Talk:Gideon Koren

message: Viewpoints have altered over time with regard to the dispute mentioned above.  The complex nature of the issues involved was brought to light in a 2005 piece by Jonathon Gatehouse in Maclean's Magazineref Gatehouse, Jonathon, Maclean’s Magazine, Toronto, May 4, 2005. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255 , which takes "a hard look at the celebrated whistleblower" who was dangerously put "up on a pedestal".  At the time, following her actions, Gideon Koren was investigated and reprimanded by the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children after he admitted sending hostile anonymous letters at the height of the dispute. A 2001 report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) noted:  "When the institutions eventually imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, these were limited, even though the presidents of the University and the Hospital found that his actions '…constitute gross misconduct and provide sufficient grounds for dismissal.'" ref Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto and Apotex Inc., page 268).  The CAUT report found that " Dr. Koren violated accepted standards of conduct in regard to publication in biomedical journals, when he published an article in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in 1999 on Apotex’s drug L1 without disclosing the company’s financial support for his research, without acknowledging the contributions of [the "whistleblower" and others] to generating the data he used or giving them an opportunity to review or participate in the publication, and without noting previous publications on risks of the drug."(page 36)  A balanced view of the dispute would also require the perspective of later sources with regard to the efficacy of the drug and the behavior of the "whistleblower", as mentioned in Maclean's and The Drug Trial by Miriam Shuchman, published by Random House.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciche (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy secetion as revised by Springatlast after it had been reverted twice

message: The Mclean's article cited is partial. It is largely a review of and dependent on the views in the book The Drug Trial by Miriam Schuchman. The article author does not use any comments from Olivieri or her supporters.  The British Medical Journal panned The Drug Trial, saying, "It is disappointing that Shuchman's book hardly touches on these issues. Instead, it retells the story from a worm's eye view, dwelling on the personalities of the people involved, what they said about each other, who was sleeping with whom, and the tricks they got up to blacken each other's reputations." (Christopher Martyn BMJ.2005; 331: 115)
Professor Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba has written about Shuchman's book. (Bioethics , Vol. 21 (2) 2007, pp 111-115). He concluded, "I was repeatedly struck by how often Shuchman's account of events is contradicted by the findings of a series of independent inquiries - all public documents, all easily obtainable. Almost all of the anti-Olivieri "revelations" presented in Shuchman's book are warmed-over versions of allegations already disproven by one or more of these impartial inquiries, and the others are undocumented hearsay."
David Healey in the Monash Ethics Review also cast doubts on The Drug Trial. (Vol. 24, No 4, 2005 – available at http://www.healyprozac.com/AcademicStalking/Post%201%20-%20The%20Drug%20Trial.pdf )
“Having investigated the Olivieri case, long before this book came out, I can say that
there are lots of similar background events in this case that just do not feature in The
Drug Trial. I can also say that again and again, the specific details outlined in this book
seem to me simply wrong.”
The Wiki entry in question is about Gideon Koren.  Biographical entries do not exist for PR purposes. I mentioned Olivieri because she was a recipient of the hate mail sent by Koren and CAUT found other behaviour by Koren that involved Olivieri that fell well short of the mark. It is not reasonable or fair to relay innuendoes about Olivieri in Wikipedia without citing credible sources.
My name is here for all to see. I have no connections with either Koren or Olivieri. I invite others, especially those who edit my copy, to make known their names and any connections with Koren or institutions and companies that he is associated with. 
