Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 10 March 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 25 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 25 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Aspartame controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-03-11 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Scientific publications -- weak Gone --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Alleged conflict of intrerest prior to 1996 -- should this be merged into discussion of approval? Expand : Why the US approval process caused controversy Charges of COI in DOJ handling of FDA's Fraud allegations against Searle. Charges of COI in hirings of 6 FDA personnel (described in GAO 86 report to Metzenbaum) Studies by Olney and others dismissed. Expand and integrate the timeline in the article Charges of COI when new FDA commissioner overturned unanimous decision of PBOI Senator Metzenbaum's role in returning the controversy to the news. Why the Ramazzinni studies contribute to the controversy Allegations of COI in industry-funded critiques of Soffritti studies ... NPOV : Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow WP:MEDRS and should rely on secondary sources and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article that deal with historical, social, legal, etc. aspects explain the controversy should rely on secondary sources as much as possible but are not subject to WP:MEDRS. Verify : Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article. Priority 1 (top)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Timelines collected by editors of this article -- of sources, or well-sourced

Grand jury probe

While making some edits and looking at the sources I ran into a couple unsolved problems. I made this edit, leaving a note and quote for other editors to sort out.

We state two mutually exclusive things as fact: that the DOJ "instituted grand jury proceedings against Searle for fraud in one of its drug studies" (I have requested a source for that) and that "a grand jury was never convened".

We also contradictorially mention it was for one study and then for two studies. Which is it? Were there two grand juries, one which was convened and one which never got off the ground? Did one investigate allegations against one study and the other against two studies? Note that a "grand jury" is mentioned several times in two different sections. I fear that we're confusing a "request to convene" with actually starting a grand jury. They're not the same thing.

This is confusing! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I'll try to come back with more later: AFAIK it was about one study on aspartame and one on “Aldactone” (medication for high blood pressure) and the Aldactone one was examined by a grand jury. I need to look for the source of that though. --Six words (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I had a better source, and I think it's buried somewhere in the archives either here or Talk:Aspartame.Novangelis (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The other source was not better; it was about aldactone and did not cover the story to the end.Novangelis (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find my source, but I'll keep on looking for it. --Six words (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the NY Times (emphasis mine):

In response to the report, the F.D.A. asked the Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation into whether two of Searle's aspartame studies had been falsified or were incomplete. In a 33-page letter in 1977, Richard A. Merrill, the F.D.A.'s chief counsel at the time, recommended to Samuel K. Skinner, then the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, that a grand jury investigate the company, which was based in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, for "concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of the drug Aldactone and the food additive aspartame."

— Scientizzle 21:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the same NY Times article we're using in the article. There's a difference between "asked....to open" and actually doing it. There's also a difference between saying they DID something wrong, and asking a grand jury to "investigate" whether they did. Anyone can make "allegations", even on this page, but we shouldn't write it if it wasn't an actual legal charge in court. At least we need to be careful how we word this. If they were formally charged, then by all means write it, otherwise use caution. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to get this matter fixed. Immortale has now had an addition to the lead reverted for probably the 4th or 5th time, and I've left an edit summary for them to come here and discuss it. The edit warring needs to stop. This descrepancy is blocking progress. When it's fixed, it might be possible to justify addition of Immortale's content to the lead, but not before then. It must be developed in the body first, per the rules for LEAD. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

History of aspartame by student at Harvard

This link is one of the better articles on the history of aspartame. It was written to graduate Harvard Law School. http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/244/Nill,_Ashley_-_The_History_of_Aspartame.html Arydberg (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I know students in the US graduate earlier than they do here, but are they really graduating as third years? I'm not saying that this source is inaccurate, but it's not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages as it's pretty much a self-published source without peer-review. --Six words (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this self published paper back in December. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Aspartame_controversy&oldid=404825360#history_section . There was no consensus to include it then, and I doubt there will be now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to access the references in the Harvard Law School paper that refer to the congressional record of 1977. Does anyone know how to access these. All I can do is find articles for the last 10 years or so. Arydberg (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., law school is a three year undergraduate programme following a bachelor's degree. So the writer is a final year law undergraduate. TFD (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Six words (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical sources

Here are many scanned articles mostly from the New York Times and other major newspapers, describing the real controversy of aspartame in the 1970s and 1980s, long before internet. This should be better described in the history section of this article. Some editors have claimed that there never was a controversy and that Betty Martini started it all. Immortale (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

She definitely didn't start it. I don't know of anyone who believes that, unless they haven't studied this subject very well. In that case it could easily happen since all modern objections trace back to her activism, IOW thousands of complaints count as one because of her activism.

