Talk:Martin Kulldorff/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Collective action of edit warring

It is becoming clear there is organized and collective warring going on here.

There is no consensus on the statement of what he opposes without the accompanying statement of what he supported. Both are covered by the same article.

If we can't reach consensus on the statement, as it incompletely reflects what the article stated, then the statement should remain in talk.

The same reasoning is being applied to the title of epidemiology and therefore should apply here as well. Bon Courage has posted in the Fringe board to request more eyes and we should let more people weigh in on the issue. Otherwise we'll be stuck in a tit-for-tat battle on an individual's biography, which requires accuracy, completeness, impartiality.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's only one person that has breached the 3RR by my count. Also, consensus is not the same as unanimity. MrOllie (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bon courage mentioned an admin being involved. I would say now is a good time for the admin to surface and help us sort this out.

I am continue to advocate keeping the back and forth editing on the statement here until consensus is reached. That does not mean someone jumps up and says "I just added a statement that we can all agree on even if one person dissents." That's not good-faith editing.

Working through the discussion here, even if it takes a lot of work, is what doing a good biography on a contentious subject is all about. If an editor feels this discussion is a waste of time, that editor is free to work on another article.

Alternatively, if an editor wishes to work through a contentious, controversial subject in a meaningful, but difficult manner of dialog, then let's keep at it...in Talk space not in Article space.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The apparent need to have one's copy present on the biography, even if it's contended and actively being discussed in Talk, further indicates to me this is ideologically driven.

My proposed statement comes from the same, accepted article that lists some of Kulldorff's opposed measures. Therefore the source should not be in contention. The only issue we have at this point, per my understanding, is the inclusion of measures Kulldorff supported. And I don't understand that resistance beyond an ideological resistance.

So from my side, this looks more and more like an ideologically driven resistance to portraying anything "positive" about Kulldorff.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The standard process is to leave the article at the status quo ante bellum while discussion proceeds. WP:BLP is not a license for one user to keep well-cited text that enjoys consensus among other editors out of an article for as long as they can fillibuster. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement as it currently stands is an incomplete truth on a biography. You are correct, a biography is not a license for edit warring. From WP:BLP

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [original emphasis]

The statement as it currently reads is challenged as an impartial truth with undue weight being placed on what Kulldorff opposed. Editors are actively and intentionally omitting what he supported. This impartial truth can lead a reader to believe that Kulldorff was broadly against measures intended to control the disease.

Therefore the statement should be removed immediately or edited to reflect the full truth in a manner befitting consensus.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 00:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

that is unsourced or poorly sourced - this is neither. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The incomplete truth is poorly sourced and challenged. The source indicates there were specific measures Kulldorff supported as well, which deserve equal mention to those he opposed. That is a non-biased report of what the source reported.

The discussion thread we've been having on the topic is less than 24 hours old. That's not filibustering. That's an attempt at finding consensus. What is so pressing that the statement not be in Article space for less than 24 hours while it is discussed? The daily, average page view is 78. I'd say we have plenty of time to discuss this in Talk, without a challenged, impartial truth still present on a living person's biography.

And if the back and forth discussion is too much for an editor, they are free to spend their time on another article.

I think there is such a desire to "win the battle for one's own truth" (argh! battle noises!) that neutrality has been forgotten.

Disagreement here in Talk space doesn't have to be shouldn't be a binary of either everyone agreeing and patting each other on the back or a group of people threatening admin action against another for warring. The target we should be shooting for is the non-binary, or analog consensus.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 00:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

False?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do we have consensus for "false" in "while promoting the false promise that vulnerable people could be protected from the virus"? It had been stable (I think) in the article before the recent edit war. Hoping people can chime in so we can put together an edit request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Need to say false for NPOV. The idea is ridiculous/impossible (per sources) so off-handedly calling it just a "promise" is not good. Bon courage (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the changed language of "promoting the promise" is inadequate, and that NPOV requires an indication that said promise was widely considered impossible to keep. A refquote with the word "false" or very similar language would be advisable for verifiability. Llll5032 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, and it's not like this hasn't been discussed ad nauseum already.[1] Bon courage (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How about this quote from the cited SBD source: "To boil it all down, if you listen to epidemiologists and public health scientists, you’ll soon realize that it’s impossible to protect the vulnerable from a virus that’s rapidly spreading among the entire population, even if the risk of death or severe disease is much lower in the young"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is a helpful refquote. Llll5032 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Added! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And it's been reverted by the same new user that was edit-warring before. We have consensus that we should say "false promise" and include the quotation, so this would appear to be disruptive editing against consensus. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirming consensus. That new user is also WP:SPA. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

