other treatments, etc. Verbal chat 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If amalgam critics are correct, banning amalgam for the reasons you cite would be a face-saving way out.--Alterrabe (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although the reasons stated are good enough. However, since they are wrong it's moot. Verbal chat 11:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March 2013, a Wikipdia editor reverted all my edits while only declaring, "These edits go a bit too far into re-litigating the dental amalgam controversy in this biographical article" [diff]. In principle, my edits had deleted only a tendentious remark on Huggins's claims: "These claims are inconsistent with mainstream scientific consensus on the causes of multiple sclerosis". Deleting it, I noted, "To begin with, there is no 'mainstream scientific consensus on the causes of multiple sclerosis'. Please, cite what in the world that 'mainstream scientific consensus' is" [diff]. A notice atop this Talk page opens, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous".

Immediately after the tendentious remark, the article discussed epidemiological studies not supporting Huggins's claims, then closed by highlighting the opinion of conventional dentistry's peers, who rebuke Huggins and declare that scientific evidence supporting his claims is nonexistent. Yet failure to find a statistically significant association between use of dental amalgam and incidence of multiple sclerosis—as the article stated—does not contradict Huggins's claims. Scholars of epidemiology all but uniformly admonish the misuse of so-called causal criteria to test whether and disprove that a particular factor causes a particular disease [1]. As causation is multifactorial and intricate, any causal factor requires cofactors—often certain, normal genetic variations that might be uncommon—to produce a particular disease [1]. Thus there is no notable reason that causality in susceptible subpopulations or at the individual level would be evidenced by epidemiology at the generalized population level [1].

By fallacy of selective attention, misleading vividness, and fallacious appeal to authority, the article severely violated Wikipedia's principle neutral point of view (NPOV). Wikipedia's prescriptive article on NPOV states, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process" [2]. Not deleting the tendentious discussion of epidemiological studies, I clarified the proper uses of epidemiology and cited reliable sources (RS) [1].

I added more recent review articles—two published in 2011 and one published in 2012—on the topic of dental amalgam. Two concluded it safe and useful. The other explained that mercury levels in blood and urine have a half-life measured in days and do not correlate with tissue levels, whose half-life can be measured in decades and are determined via autopsy studies and animal experiments, which have shown that amalgam fillings implanted in teeth promote tissue levels established through in vitro data to be neurotoxic and to suppress or skew aspects of immune response [3]. Reviews concluding safety emphasize regulatory bureaus' estimates of acceptable daily mercury intake, studies measuring short-term emission of mercury vapor from teeth, mercury levels and half-life in blood and urine, and epidemiological studies seeking association between dental amalgam and specific diseases [3,4]. Yet omitting empirical findings to focus on regulatory, theoretical, mathematical, medical, and practical considerations is egregiously unscientific.

I added the perspective of basic science—differing from applied science such as epidemiology and medical science—whose basic research has empirically corroborated that amalgam fillings foster mercury accumulation in tissues, thus mercury toxicity and skewed immunity. And I added the perspective of biological dentistry, so called, whose peers in 1985 formed a national and now international trade association and agree with Huggins's fundamental claims. The reverting editor's full claimed justification: "These edits go a bit too far into re-litigating the dental amalgam controversy in this biographical article". Even if they did, undoing all the edits calls for clearly stating, explaining, and perhaps citing justification more specific and legitimate. Removing a bit of perceived bias in "re-litigating" does not justify restoring a bias that my edits showed demonstrably severe, fallacy of suppressed evidence.

Litigation itself is not the arbiter of science, as the law profession is severely unscientific, having incompatible conceptions of confirmation, disconfirmation, argumentation, truth, and causality [5]. Accepting the reverting editor's full stated criticism ironically suggests that the reversion itself must be mostly deleted. Not a claimed advocate, Huggins is a leading critic of conventional dentistry, conventional medicine, and their interpretation of epidemiological studies. So it is a given, not remarkable, that those professionals' disagree with Huggins, who identifies his more particular peers not as conventional dentists but as biological dentists, who support Huggins.

