Talk:T. S. Wiley

Wiley's notability

Considering that T.S. Wiley has been the subject, at least in part, of articles in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and the New York Post, as well as segments on Larry King Live, the Today Show, and 20/20, among others, I don't think there is a question of the subject's notability with regard to Wikipedia guidelines, so I'm removing it. As well, I think this article need no longer be considered a stub. --Debv 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

"Protocol" should be capitalized throughout and at least the first mention should bear the registered trademark superscript as "The Wiley Protocol" is a trademarked mark. -- Neil Raden 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it should be referred to as "The Wiley Protocol" with the registered trademark throughout this article and Wiley Protocol" article. I'm not sure how to add that character to the text.72.205.193.253 01:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are user Nraden, please sign in now that you are unblocked. The manual of style for trademarked terms can be found here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), read through it and suggest corrections based on that. WLU 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got to be more careful about. I'll check the manual, thanks. However, I thought we agreed that neither debv nor I would directly edit the article. Neil Raden 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you aren't editing the page directly, you are much better off knowing the policy, and suggesting on talk pages accordingly. Saves me or another editor from making the changes, then having to go back and fix them again in case the suggestion is wrong. If you do have good reason to change the capitalization, cite the policy and please link to the specific sub-section where your guidance comes from (like this: [[WP:MOS#bob]] where 'bob' is the name of the subsection). Suggesting corrections means you aren't editing directly, you're asking others to do it. If you end up having suggestions you would like made quickly, you can always leave me a message directly on my talk page, I'll see it as soon as I log in. Re: TM symbol, I can do a direct copy and paste from the TM or (C) pages, though I'm guessing of the characters not supported by my browser below the edit summary line, at least one is the symbol you're looking for. WLU 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Adverse Affects

The reported adverse effects from the Wiley Protocol come exclusively from [www.rhythmicliving.com www.rhythmicliving.com], a site that is overtly hostile to Wiley and connected to debv, the editor who has inserted the text here. The frequency and severity of the reactions is orders of magnitude greater than those observed elsewhere. The "stories" are all anonymous and totally undocumented. Two of them are outright fabrications (confirmed by the doctors who recognized the patients' stories). Only one name has been surfaced, and that was discredited when copies of older posts to rhythmicliving (which were deleted from the site) emerged showing the narrative been been significantly altered. I could go to a website about milk and claim people have had serious reactions. There is absolutely no creedibility to these claims. Wiley has asked repeatedly for these people to come forward, but nothing is offered. This is purely hearsay and does not belong here. -- Neil Raden 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite it. Cite policy. Cite specifics. The article could definitely use some reliable sources on the adverse side effects of the Wiley protocol. I'll remove the reference, I've found a sourced criticism. WLU 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." That a significant number of women have made these reports is clearly not challenged. Nor is the fact that Wiley contests these reports. The text presents only that there is a controversy and what claims have been made by each side, none of which is a matter of dispute. So I see no basis for deleting it. Debv 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The website has no real attribution - the quotes could have been written by anybody. There is no way of verifiying who wrote the material itself that stands to scrutiny. It is not that we can't verify where the quote and/or statements came from. The problem is that the website does not meet the standards for reliable sources. Also, Neil has just challenged the information - with no way to verify the original material, or his challenges, it's simply easier (and better practice) to remove the information, particularly when the criticisms can be replaced with something that does meet WP:RS. Think of what would be the response if Raden posted a link to a bunch of customer testimonails praising the Wiley protocol - you'd erase it in a heartbeat. The adverse effects from the rhythmicliving.com site are essentially anti-testimonials, and have equal credibility. You may know them as 100% true, reliable and taken directly from interviews with former Wiley-Protocol followers who sufferred horribly, but to everyone else they're the equivalent of 'some guy on the internet said...'

Now, a source like this one - "The 'bioidentical/bioequivalent' hormone scam." Alastair H. MacLennan; David W. Sturdee, Climacteric, 9:1, 1 - 3 - definitely meets criteria for a reliable source; it's an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. After I've had a chance to read through it, I'll see about putting some info up on the page. Though more likely on the BHRT page as it is more appropriate there. WLU 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep commingling Wiley with BHRT? Wiley would agree with that study, that's why Schwartz and Schwarzbein et al are so furious with her. She broke ranks. It's not the composition of the hormones that are key, it's how they are administered. If she authored a study as loose as this one, her detractors would howl. I suggest you put it in the BHRT article, but it doesn't belong here because they did not study the Wiley Protocol. That's coming shortly and I will insert the study as soon as I have the IRB #. -- Neil Raden 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact I would not erase a statement that there have been positive testimonials. There have been many positive testimonials, just as indisputably as there have been negative ones, and I would support the addition of such a statement.