AhmetYu, care to chime in? Are you familiar with WP:PARITY, which includes the guidance "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal"? Since the GBD is a fringe think tank publication, peer-reviewed works are not required to present the mainstream view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 09:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Categorizing GBD as fringe is pretty fringe, its a declaration signed by many reputable epidemiologists and scientists from worlds most known universities. Regardless, their declaration is for sure not "primarily described by amateurs". Mr. Kulldorff with his background as a professor of medicine at Harvard for 18 Years for sure doesn't count an amateur in this specific context. Therefore, the "guidance" you cite is not valid at all here. As I have described it in the editing history already, anyone with NPOV and common sense would require a peer-reviewed research in this specific and sensitive context before making an unnecessarily subjective distinction like that. Taking a deeper look, so many medicine or biology professors signed that declaration, that its literally a misinformation crime to simply call their declaration here easily false based on a single persons opinion just because you guys think those professors are "amateurs".

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" - This is one of Wikipedia's main principles, leaving the word "False" here is a very very clear violation of that principle no matter how you try to game it. Again, these people, including Mr. Kulldorff are clearly not amateurs, instead of trying to falsify their declaration without reliable scientific sources we should simply report about things in a neutral way. One important and additional argument you guys are missing for removing the word "False" is that already in the next sentence it is anyways said that "The declaration was criticized as being unethical and infeasible and was widely rejected", that sentence is the limit of NPOV, going beyond that sentence is not NPOV anymore, its clearly a different intent. AhmetYu (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral means aligning with the WP:BESTSOURCES. But those the GBD is a load of hooey. Wikipedia is bound to reflect that knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"load of hooey".. That is your OPINION, and maybe also the opinion of many others, but it is not a scientifically proven fact which you can use here at Wikipedia, NPOV requires to inform the reader about GBD and Mr Kulldorff without violating NPOV. And again, if you have a sound peer-reviewed source for that claim, bring it on. AhmetYu (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the evaluation of on-point sources. So Wikipedia reflects that knowledge, to be neutral. Usually sources debunking fringe nonsenses like this aren't peer-reviewed, but WP:SBM is a golden source for fringe material, and generally reliable for assertions of fact. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

General reliability is not sufficient in this context, WP:SBM "is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS" according to the reference you point to. Aagain, for the sake of NPOV a peer reviewed source is needed here, opinions alone are obviously not sufficient with this one. AhmetYu (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing 'neutral point of view' with WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is a common error but entirely unsupported by the NPOV policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Read yourself what you are referring to: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

Using the word "False" here is clearly taking a stand AGAINST it, and that without a scientific and peer-reviewed reference although the context clearly requires it. I would like to underline that Mr. Kulldorff here is a professor of medicine at Harvard for 18 Years, he is no amateur in this context. AhmetYu (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the word "False" is mirroring what the best available sources say, and that is what we're supposed to do. Wikipedia also takes a position that the Earth is round rather than flat, and that is not a problem with NPOV. You've also already been pointed to WP:PARITY - we do not require peer-reviewed references here. Sometimes people with impressive credentials are just wrong, and Wikipedia will say so when they are. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We are not supposed to violate NPOV, if you wish that badly to inform the user about people having the opinion that its "False", you simply do it, like with the next sentence, you don't need to break neutrality for that.

I don't care if the Earth is round, flat or elliptic, thats another discussion, I don't know what you are referring to concretely, I don't know what scientific research has been delivered by which side.

And concerning what I have been pointed to with WP:PARITY, there it mentions that peer reviewed criticism is not necessary in case the corresponding their is "primarily described by amateurs", don't let me repeat myself unnecessarily, Mr. Kulldorff is clearly no amateur, therefore what I have been pointed to has in this context not argumentative relevance. AhmetYu (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. The use of the word "false" is required by our NPOV policy. If you continue edit-warring you are likely to be blocked. To get further opinions on whether GBD is fringe, raise a query at WP:FT/N. I suggest this matter is now otherwise closed. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is the opposite of what our main principle dictate, my argumentation is valid until you can deliver a meaningful counter argument for keeping "False". If you continue edit-warring you should rather be blocked. If you and readers here have noticed it, one can clearly observe that you seem to pushing your own opinion here while I care only about being truly neutral. AhmetYu (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the combined wisdom of several established editors with tens of thousands of edits between them aligns better with Wikipedia's "main principles" than an WP:SPA trying to mangle a lede in a WP:PROFRINGE manner? Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And thats where we have arrived, because you have absolutely no counter-arguments, the only thing you have left is trying to discredit me by labeling me as WP:SPA. Yea, if the majority of "experienced" editors say so, they must be right, consensus indeed. People following Hitler had the same mentality, they were the majority back then. Congratulations. AhmetYu (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

