Talk:American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15aging.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=Anti-Aging&st=cse was added and then immediately removed as a reference.  I think it might be useful for future expansion of the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the fall 2001 Futurist interviewed the A4M president and others on the topic of aging; The Futurist does not take a position on the issues it covers. Any use of this source should reference the actual article (not an A4M website) and make clear that Klatz's statements are from Klatz, not The Futurist. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential reference

message: The purpose of this section is to point out awards and criticism that the organization has received. Any non-ironic awards or certifications belong here, but rants and biased statements of support need to be made more neutral, properly sourced, and placed in other more relevant sections. - JeffJonez (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not state that A4M directly sells or endorses any commercial products, but, instead, that critics accuse A4M of promoting such products. The position of A4M critics is supported by the sources, in some cases in the form of direct quotes from individual critics. The Illinois source states that the journal was a publication of A4M. A reliable, independent source stating that the journal is not connected with A4M in any way would be a welcome addition for the sake of balance. Since you admit a connection with A4M ("our organization"), I would encourage you to consider WP:COI and suggest such sources as well as other proposed alterations on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Response is difficult to 125.166.103.227's run-on sentences and conjunctive sentence fragments. According to http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag98/april98_media3.html A4M went to battle over the name Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine with another organization, which was planning a periodical with the same name.  A4M's Klatz is quoted as musing, "Maybe we'll call it the 'Official' Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine."  Apparently in the end they chose 'International' Journal.    http://www.anti-aging-guide.org/journal-of-anti-aging-medicine.html refers to the "International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine...published by A4M and Drs. Ron Klatz and Bob Goldman."  Whether or not it's now defunctor, IJAAM' was clearly a creature of A4M.  74.92.43.201 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm concerned that you think some of the contents of the article are false and would like to help correct this if it is true. The comments made by Leonard Hayflick are verifiable (ie he did make them) and seem to me to be mainly statements of his opinion. However, the statement that the journal is not a recognized scientific journal is a statement by Hayflick on what he believes to be a fact. I do not know of any information that would refute this statement, but would be happy to include it in the article if you provided this. Such information might include statements from respected scientific organisations endorsing the journal, its listing in PubMed or the ISI citation index. I have searched for such information myself, but have so far been unable to find any. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards and criticism

message: “The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) is a 501(c)(3) organisation that promotes anti-aging medicine.The A4M is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, which currently recognizes 130 medical specialties in the US.” Please see the Wikipedia description of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/abms where only 24 approved boards are listed. Thus ABMS approves only 24 of over 270 specialist medical societies and medical boards like A4M.  The last specialist board approved by the ABMS was in 1979, over 30 years ago (emergency medicine). To state that A4M is not one of 130 recognised specialties is to infer lack of credibility and is incomplete and misleading. 125.166.103.227 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OR; you make some good points, but Wikipedia uses reliable, independent sources, not original research, other Wiki articles, or the opinions of individuals. If you know of a reliable, independent source stating that A4M, or its program, has been recognised by the Amercian Board of Medical Specialities, we should certainly add it. However, the current, high-quality sources for this article seem to contradict such a statement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree, we have to be very sure that everything in this article is verifiable in a published source. Therefore the assertions of an anonymous editor on Wikipedia could never be used as sources for factual statements bout the A4M - even if they claim to be members of the organisation. We need reliable, independent sources - such as newspaper articles, articles in scientific journals or books. Please provide some of these and we will be happy to include them in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on non-recognition, and more on A4M officers praising A4M 

message: From the NYTimes article, "We're not about growing old gracefully, said Dr. Ronald Klatz, 43, the group's president, who practices in Chicago. We're about never growing old." Klatz is one of the original founders, and, by using the plural, is not speaking only of himself. I wouldn't object to including additional language here, but this quote is not, as has been claimed, from an unrelated individual interviewed for the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Never growing old"

message: As the licensing dispute continues to be a contentious issue, I searched for additional sources. I found on the site "Quackwatch" a copy of the consent order relating to Goldman and Klatz. The document is here. However, I am unsure if this document passes our WP:RS guideline. Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch can probably be used in some circumstances, since its authors are recognised experts, but I'm not sure about this specific document. When in doubt...? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, what guarantee do we have that it is genuine? I haven't been able to find any other copies of this supposed agreement on the internet. I'm leaning towards not including this. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quackwatch source

message: I searched for a published rebuttal of the LA Times article Troubling Record for Anti-Aging Doctors and found this article on "antiaginginfo.net". However, this isn't the official A4M website, and the owner David Bloom seems to have little to do with the organization, so I an unsure whether to treat this as genuine. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised this question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A4M rebuttal on "antiaginginfo.net"

message: I think the sentence that begins "The field of anti-aging medicine is not recognized ..." should be moved from the first paragraph and be made the first sentence of the second or third paragraphs. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some editorial comments 

message: Probably the first time as far as I know MaxPont (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know. That's noted in the section on Regulatory and tort issues (although it isn't the first such case (link). This is why we have been fact-checking the article so intensively and trying to make sure that all statements are attributed to reliable sources. Is there anything you think we have missed? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia sued for libel over the editing of this article

