Talk:Robert Sears (physician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Content removal

I reworked the article to try and get more balanced presentation of his life's work. Also, I took out some of the media mentions about him because I don't see the point of why these particular opinions matter. It looks too much like a debate about anti-vaccine theory rather than a biography. Also, we need to find a better source for calling him an alternative medicine pediatrician besides a passing mention in a news article. If we do then I'm not opposed to adding it back. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Flo, you made ONE edit which doesn't amount to what we would call blatant vandalism if it hadn't been done by an experienced editor: a better source for the "alternative medicine" mention would be good. That an experienced editor did it doesn't make it better. You should know better. You have no basis in policy for the other deletions.

This reminds me of attempts to delete an article by removing all significant content and then declaring it not worth keeping. All the content was properly sourced and mentioned Sears and his influence in various matters, most of which happen to be about undermining vaccines and the use of the proper vaccine schedule so his book and schedules would be used. It was not a coatrack for dealing with antivaxxers. It was directly related to him. You even removed the last sentence of the lead, which was based on good references in the body. Then you removed those references! I suggest you step back and reexamine each and every sentence and the sources. Then ask about them here before you remove anything. I can assure you that great thought and care went into each edit, choice of source, and wording. Nothing was done haphazardly. Nothing was dumped here. Nothing was taken out of context.

Would better wording be welcome? Sure. Would more sources and coverage of other aspects of his life, POV, practice, and influence be welcome? Sure. A number of editors have actually been improving and building the article, without opposition. By contrast, every bit of your work has been destructive, with ONE exception. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You are responsible for putting one of the worst cases of synth back into an article that I have ever seen. You restored a completely inappropriate claim that directly says Sears was responsible for an epidemic and you restored the actual denial as evidence in the problem! You restored an entire unsourced paragraph and gave a whole paragraph of an editorial that condemns the subject as a dangerous doctor. That is a major problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning an actual policy....SYNTH. Since you are a relative newbie, compared to me, I won't just buy your argument, but I will examine it to see if that's the case. You may or may not be right. Maybe a slight change of wording would suffice to fix the problem.

What "entire unsourced paragraph" did I restore? Did you check the history to see how that paragraph came into being? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh... an ad hom? Seriously. How about looking at the sources - I certainly do not see any indication that an "epidemic" was caused by Robert Sears. The fact "epidemic" was even used screams red flags. The fact that the only PubMed source doesn't mention Sears at all should have been another.[1]. The fact "intentionally undervaccinated" does not even make sense is another. Another editor gave a good reason, "Consequences of epidemics" was about attacking Sears and you restored the problem without so much as verifying it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Good! Now we're getting into details. They can be dealt with. Did you check the other refs which showed that it was Sears' patient which was the index case in that epidemic? Those sources make the synthesis, not me. I just provided a source to Pediatrics. I didn't need to do that. (When a secondary source makes the synthesis, we often add the primary source as a service to readers.) If you will read the content carefully, Sears is not directly blamed for the epidemic, his patient is. I know there are several sources, not used, which do blame Sears for that epidemic. I had the sense to not go there without better sources.

Just to put this into context, I'm not wedded to that paragraph. Much of it could be left out or reworded. The wholesale deletion was problematic, especially since SYNTH (which might apply) was not mentioned, and BLP, which did not apply (because it was properly sourced), was mentioned. Can we find a compromise? I'm willing to work with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is under discretionary sanctions and I have warned you of that fact. You have directly implied that Sears is responsible and when pressed you are now saying a 7 year old child is to blame for causing an "epidemic". Spare me your idle banter about sources and synth when you are using Huffington Post comments like that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is really embarrassing...for you. You obviously haven't read the sources, and your reading comprehension is woefully lacking. You need to be VERY precise, especially when you attack me (as you have done within the last hour or so here and elsewhere). We have sanctions here in our PAG to deal with such personal attacks, so stop making false accusations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you explain the fact that Sears' advises parents to get the MMR on a normal schedule in his book? Also, the child had more than one pediatrician, but the parent's are responsible for making the decision to vaccinate their child. The doctor cannot force it upon the patient. The entire use "Consequences of epidemics" was little more than to show the that a patient of Sear's caused the spread of illness and incurred costs while laying responsibility directly at him. What about the child's primary care provider? What about the parents? What about the person who gave it to the child in the first place? Even Sears own words are not given context and balance. That's the issue and that's why I removed it again. A person claiming to be Sears has complained about the article and the information and it seems legitimate because Sears supports vaccination. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's OR and acceptance of the subject's special pleading. He denies being anti-vax, and since we follow the sources here, we document that.