Certainly any claims to the effect that the Wiley Protocol is beneficial or harmful would require citation. My intention is only to report that there is a controversy here. All that is challenged is whether the Wiley Protocol deserves credit or blame for the various testimonials that have been made, and there absolutely should be no language that takes a position on this (without citing credible sources).

Again, Wikipedia does not require that every statement be sourced, only what is disputable. That this controversy exists, that there are many reports of positive and negative experiences, nobody challenges. Eliding any mention of this controversy would be a failure of NPOV by omission. --Debv 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Immortality Claim

I am reverting repeated attempts by Nraden and 72.205.193.253 (same person, T.S. Wiley's husband - evidence) to change the text "...perhaps even death may be averted indefinitely," on the grounds of the following passage from Sex, Lies, and Menopause, page 64:

So although we've been programmed by the environment to choose work over child rearing, to benefit all of us as a group, we are destined to die early for it too—unless we replace our hormones in a way that makes us look as if we could still reproduce.

Then we may not have to die.

Debv 06:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quoted out of context. Wiley has never, in written or verbal communications, suggested that HRT can lead to immortality. The meaning of the phrase is taken from its context - that women not needlessly die early from diseases that may be avoided, particularly cancer. I will continue to modify debv's editing of this point without restraint, it is an effort derived from personal animosity and vendetta ansd does not belong here. -- Neil Raden 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are recommended to check out wikipedia's 5 pillars, and the conflict of interest guidelines. Argue facts, not people, remember NPA, cite your sources and check out the talk page guidelines.

I've removed or re-worded some of the statements made in the article to avoid the term 'immortality'. WLU 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Book review

Here's a quick link to a review of a book - not sure where it should go. WLU 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Time magazine book review

When the book was sold the title was "Kept in the Dark," but it was published as "Lights Out." Neil Raden (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO

So the two main people who are editing the page besides me, you should WP:BIO. Also, the info added in this diff should be referenced - and quickly - as statements like this that are unreferenced are somewhat indirectly prohibited by WP:BIO. WLU 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairness

I would ask that the external reference to [www.wileywatch.com www.wileywatch.com] be removed since Debv has blocked me and perhaps others from accessing it. In the spirit of free speech and openness, I object to its presence on Wikipedia. -- Neil Raden 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What occurs between editors off of wikipedia has no bearing on what happens on wikipedia. I've reviewed the link and though it's not the best, I think it is sufficiently germane to remain on the page. You are free to put in a request for comment if you would like. If you have an objection to an external link, read WP:EL, as that is a whole lot more relevant for what stays on the page than free speech and openness.

Please post new topics at the bottom of the page, and please read WP:TALK for guidelines like this which make talk pages more useful. WLU 16:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (replacing unsigned template)

Recent changes

I made a couple changes to the page.

1. the direct link to Wiley's testimony I moved into the external links
2. integrated the comments about the doctors being experienced in BHRT into the main body - if they are experienced in using BHRT, they are even more qualified to be criticizing it, and should therefore have more emphasis on the page.
3. I removed the 'this journal is dubious' sentence from the controversy section. It's a peer-reviewed scientific journal that can be found in the PMID database, not an internal journal to the pharmaceutical industry. Trying to downplay it on the basis of industry ties is bullshit. Scientific journals are the essence of WP:RS. Compoundingfacts.org does not meet WP:RS and it's discussion of Menopause`s links to Wyeth are unconvincing. Some of the links are dead. The editorial board of Menopause is huge, and even if they all have links to Wyeth at some point, it is the inevitable nature of doing scientific research these days. Fellowships does not equal veto power. -- WLU 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have issues with these changes, but the only thing I modified was the new section Wiley Protocol which redirects to the article BHRT. Wiley and BHRT are not synonomous. There are literally thousands of BHRT protocols - almost every doctor has his/her own. The WP is very specific. If you want detail on the WP, I can provide it, but do not just redirect to the BHRT page. That is factually incorrect. -- Neil Raden 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE GUIDELINES. It's an easy read. It makes sense. You should indent each of your comments on each section to separate it from others comments. Also, there is now a main page, the Wiley protocol, which you will probably be interested in. WLU 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

