External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marty Makary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science Based Medicine source[edit]

Section on COVID-19 views[edit]

A couple of editors have been trying to add a paragraph on Makary's COVID-19 views, but have been reverted a few times by 100.16.169.167 who has raised a few different criticisms. Here is the most recent version of the paragraph:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Makary has been a critic of COVID-19 mitigation policies that led to shutdowns of businesses and schools as well as non-targeted efforts to mandate vaccination. He describes his views as "different from the 'standard party line'".[1][2] Makary was an early supporter of universal masking, writing a New York Times op-ed in May 2020 in which he suggested it would enable safe reopening of businesses and schools.[3] When COVID-19 vaccines became available, Makary argued in a February 2021 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that the United States would achieve herd immunity for COVID-19 around April 2021, and later criticized Anthony Fauci for predicting that 75-80% vaccination rates would be required for herd immunity.[4][5] This prediction later proved to be incorrect, in part due to the rise of the Delta variant.[6] Makary considers himself pro-vaccine, but has also criticized vaccination mandates for populations other than healthcare workers, highlighting the risk of myocarditis in young male vaccine recipients as a reason to exercise caution.[2]

References

  1. ^ Dan Rodricks (2021-08-31). "Dan Rodricks: A Hopkins surgeon turns Fox pandemic pundit. Some cheer, some groan. | COMMENTARY". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2021-12-19.
  2. ^ a b Ward, Myah (2021-10-13). "The Hopkins doc vs. the vaccine consensus". Politico. Retrieved 2021-11-09.
  3. ^ "Opinion | How to Reopen America Safely - The New York Times". Nytimes.com. 2020-05-14. Retrieved 2021-12-19.
  4. ^ Makary, Marty (2021-02-18). "Opinion: We'll Have Herd Immunity by April". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-02-19.
  5. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/herd-immunity-is-near-despite-faucis-denial-11616624551 [bare URL]
  6. ^ "'We'll Have Herd Immunity by April': Reflections on a Failed Prediction". Science-Based Medicine. 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-08-22.

Here are some objections that 100.16.169.167 has raised to this or previous versions of this paragraph (which was initially written by User:Editor45687):

To speak plainly, I think it is notable that Makary is a well-credentialed and respected doctor who has advocated a more permissive approach to COVID-19. I think it's clear that this has been an approach he has called for consistently - e.g. advocating for universal masking while others were calling for lockdown, advocating for an early reopening when others were saying that we should wait until vaccines were universally available, and advocating for "living with COVID" when others were calling for measures to contain the Delta/Omicron variant surges. I also think it's clear that in the US, this is generally aligned with conservative political views, and Makary has this year mostly been publishing his views in more conservative media properties such as the WSJ opinion page, Fox News, or the NY Post (in addition to editing a more neutral COVID digest in MedPage Today). I think some people are objecting to characterizing his views as "conservative" because there is a perception that all conservatives also hold more fringe views like advocating ivermectin/HCQ or arguing that the COVID death toll is made up, neither of which he has done.

This has mostly been removed from the above version of the paragraph, but I also think it is important to call out where Makary's predictions have been incorrect or are misleading (as we should be doing for all COVID pundits/influencers). In particular, I think it would be good to highlight that the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young men, even if slightly elevated from background, is low in absolute terms (I think it is 0.0011%, and the risk of post-COVID myocarditis is higher).

Would appreciate others' thoughts. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To also speak plainly GlobeGores, the entire Biden administration has taken a stance against lockdowns, and are now advocating “living with COVID”. Makary’s views are actually completely mainstream in the United States and are not aligned with either conservative or liberal views. Do you find daylight between what Makary has advocated and the current approach of the Biden administration? Makary still advocates for vaccines. His page is now being overtaken by some people who seem to want to tarnish his reputation. Once again, I point to the wiki pages of many other voices in the pandemic that don’t resemble the state of Dr. Makary’s and ask what the goal of all this is?
This is a war, against a pathogen, and in wars, there is a fog. Every single person who has spoken about COVID has been wrong about something. Are we now holding people to be infallible? Seems like each wiki page will be a pretty dark place if that is the case.
Makary has been right a lot more than he has been wrong, he has worked to follow the data, and his positions now represent the current administrations position on COVID. I would say he has actually been ahead of a lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.153.180 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Living with COVID" has always been what scientists have predicted we would eventually have to do.
  • "Against lockdowns" depends on the situation. Being against lockdowns in principle is stupid and dangerous. Trying to avoid them when they are not necessary is fine.
  • Scientific truth is not decided by politicians.
  • And finally, Wikipedia says what reliable sources say. Wikipedia doesn't care about what Wikipedia editors think.
See also WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hob Gadling (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COVID edits[edit]

Dr. Makary has been one of the leading voices on the pandemic since February 2020. He worked to warn the general public when the pandemic threat was being downplayed by Dr. Fauci as a “low risk” even when he knew it was an imminent threat.

Dr. Makary has worked to follow the science throughout the pandemic and in reality, pretty much every person has been wrong about something in regards to COVID. The White House, the CDC, and pretty much every person on TV. If we are to go down the road of calling out everything each voice got wrong in the pandemic we are going to be here a long time. I would say Dr. Makary has probably been about 80-90% accurate on most of the things he has said and done, and he has always advocated for vaccines and masking (which are the two best defenses we have against COVID).

If you want to go down the road of calling out everything he has said right and wrong, we can do that, and then we can do it for each major voice in the pandemic. Or maybe we just not try to hold every person to an unrealistic standard and realize this is a dynamic public health situation. 100.16.169.167 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite confused - what about the paragraph I posted above is objectionable to you? Since there is obviously a diversity of opinions about whether Makary's views are correct and helpful/harmful, I tried to take as much opinion as possible out of the description, including any substantial criticism, and tried to neutrally frame Makary's positions are. If the paragraph is removed, we would have no idea at all that Makary has been a prominent commentator on COVID-19 matters, which I think is an important fact about him that should be known. Surely that is not your ideal outcome? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many surgeries has Dr. Makary performed? How many lives has he saved through his work in the operating room? Those are important facts that should also be known.

What the heck does this section have to do with Dr. Makary?