Pretty much all other reliable sources treat him as, and call him, anti-vax, because his writings and actions tend in that direction. We document what they say. That's our job. The sources called the earlier outbreak an epidemic, and the current one is over 100 cases and growing. Sears own claimed "support" of vaccinations is at deviance with the standard of care expected of a physician, endangering his patients and all of society. As such his license is in danger, and there are calls for him and others to lose their licenses.

RS say all this. We document that. RS call him anti-vax. We document that. RS show that he is deeply uninformed and misinformed about vaccines. We are required to document what they say. That's our job.

We don't whitewash articles, especially when the subject wants us to. On the contrary. We are required by several of our policies to resist such attempts, stick to the sources, and tell the good and the bad. We "work" for Wikipedia, not the COI-conflicted subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sears own statements and checking his book to which he makes a rebuttal to on PBS and others is clearly not OR. Verifiability and veracity is required when you are dealing with sensational and contentious claims. A reliable source will have both of these elements and opinions are to be used with extra care when directly going against the subject's stance. The fact the entire article was mostly opinions of Sears from others represented a clear issue. Resolving and explaining the complexities of why such opinions are a problem is not my goal here, but Wikipedia is not an echo chamber for opinions of others. Negative or positive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect again, per WP:V: "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." So in a real sense, Wikipedia is just an echo chamber that includes analysis from reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The content was originally removed for being a problem by another editor of high caliber with a reason. I agree with that editor and have highlighted both a context and veracity problem - Wikipedia is not a blind echo chamber and editorial judgement exists. Do not reinsert it without consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you added some sensible qualifiers to your assertion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of a public figure

It seems reasonable to include highly visible criticism of the viewpoints and practices promoted by Sears in this article. I'm not sure why this should be removed. We might try to summarize rather than include quotes, but I'm rather perplexed as to why well-sourced criticism was removed as being irrelevant to the biography of this person. jps (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some were removed in good faith by someone who took another at their word. That's fixed now. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Coulter and Loe Fisher as anti-vax

This removal requested a source. The wikilink to Barbara Loe Fisher provides sources documenting her as a founder and the leader of the highest profile anti-vax organization in the USA, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

Her good friend and ally, Harris Coulter, was what one might call "beyond fringe", so much so that RS don't touch him, and his fringe sources may be blacklisted here. He was a homeopath and an anti-vax activist (he took activism to new heights), with a nasty reputation for dubious, but influential, writings, all designed to undermine scientific medicine. I used to lock horns with him on discussion groups and by email, back in the dark ages when the internet was young. Anti-vaxxers loved him, and still use his writings like a bible.

The NVIC eulogized him when he died in 2009: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2010/Harris-Coulter-Was-a-Brave-Visionary.aspx

Here's a prominent anti-vax organization (by their own admission), which links to some of his stuff: http://www.vaclib.org/links/vaxlinks.htm

This reliable source deals with the book: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-shot-in-the-dark-revisited/

User:Durova has a sandbox article about him, including blacklisted sources which show he was a prominent anti-vaxxer.

Brangifer (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing non-biographical content

It is biographical, because it refers to a patient of Sears that was found to be the source of an outbreak. The material needs to be restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Removed per WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [2]

ChrisGualtieri, what part of BLP are you referring to? Removal of that properly sourced content violates NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it applies to talk pages. You're not dealing with newbies here. What about that content violated BLP? It was properly sourced content, so BLP does not apply. Is there some other aspect of BLP you're thinking of? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all living persons at all times. Look below for your answer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but you didn't answer my question. What "unsourced negative content" (a BLP violation) exists in the article (or the talk page content you deleted)?