message: In this edit the lack of mainstream medical recognition was described as "irrelevant information". The article summarises three sources that comment on this point
#The New York Times
#MSNBC
#The gerontologist
Since three independent reliable secondary sources comment on this point, I can't see why you think it is irrelevant. Have you found a new source that says this fact is not relevant? If so we could include it in the article as a counterpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Determination of relevance is a function of editorial judgment. One must ask why the information was included in the cited articles before determining whether the same reason, arguably, bias, ought to be considered in making an editorial decision on Wikipedia. Fred Talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if we should mention this, but the last Medical Board certified by the ABMS was Medical Genetics, in 1991. (see ABMS and ABMG) Although this seems to contradict the statement in the A4M deposition that "In fact, the ABMS last approved a medical specialty - emergency medicine - over thirty years ago, in 1979." the ABMS is a primary source and nobody else has commented on this question. Including this might therfore be original research. What do people think? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Including that information is over-elaborate. As it is now, in the second paragraph of the article, a long exploration of certification is inappropriate. Fred Talk 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Interesting, which sources discuss this? What sources have you found that discuss when new specialities are usually recognised? I ask since I had a look and couldn't find anything solid. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: That doesn't work. Criticism and controversy sections are particularly poor style and are not recommended, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure. If a criticism is notable, it needs to be made in the appropriate section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Describing the organisation in the first sentence as notable for its training of doctors is somewhat misleading if we follow the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources about the subject. The medical specialty, as noted by Tim Vickers and based on multiple RS, is not widely or authoritatively recognised, and other activities of the org have received more extensive coverage. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have numerous sources that numerous physicians have been trained and certified. A common pattern seems to be that they seek treatment themselves and then become certified as practitioners. That phenomenon has received a great deal of prominent coverage, see "Mainstream docs join anti-aging bandwagon". Fred Talk 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing one source here. Would you mind citing the others? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is the article that states much of the anti-aging agenda is still based more on hope than evidence. We can summarise more of it in this article if you want, but in common with the other reliable sources on the topic it seem to take a highly-critical view of the activities of anti-aging practitioners. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream recognition

message: Although there are journalistic sources for the credentials dispute such as CNN, I have removed this section as it casts the founders of the organization in a false light. They are licensed physicians, there is no dispute about that. CNN has different editorial policies from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not entertainment. Fred Talk 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just following Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in particular. Our editorial policy differs from that of the journals you cite. Fred Talk 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation differs from mine. I've raised this at the BLP noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Fred's interpretation of BLP is correct, all negative information, indeed any information perceived as negative by any editor should be excluded from BLPs. I disagree strongly with this interpretation. If the New York Times has reported something, it is not Wikipedia's business to investigate its accuracy, only to source the information correctly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just irrelevant information with an obvious purpose. These gentlemen are licensed physicians. Fred Talk 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be precise, they are licensed osteopaths. As the NYT stated in 2007 "the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation says they are not permitted to designate themselves as M.D.’s in the state." Their current records, which you kindly copied above, also state they are DOs, and does not mention any MD degrees. The fact that they still describe themselves as MDs on their website link is interesting, but we can't use that as a source since it is not independent of the subjects. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, Wikipedia's editorial policy is not stricter than that of the New York Times. If we can't cite the NYT as a reliable source, who can we cite? I see Fred's edit as a WP:BRD test myself, that has not gained consensus, much like the earlier attempt to cut the lead down into a short description of the A4M's activities and move the rest into a "criticism section". Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wikipedia's editorial policies are both stricter and different; we are not in the habit of printing "leaks". A Wikipedia editor is expected to use sound editorial judgment with respect to journalistic or biased sources. Fred Talk 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Credentials dispute

message: This edit removed a summary of five reliable sources (including the NYT and The Times) for the stated reason that the information in these sources cast the people concerned in "a false light". What reliable source stated that this information cast the people concerned in a false light, or was this just a personal opinion? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just following Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in particular. Our editorial policy differs from that of the journals you cite. Fred Talk 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation differs from mine. I've raised this at the BLP noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If Fred's interpretation of BLP is correct, all negative information, indeed any information perceived as negative by any editor should be excluded from BLPs. I disagree strongly with this interpretation. If the New York Times has reported something, it is not Wikipedia's business to investigate its accuracy, only to source the information correctly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just irrelevant information with an obvious purpose. These gentlemen are licensed physicians. Fred Talk 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be precise, they are licensed osteopaths. As the NYT stated in 2007 "the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation says they are not permitted to designate themselves as M.D.’s in the state." Their current records, which you kindly copied above, also state they are DOs, and does not mention any MD degrees. The fact that they still describe themselves as MDs on their website link is interesting, but we can't use that as a source since it is not independent of the subjects. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, Wikipedia's editorial policy is not stricter than that of the New York Times. If we can't cite the NYT as a reliable source, who can we cite? I see Fred's edit as a WP:BRD test myself, that has not gained consensus, much like the earlier attempt to cut the lead down into a short description of the A4M's activities and move the rest into a "criticism section". Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wikipedia's editorial policies are both stricter and different; we are not in the habit of printing "leaks". A Wikipedia editor is expected to use sound editorial judgment with respect to journalistic or biased sources. Fred Talk 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of material