In January 2022, Ashish Jha, speaking on Kara Swisher's New York Times podcast Sway, criticized Makary as an example of a "quasi expert." Jha stated "I take someone like a Marty Makary, who’s at Hopkins, who has said some smart things. And he’s a smart guy. But he is not afraid to go way beyond his area of expertise. And he has never been held back by being wrong."[7]

Are we now just posting quotes from other doctors about Makary? Makary was out there very early on trying to warm the American people and get people to act in the interest of public health. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/10/dr-marty-makary-on-coronavirus-wuhan-could-happen-here.html

Honestly, you need to re-read the page as someone who is unbiased? All I see is a lot of people who want to bring down a great surgeon who actively has worked to follow the science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.153.180 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a reliable source on his achievements as a surgeon, bring it. We cannot conjure the information you want out of nothing.
We do have reliable sources on the false things he said about COVID, that's why they are in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about you use PubMed.gov to see all Makary’s publications which are here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=makary%20ma to see his contributions to medicine.

Or, you could contact John Cameron at Johns Hopkins, the man who perfected the Whipple Procedure and who literally has a floor named after him at Johns Hopkins and who trained Makary. Both men are still are Johns Hopkins and you would think that if Makary wasn’t an excellent surgeon he wouldn’t still be there.

I go back to my point here with Ashisha Ja, what does he have to do with Makary? Why are we having him be quoted in a section about Makary.

Here, Scott Gotleib, in Jim 2020 said the pandemic would be over in January 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/07/02/scott-gottlieb-covid-19-pandemic-over-by-january-squawk-box.html

Yet I don’t see you blasting that all over his wiki page. You have a serious bias problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.153.180 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Write this into the article!"
  • "We can't, we do not have sources for it."
  • Then go search for them!"
Don't you see anything wrong with that dialog? You are not our boss who tells us what to do. If you want it done, do it yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022[edit]

PLEASE DELETE the last line of the first section "He has been repeatedly criticized by infectious disease specialists for overstating the protection offered by previous COVID-19 infection and for making public health recommendations "beyond his area of expertise" that have been characterized as dubious and misleading.[6][7][8][9]"

All public figures are constantly criticized. And respected scientists are often criticized by both extremes. There is a healthy dialog between scientists and these criticisms pointed out above are designed to create the notion that there is one group that is correct on Covid recommendations and that he is outside of the the correct thinking. Dr. Makary, like all respected doctors in the public eye everyday, does not agree with the CDC on everything. The addition of the sentence above is an attempt to paint him as fringe. He is not. He is constantly recommends vaccination and has accurately predicted the power of natural immunity from prior Covid infection. He has written extensively about this topic: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-disparaging-natural-immunity-to-covid-vaccine-mandates-protests-fire-rehire-employment-11643214336?mod=trending_now_opn_3

The line added recently also suggests that he is not an expert and is speaking "making public health recommendations "beyond his area of expertise" but: Dr. Makary studied epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health where he earned a masters degree in public health Dr. Makary has served on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health for over 16 years Dr. Makary has been elected to the prestigious National Academy of Medicine for his achievements in public health Dr. Makary also treats Covid patients and manages special issues of infection control as chief of the Johns Hopkins Center for Islet Transplantation Dr. Makary has published landmark articles in the medical literature on Covid

Part of the ugliness of the pandemic has been the attempt to smear scientists as non-experts when people have a different opinion. In fact, Dr. Fauci nevere did a fellowship in Infectious Diseases. His fellowship training was in Rheumatology Many other "Covid experts" are emergency room doctors and people without a degree in public health It's not appropriate to characterize a long-distinguished career of a Hopkins faculty member by pointing out the a few random criticisms on blog posts.

In addition, please delete this part of the opening section "medical commentator. He practices surgical oncology and gastrointestinal laparoscopic surgery at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, is Mark Ravitch Chair in Gastrointestinal Surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine,"

Dr. Makary is not practicing surgery and is not the Mark Ravitch chair. This was added by critics in an attempt to make him appear as a non-public health expert. His New York Times bestselling books chronicle his work in public policy and public health. Ashley.Peters87 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See those numbers up there, "[6][7][8][9]"? Those are (in the article) links to reliable sources. If you want to delete what they say, you will need to find better reasons.
You will also need reliable sources for adding the stuff you want to add. Wall Street Journal is a bad source for scientific questions; they promote climate change denial and generally every sort of science denial they hope will be good for the Dow Jones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hob Gadking - Source #8 is not a reputable/reliable source. Your opinion on the WSJ is also demonstrating pretty strong biases and you should revisit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors 

UnbiasedAgent (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense. Health Feedback is a good source for medical science. WSJ may be a good source on money and stocks and markets, but definitely not on science because it promotes WP:FRINGE theories.
Wikipedia is science-based. See WP:ABIAS, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB. That is not my fault, but I like it. If you do not, this is not the right website for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ashley.Peters87: He has written extensively about this topic. I don't think this was ever in dispute. As someone with apparent familiarity with Dr. Makary's writings over the pandemic, I am curious if he has published any retractions or updates for past predictions he's gotten wrong. Particularly his We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April 2021 article. While I don't think the article should WP:SYNTH together a running tally of what he's gotten right or wrong, such a retraction might itself be notable, and provide a stronger response to the criticism section where other experts rightly point out his erroneous predictions. It's a lot easier to come to the defense of an expert who self-corrects, than a pundit who makes predictions that they only refer back to when they turned out to be correct. If you can share high-quality sources from other experts supporting Dr. Makary, those would be helpful as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster Would you accept Dr. Makary’s own words? Please watch the video where Dr. Makary addresses the WSJ article as well most of the criticism in this Wiki. For just the WSJ article, pick it up at the 7 min mark for 5 mins. I still suggest watching the entire episode.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XS6OSadejLk — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbiasedAgent (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate the link to a follow-up by Dr. Makary. Not quite what I was hoping to hear, and certainly not what I would characterize as an open discussion of what he thinks he got wrong (he spends basically the whole segment talking about how wrong everyone else was, and why it's not his fault). Lines up with the critiques we cite in the article, and is honestly what I expected from his later editorials. In short, I'm not sure this counts as a retraction, or anything else that would be notable for the article. But I again appreciate your satisfying my curiosity on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading back, I'll clarify what I mean by what he thinks he got wrong. Sidestepping his actual prediction (My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts.) to blame the headline writer for being deceptive, without mentioning the actual case rate in the US (14 per 100k on May 1st). Blaming Delta for the prediction falling apart, without discussing what happened before July. And just not addressing the possibility that behavior and seasonality could have played a role in case rates (did the March/April rebound in cases align with his prediction that the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity?). I say this not to WP:SYNTH anything into the article, but to explain the context in which I see the article's criticism being notable, and why I pushed back at the original comment that Dr. Makary's own comments on the topic were sufficient to be considered reliable and that criticism was undeserved. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again I am struggling to see a fair assessment of the leading voices medical voices in the pandemic. Between Anthony Fauci, Scott Gottlieb and Dr. Makary, Dr. Makary's is the only Wiki page where editors are going out of their way to leave a negative impression.