A textbook example of Godwin's Law that got this editor blocked indefinitely ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand what NPOV is. It is not WP:FALSEBALANCE. You are seizing on a rhetorical device in WP:PARITY - that amateurs are used as an example in one sentence does not mean you can ignore everything else in a four paragraph section. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, you rather don't seem to understand what NPOV is, using the world "False" here is not neutral at all without any scientific reference. You can't simply ignore the word "amateurs" there just because its fitting better into your intention then, it is not our problem if the source you are pointing us to does not describe what you want. AhmetYu (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Kulldorff's December 2021 essay

I've gone back and forth with a few of you on this now, so fine, let's use the talk page to discuss it.

The section under Views on COVID-19 contains the following paragraph:

"In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and that on that basis illogically argued that children should not receive COVID-19 vaccination. In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death that year, while COVID-19 had killed more than 1,000."

The only part of this that is objectively true is that he wrote an essay for the Brownstone Institute. "error-laden" shows bias against the essay, "in which he falsely claimed" shows bias against the view, and "illogically argued" is pure opinion.

This paragraph would be more neutral by saying:

"In December 2021, Kulldorff published an essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he asserted that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis argued that children do not require the COVID-19 vaccination. Influenza was responsible for one child death that year, while COVID-19 was responsible for more than 1,000 since the start of the pandemic (609 in 2021). However, the 2020-2021 flu season was abnormally mild and is not representative of normal influenza related mortality rates among children."

That is an objectively true paragraph and completely neutral (I also corrected some grammar errors from the original).

Either remove the paragraph for being biased against Kulldorff's essay and view, or modify it to be actually objective. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to represent the cited source (which is a good one) accurately, as is. The "mild season" stuff appears to be entirely your invention. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The cited "article" is a blatant hit and opinion piece, it's hardly a "good one" and if articles like that were the standard for Wikipedia, the site would lose all credibility.

As for whether a COVID infection or influenza infection is more severe, which is the point of Kulldorff's statement, the cited article even concedes this: "Yes, a young child with the flu might fare slightly worse than a child with COVID-19, but COVID-19 is much more contagious, and so it has much done more damage overall."

The author acknowledges that an infection with influenza is likely to be more severe than with COVID. He goes on to argue that COVID is still worse in aggregate because more kids got COVID during the pandemic.

Last, you state "The "mild season" stuff appears to be entirely your invention" yet my source for that is the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm -- "Flu activity was unusually low throughout the 2020-2021 flu season both in the United States and globally, despite high levels of testing."

Hardly "my invention."

Again, because the original source is an opinion piece with a blatant and clear bias against Kulldorff, it's inappropriate for the paragraph in question to even be in the article. If it's going to be, it should be my version which is a neutral take. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that sciencebasedmedicine is a good source (see WP:SBM) - You're not going to get very far here by arguing that its inappropriate based on your personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and there is nothing in it about a "mild season" - the IP is trying for WP:SYNTH based on some as yet unused source. The whole point here is that whatever erroneous assertions were made, it cannot follow that children do not require the COVID-19 vaccination. That is what the source says; we relay it, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You're really getting into semantics here by suggesting that "unusually low" and "mild" aren't synonymous. But fine, I'll change it to say what the CDC said verbatim. I trust you'll consider them a good source.

I'm going to make the edit again, because the verbiage used in the original paragraph is opinionated and not fact based. Kulldorff's article is error-laden in the opinion of the SMB author. "Falsely claimed" in the opinion of the SMB author, despite him acknowledging that a flu infection is more severe in his own article. "Illogically argued" in the opinion of the SMB author. These are not neutral points nor are they based in fact. It's the opinion of the SMB author.

