Talk:Viera Scheibner

Untitled

This article contradicts itself with regard to how many papers she has had published in peer medical journals, somebody can't count, who is it? Which medical journals have published her work? What credentials do the skeptics have? Did they analyse the data?

Proposal to Merge (or else turn into an actual biographical article)

Merge This is not a biography of a scientist - it is an account of one anti-vaccinationist's activity, and would be better dealt with as part of a long article on anti-vaccinationists. Doing so will reduce repetition and redundancy.

Alternatively, if the consensus is that the article should stay as a separate one ostensibly about somebody with a professional career in micro-paleontology, then it needs a considerable improvement in its content - for instance something about the subject she had a career and presumably some publications of note (unless every paleontologist is going to be biographised here) and a degree in should be added. If the most interesting thing about her is the publications noted to date, and this is about the person rathr than an a fragment of an antivaccination bibliography, then one addition to the text would be something about how her circumstances and history lead her to take up this particualr hobby. Is there a WP biography group that look after standards in bios? Midgley 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Great way to get rid of those articles, which would be your real reason as a vaccinator. First deletion attempt, then it's merge. john 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You have tried it with Robert Mendelsohn the number one anti-vaccine man of the last 60 years, also Beddow Bayly the number one medical anti-vaccine man of the first half of the 20th century. Bit obvious, whatever you say. john 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep This has already been voted on to be kept and not deleted so good indication to be kept not merged. Motivation for merger suspect. This contravenes assume good faith Midgley 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Proponent proposing merger is strident medical activist and part of informal Wikipedia group opposing vaccination critics and any views not in line with theirs. It is extraordinary Scheibner is so controversial that an entire peer reviewed paper has been written about her [UToronto.ca (pdf) - 'Public opponents of vaccination: a case study", Julie Leask, Peter McIntyre, National Centre for Immunization Research & Survellance, University of Sydney, Vaccine, vol 21, p 4700-4703 (2003) PMID 14585678 ] This Wiki article on Scheibner also needs to be expanded to cover the extent of her work lecturing and in education around the world on vaccination issues, and at least some summaries of her articles and controversies. Her work in relation to what was then thought infant apnoea deserves mention. A controversial character as the "Bent Spoon" award shows, for attracting the attention of lobby groups opposed to her perspectives - clearly requires NPOV treatment. 86.10.231.219 22:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to the suggestion I am part of a group - it is untrue and part of yet another ad hominem attack.

the reference given is interesting, in that it is entitled "Public opponents of vaccination: ... " It looks like a good reference to add to the anti-vaccinationists article, and in an ideal world a wiki editor who had it to hand and had tread that article would have added it - even if it did not support their own POV.

However, that very reference reinforces that what is interesting is not the lady, and not her work in paleo-geology, but her as an exmplar of anti-vaccinationists - and hence the proper place for that material is in an article on that subject.

a biography of her on the other hand, might have an independent existence. Midgley 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are an allopathic medical doctor, you are even listed in a group know as Physicians, and for what must have been 100 years it would have been common to have called you a vaccinator, so you can hardly expect anyone to doubt your motives for removing pages to anti-vaccinators, and to laugh at your professed motives. It can't be a coincidence that only allopaths are deleting pages to anti-vaccinators, and suppressing links to anti-vaccine websites. It is a spiritual maxim that there are no coincidences. If vaccination was so above reproach you wouldn't need to go to the trouble. john 21:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What group would John be listed in? I hold a qualification and practice a profession which is of relevance to some pages on WP, and one of my colleagues noted that I am in that set - not AFAIK a group, it is a condition rather than an activity. SOmetimes someone wanting a particualr qualified view on a page asks a physician to give one. Do the engineers, lawyers and architects get labelled in groups? It would seem as sensible.

as to spiritual maxims, there are coincidences, but that people who know what they are talking about contribute to WP sometimes by removing arrant rubbish, is not one. It doesn't need organising though. As a maxim although not spiritual, try this one "Think globally, act locally". Midgley 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Just because the Australian Skeptics are hostile is a rubbish reason to delete mention of the Bent Spoon Award. Bush invaded Iraq. That was hostile and not NPOV (many people said there were no WMDs). So does that mean we delete mention of the Iraq war from Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a NPOV, those quackhunter outfits are run by the medical industry, read Martin Walker book Dirty Medicine and his latest one as well. The most infamous is Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal then The National Council Against Health Fraudand Stephen Barrett etc etc. Their publications are the skeptic outfits like you mentioned. I know you like to maintain a certain level of ignorance on these matters for obvious reasons, but I have to laugh when Australian Skeptics listed allopathy as bogus! It is always a bit obvious when they list alternative medicine such as chiro and homeopathy as quackery, but these shills are enough to fool most of the people most of the time, and most of the allopaths who like to be fooled all the time. They are a pretty revolting bunch by all accounts: "A board member of CSICOP is Professor Paul Kurtz, chairman of Prometheus Books, which publishes books describing pedophile encounters. Its human sexuality editor is CSICOP member Professor Vern Bullough, who is also a board member of Paedika." john 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No ad homs to see here folks, move along InvictaHOG 10:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And you are the expert, so you should know! john 09:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

DNFT. Jfdwolff 09:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"...when Australian Skeptics listed allopathy as bogus!" I'd like to see the reference (URL) to this one. What was the setting? -- Fyslee 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Books

This one?