In February/March 2020, Dr. Makary worked to warn the American Public of the threat of COVID-19 and that the US population was living in a bubble thinking they were somehow not going to get impacted by COVID. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/dr-marty-makary-on-coronavirus-wuhan-could-happen-here.html. Contrast this with Dr. Fauci in January - early March saying the "risk is low" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/ and https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idOVC3S6T3Z. At the same time, Dr. Makary was advocating for the American Public to prepare for large impact to the American populace.

In May, Makary advocated for universal masking https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/reopen-america-coronavirus-lockdown.html and it has been well documented that Fauci did not advocate for universal masking for a while https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/fauci-emails-show-his-flip-flopping-on-wearing-masks-to-fight-covid/

In the fall of 2020 with many people succumbing to COVID-19, Makary criticized the FDA for not approving the MRNA Vaccines fast enough. https://www.foxnews.com/health/dr-marty-makary-coronavirus-vaccine-fda-approval-timetable.

In early 2021 Makary advocated for getting COVID vaccine shots into as many people as possible versus holding second doses, which was the UK strategy that proved effective at reducing morbidity and mortality in the UK. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/first-covid-vaccine-dose-dr-marty-makary

Makary advocated that data on natural immunity also be factored into assessments for vaccination and boosters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/. Data out of South Africa, a country with very low vaccination rate, saw limited severe disease in the recent Omicron wave and that was attributed to many scientists to both vaccination and natural immunity. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/south-africa-says-vaccines-and-natural-immunity-are-limiting-latest-covid-wave

You may not like Dr. Makary, but the facts are the facts. Every single person in here keeps quoting the WSJ article on Herd Immunity from 2021 article as a reason to completely misrepresent Dr. Makary and the facts. In that ZDogg podcast Makary says that he didn't get to choose the headline but he dis say "At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life." He based his report on "the current trajectory" and the trajectory changed due to Delta. If you don't like the headline, take it up with the WSJ, if you don't like the article, then you didn't read it with an unbiased lense.

Finally, Anthony Fauci in November 2020 said the pandemic would most likely be over thanks to vaccines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-12/covid-won-t-be-pandemic-for-long-thanks-to-vaccines-fauci-says. Fauci also said that the US would have herd immunity by March/April 2021. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/15/946714505/fauci-predicts-u-s-could-see-signs-of-herd-immunity-by-late-march-or-early-april

Like I have said many times, the editors on here haven't really done the research to understand the positions and the wiki page by Dr. Makary is being taken over by some people with a negative agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbiasedAgent (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UnbiasedAgent: "In that ZDogg podcast Makary says that he didn't get to choose the headline but he dis say "At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life." He based his report on "the current trajectory" and the trajectory changed due to Delta. If you don't like the headline, take it up with the WSJ, if you don't like the article, then you didn't read it with an unbiased lense." I thought I covered this thoroughly enough in my followup, but I'll address two elements again.
  • In April, COVID was not 'mostly gone', with the national average case rate still being right around the CDC's threshold between "High" and "Substantial". Even by June, the country never averaged in the "Low" transmission range. This is all prior to Delta in July, so deflecting criticism by using it as a scapegoat makes no sense. The linked interview scapegoated, rather than addressing this head on.
  • The concern is less that he was wrong (by nature, predictions will often be wrong), and (as the citations in the article say) more the level of confidence and certainty placed in the prediction, along with flaws in the methodology used to make the prediction. Being wrong is one thing, being wrong after saying those who disagreed with him were trying to manipulate the public by hiding the truth is another. As is saying your prediction is based on based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature when reliable third parties point out that it's really back-of-the-envelope rough estimates of natural immunity (rather than peer-reviewed studies making such an estimate, as others typically cited) and major assumptions like Behavior didn’t suddenly improve over the holidays (referencing a trend after the holidays, I might add).
If the concern is simply with using the headline, we can replace it with his direct quote: "Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April". I'll make that edit now.
It all goes back to whether or not reliable sources provided notable critiques, and they did. Particularly as he was the contrarian view, this is something that we typically note in accordance with guidelines including WP:FRINGE. To put it plainly: it would be unencyclopedic and non-neutral to ignore that his opinion was the minority, and the critiques from peers help provide that context. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster - You are proving my point that you and some of the editors here are hyper focused on the WSJ article in how you frame Dr. Makary's positions throughout this pandemic. I would say that Dr. Makary's positions, while at some point in time they were contrarian were often correct. Was he contrarian to say that the COIVD-19 pandemic would impact the US population in Feb/March 2020. Yes. Did it impact the US Population in March 2020? Yes. Was he contrarian to call for universal masking in May 2020? Yes. Was universal masking to protect against infection the correct position? Yes. Was he contrarian in calling for an approach that focused on single MRNA vaccine doses in as many arms as possible to limit severe disease. Yes. Was this strategy proven true by the UK data. Yes.

These are all cited above and I will rewrite his page accordingly, showing his positions in a timeline on what Dr. Makary was correct and incorrect about as opposed to using quotes from other pandemic voices (which is what his page mostly consists of).

To be fair and objective (with sources to support each of these statements) I will to reframe the paragraph in the heading of the Makary page to go from the current biased perspective:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, Makary has been an outspoken opponent of vaccine mandates, CDC policies, and restrictions at colleges and universities.[4][5] He has been repeatedly criticized by infectious disease specialists for overstating the protection offered by previous COVID-19 infection and for making public health recommendations "beyond his area of expertise" that have been characterized as dubious and misleading.[6][7][8][9]"

To something more unbiased (and supported by a wide array of sources):