As for whether or not children broadly require COVID-19 vaccination, I would think Wikipedia editors would give more credence to the views of a doctor that specializes in vaccine safety and infectious diseases than the views of a psychiatrist. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

SBM is reliable for statements of fact, which we WP:ASSERT unless there is a counter reliable source. This is particularly important for WP:FRINGE views like "flu something something so don't vaccinate children!". The CDC source is irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The SMB author's assertion is that COVID is obviously more dangerous than the flu because the flu only killed one kid that year. It goes without saying that context for why there were so few flu fatalities is relevant and necessary. Pretty wild to me that you consider a CDC source on the 2020-2021 flu season irrelevant in a paragraph that has to do with the 2020-2021 flu season. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Copying a source in an juxtaposing it with another to try to make some sort of point is called 'synthesis' here, a type of original research. (see WP:SYN). It is against Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, and as it happens the record annual US pediatric deaths from flu in recent years is 188, so not "more hazardous to children than COVID-19"[2] in theory, let alone in practice. Stating otherwise is an error as our excellent source relays. I think we are done here. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The point that Kulldorff was making is that an infection with influenza is usually more severe for a child than an infection with COVID-19. The SBM opinion author even acknowledged that fact, which I've already quoted but will again: "Yes, a young child with the flu might fare slightly worse than a child with COVID-19..."

That said, none of us here are doctors or experts in infectious diseases and we're losing sight of the original point of the edit: That the original paragraph has multiple opinionated and biased statements in it, and the SBM source itself is an opinion piece. You all keep saying the SBM is "excellent" and that may usually be the case, but the New York Times is also usually an excellent source, but an opinion piece in the NYT would also be inappropriate to use as a source unless it's made clear that it's an opinion piece.

The original paragraph and the cited SBM source are both expressing their views of Kulldorff's article and the validity of it, rather than simply explaining the views of Kulldorff. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the viewpoint of science applied to the viewpoint of antivax grift. Wikipedia prefers the science way. You may have your views on how the relative hazards of flu and COVID weigh up, and how that means COVID vaccination is unnecessary, but here we simply relay what good sources say, so any such personal views are irrelevant. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

So if you want to prefer the science way, perhaps you should prefer the views of an infectious disease and vaccine safety expert over the views of a neurologist/psychiatrist?

I totally agree. Anyone who doesn't is simply more interested in their preferred narrative than what "the science" says. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

We prefer the mainstream view. Sometimes people who have impressive qualifications aren't in the mainstream - when that happens, Wikipedia will say so. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Has a "vaccine safety expert" given some view on Kulldorff in RS? That would be useful to cite .... Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And who decides what is mainstream and what isn't? The point is, the original paragraph cites a psychiatrist offering his opinion on an essay by a infectious disease and vaccine safety expert.

"Has a "vaccine safety expert" given some view on Kulldorff in RS? That would be useful to cite" - Kulldorff is a vaccine safety expert, unless you believe the CDC allows (or allowed) average Joes to sit on their panels related to vaccine safety. Kulldorff is the type of expert that should be cited. There are also other experts with different views. All are more credible than a psychiatrists. Or yours or mine. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources do. We don't do it ourselves by trying to interpret CDC data. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources... And have you considered, and bear with me here, that the reason you consider a psychiatrist's view on vaccine safety more reliable than an infectious diseases and vaccine safety expert because the psychiatrist's view fits your own personal view? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really, the trick of a Wikipedian is not to have their "own personal view" for the subjects they edit, and to convey what is written in reliable sources. I certainly have a "view" about what is a reliable source, partly through a long period of editing Wikipedia, but also through a lifetime including long stints in academia and in STEM publishing. Good editors should know their limits. Bottom line, the argument that influenza somehow means the COVID-19 vaccine should be avoided for children is shite per every reliable source on the planet, and Wikipedia puts it in that context. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If that's the "trick of a Wikipedian," I'd say the project is doing a piss-poor job of it, to be honest. The IP address has a perfectly valid point. The "reliable sources" have a nasty habit of incestuously citing one another in a sort of tautological circle-jerk. They create "truth" and "consensus" out of nothing on a regular basis. And frankly, the tone and verbiage that is being used against people like Kulldorff, Bhattachary, and Gupta is totally unbefitting of anyone with a principled scientific background. Edsanville (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

LOL, academics citing each other is more generally known as scholarship. Wikipedia likes knowledge. Which is why bullshit is properly framed within its great context, as here. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The SBM article is factually incorrect and is misattributed

I have removed the contended statement so that we can continue to discuss this issue here and try to find a consensus, per WP:BLP, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. [emphasis original]

Factual inaccuracy

The SMB article states: "The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child."