My own opinion is that Huggins was overconfident in his explanations and interventions—initially simplistic and overzealous—and used advertising and sales tactics to draw patients and promote his interventions alike a panacea. Huggins publicly conceded that his influence led to harm of some patients, as healthcare practice is partly a learning process. Yet that does not verify conventional dentistry's position that Huggin's fundamental claims were false, that his interventions were baseless, that he never helped but only abused patients, and that conventional dentistry is scientifically proved harmless. On pathophysiology, immunology, toxicology, and epidemiology—which are not healthcare practice—the consensus opinion in conventional medicine or in conventional dentistry is authoritative relative to the general public, whereas relative to the concerned scientists, epidemiologists, and scholars, it is argumentum ad verecundiam, fallacious appeal to authority. I edited to curtail the article's throwing worse evidence after bad—conventional healthcare practice, a courtroom judge's opinion, populist confusion about epidemiology, and ignorance of basic science—while unwittingly contradicting the actually authoritative, reliable sources on the subtopics discussed in this Wikipedia article.

The reverting editor adds no citation when restoring an accusation posing a "mainstream scientific consensus" that seems to neutrally yet authoritatively find Huggins a charlatan but is fictitious—medical and dental communities are clinical communities, not scientific communities—and opens a tendentious discussion of studies that sought statistical association as if scientific investigation and scientific refutation of Huggin's claims. My clarification of epidemiology's proper uses may be more succinctly summarized, perhaps, or it may be moved to the "Dental amalgam controversy" article if also deleted from the "Hal Huggins" article is the tendentious discussion of particular epidemiological studies (primary sources). My edit indirectly covered those via recent expert opinions that dental amalgam is safe and useful, whereby I cited two recent review articles (secondary sources). On reliable sources, Wikipedia advises, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves" [6].

Overconfident, Nancy Connick was a lawyer who became a judge, not an applied scientist, basic scientist, historian of science, or philosopher of science, let alone a biographer. The 1996 opinion of Connick, Time magazine's journalists, the medical profession, and conventional dentistry are neither the "mainstream scientific consensus"—which mostly lacks comment on Huggins—nor the sum of Huggins's life. A genuinely "biographical article" in an encylopedia, not yellow journalism, must better cover Huggins's perspective, accomplishments, influence, and support, which includes some aspects of mainstream scientific consensus—as established by basic and applied scientists publishing in journals of their specific disciplines—as well as CBS News journalists affirming Huggins's fundamental claims. Huggins sparked a new dentistry perspective, the so-called biological dentistry, whose trade association agrees with the fundamental claims made by Huggins, still a lecturer in demand, while many licensed and practicing dentists follow Huggins's protocol. Those are major points of view, regardless of the populist prestige of major sources that disbelieve and dislike their claims and practices.

-

1) Rothman KJ & Greenland S, "Causation and causal inference in epidemiology"—sec "Sum of attributable fractions", Am J Public Health, 2005;95 Suppl 1:S144-50

2) NPOV, sec "Achieving neutrality"

3) Mutter J, "Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission", J Occup Med Toxicol, 2011 Jan 13;6(1):2

4) Rathore M et al, "The dental amalgam toxicity fear: A myth or actuality", Toxicol Int 2012 May;19(2):81-8

5) National Research Council, The Age of Expert Testimony: Science in the Courtroom, Report of a Workshop (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002), pp 22-23

6) WP:RS, sec "Some types of sources", subsec "Scholarship"

173.68.28.14 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be well-served if you could express yourself in a more concise and focused manner, as posts like the one above are difficult to respond to. I don't think the article (as it stood) violated any policy. The critical material seemed properly sourced to independent, reliable sources (although some of the more positive material was poorly sourced). The article clearly placed Huggins' views in context of their reception by independent reliable sources, as demanded by WP:NPOV.

Your changes have deprecated those reliable sources (which you dismiss out of hand, along with the views of the mainstream news media, the dental board, and the medical community). And they've added low-quality sources which have no place in a biographical article. I think that you're approaching this article with the concern that it doesn't agree with your personal viewpoint, when the more appropriate question is whether it accurately and proportionately reflects available independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking enough interest to read the above, you cannot claim to refute the above, which explains where the article violated WP:NPOV by omitting major points of view in reliable sources, violated WP:TE by appealing to fictitious consensus, misleading vividness, cherrypicking, and fallacious appeal to authority, and violated the WP:Biography of living persons with a potentially libelous claim about Huggins. It also explains how the article violated WP:RS by interpreting primary research articles instead of representing the views in secondary sources, such as review articles. My cited review articles, not "low-quality sources", interpret those primary research articles.