She's the one who has revived and maintained it in the face of many RS stating that there was no danger with normal doses. Without her the controversy would have died out by now because there would be few or no complaints. She scares the heck out of myriad ignorant people. She's a one-woman super-activist army. It's interesting that her original mass emailings, including the Nancy Markle version (which she also circulated), omit the one proven danger to a very small group of people. In fact, a RS notes this fact and I forgot to add it to the article. I need to get that done. That's a very telling omission by her. She makes myriad sins of commission by making such a long, unproven, laundry list based only on anecdotes, and makes a gross sin of omission by leaving out the ONE proven danger. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get it, you don't like Betty because, as you once said, she's a Jehova's Witness and you don't like those kind of people. The controversy wouldn't have died out without her. Do you really think the Ramazinni Institute would spend millions based on conspiracy emails about Aspartame? Not to mention all those other independent scientists... Immortale (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One Sided

This article is one sided. The controversy over aspartame has come about because of thousands of people that claim their health has been adversely affected by foods containing aspartame. This side includes many medical researchers who believe aspartame is a threat to public health and that the majority of the research that approves of aspartame is biased as it is paid for by the aspartame industry. The other side Is trying to prove a negative. That aspartame is “safe” This if course is impossible so what they do is to is to discredit the research that contests the safety of aspartame. This article does not present a balanced approach to these two sides. The grassroots side of the issue is totally ignored. The article sides with the majority of research but does not allow for the fact that this research is paid for by the industry. People that profess to believe aspartame is harmful usually leave in disgust. Then on debates a consensus is taken of those remaining which of course are those following the party line prevail. Arydberg (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum, opinions do not matter much. Sources do. You have been told this many many times. What 'thousands of people claim' is irrelevant. Thousands of people claim that Elvis is alive. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is something you ought to read. Bringing the same thing up, which has been rejected by the community over and over again is disruptive. If you have read it before, read it again please. We don't do balance, we do sources, and I for one am not going to apologize for going along with what the science says, or as you said above 'the article sides with the majority of research'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please review WP:UNDUE again. Our article says aspartame is safe because that is what the reliable sources for medical claims say. If you have any sources that meet the stringent criteria for medical claims here, please provide them, otherwise continually making general claims that have been discussed and rejected before without providing new sources is generally considered disruptive. Yobol (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

More fringe bad sources: But Snopes is OK http://med.miami.edu/news/miller-school-researchers-link-diet-soda-and-salt-to-cardiovascular-risk Arydberg (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, please review the sourcing requirements. Press releases don't satisfy those requirements. Scientific literature reviews such as those that find aspartame to be safe are the preferred sources. As for Snopes and similar websites, they should not be used to support statements about medicine. However, reviewed on a case-by-case basis, they may be considered reliable on the sociology and history of the aspartame conspiracy theories. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific literature reviews such as those that find aspartame to be safe are the preferred sources." I'm sure that's what you prefer, but at Misplaced Pages we give both sides of a controversy, so scientific reviews that find aspartame to be unsafe, are important to be mentioned. Immortale (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1) Likely can't be used per WP:MEDRS as it is a primary study.

2) Wrong article, any discussion would have to belong to the artificial sweetener article as it did not look at aspartame specifically.

3) This will be the 3rd time you have been warned that use of sarcasm is not conducive to a collaborative environment (first here, 2nd here). Please adjust your behavior to collaborate. Yobol (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Even beyond MEDRS issues...

"In the first study, the scientists found that if you drink diet soda – instead of the sugar variety – you could still have a much higher risk of vascular events compared to those who do not drink soda." ... "In the soda study, investigators also lacked data on types of diet and regular drinks consumed, preventing analysis of whether variations among brands or changes over time in coloring and sweeteners might have played a role."

...This study is analytically useless for much of anything, let alone showing a specific risk for Aspartame. They say diet soda isn't BETTER on the heart than non-diet; I see nothing indicating it was WORSE, which really makes it sound like the sweetener used, whether it be pure, natural cane sugar or gross ol' aspartame, wasn't a factor. And no information on the specific drinks used? No information on diet? What the hell did they publish, JUST their abstract? --King Öomie 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Immortale, above, I'm not aware of quality scientific reviews that find aspartame to be unsafe. Quality reviews say it is safe or, at the worst, controversial. The most comprehensive recent review of the literature in a high-quality journal found no evidence that aspartame is unsafe. Of course, there are comprehensive reviews and then there are the op-ed style reviews where authors review their own work. Needless to say, these are not as reliable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To just pick one out of my long list: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/abs/1602866a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a comprehensive review of the literature. This is a description of various amino acids and metabolites and what might be and what may have this or that effect. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a scientific review in a high-quality journal and now you're coming with the argument that it's not a "comprehensive review"? I suppose you mean with "comprehensive review", the Burdock/Ajinomoto review. (BLP vio removed.) Burdock did the same for the Tobacco industry. Got good money for it as well. And when it comes to food, I don't want to hear "may" or "may not", I don't want to have any doubt in my food. Immortale (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) (BLP vio removed per policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