Content in the body gets mentioned in the lead, as required by WP:LEAD, so if it's in the lead, the source(s) should be in the body, and the refs can be added to the lead if you require it. That's a normal way to solve that problem. If you would AGF and ask questions to gain insight, rather than making accusations, we could solve this amicably. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop splitting sections . ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

??? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris has his own unique interpretation of BLP, which seems to override an admin's judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Neil, I think you're right. I was beginning to wonder if I'd lost my mind! Such arguments only come from drive by IPs and newbies. They just weren't making sense. We are required by NPOV to include properly sourced criticism and negative content if it exists. That's what creates the balance in an article and keeps it from being a sales brochure or hagiography which only presents the favorable side of the story. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the section I restored below, we should be discussing weight. It's obviously not a BLP violation having it on the talk page to discuss. Right now, I think it's a little too coatracky to put in without any further sources that describe what impact this had on Sears' career or standing in the medical community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this can be mentioned much more briefly, while keeping the refs. Would that be better? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that still wouldn't be undue weight but it shouldn't warrant an automatic revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Consequences of epidemics (restored)

Moving this content to here in case there is something in it that could go back in the article. The way that it is worded it isn't biographical content about Sears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 22:44, February 4, 2015‎ (UTC)

The effects and costs of epidemics are substantial, and an "intentionally undervaccinated" seven-year-old boy— a patient of Sears — was identified as the index patient who started a measles epidemic in 2008, an epidemic which was the largest outbreak in San Diego since 1991. The epidemic "resulted in 839 exposed persons, 11 additional cases (all in unvaccinated children), and the hospitalization of an infant too young to be vaccinated....[with] a net public-sector cost of $10,376 per case.... 48 children too young to be vaccinated were quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child."

References

I'm intrigued by this objection above:

• "The way that it is worded it isn't biographical content about Sears."

Maybe this is a legitimate concern which can easily be fixed without deleting properly sourced content.

For one thing, there is no requirement that all content here must be "biographical" in the ordinary sense. An article at Wikipedia includes many (and more) different types of content which would not be found in a "biography" elsewhere. Anything tangentially related to the subject is fair game.

I'm still willing to entertain better wording. What wording is problematic? Any suggestions? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added the exact words in those sources to the refs as evidence for the relevance of the refs. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, this material needs to go back into the article given the sources provided which are quite extensive. It may need to be reworded, but not having this content in the article makes it non-compliant with NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think there's not enough connection to Sears presently to warrant a mention in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What? Bob sears, a physician beloved of the anti-vaccine movement who is known almost exclusively for his anti-vaccination activism, has been fingered by reliable sources as the direct cause of a measles outbreak, and you don't think this is relevant? I'm sorry, I am one of the numerous people here who strongly disagree. This is a large part of what he is known for outside the bubble world of antivax loons. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it's a little too coatracky to put in without any further sources that describe what impact this had on Sears' career or standing in the medical community. Two of the current sources don't mention him, one consists of "As it turns out, the boy who spread measles is a patient of Dr. Bob Sears, pictured at left, a member of the famous San Clemente pediatrician family and author of "The Vaccine Book." He's featured briefly in the 20-minute segment.", and one I can't access. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely the problem, some of the content doesn't even mention him. And it is a kind of synthesis to put it all together this way and come to the conclusion at the end of the passage. And it is very very thin evidence to put the weight of the cost of the epidemic solely on him as a practitioner. We have no idea what was actually said or done with the patient. We are leaping to conclusions here in way that is quite disparaging about a a controversial topic. And that's the reason that I took it out. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed that material for now. If we find better sources, we can re-add it. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bob Sears is known primarily for his alternative vaccine schedule. If it were not for this, and its intersection with the anti-vax movement, we would not have an article at all. The link between his alternative schedule and the index patient in an outbreak of measles, is directly relevant to his signature claims, and thus his notability. I think excluding it on the grounds that it is not about him, but only about the direct results of the thing that he originated and for which he is the best-known proponent, is simply wrong. Quality of sourcing would be a valid reason to exclude, relevance is not. Numerous commentators point out that this is a likely, if not inevitable, consequence of his anti-scientific ideas, it is perverse to fail to point out that not only is it likely, it has provably happened. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right -- the material *is* about him, in a very direct way. The original wording was overly general and involved some synthesis, but it can easily be re-written and restored. In fact I did this [3], and the subsequent removal was unnecessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And there was nothing in the sources I could find beyond, "the boy was a patient of Sears". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That and the fact that he was unvaccinated, and the index patient of an outbreak. Oh, wait, that is the entire point. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Category, anti-vaxer?