I would welcome the referral of our different views to an independent mediator.  Paul Burns
::Since I'm the most recent to revert your edit, I'll reply: I have no connection to any of these entities. As far as your concerns stated above: Feel free to add any well-referenced information you would like, so long as that information is properly cited per WP:BLP --Uncle Milty (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad the discussion I intended is now taking place. I moved Springatlast's version to this space because I thought it was an improvement on the previous version but that more sources needed to be added to reach an appropriate biography of a living person, which takes care not to be libelous. The user who repeatedly reverted to his own version and now has the user name Wendwell seemed to be vandalizing by not letting any edits of his work stand. About the Random House book, I see that there are many differing reviews. Are we here to trade quotes and edit-war?  All sources have their bias, I suppose. CAUT, the only source the UK user had in his original entry, is a teachers' union if I understand correctly, and therefore might be biased towards its members, too.  In general, the issue seems not simple at all. Wendwell can edit and offer more sources, as can all Wikipedia users.Ciche (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Paul Burns 10.1.09 (Wendwell)on Changes Made by Springatlast

message: To Wendwell/PB/Paul Burns/ 128.189.133.146/ 86.160.119.55:  I will respond to a small part of your large posting on this biography with my opinion and amendments once I have had a chance to study your entire contribution thoroughly. One initial response is that the expanse of new material you have written may appear obsessive in that it is out of proportion, also including extensive citations from limited sources, within a biographical entry. I will do the best I can to deal with some of the particulars later.  For now, I want to focus on a subject that I hope you will finally work out for yourself. Despite your protests, I'm sure you are able to understand the clear, standard directions above and can click on the link provided there in order to advance the discussion in the proper order, as is customarily requested on discussion pages, with new postings at the bottom.  It's simple to do this and not force others to always have to "one-up" you as you insist on posting above them time and again. By creating this pattern of oneupmanship, it is as if you force participants to "bully you back", pushing your post down each time. I have tried and tried to put this discussion, which began some time ago, before you entered, back into the order it was originally posted.  How can anyone join in if they can't make head or tails of what's transpired? I would rather give my attention to substance from here on. I would also like to request that you consistently sign with four tildes at the end of your posts, which you understand is also expected, although anyone might innocently forget to do this on occasion.  Still, it is a simple, courteous, helpful, orderly approach, which I hope you will now finally decide to adopt as we continue this discussion.  Your Wikipedia skills do indeed seem adequate. I address this request to Grabbist, as well. I am posting this UNDER your posting signed PB and will also enter it at the bottom of the discussion under a new heading in the hope that you will follow suit. Ciche (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: PB: FYI - As I began considering your contribution of extensive quoted material, I formatted your references. Ciche (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended your opening statement to correspond with the source you cite. Ciche (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Balance - response to Wendwell/PB/Paul Burns/ 128.189.133.146 / 86.160.119.55 and Grabbist: 

message: Here is Springatlast's most recent version that was again just totally replaced by Wendwell's. I have mentioned before that I thought this version was at least an attempt, too "creative" perhaps, but sourced nonetheless, to take Wendwell's lengthy quotations out of isolation.
Although Wendwell, in the section signed by PB up above, wrote that no one has disputed him, I did indeed offer my opinion that his isolated, non-contextual presentation implied a narrative that was defamatory to the living subject. I also addressed the possible bias of CAUT. Wendwell/PB/Paul Burn's current version seems slightly more balanced with regard to this, with the addition of quoted opinions within the two sources he cites, but it is still quite isolated from context and therefore tendentious, and weighted heavily in proportion to the biography. I sense that we need to be careful, especially as I now understand from the mention of "sides" just how "hot" this dispute continues to be. 
I have corrected Wendwell's section's opening statement, which contained a generalization that could be defamatory (showing the subject in a generalized false light -- in writing and therefore perhaps also libelous), especially because it was not supported by the sources Wendwell quotes. I hope this helps with NPOV.
Springatlast wrote:
"The complex nature of the issues involved in the above mentioned dispute was brought to light in a 2005 piece by Jonathon Gatehouse in Maclean's Magazine(ref: Gatehouse, Jonathon, Maclean’s Magazine, Toronto, May 4, 2005. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255), which takes "a hard look at the celebrated whistleblower" who may have been dangerously put "up on a pedestal". At the time, following her actions, Koren was investigated and reprimanded by the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children after he admitted sending hostile anonymous letters at the height of the dispute. [Here, in addition to much of Wendell's wording above, Springatlast kept Wendwell's quotations, which he followed by:] A balanced view of the controversial dispute, however, would also require the perspectives of other respected academic and scientific bodies and the wisdom of later sources with regard to the efficacy of the drug and the behavior of the "whistleblower", as mentioned in the Maclean's article cited above and in the 2005 book, The Drug Trial, by Miriam Shuchman, published by Random House )ref:() http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Trial-Olivieri-Hospital-Children/dp/0679310843.)."