See MEDRS. A 99-page review of almost 400 articles is far more authoritative by these standards than a short, opinion-type review with 35 or 40 references. As far as a "classic example" of manipulation, be warned that you're venturing into dangerous territory re: corporations and BLP. Unless you have a very good source proving that this is the case, please redact your statement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We do cite Humphries et al. already. It's published in a second-quartile journal, but the EFSA and a letter to the journal by a researcher apparently repeatedly mis-cited by Humphries et al. (PMID 18231118) make a case that there are some fundamental flaws in that review. Still, it qualifies for MEDRS and I'm open to hearing tangible suggestions of article content citing this work. It'd be infinitely more productive than railing against corporations. — Scientizzle 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On one-sidedness

Because it probably needs to be explored and explained periodically, let's examine the how this Misplaced Pages article is supposed to look...There are two main components to this controversy article:

1. the messy FDA approval process, which involved scientific claims but is more of a political story
2. the present state of scientific and medical evidence regarding the safety of aspartame

Those are the two basic things to cover. The former is probably best treated as almost entirely historical-political as the science of the time (while clearly a major component of the FDA debate) has been largely superseded by three decades of further research. Treating it this way has the added benefit of lowering the source bar a bit and allowing a better feel for the cultural relevance of the events that occurred.

The latter, however, is clearly a scientific topic and needs to meet WP:MEDRS standards. The next important thing to consider is the weight of the presentation of the various "sides". WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE make a clear case that minority opinions need to be represented fairly, but with due care given to their prominence. Because this is an article specifically on the controversies, greater attention can be paid to the minority opinions. However, we must always frame the discussion such that the mainstream perspective is always crystal clear and unambiguously presented as the majority stance.

The obvious question: what is the mainstream stance and how much of a majority is it really? I think the clearest answer is found in the lead of the article, that aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide. The widespread approval and consumption of aspartame is a clear indicator that the mainstream opinion is not overly concerned with aspartame consumption (within prescribed limits) posing much of a health risk. Whether this should be the case is immaterial; whether this will change we cannot know.

If we can all work from this same frame of reference, I'm hopeful that further discussions will be more productive. — Scientizzle 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The "science" section gets the weight right from my standpoint (well, since I re-wrote that section, I would think that...) with regards to exposing the reader to the "controversy"...we cover the major sources of supposed safety issues (Olney and his excitotoxicity and brain tumors, Ramazzini studies, metabolites as poison, etc). The "one-sidedness" people seem to be complaining about comes not from the lack of description of these theories, but that we are emphasizing (correctly, per UNDUE) that the mainstream rejects these ideas.

As an aside, I was the one who added Humphries, et al. to the article (a curious thing for a shill like me to do), and it deserves no more coverage than what is already there. It has not affect any other later reviews like the EFSA experts to change their opinion of the data, so any more discussion about Humphries would be UNDUE.Yobol (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You both make good points. Scientizzle's analysis seems to take account of the relevant policies and MoS concepts. Now are there any particular points that need tweaking or improvement based on those thoughts? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep wondering what the fixation with the FDA and it's process(es) is/are. The rest-of-the-world (ie/ the bits outside of the US) has given approval to Aspartame, so the hows/whys to some breakdown in process in the US, is irrelevant. Shot info (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because this specific controversy is mostly generated by people in the USA. There are plenty of other "controversies" involving, say, Directive 2004/24/EC, or the MHRA (though they don't generate many wikipedia edit wars), or regulations & regulators in other countries... but controversies are often local or national rather than global. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Way to go, prove somethings irrelevancy by invoking something even more irrelevant. Shot info (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We've established that the majority of the "evidence" freaking people out about aspartame is COMPLETELY irrelevant. This article is ABOUT that irrelevant stuff, the sum of which is notable. --King Öomie 01:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this his last stratement is not true. Misplaced Pages has many articles about controversies. All these present both sides of the controversy and let the readers make their own conclusions. This article is different. Rather than present both sides it makes an argument for one side only. A small amount of attention is paid to the minority side but this covers only the flawed approval process. The bigger issue, that of thousands of web pages attesting to negative experiences from the use of aspartame, is totally ignored. Regardless of the truth or falsity of these claims they make a powerful statement about public health. They do, in fact, represent one aspect of the public’s view of this subject and deserve to be given exposure. Arydberg (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT about testimonial evidence. Seriously, drop the stick already. Yobol (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Christ, honestly. Arydberg, I'd suggest you read this, this, this, this and this. Lay testimony has no more place in this article (or ANY article) than a series of bad puns. --King Öomie 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, and I have tried very hard to assume good faith, in the face of accusations of being a shill and in the face of misplaced sarcasm. This is disruptive editing. I do not say this lightly, as AGF is really important to me. Please stop this Arydberg. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And you please read this.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy Arydberg (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