'2004 so-called STUDY' You have to remove this, it doesn't pertain to Wiley. Consider this - all of the doctors who signed Erika Schwartz' letter practice BHRT but are opposed to Wiley because the Wiley Protocol is vastly different. How can you cite that letter as controversy, then lump Wiley into that study? It's oil and water. In fact, Wiley argues that it's the low doses of hormones that are dangerous because they never reach the level necessary to cause the positive and negative feedback loops. I'll offer a compromise. Read the book, and if you still don't see my point, leave it in. -- 72.205.193.253 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're not willing to educate yourself on the differences between the WP and the other BHRT approaches (such as those practiced by the Erika Scwartz signers), then we have to move this disagreement to a HIGHER LEVEL. Leaving that in is like doing a review of cars that run on air and saying that a review of the literature shows that cars pollute the atmosphere. Even Debv and her RhythmicLiving crowd would not lump the WP in with other BHRT (unless of course it served their rhetorical purposes). -- Neil Raden 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God man, just put a colon (:) in front of your comments on the talk page, otherwise it looks like I'm writing this. Also, do not indulge in personal attacks as they can result in a temporary or permanent block. I've looked over the WP website and you are correct, the information added does not match up to what the Wiley website says. I shall address it when I have the time. WLU 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctors working with BHRT (or not)

I am willing to take the suggestion to discuss issues here first before modifying the article, provided I feel they are getting a fair hearing and that Debv does the same. Now, here is a glaring error that Debv tried to slide in. The statement, “Erika Schwartz, Diana Schwarzbein, and five other MDs who have worked with bioidentical hormone replacement throughout their careers…” is patently incorrect and has no verifiable source. How does Debv know these doctors have worked with BHRT “throughout their careers?” They haven’t. Erika Schwartz, for example, has been a doctor for almost thirty years, but when I (and Wiley) met her in 2001, she was not practicing hormone replacement, she was pushing supplements like Carnitine. Schwartz and Wiley share the same literary agent, and Schwartz is the agent’s personal doctor. Schwartz admitted on the Larry King show that she has prescribed the Wiley Protocol but only after denying it until Suzanne Somers produced a handwritten prescription for it, from Schwartz. Schwartz has no formal training in hormones or endocrinology; she is an Emergency Room doctor who migrated to “boutique” medicine. Somers interviewed Schwartz for “Ageless,” but chose to omit her because she didn’t feel Erika added anything. Somers told me this persoanlly and also said it on Larry King.

Schwarzbein is the real deal, a real endocrinologist, who was prescribing BHRT when I met her in 1994, but in the John Lee style of only progesterone, so she has been tinkering with it. But prior to that practice, she was treating diabetics the old fashioned, so even Schwarzbein has not been involved in BHRT “throughout” her career. She is, however, no longer in practice and has been disciplined by the Califormia Medical Board. Suzanne Somers was under her care, as chronicled in Somers’ “The Sexy Years,” but after breast cancer and complications leading to a hysterectomy, Somers turned to Wiley, which infuriated Schwarzbein. I’ll leave it to you to research the other doctors, but given that the protagonists had an axe to grind against Somers, I wouldn’t give this letter too much credence.

I spoke with Schwarzbein and Wiley and Somers on the phone from the green room before the Larry King Show. This is first-hand knowledge.

Jane Murray began her practice in about 1997, so that’s ten years’ of experience in a nearly thirty year career. Hardly “throughout” her career.