message: Since the consensus both here and on the BLP noticeboard is that this material should be replaced, I propose we draft a replacement on the talkpage. Here is a condensed version of the previous text that clarifies that there is no question as to the validity of their DO degrees and licensure. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft of replacement text

message: I deleted the section releted with hgh controversies, because simply THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES on GH effectiveness against osteoporosis, baldness, erectile disfunction and so on. It is ridicolous to speak about GH for life extentiom only  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.44 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not ridiculous to talk about the controversy surrounding the use of hGH in anti-aging in the article about an organisation devoted to anti-aging medicine. As you say, hHG is not controversial in mainstream medical uses such as treating hGH-deficient children, but its use in otherwise healthy adults in an attempt to delay aging is supported by very little evidence, has serious risks and may even accelerate aging (hence the controversy). Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: HGH controversy remotion

message: Seems that A4M's ideas are a mixture of mainstream and heterodox theories.  Where is there RS that describes it as fringe within the meaning of WP:FRINGE.  I think we need such RS in order to properly categorize A4M as fringe. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fringe" categorization? 

message: A new editor has repeatedly attempted to insert worldhealth.net as an or the official website. Our guidelines suggest one official website unless there is specific information to be gained by another. The website we have had as official, a4m.com, seems to have all the same classes of information about the subject of this article as this new site, which just layers it behind the front of being a health news site. As such, the a4m site seems more appropriate to our needs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit convoluted. A4M's main site used to be worldhealth.net, from about 1995 to 2010. They soft switched to a4m.com at that time, but it more and more represents the A4M conference than it does the A4M organization. This is also a bit of a convoluted item. A4M, the organization, sold A4M, the conference to Tarsus Medical in 2007. If you can list both URL's, you should. If you can list only one, A4M.com is the most sensible at this time. Fredsbend (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/06/chasing.antiaging.med/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23358964//
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldhealth.net/pdf/Goldman%2CKlatz_intl-PRINT.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article477626.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/quackery.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_12/b3976009.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/preventaging.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/magazine/tm-shots28?pg=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320040027/http://web.mac.com/sjayo/SJayOlshansky/Background_files/JAMA2005.pdf to http://web.mac.com/sjayo/SJayOlshansky/Background_files/JAMA2005.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503478/
*Added  tag to http://web.mac.com/sjayo/SJayOlshansky/Manuscripts_files/JGBSpositionstatement.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jrR6Ml5N?url=http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/preventaging.htm to http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/preventaging.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904040456/http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html to http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821214417/http://gerontologist.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/4 to http://gerontologist.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828111412/http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/7/B682 to http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/7/B682
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130222123135/http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/about to http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720064422/http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/B515 to http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/B515
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904040456/http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html to http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615170122/http://www.worldhealth.net/pdf/Tips_Antiaging.PDF to http://www.worldhealth.net/pdf/Tips_Antiaging.PDF
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130222123135/http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/about to http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704205952/http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B540 to http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B540
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904040456/http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html to http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130222194721/http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/anti-aging_medical_news_archive to http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/anti-aging_medical_news_archive
*Added  tag to http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/6/B523.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5joJYsq5t?url=http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/quackery.htm to http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/quackery.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904040456/http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html to http://www.anti-aging-source.com/dr-ronald-klatz.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_12/b3976009.htm
*Added  tag to http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12145354
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502125837/http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/official_position_statement_on_the_truth to http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/official_position_statement_on_the_truth
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5joJYsq5t?url=http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/quackery.htm to http://www.nia.nih.gov/HealthInformation/Publications/quackery.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is grossly out of date. A4M, as an organization, is largely inoperative at this time. They sold the conference to Tarsus Medical in 2007, which has significantly changed the way they were doing things and has all but left Klatz and Goldman uninvolved. This article needs information on the purchase by Tarsus, A4M's creation of their fellowship, and the subsequent creation of a master's program accredited by the University of S. Florida. Additionally, several sub-groups have been created since. Fredsbend (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperately need updates, 2017 

message: This minor verb shift in this little act of duplication (both instances from the same paragraph) makes me deliriously happy. 
As of 2011, approximately 26,000 practitioners had been given certificates.
:...
The A4M was founded in 1993 by osteopathic physicians Robert Goldman and Ronald Klatz, and has grown to 26,000 members from 110 countries. 
Notice how the verb tense had been given mutates into has grown to. Assuming that the figure 26,000 derives from the same source, the number of people given a certificate exactly equals (modulo rounding error) the number of people still practicing. 
Ergo! Not a single one of them has so far passed on to the other side. A more hopeful confluence has never been reported!  
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Life! Life, do you hear me?! Give my creation LIIIFEEE!
— MaxEnt 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twice 26,000