King please do not be offensive. This article is titled "aspartame controversy" but it does not describe a controversy. It describes a one sided argument that does not allow anyone of differing views. People are threatened, insulted, and run off. Meanwhile the fifth pillar declares that “Rules on Misplaced Pages are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule” You people apply the principles of Misplaced Pages with a whip to get what you want with no regard for a balanced article. Sir, there are others out there and their part of this subject is essential to a balanced article. Arydberg (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, I have tweaked the lead to meet your concerns, all backed by our existing content and sources, with this edit summary: "Meeting Arydberg's concerns. We can't duplicate their repetition of BM's lies, which are described in this article quite well, but we can mention that the websites exist."

There is no way that we can so grossly violate Misplaced Pages's policies as to allow the duplication of anecdotes, even if there were billions of them, as content here. We can mention they exist, but they have absolutely no weight in any scientific discussion. At best such anecdotes often, and I mean that, serve as inspiration for research. It is that research which is considered a reliable source here. Since it totally goes agaist the frenzy of websites created as a result of Betty Martini's health scare and hoax emails, we can't give them any voice here.

Don't ever make this appeal again. Take the matter to WP:RS/N. If they say that we can consider anecdotes as RS here, then we can look at it again, but not before then. Just quit bring this up again and again and again and again and again! We cover the position of critics quite well. Readers are in no doubt that a controversy exists and the nature of that controversy. Reliable sources say that your position is wrong. WE CANNOT CHANGE THAT FACT! The article is not going to make your position sound like anything other than the misguided personal opinions that they are. If RS and good research change this situation, then, and only then, will the article change to make your position look correct. You can't treat this article like a personal blog. You're welcome to start a blog or website (even I have one) where you can slant things the way you want. That's perfectly alright. We have the freedom to do that. The existence of thousands of websites repeating BM's lies is proof of that. You're welcome to join them, but leave us alone with your push to include nonsense as a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You know I am not asking that it be included as WP:RS. I am asking it be included as folklore or whatever you want to call it and qualified as such but it is a major part of this controversy and to omit it is poor journalism. Arydberg (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no reasonable interpretation of policy that would allow us to add a bunch of crap to an article, with the disclaimer that "none of it is reliable". When information isn't reliable, it is removed. The answer is no. (also, it should maybe indicate something to you that a 'major part of this controversy' is completely unreliable and scientifically useless.) --King Öomie 14:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed by Immortale at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice here as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: Immortale blocked and topic banned, and others strongly warned. Do I hear a boomerang whistling through the air? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Minority view

I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that the anti-aspartame view is a "minority view", in fact an extreme minority view held only by a small handfull (less than "five" fingers?) of doctors and scientists, most of whom are retired and self-publishing their own weird POV, some of which are also pseudoscientific, fringe and even illegal quackery. (You see, people who are odd enough to hold one fringe view often hold many other fringe, pseudoscientific and quackish views, and they often cross the line into what is actually illegal.)

There is no controversy in scientific circles at present, with the lone exception of Soffritti, whose self-published work at his own Ramazzini Institute has been severely criticized. No, the real controversy died out a long time ago. All of the activism and publicity that exists is internet activism fueled by Betty Martini and a couple retired doctors, and their thousands of lay syncophants and SPAs who edit here. It has basically created a situation extremely similar to Delusional parasitosis ("aspartame disease"), where the effect of Martini's activism through the internet is similar to this: Morgellons#Role of the Internet. In fact, that section might serve as a model to use here, but in a modified form. That's what's happening in the real world.

Since the article never mentions any of these descriptions (pseudoscience, fringe, minority), but maybe we could still describe it as a minority view. The problem with doing that is that it gives undue weight and legitimacy to it. A "significant" scientific minority view would indeed be worth noticing, but when the scientific "minority" is literally "infinitisimal", it's not significant enough to be worth wasting the bytes, or is it? To be accurate, we would have to qualify "minority" by mentioning exactly how few ("a small minority of 4-5 (mostly retired) doctors and scientists"). That would be a pain, because it would mean we'd have to then give them undue weight compared to the enormous silence in the literature. WP:FRINGE then comes into the picture for how to deal with such minority views.