According to the author's source; the CDC[3], the previous two years had 200 pediatric influenza-related deaths. The previous two years would be seasons 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, which had 199 and 1 total deaths respectively.

Therefore we can not use this SBM article to assert that only one child had died of influenza in the two years previous to the article publication. We also can't use it to say that only one child had died of influenza the year/season before because the SBM article doesn't say that.

Article misattribution

Bon_courage added the statement "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death that year, while COVID-19 had killed more than 1,000."

The SBM article does not say that COVID-19 killed more than 1,000 that year. It says that 1,000 were killed during the "past two years":

The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child. During this same period, according to the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, over 1,000 children have died of COVID-19 in the US, with mitigations in place, making it one of the leading causes of pediatric deaths. Even in normal years, the flu killed fewer children than COVID-19.
— Jonathan Howard , Science-based Medicine

While it looks to me like influenza, during a typical season, kills fewer children than COVID-19 did during the period the SBM article references, I can't find a good source discussing this in context of Kulldorff's assertion that 'kids are at less risk from COVID than from influenza during a typical influenza year.'

In an interview with Unherd earlier this year, Kulldorff re-asserted himself and the statement was unchecked by Freddie Sayers, the interviewer:

While kids can, do get COVID, there’s more than 1,000-fold difference in mortality between the youngest and the oldest. So they are at very minimal risk. They are at less risk from COVID death than from, from influenza death during a typical influenza year.
— Martin Kulldorff, Martin Kulldorff: Lessons from Sweden for the next pandemic

Proposed statement

I propose the following to replace the statement:

Kulldorff published an essay in December, 2021 for the Brownstone Institute in which he claimed that children have a higher mortality risk from the annual influenza than from COVID-19.[4] In the same essay, he asserted that it "will take years" to understand the risk profile of the vaccines for children and therefore we don't know if there is more harm than good done in vaccinating children. Kulldorff re-asserted his assessment of the risk of influenza vs COVID-19 in children in July, 2022 during an interview by Freddie Sayers of Unherd.[5]

It reads a bit awkward I think, but can be massaged here, in talk, to reach a consensus

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

that is unsourced or poorly sourced - See WP:CRYBLP as well. We've been over this before, you don't get to wave your hands, call a perfectly reliable source 'poor' and keep content out of the article based solely on your say-so. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's stick to the reliable sources and not amplify misinformation by pernicious WP:OR. (Although the 1 year snit was good to fix; it makes the grift even more apparent). Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP states the following:

Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.

Even when a source such as WP:SBM is considered generally reliable, that does not mean it is considered universally or unquestionably reliable.

The SBM article is factually inaccurate in stating that there has ever been two years of only 1 child, influenza-related death. The author's own source for the statement clearly shows that. The designation "2020-2021" is an influenza season. It does not indicate calendar years 2020 and 2021.[6]

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not my "say-so." It's core policy.

The statement you reinserted "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in that two year period..." is factually inaccurate according to the source provided by the SBM article. A two year period would include two influenza seasons (2019-2020 and 2020-2021). During those two periods, there were 200 total deaths. Therefore the statement is factually inaccurate. The only influenza season with only 1 child death was 2020-2021, which is not two years, according to how the CDC tracks influenza seasons.[7]

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A rephrase into slightly different terminology does not equal 'factually inaccurate'. The difference in death totals for the two diseases over the same period is accurately reported by the source. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference in death totals for the two diseases over the same period is accurately reported by the source.
— User:MrOllie 17:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly is not accurate.

The source provided (the CDC's FluView) unambiguously indicates that only one influenza season had only 1 child, influenza-related death: season 2020-2021.

The designation of flu season "2020-2021" does not indicate 24 months of 2020-2021. According to the CDC, this is how they track and designate flu seasons:

"The exact timing and duration of flu seasons varies, but flu activity often begins to increase in October. Most of the time flu activity peaks between December and February, although significant activity can last as late as May."[8]

The statement in the SBM article "The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child." is therefore factually incorrect according to the author's own source.

17:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. But rather getting into the weeds, I'll just say that we cannot substitute your original research interpretation of the primary sources for what the actual reliable secondary source is saying. MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The wording is imprecise. From the SBM link the "two years" comment means the period straddling 2020/21. I have tweaked the text to reflect this. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your statement "From the SBM link the "two years" comment means the period straddling 2020/21." is original research. We don't know what the author might have meant outside of what is actually written. What is written is "two years" not 'the 2020/21 season.' The author does not use the word "season" outside of quoting the CDC about the 2004-2005 influenza season.

Therefore this statement made by you is unsourced, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR: "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season, while COVID-19 had killed more than 1,000."

What if an editor added a statement that Kulldorff actually meant something else when what is written is clearly not that. Would you accept that edit?

Furthermore, a source in which the "wording is imprecise," as you say, is not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP.;Edited 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's clicking the link. The "two years" are 2020 and 2021. Obvious really. Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The year 2020 is influenza season 2019-2020. In that season, there were 199 influenza-related deaths.

The year 2021 is influenza season 2020-2021. In that season, there was 1 influenza-related death.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is what the article says. Glad that's all agreed. Can we close this now? Bon courage (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

We most certainly are not in agreement.

An editor stating what they think an author meant to say is WP:OR. The statement is unsourced.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The language of the source is slightly ambiguous. Your interpretation is particularly uncharitable, others disagree. The point (that there is a 1000x difference in deaths over the same period) is accurate and continues to be well supported. That you disagree about the wording the source used does not make the source inaccurate, and that does not mean the statement in the Wikipedia article is somehow 'unsourced.' MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"The point (that there is a 1000x difference in deaths over the same period) is accurate and continues to be well supported."

It is absolutely NOT accurate and that is the point. Can you clearly argue that there was only 1 child, influenza-related death in the two years of 2020 and 2021? What is the source that indicates that and is that source used in the SBM article?

The statement that there was only 1 death in two years (which is exactly what the SBM article says) is false to facts based on the source provided by SBM.

Any deviation from that, any interpretation of what "two years" might mean beyond "two years" is original research. Any statement by an editor that "two years" actually means 'six-to-eight months spanning two calendar years' is WP:OR.

Ambiguous, imprecise language is not fitting of a BLP.

If the situation was flipped, and someone was arguing that Kulldorff really meant one thing, when he clearly wrote something else, would you accept it?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the SBM writer is describing the period from the end of flu season in spring 2020 (coinciding with the start of anti-COVID measures) to the publishing of the article in December 2021? That would cover two separate years and round up to two years, although it is closer to 19 months than 24. Llll5032 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, that would fit with the wording "the past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place". Bon courage (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that this SBM article is imprecisely and ambiguously worded to the point where editors are trying their best to make the article same something that it does not say.

Because it is imprecise and ambiguous, the SBM article does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP. The statement as it is currently written is unsourced and disputed and therefore should be immediately removed without further discussion.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 02:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It is much easier to win an argument if you can take other people's words out of context to claim they agree with you, but that is not how discussions work. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

If you click the CDC link (try it!) it all becomes obvious that the "two years" are those of 20/21 season. The source does not say "24 month contiguous period", as Michael.C.Wright seems to be interpreting it. Even if it did it does not alter the underlying point that flu is not more hazardous that COVID for children, and that this relationship provides no logical basis for opposing childhood vaccination. Bon courage (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is still inaccurate. According to the CDC's official COVID-19 fatality count (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm) there were 234 pediatric COVID-19 deaths during the 2020/21 flu season. This statement: "In reality, influenza had been responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season, while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000." implies that 1,000 children died of COVID-19 during the 2020/21 flu season, when in reality that count is based on all COVID-19 pediatric deaths through December 2021. Even if we were to use April 2020-December 2021, the official tally is 801. It is simply inaccurate to say that the flu killed 1 child while COVID-19 killed more than 1,000 over the same period.

Unfortunately, the facts are not on your or the psychiatrist author's side. Considering there is clearly a lack of consensus that the paragraph as written is accurate or appropriate, it should be removed until a consensus is reached. Otherwise, you're trying very hard to find a way to keep it in the article. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We're trying very hard to respect our policy on original research, which prevents us from substituting our own judgment in an attempt to undermine reliable sources as you are trying to do here. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of undermining reliable sources. It's pointing out factual inaccuracies. The paragraph in the Wikipedia article, as written, is factually inaccurate. Does it matter if the source of the inaccuracy is from an SBM article? Let's phrase this a different way. If the SBM article said that the flu killed 500 children during the 2020/21 season, which is obviously inaccurate, would it still be appropriate to say that in the Wikipedia article as if it's true? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We can only speculate about the exact data and time periods used, thus, any attempt to come up with our own numbers to 'prove' inaccuracy is original research. We don't do that here. The only policy way to undercut this source would be with another reliable source that specifically contradicts it. I'm sure in the hypothetical situation you suggest sources calling out the error in SBM would be available. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I've already linked to the CDC's COVID-19 fatality page which directly contradicts both the SBM source and the paragraph in this Wikipedia article. I'll post it again: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Should we consider the CDC or SBM more reliable for COVID-19 fatality data? 71.128.145.158 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