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, Makary has been a proponent of taking the COIVD-19 pandemic as a true public health threat, masking, and early vaccination strategies that prioritized maximum coverage against severe disease similar to the UK vaccination strategy. Dr. Makary has also been an outspoken opponent of vaccine mandates, various FDA & CDC policies, and restrictions at colleges and universities.[4][5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbiasedAgent (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to take a stab at it, my only concern is that it not whitewash the legitimate criticism. Particularly that WSJ editorial that is one of the most notable examples of his outspokenness. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't be whitewashing over that specific article as it was a rather noteworthy inflection point in the pandemic. I will also add that Makary and Fauci both put out statements/articles to similar effect. Fauci's was https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/15/946714505/fauci-predicts-u-s-could-see-signs-of-herd-immunity-by-late-march-or-early-april and Makary's was https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-have-herd-immunity-by-april-11613669731. Like I have said many times, I don't have a problem pointing out where a specific voice in this pandemic was proven wrong by the nature of the virus, I just think we should be balanced across the spectrum of voices and note where those were correct as well as incorrect. Some people were ahead on specific points, some behind. Right now, Makary's page does not represent that balance, which the links I have provided show and that is of concern. Specifically it seems some have an agenda here that if they just read the links I provided will show that there is more to the story than a single article that at the time wasn't different from other scientific voices. I would posit that if you look at both what Fauci said in December 2020 and what Makary said in February 2021 that Makary was very far from a Contrarian. How could he be if Fauci said we would have Herd Immunity by March/April? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbiasedAgent (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to the critique mentioned in the article, there's a major difference between Fauci saying "this is what peer reviewed research says, and this is a reasonable prediction given a particular set of assumptions" and Makary saying "this is the truth the establishment doesn't want you to hear, and it's based on my own estimates that nobody else has reviewed". It's not hard to see why that latter phrasing is viewed more critically than the former. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to accuse editors of being on a mission, when what you propose is presenting official statements of the time as "Fauci's" opinion (WP:GEVAL) and creating a timeline out of original research (WP:OR). What WP should do is summarize what reliable secondary sources say about it rather than our own synthesis. To explain about GEVAL, Fauci has credentials relevant to the work he has done but in a position like at White House Coronavirus Task Force it is obvious that he was also working with a team, etc. Statements issued in this situation are obviously very different to posts by commentators. It's the same thing when comparing information from the websites of the WHO or CDC to those of specific people, even if scientists... —PaleoNeonate – 09:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be citing articles that provide the words of Dr. Makary and Dr. Fauci, that isn't original research. And yes, I am accusing some editors on this page to be on a mission to discredit or paint Dr. Makary in a negative light. Dr. Makary's page has become less about him and more about what others are saying about him, specifically in regards to the Pandemic. Sections like "He has been repeatedly criticized by infectious disease specialists for overstating the protection offered by previous COVID-19 infection and for making public health recommendations "beyond his area of expertise" that have been characterized as dubious and misleading" and "is methodology and conclusion were criticized and disputed by William Hanage and Jeremy Faust[38] of Harvard University, A. Marm Kilpatrick of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Topol of Scripps Research, who called Makary's article a "deeply flawed oped" in need of fact checking.[8] Tara Smith commented of the study, "There are a lot of errors here, probably because the author has no background in infectious disease."[8] Makary's prediction later proved to be incorrect, in part due to the rise of the Delta and Omicron variants.[39]" and "In January 2022, Ashish Jha, speaking on Kara Swisher's New York Times podcast Sway, criticized Makary as an example of a "quasi expert." Jha stated "I take someone like a Marty Makary, who’s at Hopkins, who has said some smart things. And he’s a smart guy. But he is not afraid to go way beyond his area of expertise. And he has never been held back by being wrong."[7]"

These are opinion pieces written by others that should belong in some type of "Criticisms of Noteworthy Physicians During the Pandemic". There are a lot of people who say the similar things about Fauci or Gottlieb or Jha, etc... but we don't post that all over their Wiki pages. Like I said, this page has become unbalanced and I will fix it. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two comments/concerns. Direct citations doesn't prevent one from falling into the trap of WP:OR (this is why we cite other people describing why a prediction was wrong, instead of citing the prediction and a data source that can be described as contradictory, also be aware of WP:RSSELF and WP:SELFSOURCE), and "what others are saying about him" is part of the article being about him. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a substantial rewrite, which removes one of the contentious "background" quotes, but is less equivocal about the prediction made about April (Delta and Omicron were mentioned, even though neither was in circulation until months later). I also added a later op-ed where he reiterated a claim about 80% of Americans having been infected and thus reaching herd immunity (this would be a more realistic place to put a note on Delta/Omicron variants). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UnbiasedAgent: I have some significant concerns with your rewrite. I wanted to list them here, hoping to avoid an edit war if possible, but I will plan to either revert or rewrite in the near future unless you can address these concerns.
  • I don't mind the structure of the first paragraph, but I think it should cite the Politico source for the final sentence, and potentially include Dr. Makary's "different from the 'standard party line'" quote.
  • The second paragraph is completely unsourced, and it's concerning enough I'm removing it pending proper sourcing. I'll also note that it's odd stating that this paragraph acknowledges the view as "controversial", but there is no description of why. That's a very large red flag for me
  • There's a heavy reliance throughout on Fox News, particularly in the third paragraph. Per WP:RSP its use should be minimized, as we should be able to cite any reliable information to less contentious sources.
  • Also in the third paragraph, the final claim in wikivoice of the vaccination strategy being "shown to be highly effective" needs a significantly stronger source, I expect WP:MEDRS. I'm also removing this pending feedback.
  • In the fourth paragraph all criticism, including well source criticism of Dr. Makary's natural immunity estimate, has been removed. As well as taking Dr. Makary's Delta variant explanation at face value without considering that the variant was not circulating during the months his prediction applied to. And another major red flag of removing a generally reliable source (SBM) to replace with a generally unreliable WP:SPS source, again noting there were 'criticisms' but glossing over the substance of said criticism.
  • I agree with leaving your final paragraph mostly unchanged.
I'd appreciate a prompt response to these concerns, as some of them are significant and deeply impact the WP:NPOV nature of this article. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster -

Point 1: I will add in the Politico source. However, I disagree with the inclusion of "standard party line" because it doesn't actually imply anything other than a differing opinion. Is that 'party' the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Medical Establishment, etc.? I don't really see what value it provides to the Wiki entry. Happy for you to make a point as to where it provides value, but right now I don't see it.

Point 2: I will source the content in that article and replace it for review. I will also change the word from 'controversial' to something different. The point that I think is important is that Universal Masking wasn't settled science at the time, but over the pandemic there have been many studies promoting the value of masking in disease prevention.

Point 3: Makary has written for The Washington Post, WSJ, Fox News, NBC, USAToday amongst many others and over the years he has been on TV for ABC, NBC, CNN, and Fox. I can use other sources than Fox News, but let's not frame Makary as someone who has been isolated to "conservative" media.