Again, this was Springatlast's most recent version taken from the history of this entry as an example. I support a similar, but less creative, better sourced contextual version of this sub-topic. I hope that we can reach this without edit warring. It seems to me, quite simply, that totally wiping out contributions is not always the best way to go. I'll cautiously try to revise a little more along these lines. Ciche (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing weight and presentation of quoted material 

message: I added to existing material to balance POV of disputed section to give overview of surrounding controversy including heading change and NY Times source. Springatlast (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed section 

message: I just reverted overall edits by a user who included libelous untruths making all information inserted by this user suspect until verified. It was Dr. Olivieri who was in the pay of Apotex. Look up the actual research information. If I were Dr. Koren, I'd be consulting with authorities and my lawyers to identify this party (at the very least) and proceed with a lawsuit.  This is not the first time that this entry has been vandalized as if being used for a vendetta (against a person who is clearly too busy doing good works and science to control his PR) by questionable parties or by users who fall victim to cheap media hype and outdated public mistatements by biased groups. I noticed blatant vandalism to this entry years ago and have watched it since then.  As it stands now, the deferiprone controversy section here is way out of proportion.  I hope it won't be inflated further with libelous garbage. Ciche (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Dr. Koren (Ciche) I'll play your game. First of all please be specific about which other pages I have "written libelous untruths about him." If you do not, you have libeled me. Next, please explain how stating that Dr. Koren is the editor of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring journal is "creative research - unsourced editorializing." It says so on the home page of the journal. That's not documented? That's "creative research"? When I write the 1999 paper that Koren agreed to retract as stated in the Ontario CSPO reprimand chap 12b is still on record uncorrected that's libelous? When I write the paper was the subject of academic misconduct and determined to be skewed because it only contains data up until mid 1995 when Oliveiri began withdrawing patients from treatment, (CAUT report p. 31 & 390) that's dishonest? Or is leaving a medical paper with skewed data on record after promising to remove it - dishonest? When I write "Likewise Koren had not informed the journal of his very serious conflict of interest as an Apotex employee." or his $250,000 grant from Apotex for unspecified purposes that he failed disclose as mentioned on page 32 of the CAUT report. that's "unsourced libelous material"?  My link to copies of the anonymous vicious letters that Dr. Koren sent is Libelous? You have a very twisted sense of "balance" that is evident since you sent the letters in the first place. Regarding the one other area in WP where my comments have been challenged, if you look at the history page the person lecturing me has gone on to make all the same corrections that I continually made to keep the page honest with the exception of one very well documented link that he refuses to post. If you care to discuss circumcision or Herpes Simplex Virus we can do that as well. If you look through my history, Ciar and I wrote most of the herpes simplex virus page on WP. Unlike Dr. Koren, who has penned over a thousand medical papers, with only 6 even mentioning the word "herpes", most are on acyclovir toxicity and 2 are attacking ritual circumcision claiming an association with neonatal herpes simplex that Dr. Koren has never written about. (Don't feel bad, the other 21 authors have never written on it either.) Ignoring published Israeli HSV statitistics and published Canadian neonatal HSV statistics Koren and colleagues build a fraudlulent attack against ritual circumcision in their Canadian and Israeli cases based on American HSV statistics. Koren and two of his colleagues at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto go so far as to ignore the neonatal HSV guidelines issued by their own head of pediatric infectious diseases at the Hospital for Sick Children in arriving at their conclusions. (I repeat: conclusions by 22 authors none of whom have ever done a paper on neonatal herpes.)
My sources are much more authorative then a book review in the entertainment section of a pop magazine into which you put so much credence. It is not I but rather you that have a vendetta against truth and fact. So please be specific as to exactly which of my comments are unsourced or undocumented and I will re-post them with the necessary sources and links.  I assure you I do my homework. Thank you and have a nice life. pikipiki (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: But really, there is the same problem as before. The deferprone section is way too big and needs to be trimmed down and cleaned up. Springatlast (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Although I did not contribute all you mention above, I do disagree with you. I think all the present sources are relevant, not only those you prefer. You wish to tell your POV in a version that slants by isolating one aspect (your personal agenda) out of context, creating implications which certainly are libelous in a biography of a living person. In addition -- a small but significant note, sources that don't have Internet links are sources, nonetheless, no? Pikipiki had added a personal blog as a reference, and he/you are complaining about MacLean's? Please sign your comments. Ciche (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I see that another user removed an obsolete link to the CPSO document. The document is no longer archived by that body on line.  I also see that Pikipiki includes a live link to the document on a web page that has a bad certificate, so I will not add it to the reference in the entry.  I print Pikipiki's link here again for the anonymous user's benefit. https://dhengah.org/Lucey/collegeofsurgeons-koren.pdf -- go there at your computer's own risk.  This is privately stored on a Chasidic site http://dhengah.org/ehome.htm , returning us again to the above-mentioned ritual circumcision agenda of some of those defaming Koren. Ciche (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dr. Koren you are really a winner. YOU cite a 2002 CMAJ article that says "deferiprone 'has, at best, uneven efficacy and uncertain toxicity.'” In defence of your publishing a paper that says the drug is safe based on skewed data. You still claim the drug is safe despite numerous reports of adverse effects, including your own 1997 paper  and an independant Cochrane review  that found the drug should ONLY be used in cases where deferioximine is contraindicted or inadequate. Then you claim that publishing a 6 line erratum, 10 years after the research, six years after you submitted the paper, three years after you were found to have failed to declare $250,000 discretionary grant from Apotex, somehow retroactively exonerates you from failing to declare conflicts of interest among other scientific misconduct that the HSC and CPSO found you guilty of years before. You claim the information is defamatory? SUE the CAUT! Don't fight your battles on Wikipedia by constantly deleting references to charges to which you admitted guilt, go to court and prove it.pikipiki (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? You are the one who deleted sources and much material. But no one can discuss it with you because you are tricky about it.  Pikipiki makes a big edit to the entry.  Then Pikipiki writes an edit summary and comments here in the talk section that are very different from what Pikipiki really did in the edit. Springatlast (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a full moon. I deleted the false claim that usage in 50 countries vindicates Dr. Koren's paper, because the usage in MOST countries is ONLY licensed where the regular chelator deferioxamine is unavailable or contra-indicated and I cite these three medical papers on deferiproneOne, a 2005 paper by Hoffbrand, which specifically states "Deferiprone is now licensed in 43 countries for thalassaemia major patients for whom desferrioxamine is inadequate." You delete my entry with the comment "no false info evident. section was inflated already and added mass of material was not relevant to subject". You then delete details of that which HSC found Dr. Koren guilty of professional misconduct in the publication of a medical paper with skewed data as per the CAUT report and CPSO reprimand, along with three Globe and mail news stories and a link to the CPSO reprimand AGAIN, with the claim: "began reducing inflated deferiprone section working on NPOV. added ref for balance, removed material more relevant to Dr. Olivieri than Dr. Koren, removed resolved cross references to TDM publ.," Exactly which is part of the charges that admitted to, and are published in the CAUT report and CPSO are POV? The man admitted guilt. He agreed to retract the skewed paper that's still on record at the journal of which he is the current editor. You deleted that fact as well. That's number one. Secondly the Deferiprone controversy section is not only about Dr. Koren. It's about the deferiprone contronversy which includes Nancy Olivieri. Taking out Nancy Olivieri is as POV as it gets. The CMAJ article that you put back in (which also states: "iron-chelating compounds such as deferiprone are primitive and palliative "half-way technologies" & "a dispute about a single drug that has, at best, uneven efficacy and uncertain toxicity.")does not vindicate Koren and is extreme POV without allowing for  Nancy Olivieri's reply in the same Journal.pikipiki (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have attempted to make such points repeatedly. I am not convinced. Users presented us with references to the contrary that in my opinion made it particularly appropriate to remove such useless discussions from the body of the entry. Please do see my comment below about the use of this drug and the insignificance of the case you appear to be trying to make. As for Nancy Olivieri -- on the contrary! She is indeed mentioned several times. Discussing her fate is not relevant to the entry. There was even controversy about the committees you appear to hold in unassailable esteem. As we read through endless literature, it becomes clear that no aspects of this controversy have been formally "decided", as such, to the satisfaction of all esteemed bodies. Your statements about vindication or lack thereof are empty rhetoric and not productive here. For me and others, if there is a bottom line it would be that a drug exists that could improve the lives of some children and contribute to their survival. This drug has been denied them long-term if they live in Canada and the United States because of what now appears to have been an ego-issue on the part of a researcher who erred. Even this, however, must be presented with care and in the correct proportion within this living biography entry. Ciche (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism 

message: I'm concerned that the section about the deferiprone controversy is slanted with some POV pushing.  The controversy, at least as it relates to Dr. Koren, concerns academic misconduct-- he sent hate-mail and denied that it was from him until subsequent DNA evidence disproved his denials.  The way that it is written now introduces what seems to be fairly irrelevant facts about the safety and efficacy of deferiprone itself to set up a conclusion that basically reads like 'his harassment was okay because he was right.'  The citations don't even really support the claims that are made -- for example, a 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study by Rund and Rachmilewitz is cited to support the claim that data around the world has shown deferiprone is safe.  The cited line in that article cites a 2004 Journal of Hematology article by Franchini and Veneri that notes: "However, further studies are required to evaluate the impact of deferiprone on cardiac and liver disease."  Since the basis of the dispute between Dr. Koren and Dr. Olivieri concerned whether or not there was a risk of liver toxicity, it seems bizarre that a series of evidence that explicitly is not about liver toxicity is cited to demonstrate that Koren was right (again, as if being right or wrong is the dispositive issue in this controversy).  PStrait (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in controversy section 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I've never posted anything on Wikipedia comments before, but this article was so biased I thought I had to write something. The doctor was the leader of a drug testing lab which provided forensic evidence which resulted in kids being taken from their parents...when he was not qualified to do so and when his lab did not meet basic standards, let alone forensic standards. See the report from the Ontario Attorney General's office: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lang/
This is no secret, it was front page news.