Lost in all of this is that Wiley has been researching and experimenting and publishing about BHRT since 1994, longer than most of the doctor "experts" in the letter. -- Neil Raden 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The words that you characterize as a "glaring error" and that you allege I tried to "slide in" were in fact not contributed by me. I wouldn't have to point this out if you would A) use the history and contribs functions and B) read and abide by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Debv 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize and stand corrected. Perhaps you would like to fix the phrase then. It's still wrong. -- Neil Raden 05:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributors can not contest the basis of the source on the basis of their own personal experience. A person is a primary soure, and therefore do not count under the policy of WP:RS. If anyone wants their contribution taken seriously, they should read the policy and seek out reliable secondary sources. Additions to the article must adhere to the policy. The policy means that Nraden, myself and Debv and any other contributor to the page can't just rely on "Well, I talked to this perons and they said it was [blank]." It must be sourced, from the internet or from a publication, it must be sourced. Someone talking to someone on Larry King before, during or after the show, and being unimpressed, is not reason to remove or include anything in the article. This presents page contributions from sliding into 'well I heard this' vs 'well I heard that'. T.S.Wiley herself is no more entitled to correct the information from the page than anyone else, though she is just as entitled to remove unsourced criticism. If anyone wants their contributions taken seriously and to remain on the page for a significant length of time, they should familiarize themselves with the policy and argue based on that. WLU 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was providing background material for this discussion, not entering any of it into the article itself. However, if this is the definition for reliable source, then how can footnote 10, Erika Schwartz' blog, be considered a reliable source for commenting on Wiley's capabilities? I'd suggest you remove that. -- Neil Raden 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Read wp:rs to find the definition of a reliable source. However, since the letter is signed by individuals, it is attributable to a source. And a doctor is a more reliable source than a random blogger. Plus, it is reported in the NY post, and presumably the NY Times, though I can't check it because I don't have access to the Times on-line. But, you do have a point, I will correct the reference to the preferred non-blog. WLU 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And Dr. Bent Formby is a biochemist, with no experience in medical therapy, as he does not have an MD or DO degree, and can not practice medicine. Pustelnik (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Credentials

I've removed the following simply because it was terribly awkward and out of place, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Perhaps there should be a 'Credentials' section.

Wiley is listed as co-author of three scientific journal articles along with Dr. Bent Formby, spanning a four-year period

-- Debv 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What are her credentials? She co-authored a book with an actress/college dropout. Does she have any degree? Any licenses? Pustelnik (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You should get your story straight. Wiley never published a book with an actress/college dropout, she IS the actress/college dropout. But isn't publishing books a credential anyway? Her credentials include original, published cancer research, contributing author in medical school textbooks and teacher of CME-approved classes to doctors in endocrinology. Check PubMed. Before posting a comment like this, you might want to do a little research in the future. Or, for that matter, just read the text in this very section. Neil Raden (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, publishing books is not a credential. The three papers are cited. Can you source the textbook and CME claims?

I would also point out that, as credentials go, this is a long, long way from a doctorate in endocrinology. Debv (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WLU, I want you to notice that I'm not going to respond to this crap. She started it, raking up old coals to start a fight. I'm not interested. Neil Raden (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wiley is a former actress and a college dropout. She claimed for some time to have a college degree. It was reported by Newsweek and ABC News that this degree doesn't exist. They persisted for some time in insisting that she had a degree -- on national TV even, and in spite of evidence to the contrary -- but it would appear they've dropped that story, as her husband here admits that she is in fact a college dropout. Debv (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Raden, your comment to Pustelnik was needlessly catty for a very valid question for any editor to ask. I've moved the publications to her 'writings' section, it's not controversial that she's published papers (unless there's a RS for Formby rejecting or criticising her work after the fact - I recall that being mentioned but my digging for a source found nothing). There's no need for a credentials section that I can see, the controversy section covers everything important in my mind. Barring further sources, we're pretty much done with this idea. WLU (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No more catty than many of your remarks to me. Excuse me, the writer the got the principals backwards. Neil Raden (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Her co-author worked for an interesting organization, the Sansum Medical Research Institute or the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute http://www.aidsinfobbs.org/articles/wallstj/95/245. Maybe this should lead to an article on Brent Formby? Working with this institute does not seem to be a ringing scientific endorsement to me, but I bet it was good training in marketing.Pustelnik (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Now who's being catty? WLU, why do always want to jump in my s--t? Look what I have to put up with? NO ONE else here takes this role. Neil Raden (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Sansum is a very old and reputable research organization. They were the first site to synthesize insulin in the 20's. I'm perplexed about your immediately negative impression. If you have an agenda about this subject, you should state it. I have lots of problems with Formby, but working for Sansum was not one of them. They're legit, and Wiley was a guest investigator there. Neil Raden (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove a section of the talk page, it could be considered disruptive editing. Even were the section removed from mainspace, the talk page exists as a record of discussion. Incidentally, my comment was two months old, and the best before date for a comment on wikipedia is usually about 2 weeks. I'm not sure if Pustelnik is trying to bait, being tongue in cheek or is serious about creating an article for Formby. Anyway, the limit of Wiley's official qualifications are on the page - three journal articles as co-author and a blank (?) diploma. We report what is verifiable, and that's what we got. Any further than what the sources say, either promoting her qualifications or denouncing them, is original research and accordingly out. Let this section die, there's nothing else to discuss pending new sources. Start new comments in a new section. WLU (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On qualifications, Wiley did eventually complete the ONE COURSE she lacked for a degree in 1975, a few years ago. In the meantime, she has published five peer-reviewed articles in journals where she is the lead investigator (listed at the bottom of this page, so far ignored), and is a speaker at organizations like ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncologists), not because because she is an oncologist but because of her research in sex hormones modulating certain cancer genes, among other things. The Wiley Protocol is 12 years old now, no one has reported serious adverse reactions as that one group in 2007 I think, which was never corroborated. You cannot say that "promoting her qualifications ... is out" when you've done such a good job degrading them. Things changehttps://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Teresa-S-Wiley-204916142119:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not baiting anyone. There is now an article on Bent Formby. He did not have a medical license.Pustelnik (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Formby passed away two or three years ago 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The liat of Wiley's published research is incomplete. See [https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/T-S-Wiley-2163595445 and https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Teresa-S-Wiley-2049161421162.72.16.47 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Neil Raden (talk)