Point 4: I will provide more sources for the vaccination strategy

Point 5: The criticism weren't that compelling in my opinion. I have said it before and will say it again. If we want to get into criticisms of various voices in the pandemic then we can create a Wiki page for that. I would be happy to support that effort. I am sure there will be people that are critical of Makary, Fauci, Jha, Faust, Ghandi, and on and on. The "At the current trajectory" is actually pretty important because Makary was referring to the entire pandemic. Delta changed the trajectory of the pandemic. Also, authors don't get to write the headlines for those Op-Ed's. But if you want to get into other pandemic voices making similar comments, well here you go

"We've really turned a corner on this latest wave. And I think that the worst days of the pandemic really are now behind us.” The combination of natural immunity from people who were exposed and vaccination "means we may be closer to 60% population immunity already," Jha says. "That's why I'm pretty confident we have turned the corner.” Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/30/992448089/u-s-vaccinations-may-be-reaching-a-tipping-point-to-stop-the-virus-experts-say

or

And days after Makary’s option article in the WSJ in Feb, 2021, Dr. Ashish Jha told The Atlantic: Despite some concerns about new coronavirus variants, Ashish Jha, the dean of the ... “That could mean they're creeping up on herd immunity, adding that In most of the U.S., the summer could feel … “normal.” Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/02/summer-2021-pandemic/618088/

or finally

Fauci also predicted herd immunity by March/April, 2021, telling NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/12/15/946714505/fauci-predicts-u-s-could-see-signs-of-herd-immunity-by-late-march-or-early-april


Also in reference to natural immunity, I will be adding a section about that. A recent CDC study found that previous Covid infection is 3-6 times more protective than vaccinated immunity, validating the truth of which Makary spoke and wrote here https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/

Let me know your thoughts. I also don't want an edit war, just trying to make sure we are being honest an unbiased in these pages. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UnbiasedAgent: Appreciate the prompt and thorough response. Responses follow:
1: I saw the "party line comment" as a self-acknowledgement of his sometimes contrarian views. I'm open to other wordings overall, I think the key is that we describe his being a relatively prolific pundit, willing to take a contrary view.
2: I'd probably support a sourced "early advocate for universal masking", so long as we can confirm it's notable enough for the depth of coverage. Mention in the first paragraph overview may be sufficient.
3: I intentionally said "minimized" rather than eliminated for this reason, any op-eds published there would be reasonable to cite there. Less contentious sources for reporting on his claims made elsewhere would help avoid any connotation of political bias.
5: I won't repeat my comments from above regarding the headline, Delta, who else made predictions, etc. My original positions there remain. I have two deal-breakers here:
  • We should note the critiques of Dr. Makary's 'back of the napkin' estimates of population immunity that his prediction was based on, particularly if we later consider the accuracy of the prediction.
  • Any claim that the original April estimate's accuracy was affected by Delta variant must have independent sourcing, not Makary's own claim in a podcast.
Regarding the natural immunity claims, unless you have a WP:MEDRS source directly supporting a statement we can't use it. We might be able to directly cite relative efficacy of vaccine/natural immunities, but we can't take such a study and WP:SYNTH it into a validation of the "almost no COVID by April" prediction. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster - I made some updates based on our discussion.

We are going to have collaborate to find a good balance here is the Feb 2021 WSJ article as that seems to be an area that you care a lot about and I want to make sure it is addressed appropriately. I don't mind critiques, but you can't use critiques from people who also got a lot of things wrong in the pandemic. Jha, Faust, Fauci, etc...they have all been wrong on various things and using critiques from them really doesn't seem neutral or unbiased. Happy to hear how you think the critique should go, but what was there just doesn't cut it. It reeked of an attack. Go back and read that entire COVID-19 section from before and what I have added now and tell me there isn't A LOT more balance.

In terms of case counts from the WSJ article. In Feb 2021 the US was around 130k cases a day on a 7-day moving average, by end of April 2021 the US was around 50k for a 7-day moving average. That number went to 20k for the 7-day moving average for May and 10k for June 2021. That was the "At the current trajectory" that Makary was referring to. Delta started growing in the US in May and its prevalence only increased from there until Omicron. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e2.htm

I also didn't include the natural immunity in the WSJ section as that piece stands separately.

Interested in your thoughts. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UnbiasedAgent: I don't mind critiques, but you can't use critiques from people who also got a lot of things wrong in the pandemic. Do you have a policy or guideline you can cite for this perspective? I don't entirely disagree with the idea that the version prior to my edits was overly aggressive, but I believe some of your edits have swung the balance too far the other direction. These are notable critiques in regard to this op-ed that is notably regarding Dr. Makary.
Delta started growing in the US in May, Dr. Makary's prediction was for April, correct? Regarding the April prediction, would you be open to directly citing CDC case rate data and their community spread categorization? If so, the beginning of April ("by April" suggests this is the correct place to snap the measure) or the end?
If you're interested, I'm willing to solicit additional perspectives if we can't reach consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster - My edits might look like swinging the other direction when compared to the previous version, but that is only because the previous version was so ridiculous.

In regards to the April part. By April 2021 case counts were down 60% from where they were in February 2021. By May, case counts were down 83% from February 2021. By June 20th, down more than 90%. The idea behind Herd Immunity, wasn't that cases would drop to 0 on April 30th, 2021. It was that you would have enough immunity, from vaccines and prior infection by end of April so that infections would basically cease/slow down to nothing. That actually happened. The numbers don't really lie. If not for Delta, or the very nature of this virus, we would have probably had that. But everyone was wrong, because mother nature doesn't care what we think is going to happen.

If you want to put in April case rate data from the CDC, it is here. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailycases. But I think that should be balanced with the trend lines up until Delta hit. Also, I just checked Fauci's and Jha's wiki page. Nothing on their pages talks about their predictions for Spring/Summer 2021, even though I have cited what they have said. So how do you want to handle that?

UnbiasedAgent (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UnbiasedAgent: Did you have a WP:PAG to cite for your belief we can't use critiques from people who also got a lot of things wrong? That's what's going to convince me the removal of comments on the inaccuracy of the natural immunity estimate is appropriate. If not, I will add them back in.
I'm confused where you're going about the April prediction. You seem to go back and forth between whether the prediction was herd immunity or not. I intentionally quoted the "mostly gone by April" wording to avoid misinterpretation or putting words in Makary's mouth. I agree that it wouldn't be realistic to interpret that as 0, but I don't think down 60% is a reasonable interpretation either. Neither "mostly gone", nor "very little COVID" (the CDC reported a national average of 105 cases per 100k population for the previous 7 days on May 1st, which they label "High" transmission, their highest category). I'm not splitting hairs or playing the gotcha game. If this was a situation where transmission was low to moderate, or if Delta had hit prior to April, I'd agree that he was close enough. But that's not the case, there's no reasonable way to spin this to an accurate prediction, without changing what Dr. Makary actually said.
Tomorrow I'll cite the CDC reported national average case rate heading into May (before Delta) remaining High. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster - will provide comments back tomorrow on both your points. Getting late on my end, but looking forward to the conversation. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In regards to when Delta was prevalent in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e2.htm?s_cid=mm7032e2_w "On May 5, 2021, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) identified the first five COVID-19 cases caused by the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant in Mesa County in western Colorado (population 154,933, <3% of the state population)."

