Jump to content

Talk:John Ioannidis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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Some information listed on the Wikipedia article about myself is seriously outdated and there are several wrong/biased additions have been made recently.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)

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)

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. [1]"

References

  1. ^ https://www.biospace.com/article/meet-the-professor-who-was-the-first-to-question-theranos-research-/

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)

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)
  • 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)

Santa Clara study

[1] "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").

[2] "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 [3] 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") [4] 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 [5], and a few days later discussed (not linked to) in Science [6] 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[7] 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 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)

More original research

That new text [8] 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)

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Ioannidis/Archive_1&oldid=1263981052"