References

Copyvio

I just deleted a big infodump from Wiley's biopage as a violation of Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please don't add it again, though the page could be used tenuously as a source of information for the page itself.

WLU 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Placement of Wiley Protocol link

Why is the phrase "Main article Wiley protocol" where it is, it seems dangling? 72.205.193.253 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That is standard formatting for a main page link - Wikipedia:Template messages/Links. WLU 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I get that. My question is, why is it placed where it is when there is a link to it in the first paragraph? Neil Raden 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To bring attention to the fact that there is a main page which has more information on the subject. I looked for a guide to use for the template and can't find one, but that seems appropriate based on what I've seen on other pages. The only caveat I could think of might be the section following the template is a bit too long. You might be confusing {{main}} with the 'see also' section, where you are not supposed to duplicate links on the body of the article. WLU 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I'd like to see the templates on this page and the T.S. Wiley page removed, I don't think they're needed anymore. 72.205.193.253 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) : Obviously that was my question, sorry about not logging in. Neil Raden 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a read when I've got time (which is almost never), or you could request one of the other regular contributors to read through the page and see if they think the Neutrality and COI should be removed. I'd say the COI should stay a bit longer at least, until there have been several contributions from other editors. There's so many templates at the top of so many pages, I don't think most people even see them anymore. WLU 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added an infobox person. Feel free to fill it in. Pustelnik (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Websites Critical

If there is going to be section like this, there should be a section of websites favorable, or neither. I won't clutter this discussion page with the websites favorable unless it is agreed to leave the critical sites in. Neil Raden 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Post 'em here and they'll be reviewed. There is precedent for both sub-sections on other wiki pages. WLU 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are two, both MD's, which you've already said enjoy high credibility here, certainly more so than a couple of amateur hate sites:

http://balancedapproaches.com/people/ching/faq/wiley.html http://www.bobyoungmd.com/wiley.htm Neil Raden 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another doctor site: http://www.mdgyn.com/html/wiley_protocol.shtml

Neil Raden 05:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving the websites critical to the end, after external links, is better. I'd suggest you do the same on the Wiley Protocol page. Neil Raden 22:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of better or not, there's a standard format for sections: here. As external links they automatically go at the end. WLU 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review these sites? You said yourself that a doctor is a more credible source than a website. Neil Raden 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at them and added them to the Wiley Protocol page. They discuss the protocol, not the person, so are appropriate there. I did not put in the bobyoungmd one 'cause it's blatantly advocating for WP, not informing. Two pro-WP sites are adequate I think. WLU 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, using that logic, I'd remove Wiley Watch from the Wiley Protocol page. It is almost exclusively critical of Wiley. Neil Raden 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The bobmd one didn't have any actual references, was proscriptive, and quite short, none of which impresses me. The mdgyn one, now that I look at it a little more closely, doesn't actually add anything to the page. It's basically an advertisement that the clinic provides the WP as a service. I removed it. Even the balancedapproaches.com page is has an advertisement-like feel to it, but has enough information and weblinks to make it worth keeping. Both critical links have references and weblinks, so I'm satisfied with them. In order for a link to be included in the page, it should be informative, and the two I turned down were not more informative than the wikipedia article itself. WLU 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why isn't the blancedapproaches link in the article? Neil Raden 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because this entire discussion has taken place on the wrong page - the balancedapproaches website discusses the wiley protocol and that's why it's on the wiley protocol page. None of the other websites discuss wiley the person that I've seen, so they don't get posted here. The critical websites do. WLU 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Controvery and COI

I think it's time to remove these templates from the article as these issues have been resolved and the vitriol has died off. Neil Raden 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Lingering Errors

Suzanne Somers does not act as a spokesperson for the Wiley Protocol. She described her favorable experience with it in the book, but she also highlighted 14 other points of view. She has never, in public, endorsed the Wiley Protocol, on Wiley herself. She openly admits that she favors it for herself personally, but she does not endorse it.