Now, the first 5 cases in CO were detected on 5/5/21, but that isn't when Delta appeared in the CO. The average time for genomic sequencing is 2 weeks. So those 5 cases were actually sampled on ~4/20/21. And those 5 cases weren't the first cases in the CO as they weren't flown in India. They were community acquired and picked up via surveillance sequencing. Most likely they were 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation spread from index cases in CO. So if they were 2nd generation that would put them back to around 4/13, 3rd generation around 4/06 and 4th generation around 3/30. Delta was present in the US in April, most likely early April, late March of 2021. If you disagree on the sequencing time of 2 weeks, those are from the CDC and even with the recent Omicron wave the first case in the US was announced on 12/3/21 but it was sampled on 11/23/21. You can cite the CDC reported national average case rate into May, but also note that the CDC picked up Delta in May and by May cases had dropped 83% from the time the article posted.

The guidelines say to use common sense. I am hard pressed to believe that common sense says to quote critiques of a persons positions from people who are themselves incorrect in their own positions on the same subject matter. If there are some good sources you have for critiques from individuals then please provide them. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UnbiasedAgent: From the NYT: By early May, the variant accounted for 1.3 percent of cases, and by early June, that figure had jumped to 9.5 percent. So no, Dr. Makary's "very little COVID" estimate was not wrong because of a single digit percentage of Delta cases. The most charitable interpretation would be that pre-Delta cases remained "Substantial" in the high 90s, instead of "High" in the low 100s.
Your citing of a MMWR report about a single county in Colorado to make an unrelated (and inaccurate claim) is highly problematic, and I think you need to read up on editing guidelines before editing further on medical topics. I have major WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS concerns, and repeated problematic edits would be a serious problem. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster - I have major problems with the previous version of this wiki page and any objective person can see that the current version is drastically more neutral.

In regards to the HealthFeedback article: Virologist Angela Rasmussen pointed out that the article misrepresented a study by Sekine et al. on T cells[3]: “T cell immunity is presented [in the Wall Street Journal opinion piece] as being an indicator of protective immunity […] this is an incorrect interpretation of the data cited about T cells to support that assertion”.

At the time of the WSJ article publication, T-Cell data was lacking. In the year since that article we have a lot of data on T-Cell immunity and that T-Cell from either vaccination or previous infection provide strong protection against severe disease. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220202080322.htm

Find a better source than HealthFeedback quoting a bunch of people who were also wrong. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mind if I pose this question to the reliable source noticeboard for an outside opinion? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't mind, but be sure to frame it correctly. Can you cite a source, where the people who are in quoted in the source have been demonstrated to be wrong on their statement after more data was collected? (e.g. T-Cell Immunity not being protective). UnbiasedAgent (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posted and pinged: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is criticism of an op-ed unreliable if the critic is wrong on other topics? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead

@Bakkster Man, UnbiasedAgent, and Alexbrn: Regarding the lead paragraph:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Makary has been an outspoken opponent of vaccine mandates, CDC policies, and restrictions at colleges and universities.[1][2] He is a frequent contributor for Fox News. He has been criticized by infectious disease specialists for overstating the protection offered by previous COVID-19 infection, and for making dubious and misleading public health recommendations "beyond his area of expertise."[3][4][5][6]

Per MOS:LEAD, the article's lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Including facts like "Makary was named one of the most influential people in healthcare by HealthLeader magazine" while omitting any reference to his appearances on Fox News, views on COVID, or criticism from peers in the scientific community offers a distorted and misleading overview of the topic. Typing Marty Makary into Google's news tab garners results virtually only focused on COVID. The HealthFeedback article compiles numerous opinions from public health experts that contextualize and counter the "HealthLeader" award and are key to understanding Makary's views and the epidemiological community's perception of them. See precedents in Mehmet Oz, Nicholas Gonzalez (physician), Scott Atlas, etc. The edited lead is ultimately a failure in contextualizing this information and does less for "neutrality" than it does to gloss over a deeply controversial figure whose vies are rejected by many leading scientists with deeper and more relevant expertise. Filetime (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I completely disagree on many fronts here. During the Pandemic, Makary appeared on CNBC and Fox News. He has had articles published in The Washington Post, USAToday, New York Times and WSJ. Many of those criticisms by others in the scientific community were wrong about various aspects of the pandemic. Fauci, wrong. Jha, wrong. Faust, wrong. In fact, no one has gotten anything 100% right in this pandemic. Many in the epidemilogical community are also wrong and have been wrong many times. They aren't infallible you know.

You are also lumping Makary in with some pretty conservative individuals. If you read the section I had to rewrite in the body you will see where I cite each of Makary's positions, which actually straddle many different idealogical spectrums. This lead you had in was highly unbiased and not neutral. Happy to work with you to come up with another one, but what you have isn't going to work for many of the reasons I have described. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I would be fine with a significantly shorter lede about the pandemic. It could be as short as 'he was a prolific pundit, and received criticism for speaking outside his expertise' or however we word those two elements. We could summarize his primary views as well (I'm with UnbiasedAgent that we should at least mention his early push for masks alongside things like opposition to broad vaccine mandates). I'm less concerned with the lede right now than the primary content disputes, specifically which (if any) criticism is warranted, and how we cite it. If the article content is busted, the lede summary will be too. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filetime - please stop putting that section back in. It is biased and not neutral. You may think Makary is controversial and other public health officials may think he is, but there are other that don’t. Posting that he is “operating outside his area of expertise” when said by a bunch of people who have been wrong is pretty back logic. Also, Makary has a degree in public health and based on the articles that I posted below has been a right about a good number of things. He has been wrong on some areas as well, but like I have said, everyone has been right and wrong on certain points. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filetime - Also, to provide balance I am removing the “other people say” quotes and references out of Makary’s page as they are being not to refute specific points, but used to make broad based disparaging impressions that create a negative tone. If you put them back in I will take them out.

Bakkster - I actually don’t have a problem with your content on the WSJ article, but would like a better source. That one page on HealthFeedback has content that I think hasn’t stood the test of time. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UnbiasedAgent: Please note the policies at WP:EDITWAR, the 3RR, and WP:CONS. Any further unilateral edit warring will result in reaching out to administrators and possibly a block. You must use the talk page to consensus and cannot unilaterally impose your opinions on the article. Filetime (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked you to work with me on re-writing the Lead. Bakkster agrees that the content you have been placing isn’t neutral and that a very short lead on Makary’s role in the pandemic as a pundit is fine. It is you who are acting against Neutral point of view content because you believe Makary to hold certain viewpoint that go against your belief structure. Your bias was pretty evident when you compared Makary to some pretty far out there individuals. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing the lede, as there is clear exemptions in libelous and biased content to the three-revert-rule. Specifically exemption #7. I am not violating any policies. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey rookie. You should adapt your level of confidence to your level of expertise. Bakkster Man has been editing since 2005, so maybe he know Wikipedia policy better than you? What you think is "neutral" or not may not coincide with Wikipedia's definition of it. Also, "A number of Makary's conclusions are at odds with the "consensus of his fellow public health experts"" is definitely not "libel". Otherwise, all experts would have to agree all the time, and everybody who does not would be the worst sort of villain.
So, calm down, or I predict you will not be a Wikipedia editor for long. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hob - I respect Bakkster and we have had a pretty good conversation on how to correct Makary's wiki page.