Treat Hull
:Agree. This talk page was mostly filled in 2009, and there has been little discussion since then. I think it is time to trim the page down drastically and reformat it in a more usual style, where instead of puffery and unsubstantiated claims about the earth-shaking (sorry, ground-breaking) effects of each item he has published, a simple list of those publications would be more in keeping with the dignity of wikipedia. As you say, unsubstantiated testing methods in the Mother Risk department were grossly misused, resulting in much misery. I think that discussion of that department should be moved to a separate page, where it would be appropriate to have a See also section with a link to Charles Randal Smith, who likewise shines as a horrific phenomenon in the history of Ontario forensic medicine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored a separate Motherisk article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Risk 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gideon Koren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061001123302/http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/opru_network.cfm to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/opru_network.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926232137/http://www.hlthss.gov.nt.ca/Features/Programs_and_Services/fasd/fasd_initiatives.asp to http://www.hlthss.gov.nt.ca/Features/Programs_and_Services/fasd/fasd_initiatives.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419053728/http://www.fda.gov:80/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm to http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/explosive-judicial-review-puts-lens-on-gideon-koren-and-sickkids/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gideon Koren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212230605/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002120726/http://www.cpso.on.ca:80/Publications/Discsum/2004/discmay04.htm to http://www.cpso.on.ca/Publications/Discsum/2004/discmay04.htm#Koren
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141121022954/http://www.bros-and-sis.com/album_lihyot.shtml to http://www.bros-and-sis.com/album_lihyot.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213003825/http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/30158.html to http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/30158.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928142345/http://www.knowledgenetwork.ca/fasV/webcast/ to http://www.knowledgenetwork.ca/fasV/webcast/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gideon Koren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519162713/http://www.judaicawebstore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=VT-32102 to http://www.judaicawebstore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=VT-32102
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525202443/http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32081.html to http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32081.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071010182024/http://www.circlesolutions.com/summerinstitutes/index.cfm to http://www.circlesolutions.com/summerinstitutes/index.cfm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722003456/http://www.motherisk.org/fas/en/webcast/indexwebcast.html to http://www.motherisk.org/fas/en/webcast/indexwebcast.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Gideon Koren. 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/20120212230605/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Gideon Koren. 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/20070928093743/http://www.sickkids.ca/tails/ to http://www.sickkids.ca/tails
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029160515/http://www.sickkids.ca:80/ProgramsandServices/Tails/index.html to http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/index.html
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) 18:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Gideon Koren. 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/20101125085922/http://israel21c.org/201010218436/health/hair-reveals-stress-levels-and-heart-attack-risks to http://www.israel21c.org/201010218436/health/hair-reveals-stress-levels-and-heart-attack-risks
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120173548/http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44772.html to http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44772.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141119215826/http://www.fasdfoundation.ca/index.html to http://www.fasdfoundation.ca/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120121601/http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/History-of-tails/index.html to http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/History-of-tails/index.html
*Added  tag to http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/cw2w3.cgi?p=knox&t=66497&d=1246
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810000649/http://www.sogc.org:80/media/advisories-20060623_e.asp to http://www.sogc.org/media/advisories-20060623_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723131748/http://www.sogc.org/media/pdf/advisories/JOGC-dec-07-FOLIC.pdf to http://www.sogc.org/media/pdf/advisories/JOGC-dec-07-FOLIC.pdf
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) 19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Gideon Koren. 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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107051636/http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/aboutus.htm to http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/aboutus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129003557/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2d2d4615-68cc-403b-a6b6-a01077eaefa2&k=25973 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2d2d4615-68cc-403b-a6b6-a01077eaefa2&k=25973
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sogc.org/media/advisories-20060623_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906093920/http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/faculty/Koren_Biosketch.htm to http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/faculty/Koren_Biosketch.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) 11:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone has deleted information regarding Motherrisk. Under the subheader, Publication Bias, the second paragraph contains only one word followed by a period and reference number. The reference relates to the Motherrisk issues.  The third paragraph also deals with Motherrisk. Mariner82 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information about Motherrisk