You are flatly lying that I "dimiss out of hand" any reliable sources in the article, since I included them in my own article version, either directly or indirectly. You cannot point out a single one that I dismissed. You are the one trying to delete reliable sources and omit those entire, major points of view by asserting your personal opinion that I introduced a number of "low-quality sources". On the contrary, Encyclopedia.com, International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine, International Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, and Toxicology International are not "low-quality sources" versus your personal opinion proffered as a source assessing their quality. 71.190.193.175 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I make a real, honest effort to read and digest everything posted on this talkpage. You need to meet me halfway by exercising some self-restraint, by not abusing this talkpage as a forum for your personal views, and by trying to express yourself clearly. You posted an massive and largely incoherent complaint, and then when no one can digest or understand you concerns you consider that we've failed to "refute" you. That's a pretty frustrating and inappropriate mode of interaction.

Also, please don't keep making major edits to your comments after you post them. Doing so makes it impossible to respond to you. Use the "Show Preview" button before posting.

There does seem to be a consensus that amalgam is not dangerous, at least not in the way that Huggins claims. The sources in the article support that consensus. There also seems to be zero real support for Huggins' claims in the mainstream scientific, medical, or dental communities - if I'm wrong, please explain (briefly) where you see such support. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viewed in isolation, the length of my first post on this Talk page is a nuisance. Yet the post was not even remotely incoherent. Finding oneself unable to understand it and inferring it therefore incoherent is the reasoning error affirming the consequent—common in applied science, such as medical science, and structuring the prior article's severe bias. Anyway, the post was lengthy but fostered efficient use of this Talk page, versus going back and forth for months with brief posts making unsubstantiated, emotional allegations and assertions.

My especial concern with the prior article is illustrated by such vague, emotional assertion are your now stating, "There also seems to be zero real support for Huggins' claims in the mainstream scientific, medical, or dental communities...". What does zero real support mean beyond allusion to social heuristics? In science, heavy preference is for claims of empirical content, as in my latest edit of the article: "Later reviews have affirmed that implanted dental amalgam leads to accumulation of mercury in proteins of tissues—for example, in brain and glands—reaching mercury levels known to be neurotoxic and immunotoxic in vitro, but that confirmation of a contribution to systemic dysfunction or human diseases is lacking and thus dental amalgam appears safe".

Your statement blurs the mainstream medical community and the mainstream dental community—that is, communities of clinicians and clinical scientists, who are healthcare practitioners and applied scientists, respectively—with mainstream scientific communities, which are communities of basic scientists, such as biologists and chemists. Basic scientists have made, it seems, "zero real" comment on Huggins's claims to begin with. Yet the article carries the typical error in clinical communities to erroneously pose epidemiological studies as the grand sum of "science" and able to verify or disprove causality, which they are not.

The article was tendentious also since Huggins does not claim support by mainstream medicine and mainstream dentistry, but is a major critic of them. Huggins himself has highlighted the orthodox consensus and his own heterodoxy. Huggins is supported by a prominent subset of peers, namely biological dentists—having an international trade organization—who emphasize basic science, such as used by biologists. Thus, the prior article omitted consensus among biological dentists (supporting Hugins), and consensus among basic scientists (uncommitted stance). The article replicated the errors of orthodox medical and orthodox dental communities misrepresenting their own opinions as all "the science", and that as all of reality. This is a biography of Huggins, not a reduction of all reality to judicial ruling, orthodox clinical opinions, and related social proof against Huggins.

As to my "major" edits of my comments on the Talk page, I edit only to undo typos or such errors, or to elucidate or clarify or exemplify—not to alter my fundamental indications. Already watchful of that concern, I do not think that my edits of my Talk comments pose a notable obstacle to someone's responding, but if anything ease one's responding relevantly. Still, to address your concern, I will try to further restrict the edits. 71.190.193.175 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm having an easy time with your communication style, but maybe the problem is mine. It would be helpful to involve some other editors, I suppose. I find your post long on semantic hair-splitting and short on actual engagement with what I've said. It's not necessary to wikilink words like "heuristic" or "allusion", much less "brain" and "gland"; I know what they mean. I suspect there may be some substance to your concerns over the weighting of the article, but I'm not at all comfortable with the sweeping changes you've repeatedly tried to force into the article, nor with the explanations you've provided (which seem like slightly confused personal musings which completely ignore the actual reliable sources relevant to this article). Can we try starting over, with one specific concern which you articulate concisely and with reference to independent, reliable sources rather than personal musings on semantics? MastCell ^Talk 06:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hal Huggins. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983841-1,00.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,235009,00.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hal Huggins. 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, 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) 06:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Staudenmayer, Herman (1999). Environmental Illness: Myth and Reality. CRC Press.

[2] CBS's 60 Minutes, December 16, 1990.

[1]

[2]