Collect has now twice removed the Anti-vaccination activist category, asking for "RS". This is of course provided by two sources currently being used as references: Gorski and Willingham. Apart from that, there's the notion that he is merely advocating "reduced" vaccine and not "no" vaccine. That argument is woeful: if you give some vaccine but not enough (as per standard medical advice) to do the job, then of course you are "anti" doing vaccination the right way. Doing it not the right way is of course "anti-vaccination". And again in any event there are reliable sources for this categorisation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, additionally, this fine source on anti-vaccinationists

• Poland GA, Jacobson RM (2012). "The clinician's guide to the anti-vaccinationists' galaxy". Hum. Immunol. (Review). 73 (8): 859–66. doi:10.1016/j.humimm.2012.03.014. PMID 22504410.

has Sears as a chief subject. Seems to me that too is RS for labelling him such. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Please restore it; the person who removed the category didn't even notice that there are already sources to this effect being used on the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the sources, I think he should be described prominently as an anti-vaccinationist in the lede too, since that is his principal (in fact only, really) claim to fame. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, though the lead as written makes this clear, even without using that term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On reflection you're right; the lede doesn't need it in addition to our category. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sears own words and book advocate vaccines - thus he cannot and is not an "anti-vaccinationist". Those "reliable sources" you just labeled are opinions and historically we comply with the subject's stated stance on views regardless of what others say. This has been done for religion, politics, gender, and ideology. Neither Gorski and Willingham are a reliable source for this category - only the subject is. Gorski makes an opinion known, but using this to label a person based on the personal opinions of another person is an issue when it is contested by the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's incorrect. We have a plethora of Holocaust deniers who call themselves something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Godwin's law... literal facepalm. Do you understand that Sears supports vaccinations - yes or no? If you answered yes, then he is not anti-vax and if you answered no, you need to check your sources again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is you're coming up with your own personal definition of what "anti-vax" is (== no vaccination) whereas the best medical sources apply it to people who advocate non-orthodox/dubious vaccination programmes - and specifically to Sears. We must follow RS, and not inexpert editors' POVs. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

He can say he supports vaccinations, just like Holocaust deniers can say they support accurate historical viewpoints. However analysis of their actions and writings may come to a different conclusion. Do you understand Wikipedia articles do not take everthing the subject says at face value? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. @ChrisGualtieri: a thought experiment for you: say someone plans to go to a region where yellow fever is prevalent, goes to a doctor for a vaccination, and the doctor says, here I'll give you a vaccination for typhoid. Does that doctor "support vaccination"? Obviously not -- to "support vaccination", one must support doing it right, per medical consensus. Apart from that: as the other editors say, you are proposing to ignore what entirely reliable sources say about Sears, and you're doing so in a way that blatantly conflicts with WP:PSCI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are not going to stay in the upper levels Graham's hierarchy then I have no more business discussing this with you. Sears writes in the very opening of his book: I am a pro-vaccine doctor. and goes on to support HIB, MMR, Pc and numerous other vaccines and provides ample consideration into the matter. Sears is not a holocaust denier and I do not see anything that supports this hypothetical situation concocted by Nomoskedasticity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not Godwin's Law. It is a simple fact: climate deniers call themselves "climate skeptics", the Australian anti-vaccination network call themselves "vaccine skeptics" not anti-vaccinationists, the Discovery Institute call themselves "Intelligent Design proponents" not creationists. They are all engaging in word games, just as the "too many too soon" brigade are in denial about the role they play in promoting infectious diseases.