Secondly, there is no official T.S. Wiley website. www.thewileyprotocol.com is the official website for the Wiley Protocol. Neil Raden 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. That sounds like semantic hair splitting to me - she favours it over the other 14, she's pretty much a spokesperson.
   2. done. --WLU 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong and you are just so slanted in your opinion that I suggest you no longer edit these articles. We need to find someone else. It is NOT hairsplitting, she is not a spokesperson for Wiley. If I refer this note to the Somers camp, they will go nuts. They don't support anything they don't own. And thewileyprotocol.com is not an official site for T.S. Wiley, you simply nominated it as such. At the very least, tag it with citation needed. If you don't remove these two items, I will do it myself.

Neil Raden 23:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't point to any evidence that Suzanne Somers is an "official" spokesperson for the Wiley Protocol. I don't think she is; Wiley wouldn't be able to afford it. But she certainly publicly advocated Wiley and her protocol and with T.S. Wiley's participation. Somers and Wiley appeared together to defend one another on Larry King Live. They mentioned one another frequently and in advocating terms (easily Googled). You, Neil Raden, T.S. Wiley's husband, posting anonymously as 72.205.193.253 (talk · contribs), added to the Suzanne Somers page: "Her book, Ageless, includes interviews with 16 leading practitioners of bioidentical hormone therapy, but gives extra discussion to the regimen she herself follows, The Wiley Protocol conceived by T. S. Wiley".

I guess it depends on how one defines "spokesperson" and what one is trying to achieve at the time.

Debv 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

you've proven my point - she is not a spokesperson for Wiley, and this incorrect statement needs to be removed. A spokesperson, as defined in Wikipedia is, "someone engaged to speak on behalf of others." Somers has never been engaged by Wiley, she has only spoken about the Wiley Protocol. of her own volition, because it worked for her. Editors, please fix this. Neil Raden 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)

I agree that she is not a spokesperson for the Wiley Protocol. Whatever her motives may be in vigorously endorsing it, any notion that she is in Wiley's employ is unjustified and should be corrected. Debv 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even Debv agrees with me. Please delete it. Neil Raden 19:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)

I want this line under the heading "publications" changed to "Contrary to the claims of Schwartz et al above, Wiley is listed as co-author of three scientific journal articles in molecular biology, along with Dr. Bent Formby between 1998 and 2001.[8][9][10]" Neil Raden 23:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rhythmic Living

I'm unclear on the rationale for removing this link. The edit summary says "Webites critical of T. S. Wiley - not an RS", but the site is not referenced as a source, only as an external link. Debv 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Debv, read up on WP:EL and WP:NOT to see if you can find anything in there that justifies it's inclusion there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers.

WP:EL permits "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews", and Rhythmic Living, for instance, includes an interview with Dr. Bent Formby, co-author of both of Wiley's books, in which he offers his (contrarian) views on the Wiley Protocol.

Of course, on that basis, the link is more relevant to Wiley Protocol, not this page. Reviewing the content of Rhythmic Living, I would agree the link does not belong here but perhaps should be added there. Debv 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that interview include anything that can't be found in all of these reliable sources? If so, you may be able to make a case for it over there, but it's best to first make sure you've exhausted reliable sources. As far as I can see, no one has dealt with the full Senate testimony of the other people testifying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, isn't Formby the person she has co-authored 3 journal articles with? Are you saying he now disagrees with her? Then yes, that warrants inclusion in both articles, if that's the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Disagrees"? I would say "unequivocally repudiates", and I doubt anyone involved would seriously dispute that.

No, you will not find anything about the following in the current sources: "When we came to a treatment protocol, which was somewhat laid out in the book, you know, how do you use these bioidentical hormones in correct doses. So, because there were relatively few scientific studies reported in the literature at that time my opinion was that we could not suggest a protocol with doses before proven correct in a clinical trial. So my concern was that without having performed a clinical trial it would basically be an undocumented protocol I would not take responsibility for. I suggested a small trial which could be run for a period of six months. You line up a group of menopausal women, then you have a control group and then you treat them with the protocol. Do the pharmokenetics - all these basic things to get an knowledge of how it works. Anyway, there was no interest in doing a trial - no interest in doing that by TS Wiley - so I just dropped out."