What think ye? Should we add "minority view" somewhere in the article? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We have articles about people who hold minority views - in fact most political and religious movements meet that description. I made suggestions above that we should write the article similar to the section "Nutrasweet syndrome and consumer revolt" in Empty pleasures. TFD (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I of course am in favor of a minority view. As to "five fingers" here is a Dorway site. http://www.dorway.com/doctors.html

• As for the “lone exception of Soffritti” consider Science 6 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5834, p. 29 DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5834.29c Prev | Table of Contents | Next SCIENCESCOPE Fearful it causes cancer, 12 U.S. environmental health experts and activists last week asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review the potential health risks of the artificial sweetener aspartame, which appears in everything from medicines to diet sodas. A study published last month in Environmental Health Perspectives found somewhat more leukemias and lymphomas in male rats receiving less aspartame than the recommended maximum for humans; at higher doses, the rats had a marked increase in cancers throughout the body. Pregnant rats were fed the sweetener, and animals received it once they'd been weaned. The work, by scientists at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy, is "more sensitive and more realistic" than earlier aspartame studies, says James Huff of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who signed onto the FDA letter drafted by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest. But because the study conflicts with earlier work, FDA spokesperson Michael Herndon says that the agency finds the study unpersuasive and that "aspartame is safe." FDA's European counterpart has not responded publicly to the study.
• As for “A "significant" scientific minority view would indeed be worth noticing, but when the scientific "minority" is literally "infinitesimal", it's not significant enough to be worth wasting the bytes, or is it?” Please bear in mind that almost all real advances in science are made by one lone voice without the benefit of a large following.
• In the long term aspartame has nothing to do with it. It is all about how good is wikipedia at presenting both popular views as well as unpopular. Is it important to rely on readers to make decisions for themselves or should we cherry pick what they “really” want to read. I vote for an article about a controversy to include both sides.

Also There are a lot more sources out there.

Arydberg (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The lone voice, is not important. Yes I know, they laughed at Gallileo, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Presenting minority views are fine, but these views are so vanishingly unimportant, that, I just am not sure what ought to be in here, if anything. There are no recent secondary sources that corroborate these fringe views. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I differ on the lone voice. It has changed science countless times. Gallileo is a town. You mean Galileo. They did not laugh at Galilo They placed him under arrest for his views. Secondary sources are only important to confirm the majority views. I am asking to state that these views exist. Arydberg (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And the lone voice has fallen silent, debunked and ridiculed, an order of magnitude more. WP:CRYSTAL. When (if) this lone voice changes science, we'll talk about it. Not before, not because you think it might. It is stated in the article that the views exist. What you're ASKING for, and not going to get, is an itemized list of complaints, and the people that have them. --King Öomie 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When we write about minority views we need must use reliable secondary sources. We should seek neither to advocate for them or denigrate them, but must be clear about the degree of acceptance of their views by the scientific community. TFD (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the internet's role in this ‘controversy’ is quite similar to its role in Morgellons, but do we have sources describing that? If we don't there's no way to include a section on that without violating WP:NOR. The same is true for the description as ‘minority view’ - without sources describing it as such I wouldn't want to call it that, and without sources saying there are five (or fifty or whatever number) scientists seeing aspartame as (potentially) dangerous food additive putting that information in the article is OR, too. --Six words (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well there are reliable sources for the anti-aspartame movement, including Empty pleasures, that I just mentioned. TFD (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying there aren't sources describing the anti-aspartame movement, I'm just saying for every statement that is likely to be contested (and I have no doubt that what Bragnifer suggests will be contested) we need sources (or at least one very good source) actually saying it before we add it. If ‘Empty Pleasures’ describes the internet's role in this in detail I'm fine with including it. If says there is a small minority of four to five doctors and scientists holding that view, by all means add it. As long as we go with what our sources say I'm fine with it, just don't add something because it seems obvious. --Six words (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The book is published by the University of North Carolina Press and briefly mentions internet activism. (The author is a professor of American studies.) But I am sure there are other sources of the same quality. TFD (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

reference number 66 is one Here is another http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=125748 Arydberg (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, this study was discussed already, less than a week ago, 2 sections above this one. And rejected. Stop bringing up the same thing over and over again. Yobol (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus rarely changes in a few days Arydberg, please refamiliarize yourself with policy. Again. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MedicineNet.com is not a reliable source. It has been accused of "selling bogus health advise in order to sell more prescriptions". We are not here to support the pharmaceutical industry, but to provide reliable information to readers. U.S. senators found the "site was largely sponsored by pharmaceutical companies in order to fool unsuspecting visitors into thinking they had a medical condition". TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This story was carried in many many publications. Here are 8 of them. Hutzel.org Healthfinder ClinicalConnection.com Healthonnet.org AltitudeFilms.com Daysnews.net Myoptumhealth.com Healthscout.com Also it is important to note the results were unexpected. Also note what you rejected was a separate poorly written version Arydberg (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the disruptive editing, we have told you why that primary source will not be included, it, in fact, is explained to you above. go off, again, and read WP:MEDRS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop this time wasting. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Cleaning up links) This article (and it IS just one, they're all reprints of the same text) isn't about aspartame. It's about diet soda. The people questioned say the cause is "unknown", so to toss it here as evidence against aspartame itself is WP:SYNTH (using two sources, this and "aspartame is in diet soda", to reach a conclusion not made by either source). Cut it out. --King Öomie 14:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets back up a little. We are looking for sources to support a minority view. This 10 year research study indicates that drinkers of diet soda have a 60 percent greater risk of having a stroke than those that drink non diet soda. This means that one in 3 strokes can be avoided. And Misplaced Pages is arrogant enough to reject it. Why? Because one of 9 publications that published it is suspect? This makes no sense. Also it is common knowledge that aspartame is used in diet soda. Arydberg (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The study has not been published. It was presented as an abstract at a meeting. The leap of interpretation from association to causation is not supported by sources, and the flash in the popular press is Recentism.Novangelis (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's common knowledge. You can't just declare it's the cause.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. -WP:SYNTH