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/

When mentioning books, giving either the title or the ISBN makes it much easier to verify whatever is being said.

So could we see one of those for at least one of the books about pedophile encounters, please?

The firm includes an imprint they describe as scholarly, but since nobody can have any idea what books are being referred to, nobody can look to see if the title is, for instance, related to medical or legal professional work with mad bad or sick people or injured children, which would, as an example, make the mention above look like an attempt to mislead and possibly a risky one. Midgley 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

ISBN 064615124

ISBNs are usually a 10 character string, the last being a check digit. That one is 9 digits. THe link does not find the book. Midgley 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

spare refernece

[1]

Time to remove Merge tag?

Isn't it about time to remove it? The article has grown and the other article is already too large to tolerate a merge. -- Fyslee 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Ombudsman 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Fyslee 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1997 v 2006

What does this piece of info The Bent Spoon Award for 2006 went to the pharmacists of Australia who manage to forget their scientific training long enough to sell quackery and snake oil in places where consumers should expect to get real medical supplies and advice. have to do with the article subject? Removed due to relevance per WP:N. Shot info 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations??

Wewoka can I suggest you add in some citations? Also I am going to (re)delete (when I get a moment on this slow PC) the 2006 reference to the Bent Spoon Award bizzo, as it has absolutely zero relevance to article. Shot info 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also do the (short) list of letters need to be included as letters to journals are actually not peer reviewed and largely irrelevant to the overall flow of the article (other than to pad it out). Besides it copies information provided at http://www.drgoldmanonline.com/MVIEditors.htm (along with most of the article). Are there any other sources for the subject's background rather than what seems to be a rather dubious fringe journal? Shot info 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Wewoka, I think you should reword some (most) of what you have copied from the Editor list for MV, lest the accusation of WP:Copyvio or plagarism arise. Shot info 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

contradictory and biased

Contradictory

This article directly contradicts itself in various ways:

• "Although she has no formal health sciences training," and "In 1953, Viera Scheibner studied medicine at the Medical Faculty (school) of the Czechoslovak state-run Jan Masaryk University in Brno"

• "since her retirement and immigration to Australia in the early 1980s" and "In 1968, Dr. Scheibner immigrated to Australia"

• "During her distinguished career, she wrote three books and had over 90 scientific papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals in Australia and overseas." and "During her academic career 1958-1968 in Bratislava, she published 35 scientific papers" (emphasis added)

Also, it contradicts sources:

The article claims that she is actively researching vaccination. However, http://www.drgoldmanonline.com/MVIEditors.htm lists her medical publications as:

Medical Journal Publications

  [1]  Scheibner V. Evidence of the association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections, and cot death. Immunisation: The Old and the New. Proceedings of the Second National Immunisation Conference. Canbera, Public Health Association of Australia; May 27-29, 1991:90–1.

  [2]  Tye K, Pollard I, Karlsson L, Scheibner V, Tye G. Caffeine exposure in utero increases the incidence of apnea in adult rats. Reprod. Toxicol. 1993 Sep./Oct.;7(5):449–52.

  [3]  Scheibner V. Response to Leask and McIntyre’s attack on Viera Scheibner as a public opponent of vaccination. Vaccine, 2003 Dec. 8;:22(1):vi–ix.

The "public health association of Australia" is not listed in List of medical journals, nor in ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Medline.txt which the WP article points to. Since I am not a medical researcher, I do not know whether Reproductive Toxicology and Vaccine are major journals. Thus, she has at best a mere two publications in over 20 years. This is not "active" in any scientific field. She has mostly written for non-scientific alternative medical publications, and the conspiracy-theory magazine Nexus.

The article says that after researching vaccines, instead of publishing the results in a scientific journal, she wrote a book. This indicates that she possibly did not intend her study as scientific research.

Pcu123456789 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory sources changed. Got a calculator and subtracted 35 from 90; she published 55 scientific papers during her time in Australia working for the Department of Mineral Resources, New South Wales, Australia, in conjunction with the other projects.

The Public Health Association of Australia is not a medical journal. It was a conference not listed in medical journals!64.219.196.75 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias

"Research on the subject of vaccines" seems to portray her beliefs as truth, without referencing conventional medical opinion. Several statements are problematic, especially the second paragraph. Pcu123456789 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The "anti-vaccination" article seems to have a more neutral treatment. We should strive for that in this article, too. Pcu123456789 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the unverified info, or if verified, the weaker of the contradictory pair. Often it is WP:OR editorialising that creates the conflict and often it can be safely removed. Shot info 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems somewhat biased to me from the start. Of course all the opinions from all sides of the issues should be kept, but it needs to be more balanced and users shouldn't revert an attempt to clarify or expand the article. vaccination and Anti-vaccinationists are two important issues and both need to be covered equally, as well as respecting the subject's (Scheibner's) views on the subject. The article is about her not about our opinions of her.sunja (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't about "our" opinions of her, but it is about published opinions of her, as required by NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet its quite obvious when reading the opening that the general leaning of the article/biography is that the authors think she is unrespectable. Which in my opinion is just an opinion. Really I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about since a bio is not about 'published opinions' of a person anyway, a bio is about the person. It needs to be more balanced. sunja (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that is what she is notable for. See WP:LEAD for info appearing in the lede. Personally I'm not getting the feeling that she is "unrespectable" at all. You are more than welcome to make the recommendation here to see what you would like it changed to. Shot info (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

hmm ok, I just read the current opening again and it desn't seem as bad as i remember. But it would be more balanced to mention that she is accepted as an expert witness in law courts, which kinda makes stating that 'her honesty has been called questioned' somewhat badly stated, since it gives the impression that she is unprofessional. I tried to change this before. Also I'm adding links to her personal website which should be present in the article. sunja (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you read the large number of cites, you can see that in fact her honesty has been called into question - which is probably why she is notable - a scientist who is (was) an expert but found out to be dishonest. But the lede shouldn't just be your first stop. Shot info (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Standard notability issues, why does it matter how many pages she read.Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to editing, so someone please feel free to fix this if I screw it up. There are several statements in this article that are very absolute, without validating evidence. For instance, the statement that there's been no subsequent research regarding vaccines and SIDS. There has been. It may or not be accepted as valid/trustworthy by the average reader, but it does exist. A2jc4life (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to have been added recently,. I have rolled back the unsourced and questiomnably sourced edits. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Dubious tags added May 2010

I have added a dubious tag to the section detailing Scheibner's claims about the "Crib Death Management Center" ceasing sending parents to Scheibner for Cotwatch after she had made claims re a link to vaccinations. The only source of this claim is Scheibner's own book. There is no evidence that a centre so named has ever existed in Australia, and the name itself is not typical Australian English. Australia does not use the term "Crib", and spells "Center" as "Centre". I find it highly unlikely therefore that Scheibner's claims on this topic are accurate. Cruiser-Aust 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

I've been through the article again and added dubious tags at various locations. Almost the entire bio sections of the article consist of references from Scheibner's own publications or claims, or her biography on the unreliable Medical Veritas site. There is no independent verifications of any of her claims as to her qualifications or training, nor any of the research she supposedly undertook or has had published. The entire bio section of the article has a severe credibility issue. --Cruiser-Aust 10:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletions by 122.148.93.58

I and another editor have been undoing the edits of the above anon user. The user has been removing large amounts of relevant and referenced information. They are rewriting with strong POV, removing referenced info and adding information that is not verified. Extensive use of weasel words.

Eg: The section as to the results of "cotwatch" and Scheibner's subsequent claims on the reactions of paediatricians are not proven nor published and have no references other than Scheibner's own publications and writings. Therefore, including such information is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See WP:RS. It is OK to use Scheibner's own writing as evidence of what she claims to be the case, but you cannot use it as evidence of what is actually the case unless it is supported by other verified sources. --Cruiser-Aust 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

Spotted this link

And was wondering if it could be relevant.

[2]

Basically this section is interesting

"51. It only remains for me to refer again to the evidence of Dr Scheibner. One cannot seriously doubt the profound and compassionate interest which Dr Scheibner has developed in this subject. She in fact had had her own children immunised in years past, but her more recent professional experience and inquiry has led her to develop a passionate objection to immunisation, which she now views as a harmful medical procedure, of no value to the individual or to the community. It is a pity that she has been led to believe that very concerned, honourable and committed professionals have been corrupted and have had their professional integrity compromised by vested interests. However, one cannot fail to recognise the severe limitations in the evidence she has presented. Whilst she professes to have the expertise of the specialist or expert witness, she is in fact an advocate of a highly subjective viewpoint, the scientific validity of which is questionable. That she is a highly intelligent and well qualified woman is beyond doubt. At the same time, I am not satisfied that her formal qualifications and professional experience properly equip her to provide a valid professional opinion on the complex subject of immunology and its application in the present context. Her extensive references to the empirical data in some of the medical literature is well enough understood. At the same time one must question her capacity to properly evaluate and interpret the results of others' scientific experience. I am not prepared therefore to accept her evidence in preference to that of Professor Pearn and Drs Whitby and Feery." Shot info (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting a Chiropractor on Microbiology

Lon Morgan, DC, a chiropractor, has written a short analysis of her anti-vaccination stance,[4] as well as an examination of Scheibner's claims of a disappearance of SIDS in Japan.[5] He concludes that:

   "Whether it was due to personal bias, lack of relevant health science training, or inept research on her part, or a combination, Ms. Scheibner's claims have not withstood the test of time, or critical examination, and should be rejected."[5]

If anyone is going to refute a full-fledged doctor's anti-vaccination "stance", it ought to be someone with more scientific substance than a Chiropractor. Maybe there is a plumber somewhere that has an opinion.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Viera Scheibner. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/b3/0c01a0b3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)