This line borders on libel and if it isn't it is clearly biased. Bakkster even agreed to shorten the lead section and that we didn't need this.

A number of Makary's conclusions are at odds with the "consensus of his fellow public health experts,"[6] who have criticized him for speaking outside his area of expertise.

This specific line is meant to defame Dr. Makary as these are opinion pieces from other public health experts who themselves have been incorrect/wrong on various aspects of the pandemic. The only purpose of this specific sentence is to bias the audience against Dr. Makary in the lede of his Wiki page.

Makary has a Masters in Public Health so he is fine to speak on issues of Public Health. There is very little consensus in Public Health about what to do in regards to the Pandemic within the United States and the World in fact. It's why we have so many different policies going on all over the place. China has one policy, New Zealand has another, and on and on. I don't have a problem with re-working the lead, but have big issues with that paragraph. How many different states have different policies. Can you tell me the consensus of public health experts on the pandemic? If you says he is outside of the consensus then you must state what the consensus is otherwise it is libel or bias to say otherwise.

The three-revert-rule provides for exemptions, and #7 is clearly designed for the purposes of my removal of that paragraph. Happy to rework the section in here and would like Bakkster to write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnbiasedAgent (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes but as it says "Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial". You're wrong about this material being so problematic - indeed it has already been restored by an experienced admin. The edit warring is now severe. I would support UnbiasedAgent being blocked for WP:DE. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll also note that I did write a lede section you disagreed with, but I'm willing to take another stab at it taking into account the recent discussions. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How has my editing been disruptive? The page was biased and did not have a neutral point of view. If anyone thinks my edits are biased or incorrect please let me know. All I am doing is fixing the page to rebalance the data with valid sources as opposed to a bunch of opinion pieces talking about Makary (which is what was there before). So I question what your impression of the page was before I fixed it. I agree with Bakkster Man updates in the content section for COVID-19 and have no issues there. Honestly, I only have a problem with 1 sentence. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read WP:INDENT. I corrected your indentation for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
he is fine to speak on issues of Public Health but the people who contradict him are apparently not... <facepalm> --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bakkster Man - Happy to have you re-write the lede section. I don't want to get blocked, just wanted a neutral point of view. I hope I have made my case about including opinion pieces of Makary in the lede. I am operating in good faith as you have seen based on my engagement in the Talk section as well how I edited the Makary page. I think sometimes people forget that people read a wiki page as gospel around the world and if you are going to say someone is outside the consensus that basically means they are fringe. As I have demonstrated in the content section, Makary is not fringe. He has advocated some pretty reasonable policies that have all been adopted at various times in the pandemic. He was pro-lockdown, pro-masking, pro-vaccination. Hard to say those are crazy ideas. He has also adopted stances that are controversial, like not discounting the benefits of Natural Immunity. I think when you look at the body of work you see someone who has straddled many sides. Which doesn't make his outside the overall consensus. I am sure however that there are certain areas of the pandemic where he falls outside the consensus, but that doesn't belong in the lede, more in the body so lets be specific as to painting him with a broad brush. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be neutral the article needs to contain commentary on his many dubious[3] COVID-19 views and they must be mentioned in the lede. The current version looks like a whitewash. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can be neutral without being defamatory. I have no problem with you stating Makary's various positions on subjects. It gets to be a slippery slope when you head down the road of "This person says this about Makary" or "these groups of doctors say this about Makary". We can do that all day long with Fauci, Faust, Jha, etc... and that doesn't seem like it actually provides any value. Who is saying his views are dubious? You, that website you linked to? Was it dubious to advocate for a lockdown in March 2020, or for universal masking in May 2020 or an aggressive vaccination strategy in winter 2020-2021. You want to seem to defame him, as opposed to letting history decide if his positions were the correct ones. Interestingly, over time many of his positions have been supported out by the data. I do think there is the issue of the WSJ article in Feb 2021. But let's not forget, Fauci said we would have Herd Immunity by March 2021. I also think this whole Herd Immunity issue is where everything went off the rails to be honest. Wish that whole topic would have been handled better by all sides.UnbiasedAgent (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correctly calling wrong views wrong, based on strong sourcing, is not defamatory - it is necessary for NPOV. You seem to be arguing for a criticism-free zone, based on your own assessment. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lede updated. My request to @UnbiasedAgent: is that they not edit the lede directly, and instead come to the Talk page. This will help reduce the churn of edits, and hopefully build good faith trust and consensus. In exchange, I will do my best to be prompt about any WP:BLP concerns raised here. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bakkster Man - I am fully accepting of that lede you added. I will not be changing it. Also, I will look to see if I can find a better source for the WSJ criticism that doesn't mix all the criticisms together as some of the poorly justified criticisms take away from the more valid criticism.