And again we have Arydberg imploring us to abandon policy because he thinks the information is important. This really needs to stop. --King Öomie 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On this source, http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=649733 This story is important. Firstly the results reported were not intended. The authors themselves are looking to verify it. This is a 10 year epidemiological study done on people, not rats in a box. You have charged this subject is pseudo science You were wrong. You have charged that it is fringe. You were wrong. This article was carried by many many publications and you reject it. Yet you allow conclusions from a restaurant magazine (15). How much editing occurs for a restaurant magazine? Misplaced Pages is being hoodwinked. Arydberg (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, the story you are linking is not about Aspartame - I don't think it even mentions the substance. The text is also littered (quite correctly) with warnings that correlation does not imply causation. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in an article about Dangers of diet soda, but not here I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown 20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article neither says anything about aspartame specifically, nor does it say that the study (which hasn't been published yet) proves there's a causal relationship between diet soda and increased stroke risk. --Six words (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, I am quite simple at my wit's end with the sheer amount of WP:IDHT that pours from everything you write. You've repeated the same argument THREE TIMES in just this section of the talkpage. WP:COMPETENCE may be coming into play here. --King Öomie 21:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And... I am still waiting for your response on the restaurant magazine article. Aspartame is not the issue. It is basic fairness. Arydberg (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta isn't a restaurant magazine, and it's really quite simple: if you want to make a medical claim, your source has to comply with WP:MEDRS, for other information it's sufficient if the source is considered reliable per WP:RS. --Six words (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again Arydberg, read WP:MEDRS. This is not supposed to be about fairness, this is not a democracy, it is an encyclopedia that relies on real sources, again read ] and honestly, this is beyond disruptive editing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg has been topic banned for three months. Maybe now we can get back to doing constructive things. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"aspartame disease" and "aspartame poisoning"

For some reason we don't use those phrases so common in anti-aspartame circles. Here's a typical situation where the deluded/misled patient meets a doctor who has never heard of such a thing. These are not recognized diagnoses, just as Morgellons isn't a recognized diagnosis. Should we mention them? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This article could be a good resource for medical doctors who want to understand their patients' concerns. TFD (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Monsanto

I'm surprised that Monsanto's only mention is as a quote in a response to a hoax. Monsanto is a very controversial and age old organization responsible for all kinds of trouble in the history of human poisoning. This article clearly omits too much to present a NPOV. I've done two research papers on aspertame, (yes I'm aware of original research) but the subject matter is very incomplete. I don't expect total comprehensive material on wikipedia but based on the scope being claimed here, I don't see how this can even come close to being neutral. I wonder just how much influence is possible given the sheer age, size and historic influence of that corporation. 98.175.233.130 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As you have done research on the subject, please provide us with reliable sources so that we can incorporate information. Without sources, there's really nothing to discuss. Yobol (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and showing both sides