That you found some other data set that doesn't exactly match the article is irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's time to get others involved to resolve this dispute. You clearly aren't engaging in good faith and are more interested in arguing than ensuring the Wikipedia article is quality.

Here's my reasoning for saying you aren't engaging in good faith: In your 2nd to last statement, you said it would be necessary to find another reliable source that directly contradicts the SBM article. I posted the CDC's count which directly contradicts it and which is infinitely more reliable than an opinion piece on SBM, and now you say that it's irrelevant. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A source that directly contradicts SBM would say something like 'SBM is wrong and here is why'. That is not what you are presenting here. MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither the SBM article or Kulldorff's essay say that Kulldorff said children should not be vaccinated. Keep it up, you're only providing more evidence that you aren't engaging in good faith. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting Kulldorff's essay: COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

And SBM: I was dismayed that it mostly argued against vaccinating children. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is entirely different than Kulldorff saying children should not be vaccinated. 71.128.145.158 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really; it would be different from him saying "must not". "Should not" is just a recommendation against. It was maybe too weak if anything. I've strengthened it. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Just noting here that blocks have been placed on both Michael.C.Wright (indefinite) and IP 71.128.145.158 (1 week). - MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOCKING eh. While whining about bad faith. Classic. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Zzuuzz with checkuser privilege looked at the sockpuppet accusation and wrote "In my opinion, the technical evidence says to me that this IP and Michael.C.Wright are not the same person." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I read the article, saw that a paragraph was incorrect and following the Wikipedia guidelines, removed it. Now I see all the communication about this single paragraph in the past. This entire thread already makes clear that this paragraph simply has no place in this article, but I'll take some time to explain why: The quoted SMB article makes false claims. The primary false claim, which you seem to have missed in your discussion is this: It claims that "During this same period, according to the CDC’s Covid Data Tracker, over 1,000 children have died of COVID-19 in the US". However, while the definition of an influenza-death is "Someone who died of influenza", a Covid-19 death is "Someone who tested positive within 60 days prior to their death or where Covid-19 possible played a role in the chain of events that led to their death". The claim that over 1000 children died of Covid is therefore false. Fact is that there is no available data of how many children died of Covid-19 in the US. This of course also means that you can't simply compare influenza-deaths to Covid-deaths. That's comparing apples with pears. However, we do know of many European countries how many children died *of* Covid-19, as the ministry of health of Germany, the United Kingdom , the Netherlands and Sweden publicly disclosed this information. The combined number of children that died *of* Covid in those 4 countries (with a combined population of 179 million people) is... ZERO. Not a single child died of Covid-19 in those countries. So when we actually compare apples to apples in these countries, it's clear that Kulldorff's statement is 100% correct. Don't forget that Martin Kulldorff is of Swedish descent. He knows these numbers. It's actually common knowledge in Europe that for children influenza is more dangerous than Covid-19. I'm quite surprised to see that apparently many Americans didn't know this.

Also as mentioned earlier, the author is comparing influenza in years without influenza to Covid-19. That's not scientific at all for a statement like he makes.

I'd like to remind you that this is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. I see claims in the discussion above, which from the view of an European make no sense at all. For example, many European countries never vaccinated children < 12 years as it didn't make sense from a health perspective. The Danish minister of health actually admitted that vaccinating the 12 - 18 years group was a mistake. You seem set on defaming Martin Kulldorff on the premise that he thinks that it makes no sense to vaccinate children for Covid-19. In Europe, this is the mainstream thought among many vaccinologists and immunologists.

So I hope it's clear now for everyone that the paragraph has to go. It makes false claims to defame a famous epidemiologist and is spreading disinformation. Martdj (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) martdj

Your personal disagreements with a reliable source do not actually make that source unreliable. We should continue to follow the sources we have. MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I factually state why the source is incorrect, and all you do is claim it is correct without adding any information to back your statement. Please, don't compare my facts with your personal opinion.