We do not care if Sears describes himself as a "pro-vaccine doctor". We only care how reliable independent sources describe him. I spent a while looking, the only source I can find for the claim that Bob Sears is pro-vaccine, is Bob Sears. See Matthew 7:16. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

To categorize a person as something which would be considered a "contentious claim"(WP:BLP) requires strong sources making that claim. Using sources which do not make that claim is weird. Otherwise Wikipedia's voice is being used to make an unsupported contentious claim. Where a person specifically supports a huge number of vaccines, then saying "anti-vaccination activist" is a contentious claim on its face. Find specific reliable sources making the claim - that is all you need. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sears' promotion of alternative vaccine schedules are considered part of the anti-vaccine movement by scholarly sources and sources that are known for their reliability: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11019086 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885912000821 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031393912000042 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095454311000583 http://test.rrcc.edu/sites/default/files/claro-schlesclarosubmission.pdf http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/37/1/69.short http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccine-illnesses-in/ His contestation of the label is similar to Jenny McCarthy's contestation. It's not based on third party sourcing and so needs to be placed in context. The claim that alternative scheduling is part of the anti-vaxxer movement is not contentious amongst those who study these matters. To pretend otherwise is to be ignorant of the vast and overwhelming literature on the subject. The categorization is appropriate. jps (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I believe that's already been done by Alexbrn (and now jps). Counterarguments seem to be based mostly on original research and overly legalistic interpretations of policy.- MrX 15:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that the opinion and label by sources exists. This seems to be a black and white logical fallacy - that there is no middleground. Do you agree? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But is there any real dispute by scholars who study the anti-vaccine movement over whether Sears is a part of it? I have only found independent sources that indicate that he is a part of the movement. I have seen no example of an independent source (that is, someone who is not a compatriot or supporter of Sears' fringe ideas) who agrees with Sears' dispute of the label. If you could find an independent source that did that, I'd be very interested. jps (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sears has taken a middleground, but in a major interview in OC Weekly [4] it seems that Sears understands parents concern, but has clearly complex views on vaccines. I am not arguing in favor or against his views - just the lack of presentation. I am going to wait for another person to voice additional thoughts on this matter. I just wanted to clarify - there is certainly material include the anti-vax accusation, but I disagree with using a category as if it were fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sears has taken a middleground" ← that's your lay view, whatever it means, and which you are pushing here to categorize Sears against the grain of expert sources which say that wherever Sear's "ground" is, it's firmly in anti-vax territory. What's relevant is what RS says (and since we have a MEDRS review article, we have about as good a RS as it's possible to get). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The anti-vax crowd, even the most rabid opposers like Age of Autism, love Sears. His fellow travelers, most of them anti-vaxxers, love him and promote him. He associates with them, speaks at their meetings, and they buy his books. He profits from this celebrity status and would lose money if he deviated from his unorthodox position. He has painted himself into this corner and cannot back down.

The anti-vax sources which document all this are not considered RS here, which is proper, but anyone who has followed this movement for decades, as I have, knows who his friends are and the deceptions which they perpetrate. Any claims to be pro vaccine from this crowd should never be taken at face value. At Wikipedia we rightly do not take such claims at face value, but treat them as fringe claims. In this biography we document that he protests being labelled by multiple RS as an anti-vaxxer. Readers can see he disputes that label, but we must also include what those RS say about him, especially since they represent mainstream science, unlike him.

He admits he got started on this path by reading an anti-vax book, which happens to be one of the most deceptive ones out there, written by extreme anti-vaxxers. His only deviation since then is to provide a modified schedule which includes the vaccines, and another which eliminates some. He thinks that such a compromise gets him off the hook, but medical authorities won't have it. They do not buy his protestations, and neither should we. We just document them.-- Brangifer (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Sears is pretty much the originator of the "too many too soon" antivax trope. But it's fair to challenge the category. You and I both know that he is part of the antivax movement even though he disputes being anti-vax as such, but let's beef up the sourcing rather than argue with a good person. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's rather telling that only Sears and an editor here don't think Sears is in the anti-vax crowd. "The anti-vaccine crowd" love him! That is even more telling. They think he's one of their own, and he accepts their adulation. I'll take their word over his and an editor's opinion anyday. The sources must be accepted and used. They trump editor opinions to the contrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful to have a proper consensus building discussion (as in well defined parameters for weighing the opinions about policy) either at Cfd and/or a RFC on this article talk page. Right now there seems to be a rush to revert changes right away instead of working toward a true consensus that can stand the test of time. In my experience, most people can live with a decision, even if they disagree with it, if the points of view are examined and weighed and an impartial person closes the discussion. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect mentioned, above, that contentious classifications require strong sourcing. Sources relating to Sears and anti-vaccinationism include, but are not limited, to the following:

List of reliable third-party sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Offit PA, Moser CA (2009). "The problem with Dr Bob's alternative vaccine schedule". Pediatrics. 123 (1): e164-9. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2189. PMID 19117838. Sears' misrepresentation of vaccine science misinforms parents trying to make the right decisions for their children... Unlike typical antivaccine books, he offers a middle ground, allowing parents to act on their fears without completely abandoning vaccines. Unfortunately, Sears sounds many antivaccine messages. Zurcher, Anthony (January 22, 2015). "Measles outbreak at Disney raises vaccination questions". BBC. ...Orange County—where Disneyland is located—is home to one of the more active anti-vaccination communities, led by Dr Bob Sears, a paediatrician who caters to parents suspicious of the immunisation shots (Implicitly links Sears to the Disneyland measles outbreak). Sharockman, Aaron (February 3, 2015). "What CDC statistics say about vaccine-related illnesses, injuries and death". PolitiFact. (Describes Sears as "a pediatrician who lends a sympathetic ear to the anti-vaccine movement", notes that his claims about vaccine injury are "mostly false"). Smith, Tara (January 23, 2015). "Measles is back. And more dangerous than you think". Chicago Tribune. A California pediatrician with ties to the anti-vaccine movement, Dr. Bob Sears, has suggested that measles in the U.S. is nothing to fear, minimizing the potential complications the virus can cause... A 2008 outbreak of measles began with an unvaccinated child returning from Switzerland who was a patient of Sears. That outbreak resulted in 11 cases, led to the quarantine of dozens more, and cost California more than $100,000 to contain. (Directly links Sears to the 2008 measles outbreak and its associated cost). Foxhall, Emily (January 25, 2015). "Parents who oppose measles vaccine hold firm to their beliefs". Los Angeles Times. (Describes Sears as "a pediatrician in Dana Point who has been embraced by so-called anti-vaxers and preaches a slowed-down approach to those who choose to vaccinate their children"). Esquivel, Paloma (September 6, 2014). "Vaccination controversy swirls around O.C.'s 'Dr. Bob'". Los Angeles Times. Foxhall, Emily (February 5, 2015). "The anti-vaccine crowd gets its Hollywood moment at premiere". Mnookin, Seth (June 3, 2011). "Is 'Dr. Bob' Sears moving away from his profitable anti-vaccine pandering?". (This a blog, but it is written by a published expert on anti-vaccinationism and appears under the editorial control of the Public Library of Science).

Thoughts? I mean, if these reliable third-party sources are not sufficient to indicate that someone is closely associated with the anti-vaccination movement, then there is really no point in having the category exist. MastCell ^Talk 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, it actually addresses a more serious problem, and that is the obviously blatant refusal to follow the sources, and the choice to use OR and personal opinions which are opposed to what the sources say, instead of using those sources. That's a very serious threat to the foundations of all content at Wikipedia. Those editors need to be warned and discretionary sanctions applied. This is foundational Wiki101 stuff, and it's sad to see it happening here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are more sources, all directly mentioning Sears:

• The anti-vaccine crowd gets its Hollywood moment at premiere, Los Angeles Times, February 4, 2015
• Pediatricians Pressured To Drop Parents Who Won't Vaccinate, NPR, February 4, 2015, Patricia Neighmond
• Sears and Gordon: Should Misleading Vaccine Advice Have Professional Consequences? Forbes, February 3, 2015, Tara Haelle
• What CDC statistics say about vaccine-related illnesses, injuries and death, PolitiFact.com, February 3, 2015, Aaron Sharockman

The third one refers to numerous other good sources which could also be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The first and fourth of those are already in my list of sources. The third (Forbes) appears to be a personal blog which is hosted by Forbes but not subject to any editorial control, and so I would not use it in a BLP. The second source is probably a good one. In general, let's tone down the rhetoric a little—I recognize a lot of reasonable people on the talkpage here, but the discourse seems a bit overheated. I think the best way forward is to go back and identify good reliable sources, and go from there. MastCell ^Talk 06:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sears' place in some category related to the anti-vaccine movement is unarguable. The only question is which one. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Since the exact wording of this category seems to be problematic in some instances, how about some other wording? Maybe "Those loved by the anti-vax movement", or "Those who pander to the anti-vax movement", or "Those who profit from the anti-vax movement". (I AM joking! ) He certainly fits in all of them! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

But this is exactly the problem with the category—Sears' relationship to the anti-vaccine movement, while very real, is nuanced. Categories are a very poor tool for conveying nuance; they're intended mostly as a navigational aid (and frankly, I think people fight over them infinitely more than anyone ever uses them). I would drop the category (I mean, these kind of fights are pointless and tend to attract the sort of people who enjoy fighting) and re-focus that effort onto a well-written, well-sourced description of Sears' views and relationship to the anti-vaccine movement in the article body. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy's wording is pretty good, placing the burden on what independent RS say, which should always be the case (for this type of scenario), so how about Category: Individuals identified with the anti-vaccine movement? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article belongs in an Anti-vaccine category. Per BLP, we must clearly state their position and their denials in their own words, in the body and the lead — just as I did with fellow traveler Jenny McCarthy's article here and here. But also like the McCarthy article, the anti-vaccine description must remain both in the lead and as a category, for as long as their "alternative" ideas on when, which and how many vaccines goes against medical consensus. I wouldn't suggest dropping the useful category altogether, but exchanging the "activist" cat for a "movement" cat might help address some concerns. Would the new category replace the present one in all articles? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More sources

Here are some sources which extensively deal with Sears:

• Revoke the license of any doctor who opposes vaccination
• The vaccine delayers. They hate anti-vaxxers — but don't quite vaccinate on time

Brangifer (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Alas - the first is clearly editorial in nature, and thus not very usable for claims of fact as such. The second from vox.com also appears to be editorial in nature. I am sure far better strong "peer-reviewed" journal sources are available showing the precise risks for each type of vaccine incurred by any delay. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, editorials and opinions are perfectly valid sources for this type of controversy. Because of the fringe nature of the controversy, WP:PARITY allows websites and blogs from notable skeptics, physicians, and subject experts. Controversies are not covered by MEDRS, and this is not the article for dealing with "precise risks" (although definitely covered by MEDRS, that might be a coatrack here), although there could be situations here where a wikilink to the relevant article might be proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post opinion piece by Arthur Caplan is a reliable source for opinion, per WP:RSOPINION. It is written by a prominent expert in bioethics and appears in a major, reputable newspaper. It is a pretty good source to illustrate the reception with which Sears' claims have been met by mainstream bioethicists and scientists. The source is not useful for claims of fact per se, as Collect points out, but then I don't think anyone is proposing to use it that way.

The Vox piece is not an opinion piece; it's explanatory journalism, which is what Vox.com does. Again, this is a reliable and useful source to illustrate the mainstream reception of Sears and his claims, with proper in-text attribution. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We already have the sources necessary to establish that Sears' schedule is out of line with the standard of care, this is being used to show the implications of that according to an identified source whose credentials the reader can easily validate. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree as well. Good work. Now we need to come up with wording that summarizes these viewpoints. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Documentation of opinions and reception has always been acceptable content here. If there is serious disagreement between reliable sources, we attribute the content. In this case there are only two people who dispute that Sears is anti-vax: himself and one editor here, and editors here don't count, only RS count. All other sources are pretty clear in their condemnation of his dangerous position. The anti-vax movement very clearly considers him one of their own, and he accepts their adulation and lends them support by speaking at their gatherings, just like anti-vax luminaries Andrew Wakefield, Jay Gordon, Barbara Loe Fisher, etc. do. [5] -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to include content from these two sources. Feel free to improve it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate claim regarding mortality risk of measles

Is there any way this can be used?

Sears: "3. Potentially fatal? Technically true, but herein lies the lie. It's been publicized as "the deadliest of all childhood fever/rash illness with a high rate of complications." Deadly? Not in the U.S., or any other developed country with a well-nourished population. The risk of fatality here isn't zero, but it's as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero. It's 1 in many thousands. Will someone pass away in the U.S. from measles one of these years? Tragically yes. That will likely happen to one person. It hasn't happened here in at least ten years (or more - I don't even know how many years we have to go back to find one). When that happens, it will be extremely tragic." (Bold emphasis added)

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=834388633266289&id=116317855073374

I found it because it was mentioned and directly referenced in an article, but now I can't find that article. Does anyone recognize it and know what that secondary source might be? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A search found this possible source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/18/1358625/-Dr-Robert-Sears-lies-to-parents-about-measles-and-vaccines Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Found! It was this Mother Jones article which refers to that FB post: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/01/6-terrifying-facts-about-measles Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad sources?

i don't think the lilacs commentary belongs: as a comment on a HuffPo blog, it is well short of WP:RS. Also, Oprah magazine is slightly less reliable than an IOU from a drug addict, so also does not belong. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I'm not sure what you mean by "lilacs". The Oprah source documents one of his untrue claims. Is mentioning it giving it undue weight, or would a different source be better? I didn't add that content, so I don't know the background there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lilady. My iThing autoincorrected it. It's also meta, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with JzG. None of this would pass RS and we might be dealing with MedRS issues given the nature of the topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

To determine whether a source is a RS or not, one must always consider how it's used. In this case it documents an important statement directly from Sears, and thus is allowable for that purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what JzG meant was the link to the Huffington Post where we quote what Dr Bob posted in the comments section in response to a user known as "lilady". The comments section of articles generally isn't reliable, and this doesn't seem to be an exception. Everymorning talk 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning , I understand that and my comment above was addressing that, but apparently not clearly enough. Sorry about that.

When dealing with primary sources from the subject, almost any published source can be deemed "reliable" for certain very limited purposes. We sometimes use horrible sources full of lies to document the POV and statements of people. We would never use those sources for other purposes, because they are deemed unreliable for other purposes. Sometimes even blacklisted sources are allowed for such limited usage. In this case the HuffPost is a RS for that purpose, including his response in the comments section. There is no doubt he said it, which makes it a RS to document his confirmation that the child was indeed his patient. Because it is used as a back up to other secondary RS mentioning the matter, it becomes relevant to use it. I have addressed this subject elsewhere, and here's some of what I wrote:

We can justify using such sources when it backs up their previous mention in secondary RS. It's a nice service to readers. The same principle applies in cases where we can justify using otherwise terrible sources like obscure blog comments or Facebook comments when those sources or the subject have been mentioned in good secondary RS. In the Robert Sears' article, there exist multiple secondary sources, including a CDC source, which mention a patient as the index case in a measles outbreak, and we then supply his own confirmation of the fact that it was his patient. That confirmation was in a reply to a reader's comment on his HuffPost column. We don't normally use the comments section as a source, but in this case it's not a SYNTH violation or improper because we have secondary RS mentioning the matter.

The background is that published RS had questioned whether it was his patient, and some incorrectly assumed that the exposure of other patients occurred in his waiting room (that happened elsewhere), so he felt compelled to clarify the matter. Since there are readers who are confused about it, and we also have editors questioning it, it's a nice service to provide a source containing his confirmation that it was his patient, but that the exposure didn't occur in his waiting room. It happened in the San Diego waiting room of another pediatrician. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)