Presenting a balanced perspective in controversial areas is often very difficult, especially since in most of these controversies both sides have very strong opinions. But it is imperative that we follow WP:NPOV. It is not true that all relevant scientists have "debunked" Ramazzini's research, which is what Yobol (talk · contribs)'s edit back in September revised it to suggest . Therefore, I have restored some of the support . I should note that I am well-aware of the weaknesses of the study: I drafted paragraph detailing them ("Reported flaws were numerous and included, but were not limited to, the following: comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies..."). Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages's NPOV is very valuable and important and it can't just be dismissed or ignored because it doesn't support one's personal opinions. II | (t - c) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We must, however, follow WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS is very clear; we do not use primary studies, not to mention letters to the editors, to dispute secondary reviews. As, to my knowledge, no reviews that meet MEDRS standards have been published that support the Ramzzinni studies, we are left with the fact that those reviews that have been published have found flaws in them. That no reviews have been published that support their findings gives a very big clue as to how much weight their claims have in the medical literature. As you well know, NPOV does not mean we give equal weight or time to both sides of the controversy. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also now reverted Brangifer's recent edit. Let's be clear here, that there are one or two letters to the editors published in a journal does not make that stance a notable/prominent one. Even putting aside whether this type of info falls under WP:MEDRS, it clearly violates WP:UNDUE to promote the ideas of a handful of people just because they happened to be published in the letters to the editors section of a journal. If that is all it takes to add a viewpoint to medical articles, then all medical articles would be filled with millions of opinions, which may or may not be notable or prominent. As always, we should use secondary reviews to guide our content on how prominent/how much weight any particular theory/idea is in the medical community; if it doesn't show up in a secondary review, it probably isn't a prominent one and shouldn't be given weight in our articles. Yobol (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether UNDUE is or is not a problem here (in a controversy article?) is something I won't comment on right now, but the argument that the additions weren't MEDRS is not valid for this type of information. RS governs it, not MEDRS. - Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not aspartame causes cancer is clearly a matter for MEDRS; I'm baffled as to how you would think that it is not. Using letters to the editors or editorials to suggest that aspartame can cause cancer is precisely what we should not do per MEDRS. As to if UNDUE could apply in a controversy article - of course! UNDUE applies especially to controversial topics, where we have to make careful editorial judgments about which viewpoints are notable/prominent enough to include and how much to weight to give to them. We use secondary sources to provide us with the answers to these questions. If no secondary reviews have been published that suggests they support the Ramazinni studies, it seems clear that these viewpoints have not gained any traction in the medical community, and are therefore not prominent enough to be included in this article, per UNDUE. Yobol (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I figure UNDUE is the key here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, those scientists, some pretty notable, were not making any independent claims. They were concerned about Ramazzini's claims. If they were making independent claims, then MEDRS would indeed apply, but showing evidence that there is a controversy, as seen in their objections, isn't covered by MEDRS. We're supposed to show that there is a controversy. We certainly do that, but this is a newer instance from a different angle. Fortunately even later sources show their complaints to be unfounded worries, but that shouldn't cause us to leave it out. OTOH, as Dbrodbeck mentions, UNDUE might be a legitimate argument, but that would mean eliminating all objections. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So MEDRS doesn't apply if the author of sources aren't making independent claims, but are talking about the research of others? I don't think that makes much sense at all - and clearly is against the intent of this guideline. It opens the door to unreliable interpretations of research by the lay press, SPS, etc. under the guise of discussing the research of others and not making independent claims which I doubt very seriously is the intent of guideline.

As to showing "that there is a controversy", as noted by WP:UNDUE we only show those controversies that come from viewpoints of a significant minority. I'm sorry, but a letter to the editor and an editorial in a 3rd tier journal doesn't cut it. If the Ramazzini studies claims are supported by some secondary reviews, I'm all behind including those; but letters to the editors? Come on. Yobol (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case it is not a letter to the editor, but an open letter produced by several members of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and published in the journal of that organization but without the organization's name attached (which would have cut this debate short, if present). I do find that the description of the letter is mischaracterized as supporting the findings (a medical claim warranting MEDRS standards); it merely cites the findings and calls for a review (a policy action). The second was an unrelated (except being published in the same issue) commentary by two of the authors of the letter proposing a line of research. I believe that incorporating the first should be possible in the proper context of the letter without violating UNDUE. A proposal for a study pushes further into the realm of UNDUE.Novangelis (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Novangelis, thanks for actually taking a closer look. The letter is not from members of the American College - it's an open letter from 11 notable cancer scientists. The primary concern here is not for "reviews", but rather in secondary evaluations to help us understand how a piece of scientific literature has been received. This is satisfied by the government review, but we shouldn't be silencing notable scientists who don't agree with the government or the Coca-Cola sponsored research panel. This particlar letter was also reported on in Nature or Science (can't remember which). There is also a critique of Coca-Cola's research panel in a cancer journal specifically targeting the implication that increased infections could've caused the tumors in the Ramazzini study. Also, when discussing the Ramazzini study - it can't be that anything above a small paragraph is UNDUE - the fact is that the Ramazzini is the locus of the controversy in the scientific literature at this point, and so of all specific incidents it should receive the most attention in the article. II | (t - c) 07:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that there really isn't any true "controversy in the scientific literature," is there? Where are the reviews supporting Ramazzini? Where are the position statements by the American Cancer Society, the AMA, or any other major medical association calling for caution or for research? Where are the toxicologists repeating and confirming the Ramazzini foundation results? Oh wait, there isn't any of those. What we explicitly should not do, per WP:UNDUE is blow minor primary studies that have not convinced the scientific community out of proportion to the coverage it's gotten in our reliable secondary sources; to say there is a "controversy in the scientific literature" you would have to show me the secondary reviews and the studies that have repeated the Ramazzini results - until then, all we have is a highly criticized collection of primary studies by one research group, unconfirmed by the wider scientific community. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if 11 scientists signed a letter to the FDA, how many hundreds/thousands didn't and haven't been concerned by the Ramazzini results - by the lack of any peer reviewed literature on the subject? If 11 out of thousands isn't an insignificant minority per WP:UNDUE, how many is? Yobol (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I always try to dig deeper. WP:V demands it. Many, if not all, are members (one is the current editor-in-chief and another is on the editorial board). I didn't check everyone's affiliation because the letter points out that it was their opinions, not those of the organizations with which they are affiliated. I was not pointing out their membership to diminish or enhance their credence, but merely to emphasize the choice of medium. The second editorial was by two of the authors. It being appended to the letter has the problem of being a little WP:SYNTHy because the two authors also signed the letter. A proposal for a study in an editorial is a bit into the undue weight.Novangelis (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, including the letter could be considered original research unless there is a reliable secondary source ascribing some significance to it. Here, as Brangifer said, we don't need to follow MEDRS, but we do need a good source that discusses the letter as having some importance. Until then, I agree with Yobol on complete removal. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Science covered the letter in its news section - see . What we have to keep in mind is that we are in the article focused on the aspartame controversy. WP:UNDUE is discussing how minority positions should be covered in broad articles. The relevant paragraph for discussing minority positions in their own articles is here:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader...