I'd like to hear why you feel that this paragraph is in any way relevant to this piece? What does it add that's important for readers to know? So far, I'm getting the idea that you just don't like the guy because of his views on Covid-19. Wikipedia should be about facts. Not your opinions or feelings. This is unworthy of a Wikipedia editor. Martdj (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your argument is that the source is incorrect. On Wikipedia, we follow the reliable sources. I don't need to add information to 'back my statement' because following the reliable sources is the default position here, and there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source. The paragraph, as a response to the subject's views on COVID-19, is obviously relevant. MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Martdj wrote: "The combined number of children that died *of* Covid in those 4 countries (with a combined population of 179 million people) is... ZERO. Not a single child died of Covid-19 in those countries. So when we actually compare apples to apples in these countries, it's clear that Kulldorff's statement is 100% correct."

A check of just three FOIs shows that children did die of Covid 19 in the UK:

The number of children (0-18) who died of Covid 19 in England and Wales, by 28 January 2021, was 20.[9]

The number of children (0-18) who died of Covid 19 in the England and Wales between 3 January 2020 and 7^th May 2021, was 37.[10]

The number of children (0-18) who died of Covid 19 in England and Wales between 2 January 2021 and 17 September 2021, was 34.[11]

I heard that the total number of children (0-18) in the United Kingdom who died from Covid 19 between 3 January 2020 to 7th July 2023 was over 175. I'll need to find the annual totals for each of the countries England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and then add them up to get the total for the United Kingdom. When I find the link to the data, I'll share it here.

It's clear that Kulldorff's statement is incorrect.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You ignored my earlier explanation of the difference of a Covid-death versus an Influenza-death. Your stated numbers are under the definition of a Covid-19-death. As explained, you can't compare these numbers to influenza deaths. As shown here Chris Witty himself said that all children who are registered as Covid-19 deaths were already mortally ill. This means that if the same definition would be used for a Covid-death as for an influenza death, not a single child would be registered as having died of Covid-19. Therefore, both my statement and Kulldorff's statement are correct. Martdj (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't ignored your "earlier explanation of the difference of a Covid-death versus an influenza-death."

If someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the last 60 days is knocked over by a bus and dies from their injuries, their death is not counted as a COVID-19 death on their death certificate.

The numbers I stated above are for those children for whom CoViD19 was either the direct cause of their death or contributed significantly to their death.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are more links which all show Kulldorff to be correct:

- Does Covid-19 in children have a milder course than Influenza?

"Conclusion: COVID-19 and Influenza may share similar clinical features. According to our findings, however, we believe that COVID-19 disease has a milder clinical and laboratory course than Influenza in children."

- Comparing the Risk of Death from COVID-19 vs. Influenza by Age

"For toddlers, the relative risk is even more pronounced. We estimate that Americans between ages 1–4 are 3.4 times more likely to die of influenza than of COVID-19." Martdj (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is clear on this: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" There can be no discussion that the paragraph contains "contentious material about a living person" and seeing that multiple sources, including an official scientific study, contradict the statement of the given source, there can not be any discussion that the material is poorly sourced. Therefore, following Wikipedia's policy, this information should be removed.

If you want to keep the paragraph, you will have to: - Add proper references. The Brownstone article mentioned wasn't even referenced - Show sources both against and in favour of Kulldorff's remarks - The word "error-laden" can not be part of this paragraph as this type of wording is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.

The paragraph as it was can not stay. It clearly breaches Wikipedia policy. Martdj (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright tried this disagree with source/claim statement is unsourced/must be removed for BLP cycle on this page. You'll notice that it got him blocked indefinitely. It won't work. MrOllie (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you threatening me here, MrOllie? I don't see any worthy contribution of you on this page, so if the editors are wise, they kick you out this time. Let's see what they decide, shall we? Martdj (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm telling you your argument is nonsense and advising you to look at what happened last time someone tried it. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to propose some more changes. As I explained earlier, the paragraph about influenza vs Covid-19 should simply be deleted. Martin Kulldorff was far from the first person to state this, nor is he particularly known for this statement. It's therefore not relevant in an article about him. A claim for which he is particularly known is his claim that vaccine mandates would do more for vaccine hesitancy in general than anti-vaxxers ever achieved in their decades of existence. I can come up with a proper paragraph about this. Martdj (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References