I think what you see in this interview is Wiley's former mentor thoroughly disagreeing with the direction in which she has been taking the ideas that they once collaborated on. Debv 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple things worth noting here. That "small trial" he referred to has already occured and no one died. They even had cancer before they started! It's in the Senate testimony. Formby hasn't been involved in the clinical aspects of the WP in five years, so he has no knowledge or interest in the progression of it or the outcomes. Neither does RhythmicLiving or debv. I am so weary of fighting these battles, I have better things to do. Please see my suggestion on the other page that we delete these two articles. Neil Raden 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I responded to this comment on the Wiley Protocol discussion page by mistake. Neil Raden 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bio

By the way, since this is a bio article, does "T. S." not have a name? See WP:MOSBIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Teresa Susan. Debv 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you get a chance, read up at WP:MOSBIO to see if you can understand why her real full name shouldn't be or isn't mentioned here. It's possible the article is named incorrectly and needs to be moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For example, WP:MOSBIO#Names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And T. S. Eliot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"T.S. Wiley" is the name she writes and appears under, e.g., in speaking engagements. Informally she's known as "Susie Wiley". (She states as much in this interview.) By my reading of WP:MOSBIO#Names, the article name is correct but the full name should be given in the lead paragraph. Debv 06:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if you knew her correct full name, which you don't. It's not any of the ones you've mentioned. Neil Raden 18:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one name has been mentioned and indeed I could be mistaken. I find "Teresa Sue Wiley" on a genealogy page and in court records.

Is it a secret? Debv 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lacking an unequivocal source either way, I'm content to leave it as just T.S. Wiley, MOSBIO seems to support this and Raden himself isn't a RS for her actual name. If she choses to leave her first two names unsaid, to the point of there not being any official record of what the T.S. stands for, then it's all we have to work with and she is indeed known by T.S. Wiley in the majority of cases. Unless the geneaology page and court records unequivocally identify her as the same T.S. Wiley that is responsible for the WP, they aren't really reliable. WLU 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

-- How old is T.S. Wiley? It's pertinent, and it seems to either be a mystery or it is overlooked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.64.60 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no mystery. The mystery is who wants to know (with only an IP address)? Neil Raden (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance the Controversy Section

In the New York Times article, already cited here, which is a RELIABLE SOURCE, Wiley responds the critcisms: "Does it have to come from a pedigreed source?” Instead, she maintains that the debate is really a “fight over women’s bodies and how much money those women are worth to doctors, who gets to prescribe and sell hormones to these women." I think that belongs at the end of the Controversy section because it allows Wiley, in her own words from a highly reliable source, to provide counterpoint to the controversy. Neil Raden (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm patient, but this deserves an answer after eight months. Neil Raden (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New Research

Since Lights Out was published, there have been numerous reports of research confirming what Wiley claimed over ten years ago about the relationship between artificial light at night and the rise of the diseases of civilization. Here is a recent one:

Lights at Night Are Linked to Breast Cancer Study Bolsters Theory About Interference With Production of Key Hormone By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 20, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902398.html