Without a note of the support for the Ramazzini study, we are misleading the reader and certainly violating WP:NPOV. II | (t - c) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! I have added the Science mention as a backup reference. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

BullRangifer, regarding your edit summary about the order of dates, CSPI sent the letter, and Science reported on it. Only later was it printed in the journal. I don't have the details, but I suspect that the discrepancy between the 13 signatories on the linked version and the 12 reported in Science indicates one additional signer in the interval. (Then again, it could have just been a miscount at the time; I'm trying to avoid leaping to conclusions.)Novangelis (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the above resolution. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a backup reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.177.3.198 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a poor term to describe a secondary source that directly establishes that the primary source has had some sort of impact and offers a second hand interpretation so that we do not engage in original research. The publication in an edited journal made the primary source possible although iffy. The news item meant we were clear of the gray zone.Novangelis (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I

A discussion relevant to events that have occurred here is happening at AN/I. Please look in and comment if you feel the desire. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame is Dangerous--Originally banned by U.S. FDA

The initial description of aspartame in this website says that aspartame has been thoroughly tested and found harmless (my own paraphrase). This is not true. I have found many authentic and reputable sites that state otherwise; especially being the fact that the US FDA originally banned aspartame in the US. When Donald Rumsfeld took over, he let aspartame come through despite the 92 site affects that were found from aspartame consumption. I have posted two of my research article websites below as a reference. Even China (who I understand is the one who created aspartame, banned its use because of the bad site affects on the brain. There are almost 100 more site affects that I do not care to note here. See research for yourself and watch for it in food products. I purchased a Yoplait Light Fat Free Very cherry yogurt this past weekend not realizing it has aspartame in it. It "tastes" wonderful, but I will never buy it again. See these links: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2006/07/china_to_restrict_aspartame_production.html. and see Janet Starr Hull Creator of the Aspartame Detox Program who has much good information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.93.6 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article, read Aspartame and also, read WP:MEDRS. this should answer your questions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Environmental health perspectives article

This edit is sourced to a primary source (a scientific study) but there are no secondary sources that establish what weight the study has been given in the scientific community, whether its findings have been duplicated or rejected, etc. I will therefore delete it and ask that the report should not be mentioned until we have adequate sources that discuss it. TFD (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduced study is one of the Ramazzini studies, and as we can see, it has a whole section dedicated to their group and research. Yobol (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Article semiprotected for 3 months

For obvious reasons to anyone who's followed the history ( ,, , , )...

The article is now semiprotected for 3 months. New editors are welcome to propose changes here for others to implement based on consensus, or to wait until you've accumulated enough new editing time to have passed the autoconfirmed threshold. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not cool. Because some guy removes stuff in one swoop, the content is gone. This will kill Misplaced Pages. Bottom line is that this is a page about the controversy. Information about all sides of issues are very relevant. Just because someone writes a review article does not mean its settled science. Reviews can be biased. -- Stinky Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 March 2011

Please read WP:MEDRS reviews trump single studies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I still don't like it. - Stinky Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is policy is all, if you want ot make a change, try proposing it here first, and it can be discussed. There are many seasoned editors here that can help you along the way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative on that. Misplaced Pages and Science are not compatible. Science is not dogmatic. Minorities views are acknowledged and not ignored. Sometimes the minority view is right (i have no idea in this case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative on what? That is how it works here, as you are new, you should familiarize yourself with how things work here. Oh and science is exceedingly conservative actually and likes things to be replicated, so this explains why WP:MEDRS prefers secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists