Talk:James Privitera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] POV tag

  • I have place a POV tag on this article as it present only one aspect of the professional life of Privitera and giving a POV from the sole editor. Some of the statements are not reference, a requirement in a BLP. NATTO
Please list the statements you believe are not referenced. Jokestress 06:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement that he made an unuccessful attempt to the Supreme Court for one. Reference # 10 is a link the a WP article about the L.A. Time and not about the statement in the article. The article is unidirectional and makes not mention at all of any positive work by Dr. Privitera. About the Laetrile charge it does not explain the context and why he was pardoned by the state Governor. About the death of the elderly lady, it paints only a one-sided picture and does not explain the final outcome. This is a good example of painting a POV picture while seemingly following the WP rules. I it more about the letter of the rules than about the spirit. NATTO 08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Referenced the Supreme Court via OTA. LA Times article can be ordered from any library. We don't need a link to cite it. If you know of published information about his "positive work," feel free to add it. Governors are under no obligation to explain pardons. Jerry Brown gave 403. You can order the records from the state if you want more information. The final outcome for the lady was that she died of a hemorrhage after being given huge doses of anticoagulant by a doctor who claims clotting is a health problem. It explains the final outcome completely: he was reprimanded, fined, and forced to take classes. Again, if you feel there is additional published information to add, please do so. It seems pretty complete to me. Jokestress 08:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Complete as a hatchet job you mean.... He was reprimanded NOT her causing her death but because of record keeping issues and not doing a proper history and physical exam at that specific time. About the laetrile issue the information is more about regulatory issues than medical issues. Privitera claims he actually helped many patients with his treatments and these patients worsened and later died after the state interved. Pardons are not given without a valid reason so there is more than the ose side that you are presenting. NATTO 08:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states exactly what he admitted to (verbatim) and his punishment. If you have more published info to add about his laetrile conviction and pardon, go for it. If you have a published source where he claims he actually helped many patients with his treatments and these patients worsened and later died after the state intervened, please add it. Barrett claims the pardon was a result of a huge letter-writing campaign by National Health Federation. Shall we add that, or do you have another published statement about why he was pardoned? Jokestress 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Barrett says a lot of things and one thing that is becoming clear is that he lacks objectivity, even those who supports his goals have noted as much, so he is far from being a reliable soource to get a balanced view of an issue, he will usually only post information that support his POV. I do not know why he was pardoned but if the Governor received so many letters from voters he may have concluded that California regulation on Laetrile was the problem and that Privitera has been given a rough ride by the bureaucrats. I have not checked about the legality of laetrile in other states but if the statement by his supporters is correct, then Brown may have realized that this was not an issue of public protection but of legal nitpicking. NATTO 09:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything you wrote above is speculation and opinion on your part. If you have published statements to add to the article, by all means do so. Jokestress 09:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the talk page, I did not intend to write the above in an article. I am also busy trying to get some balance in this one side article. The section on live blood analysis : Is there a point there or is it again to discredit live blood analysis and Privitera. NATTO 09:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How nice.. Start with a phrase linking Privitera with Live Blood analysis and then do a hatchet job on the secondary topic.NATTO 09:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Privitera is one of the most prominent promoters of the LBA devices, and his claims about using them to detect clots leads into his anticoagulant incident. Jokestress 10:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of California and his license

  • There is a statement in the article " In 1987, the State of California moved to revoke his probation and end his practice." What happened ? I assume they failed because he is still in practice. There is a need for either a follow-up on what happened or to removed the item. If the state failed then they did not have valid reasons to do what they did and if they succeeded then it should be in the article as well. NATTO 09:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Fyslee

It has been a while since I heard from you. It is true we do not know what happened since then but there is not evidence that further action was ever taken since 1999. In fact the whole issue of highlighting the death of this sick woman with regards to Dr. Privitera is questionable. After all the drama the state settled and he got a reprimand and a fine for record keeping issues which is in the lower level of penalties in a diciplinary proceedings. To try to imply that he was responsible for her death is a strech. Based on the info available she may well have suffered an aneurysm... NATTO 10:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We can speculate all we want, but it clearly mentions his massive misuse of Heparin in this case. If he hadn't done something wrong - and they found a number of things - the case would never have been brought against him and he would have continued to practice in an unprofessional and substandard manner.
This is the guy who lied about Barrett's beginnings and was sued for libel. Making false statements, and getting them published in a book, which is then used as a verifiable source here, doesn't make it less of a lie or less libelous. It's not a reliable source. Verifiability isn't the only requirement for inclusion of such negative information:
  • Privitera claims in Silent Clots that "Barrett got his start in the bogus consumer protection game by attacking the chiropractic profession on behalf of the American Medical Association."
The first slur about "bogus consumer protection game" is just an opinion, that happens to let us know which side of the fence Privitera is on - he's against consumer protection efforts. (Those who insist on placing the slur in Wikipedia are also revealing which side they are taking.)
It is highly negative and unencyclopedic yellow, "tabloid journalism" (to quote Jimbo Wales). Although not libelous, it's still "poorly sourced" (Privitera can publish all the books he wants. That doesn't make them reliable, only verifiable sources of lies), and it can be removed without violating 3rr.
The second part ("on behalf of the" AMA) is stated as a factual statement, and is therefore libelous until Privitera provides solid proof that it is true.
Until then, the rules here require that it all be removed immediately, and that the 3rr rule doesn't apply to those who remove it. It has been removed before, and it will be removed again. Those who reinstate it risk violating 3rr. You are welcome to take it to arbitration if you disagree. Wikipedia is not to be used for repetition of false and libelous information, even if well-sourced. If it is well documented as true, then it is no longer defined as libelous and can then be included, no matter how negative.
"No information" of this kind from you wouldn't hurt your reputation here at Wikipedia. It's easy to verify the existence of lies and negative information, it's much harder to document they they aren't lies using reliable sources. If you can do that, great.
Here's the policy: -- Fyslee 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material

Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [2]

-- Fyslee 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Fyslee , take a deep breath and count to ten.... Now. It is Jokestress who has inserted the criticism section and added the comment from Barrett and Privitera. As far as I am concerned that entire section could be removed since Barrett is critical of so many things, it is almost impossible to keep count. I do not know James Privitera and simply want to avoid a one sided article. NATTO 11:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Legitimate and sourced criticism is allowed. The relevant parts of Barrett's criticism are mentioned, not everything else. Using your line of reasoning, I could delete all the criticism you have added to the Barrett article, but I certainly won't do that. If it exists, it can be allowed, but we need to use some encyclopedic sense here. Barrett is a quack magnet. They flock to him with their criticism. There are an endless group of individuals who practice and promote methods which he criticizes, and they naturally use all types of illegitimate criticisms and methods to seek to divert attention from their misdeeds. It's possible to find hundreds, if not thousands, of websites with criticism of him, but should they all be added, as you have begun to do (I doubt you plan on adding all of them!)? No, pick out a few of the best ones. "Best" in terms of the strength of their arguments, not the virulence of their straw man and ad hominem attacks. (Although such examples do speak quite loudly about the weakness of his opposers' positions and characters.) Use those who make a serious attempt, even though they are usually using flawed logic. If I ever remember the couple examples I have earlier mentioned, I'll certainly bring them to the article. I'm interested in good quality criticism being mentioned, but frivolous diatribes and deceptive statements are not useful. -- Fyslee 12:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "a balanced view of the subject" - NATTO

NATTO asks for "a balanced view of the subject" in the edit summary.

Sure, provide any good biographical details you can document. If you want to defend a criminal, be my guest. The man broke the law. Fine, defend him. "A balanced view" can serve many purposes, and it can certainly be used to defend the crimes performed by criminals. As long as it can be done in a NPOV way, it's allowed here. A "balanced view" of Hitler's, Mao's, and Stalin's misdeeds allows that their justifications for why they murdered so many people be stated, but not presented as justifications or sold as the preferred viewpoint.

NATTO seems to like doing whatever can be done to smear and oppose Barrett and anti-quackery efforts. I wonder why? Could it be because Barrett agrees with others who oppose anti-vaxers, are skeptical of homeopathy, misuse dietary supplements of questionable value, and seek to expose MDs who misuse their positions to the detriment of patient safety? Privitera massively misused Heparin, and it led to a patient's death. Okay NATTO, continue to defend him. -- Fyslee 10:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That is the Fyslee I know: opiniated and judgemental who is a self-proclaimed quackbuster. Throw as much mud as you can on a man who is still an M.D., with a licence, and helping people. He has been pardoned with regards to the Laetrile issue and was not found guilty of the death of the sick elderly lady. He made errors of record keeping and was reprimanded. That is not a crime. But in your word he is a criminal. Just like Barrett does let's bunch him with murderers and rapists. And please do not start your diatribe about alternative medicine, you are a physical therapist so stick to what you know.NATTO 10:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A pardon doesn't erase a crime

A pardon just says "you did the crime, but we forgive you." Therefore, Privitera is indeed a convicted criminal on the laetrile violation. That he is still an MD says more about the medical profession's unwillingness to see misbehavior among its own than it does about Privitera's innocence.

24.20.183.69 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MarianC