I will post the others if someone responds to this message. I haven't had responses to any of my comments here in quite a while. I've agreed not to edit the article, but that presumed some dialog on this page. Neil Raden (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to have timet he next week, you could try asking Sandy as she's usually pretty responsive and will be able to answer quickly if there's merit. WLU (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that statements like these are WP:SYNTH-y, so I don't like adding them. If you could get a convincing opinion otherwise on WP:AN/OR, and find the original study, I could be swayed to add something. WLU (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[1]. You will find that Wiley also explained the danger of shift work and explained it as a function of light at night. Neil Raden (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern about WP:SYNTH still remains - I don't see this as vindication of Wiley's theory, merely potentially superficial similarities. WLU (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you said that. Would you call Eddington's 1919 proof of Einstein's Special Theory a potenially superficial similarity?? This is conventional, peer-reviewed science that is clearly stating an observed link between light at night and cancer. This is Wiley's central concept in Lights Out, that the light deranges the action of melatonin, prolactin, seratonin and cortisol. She argued from a molecular level. I was going to start compiling the other studies, too, but if you're just going to dismiss them, I won't bother. I'd prefer you present this to SandyGeorgia, you and Cheeser1 have already poisoned that well for me Neil Raden (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed is that there is actually more descriptive information about the Wiley Protocol in this article than in the Wiley Protocol article. Neil Raden (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post article mentioned above doesn't refer to Wiley's work. All reliable sources that actually comment on Wiley should be considered for inclusion here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. That was my point. 10 years after Wiley unearthed this connection and wrote about it, academic research is catching up to it, but mainstream media reports it as if it's brand new. I can cite dozens of instances of this for both Lights Out and Sex, Lies and Menopause. Neil Raden (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You could be right that the mainstream should have seen this earlier. But our job is just to keep up with the mainstream; we don't have to step forward as the champions of unjustly-neglected work. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment. Wikipedia, a project started by hobbits with good intentions but only scoped as far as the staus quo. What a pity. Sort of a waste of effort. Anyway, the original thinkers rarely get credit, and sometimes get killed, but that wasn't my point. I was hopinmg to get Wiley a little cred here, a place where she only gets abuse. Neil Raden (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We report what is unequivocally verifiable, we do not synthesize new conclusions. We do not give Wiley cred, we source her past history. Readers then take that and determine for themselves what cred she has or does not have. I see nothing here worth commenting on beyond this. Ed is adhering to a very conventional interpretation of WP:NOT and WP:OR. You can take it to the original research noticeboard for an outside opinion if you'd like. WLU (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the statement "possibly dangerously high doses of hormones" unequivocally verifiable? SHow me where. There is not one shred of evidence in the literature that this is true. I challenge you to find it, or remove this slanted statement. The Danish study, in fact, casts some light on this, but you refused to investigate it. I'd suggest you remove this statement. Neil Raden (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'd like to remove the neutrality tag. What issues remain for neutrality? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't, I would strongly object to that. There is nothing neutral about this article. And by the way, since when can Debv start editing the article again? I thought we had an agreement. Neil Raden (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've been waiting nine months for someone to respond to the Balance the Controvery section above. Why are Wiley's comments in the New York Times not as valid as the others in that article? Neil Raden (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post and other New Facts

Wiley is now a featured blogger on the Huffington Post. Perhaps you would like to include that. Neil Raden (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Here is the latest peer-reviewed article This article is about Wiley, not the Wiley protocol, so these facts are germain. Please update article. I agreed a long time ago not to update directly as I am COI. Wiley also has a radio show called "A Second Opinion" where she interviews leaders in the medical field. This is article is so thin about the person and thick abou the controversy it belongs in a tabloid paper. Neil Raden (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Writings and Beliefs

In the article, it is written this way: "Wiley is listed as co-author of three scientific journal articles along with biochemist Dr. Bent Formby between 1998 and 2001" In fact, it is not known who actually WROTE the articles. It may be both Formby and Wiley, Wiley only or Formby only. What is know is that Wiley was a co-Investigator/Researcher on the experiments. Please change this. 68.84.147.20 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of peer-reviewed articles Wiley has published in scientific journals in the past few years:

Cyclic E2 and P4 on Alzheimer’s Disease Pathways, T.S. Wiley and J. T. Haraldsen, Advances in Alzheimer’s Disease 6, 32 (2017). http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=75119

H1R Antagonists for Brain Infammation and Anxiety: Targeted Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders, T.S. Wiley, M. Raden, and J. T. Haraldsen, Journal of Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery Research 4, 1000136 (2015). http://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/h1r-antagonists-for-brain-inflammation-and-anxiety-targeted-treatment-for-autism-spectrum-disorders-VmP2.php?article_id=4284

The effects of steroid hormone exposure on direct gene regulation, T.S. Wiley and J. T. Haraldsen, Medical Hypotheses 83, 436 (2014). http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(14)00265-5/abstract

The Standardization of Non-Sterile Compounding: A Study in Quality Control and Assessment for Hormone Compounding, T.S. Wiley, R.D. Odegard, J. Raden, and J.T. Haraldsen, Intl. J. Pharm. Comp. 18, 162 (2014). https://www.ijpc.com/Abstracts/Abstract.cfm?ABS=3803

The theory of modulated hormone therapy for the treatment of breast cancer in pre- and post-menopausal women, T. S. Wiley and J. T. Haraldsen, AIP Advances 2, 011206 (2012). http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3699052

Please edit the article and preferable removed the phrase about lacking credentials. Neil Raden (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)