UnbiasedAgent (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lead currently glosses over the fact that his views are at odds with a consensus held by people with more expertise in virology and infectious disease science. I'm with @Alexbrn:, this is key information that needs to be addressed in the lead. Filetime (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the bit about being "an outspoken opponent of... CDC policies" because it seemed non-specific enough to not belong in the lede and my first goal was avoiding edit warring continuing. I do agree that Dr. Makary's views often being different from the consensus views (as even he seems to acknowledge) is important to note, and I'm quite open to any suggested wording that's clear. My only hesitance was not wanting to give an erroneous impression that he was only ever right or wrong when his views differed from the official view, nor that he is contrarian on everything. Maybe it's too complex for the lede, but maybe the lede can be less detailed with readers finding those details in the body. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is that it is pretty difficult to put into the lede because there are so many different topics that developed over the course of the pandemic and there are positions that Makary has taken that fall in and out of what may be considered "mainstream" at the time he takes the position. That being said, I think in retrospect some of the positions that were "controversial" end up becoming "mainstream" and some may not have. It seems like that can be covered in the body versus the lede as there are a lot of topics, with plenty of sources. I did have a lot of WP:BLP concerns before but those are now resolved. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You aren't being specific in regards to which views? His views on lockdowns? His views on masking? His views on Vaccination? His views on Natural Immunity? His views on T-Cells? You seem to want to make a broad brush stroke that his "views" are at odds with a consensus but don't want to really parse out which views. Are those expertise in virology and infectious disease science against masking? Are they against vaccination? Are they against lockdowns? Which is the prevailing view of the consensus in those and all the categories you want to be addressed. The problem is that you are being overly broad in your statements and those are leading to bias concerns. UnbiasedAgent (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor (2022-01-05). "Omicron and the Return to Normalcy". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
  2. ^ Ward, Myah. "The Hopkins doc vs. the vaccine consensus". POLITICO. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
  3. ^ "Youngkin pick for medical adviser bucks trends on covid". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
  4. ^ ‘Sway’ (2022-01-24). "Opinion | How Did We Fail So Badly? Emily Oster and Ashish Jha on America's Covid Response". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
  5. ^ "Misleading Wall Street Journal opinion piece makes the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. will have herd immunity by April 2021". Health Feedback. 2021-02-26. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
  6. ^ Rodricks, Dan. "Dan Rodricks: In pandemic, doctors treat patients for both COVID-19 and for misinformation | COMMENTARY". baltimoresun.com. Retrieved 2022-01-25.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022[edit]

Reference 46 has been published in 2021. Please change reference 46 to Böttcher, Lucas; Nagler, Jan (2021). "Decisive Conditions for Strategic Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2". Chaos 31, 101105 (https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066992). 2A02:908:4C14:480:DD8:79DF:C161:AE61 (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On this note, the "shown to be effective" claim appears to either need a WP:MEDRS source, or to be reworded. I added a cite tag pending such a source. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makary's recent criticisms of the new omicron vaccine in editorial posted August 23, 2022[edit]

He is vocal about the White House recommending the new vaccine out ahead of information being shared with the scientific community, and expresses concerns over vaccine imprinting. Please use as you see fit.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:780C:6F00:7DC4:382F:EF95:C70 (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/before-we-push-the-new-omicron-vaccine?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct
We'd need some good WP:SECONDARY coverage to establish it's WP:DUE. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. I got a good laugh over Bon Courage page - had never see it before!
2600:4040:780C:6F00:7DC4:382F:EF95:C70 (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nothing "alleged" about the "alleged risk of myocarditis"[edit]

Currently, the article mentions the alleged risk of myocarditis

Makary considers himself pro-vaccine but has also criticized vaccination mandates for populations other than healthcare workers, and cites as example the alleged risk of myocarditis in young male vaccine recipients as a reason to exercise caution in vaccinating children with the same dosing regimen as adults.

There is nothing alleged about that risk, it is listed as a risk in the vaccine safety sheets, and the CDC and FDA discuss it many times, not as some fantasm, but as a real observation, studied, quantitied, that the vaccines are causally connected to myocarditis

+ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html + https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html + https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/overview-COVID-19-vaccines.html + https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

+ https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-06-22-23/03-covid-shimabukuro-508.pdf 

  Current evidence supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis with cases clustering within the first week of vaccination  slide 35

+ https://www.fda.gov/media/153716/download

I don't know what this wiki stuff purports to be, but this ain't it chief, do better, maybe next time, don't let biased authors edit these pages intending to slam the target 107.3.134.101 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word "alleged" was introduced in this edit: [4] Bon courage has fixed it now.
The wording was bad, as the risk exists and, according to my layman's math, even seems to beat the risk from the disease. The source given says, CDC research has estimated that among every million fully vaccinated boys, ages 12 to 17, the shots might cause a maximum of 70 cases of myocarditis, but would prevent 5,700 infections, more than 215 hospitalizations and two deaths. Our article Myocarditis speaks of 1.5 million cases worldwide in 2013 and 354,000 deaths in 2015 - it would be better if the numbers were from the same year. If those numbers do not change much over the years, 70 cases would mean 16 deaths.
Please do not insert words like "alleged" if you have not checked the source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely, as a rule of thumb "alleged" is probably a word never to use in Wikipedia articles. Bon courage (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC, the original intent was to clarify the relative risk of myocarditis from acquired infection to that of the vaccine, particularly in the age group. With the CDC having evaluated the vaccine as lower risk than acquired infection among teens, and Makary disputing this. Both the risk of developing myocarditis itself, and the resulting morbidity/mortality. The latter being the apparently larger concern here: that the harm from the vaccine might outweigh the reduction in harm from illness.
When using risk rates, make sure you're applying them for the age range, particularly since that's what Dr. Makary focused on. From a CDC presentation in June, they confirmed 635 cases of mRNA vaccine-related myocarditis aged 5-17. Of that group, 70 were hospitalized, and all were discharged to home. A significant difference from the suggestion 70 cases among children would result in 16 deaths, at a minimum several orders of magnitude off.
I'm open to alternate phrasing to clarify which elements of this prediction were outside the mainstream (the risk of severe disease), but a bit concerned about simply removing such a notable facet of his COVID critiques. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed alternate edit made: Makary recommended a single-dose mRNA vaccine regimen for children 12-17 to minimize the occurrence of myocarditis as a reaction, contrary to the CDC's finding that the risks of infection "far outweigh" those of the two-dose vaccine schedule. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another possible source for the relative risk ratios between the vaccine and infection, though it's Frontiers it is a meta-analysis. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.951314/full Bakkster Man (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a great source (also not MEDLINE-indexed), but not a surprising finding. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My initial impression as well. Only reason I second-guessed was the potential use of WP:PARITY, though the CDC reports we already use are probably better. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request[edit]

For the info box, please remove “Missing birthdate”. 2600:100C:A210:2BB2:C65:DD9:EB2A:F393 (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected Edit Request[edit]

Dr. Makary’s page indicates he has an appointment at the JHU Bloomberg School of Public Health. The JHU web pages for Makary, the School of Medicine, the School of Public Health, the Business, School, and even the “Search All” directory at the School of Public Health do not support his having an appointment there. They do support his appointment in Surgery in the School of Medicine, and a courtesy appointment in the Business School. As his primary area of impact is in public health, this omission is notable. Request removal of reference to his appointment in public health, or a link from JHU or its colleges indicating that such an appointment exists. DavidTBlake (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makary is not a public health doctor[edit]

He may be a well quoted critic, but he has no expertise in the field.

In particular his views on masks fluctuated. A list of answers and references to studies available to public clarifies his uselessness.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/marty-makary-misleading-unsubstantiated-claims-accuse-us-government-spreading-misinformation/

At most make a paragraph titled "Makaray in the Covid Pandemic" and just list him as well known critic with one reference.

```` Tero111 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories