Talk:Sanjay Gupta

message: I understand that it is very important for this page to mention that he was considered sexy. While this might be true and not ridiculous, I wonder how [censored for inappropriate content]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEhzJsAVutg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.11.120 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dunda

message: That CNN screencap is pretty awful. Can anyone find a better pic of Dr. Gupta? Isopropyl 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: I removed 
: Indian-American
from the place where nationality belongs, in the lead, bcz that is not a nationality in the WP:MOSBIO sense: see :Category:Indian-Americans.  What passport does he carry? (If two, separate them by "and", not a hyphen.) Beyond that, perhaps the lead can support more info w/in the MoS, but if he was born in India say "Indian-born"; if he merely has Indian ancestors, say "Indian-descended". And of course documentation is desirable, as some are likely to put down what is to them "obvious" w/o checking a source or stating what they think their wording means.--Jerzy•t 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, xxxx-American is a common Wikipedia usage to describe ethnic origin. An "Indian-American" is commonly understood to be an American of Indian descent, just as "Italian-Americans" are Americans of Italian descent. Documentation is always welcome, but it is rather hair-splitting to demand evidence of Indian origins for someone named Sanjay Gupta. Essex9999 68.83.140.156 05:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality

message: I've noticed that Dr. Gupta pronounces his first name as "Sahn-jay." Is this an Americanization? I thought the name was pronounced "Sun-jay." Essex9999 68.83.140.156 05:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Is there a citation to back up the inclusion of the Hindu American category? --Crunch 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu American

message: I came across the request for comment here and looked over the article at its current revision.  As the controversy section is now written, I don't see any issues with NPOV.  I don't see that it's inclusion or size is an NPOV issue, either.  That said, though, it does simply seem over-large compared to the rest of the article as a whole.  I don't know that it should get its own section, but it seems to me like it should get mention in his history.  Will this controversy define Gupta for the rest of all time?  Seems unlikely, he's a pretty ubiquitous media figure and Wikipedia is not news.  Douglasmtaylor 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: RFC

message: Is the RFC issue now resolved? Can the RFC be closed? Eiler7 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC close

message: There appears to be some controversy over the section restored in this diff, if I am reading it correctly, a dispute between two editors which has been going on for some days. Rather than have the edit war continue, it would make sense to discuss why such changes are being made on this talk page. Note that I have no opinion either way on the veracity or otherwise of the content, but it does seem verified so removal without discussion (say per BLP) does not seem appropriate. Orderinchaos 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to Carlstar3's 19:11 comment above in the RFC section, I've provided 3 sources (1: "The second mistake came not in Gupta’s original report – where Keckley was correctly identified as representing Deloitte – but in an on-air debate where Gupta claimed Keckley was working for Vanderbilt University.", 2: "Another CNN correction followed on July 15 concerning the credentials of "Sicko" healthcare expert Paul Keckley.", 3: "CNN's Gupta falsely claimed his source's "only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University"")that call the mistake by Gupta during the King interview a second error, so it's not an "unsupported claim." For those unfamiliar with the details, Moore challenged Gupta during the King interview that one of Gupta's experts worked for a partisan health care think tank. Gupta responded that "His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael." (transcript). As CNN said in their response here, point #11, "Moore is correct." It's Carlstar3's position that is unsupported. Ripe 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I didn't weigh in on this when I looked at the first deletion of the CNN transcript and noticed that the text "He is with a think tank michael and his only affiliation is with vanderbilt university" opened the possibility that Gupta had been merely incoherent rather than committing the actual error of "mistakenly contesting Moore's observation that Gupta's one on-air expert was now associated with a Republican-linked think tank rather than a university". This wasn't what I had remembered, so I looked at the Media Matters article and noticed that there the transcript reads "MOORE: He's with a think tank -- GUPTA: You know, his only affiliation -- ..." I haven't checked the video at the MM cite, but if MM's transcript is correct I hope we can agree that Carlstar3 was misled by the CNN transcript's mistke and Gupta did indeed make the second error. Andyvphil (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you have any sources for analysts observing the situation (such as my first source cited above, an AP television reporter) or is that your own interpretation that there was no second error? See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Just because he is a practicing physician at an indigent care hospital and advised the Clinton administration on health care doesn't mean he didn't make a second error. Ripe 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the essay WP:NOTOR and consider the comment in "Caveats about expert material" (which this is not, but I think the thinking has wider application) that "We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article. <paragraph break> This may include indicating when a given authority may be wrong..." If Gupta had actually said "He's with a think tank..." then CNN would have been wrong to conceed that he'd made an error when he'd merely been incoherent. Don't let WP:NOTOR lead you into repeating obvious falsehood without demur. WP:IAR exceptions are rare, but I assert that this is one. Andyvphil (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please no personal attacks. Also read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research and WP:CIVIL. I'm not going to respond further to you until you adhere to these policies. Ripe 02:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Firstly, allow me to say I have no opinion on the sentence itself. I have no idea who Sanjay Gupta is, I am not American, and I don't have any opinion on the transcripts or anything like that. 
With that said, I have been reverting Carlstar3's edits (here, here and here), as those edits are not improving the article. Indeed, they are worsening it. So when Carlstar3 cited ignore all rules here, I felt I had to interject. Here are the objections I have to the addition.
#The edit introduces unencyclopedic language: "To be clear, Gupta's exact quote was". It is an encyclopedia's role to be clear at all times to the reader. No encyclopedia will ever have an article that follows up an explanation with "To be clear, X". It is language used in conversations, instructions, or blog entries, but not encyclopedias. This, therefore, worsens the article.
#If you scroll down on any of these edits to the section that has been edited, you will see that the edit separates three citations from the material they are being used to cite. This either gives the impression that they are citations for nothing, or that they are citations for the line being added by Carlstar3. This, again, worsens the article.
# (which is provided as a plaintext "cnn.com/transcripts/larrykinglive", rather than any clickable link, or better yet, a citation), doesn't even work. It comes up with a page not found error, and therefore cannot be used.
These are the reasons I have reverted yet again, and the reasons why WP:IAR does not apply. Please discuss here in future, Carlstar3, as you have been told to do in the past, or else, as User:Orderinchaos suggests, you may end up being blocked. Dreaded Walrus  t c 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to edit Wikipedia then you need to educate yourself on how to edit Wikipedia, including thoroughly reading the policies I pointed you to above as well as Wikipedia:Consensus. When you've done that you can read Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page. The incorrect citation format is not the only problem with your edits and I and others will continue reverting the edit you're pushing because you're  synthesizing your own conclusion from the transcript, whereas the 3 citations that you keep deleting have written their own analysis on the specific event. Ripe (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Carlstar3]]'s edits

message: Carlstar3 keeps submitting variations on a particular edit that removes sourced information & the associated version of events and replaces them with an unsourced less negative interpretation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 , while several editors including myself, Andyvphil, and Orderinchaos have been reverting his edits. He recently expressed above his intention to continue submitting his edit. I intend to continue reverting it because it deletes sourced 3rd party media commentators' interpretations of the events, whereas Carlstar3's edit pushes his own interpretation of the events and therefore I believe it is OR/POV. I would like to establish consensus on a version or suggested alternative. Ripe (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RfD response:Carlstar3 is definitely out of line.  One or two of such incidents can happen when multiple editors are working on an article, but the volume of incidents suggests that Carlstar3 is either working with a bias or not respecting consensus.  He should probably be warned and encouraged to work with other editors.  Removing referenced info and replacing it with OR interp is unacceptable.  I am not familiar with the issues covered in teh article, but at the very least, if Carlstar3 is familiar with an opinion not being represented in the article, he/she should include that in addition to the information already present and cite references, which I hadn't seen done.  If Gupta did say that the rep was in a think tank, that could be integrated into the report on the controvery.  But the controversy should not be eliminated.  Just as a side point, the article could probably do with some copyediting in reporting these events, but that is a secondary issue.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As with yourself, I am also unfamiliar with the subject of the article, though I thought I would mention that he has been warned, and encouraged to discuss on the talk page: see the section "Ripe's clear cut bias and inaccurate editing", on his talk page , where User:Orderinchaos says "Unless you discuss the edits you want made on the article talk page and reach a consensus with other users, and especially if you continue to edit-war on this article, you will be blocked from editing". He clearly has not followed these instructions. Dreaded Walrus  t c 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Carlstar3's edit

message: What part(s) of India do his parents come from and were they born in India? Badagnani (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a side note, his parents can't be "Pakistani" if they were born prior to 1947 in the region now known as Pakistan.  Many Indians born in that region have since migrated to India, and do not consider themselves Paksitani. AreJay (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This source says Sanjay Gupta's parents migrated from India. The staff writer's homework may be incorrect and it is very possible that the writer is unaware of the extreme unlikelihood of a mixed nation marriage in India in the sixties. if that were true a citation would be needed for the extremely unusual fact of an Indian marrying a Pakistani Hindu and settling in India. Alternatively, a web site named "The South Asian" is much less likely to get confused on this issue. Hence removing the WikiProject Pakistan tag. It can be readded should additional evidence prove his mother was of Pakistani nationality. AshLin (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Parents/Indian heritage

message: The reports that Dr. Gupta has been offered the position of Surgeon General have been reported by most major news outlets; therefore, we should have consensus that these reports are reliable. I'm looking to confirm this consensus before we begin a major rehaul of this page. 71.233.22.8 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. CNN reported on it and sheduled his programming so as to not pose a conflict of interest. Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press reported as well. Reliable. Hekerui (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I propose that we retool the Sanjay Gupta article, hopefully to see if we can get it to GA or (if we do an extraordinary job) FA status. Now that he'll be an important American figurehead (President-elect Obama has stressed the importance of healthcare in his Administration), he should have a deserving Wikipedia article. 71.233.22.8 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Being treated by Dr. Gupta was a privilege in the Joseph practice. 2600:1002:B031:1410:C1F8:8757:C8D0:4A42 (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Actually, the reports say that he has accepted the offer and that final vetting is under way.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870028,00.html?imw=Y
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2009/01/06/obama_wants_journalist_for_sur.html?hpid=topnews
WacoJacko (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on Surgeon General Reports

message: I don't think there is any such thing as "uncomplicated" spine surgery. More importantly, I've commented out a bit about the Ted Kennedy collapse. Gupta's assessment was in his capacity as a correspondent, not as a doctor, and therefore does not belong in this section. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanjay_Gupta#Medical_practice

message: I commented out a long bit about the Moore business. The material in it belongs in the section farther down devoted to that. If someone wants to work it in down there, go to it, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanjay_Gupta#Surgeon_General_candidate (whoa, whoa, whoa)

message: I'm not going to ascribe motive, or call it deliberate in the entry, but the inaccuracies have been consistant for a number of years now, even after criticism from medical professionals.  Gupta's descriptions of brain death do not agree with the consensus medical opinion or experience.  This is an objective, factual matter, and Gupta is not entitled to his own facts.  Anyone with anything to add should use sources from the medical peer reviewed journals, or other responsible medical and government sources.  There is a fair amount of irresponsible, medically inaccurate, conspiracy mongering written about brain death that I don't believe has a place in a description of how Gupta does not comply with the consensus medical opinion.
There is serious discussion in the medical community of improving the definition of brain death and how this relates to declaration of death, but I believe that this subject is best posted under the "brain death" entry.  Under the "Sanjay Gupta" entry I'm just going to post Gupta's errors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelpholloway (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deliberately inaccurate descriptions of brain death added to controversies section

message: Nothing in the discussion, but the history shows an objection to my entry.  I was careful to include just the facts in the entry, and Gupta's controversial statements about brain death are extremely relevant in the biography of a surgeon/journalist.  In evidence based medicine there are facts and consensus opinion.  Neutrality in this instance does not include assigning subjective opinion equal standing with current evidence in the peer reviewed liturature, or "balancing" the facts.  Neutrality here involves documenting Gupta's statements, and the current medical facts regarding brain death, and its effects on organ donation.  
I have not attempted to include Gupta's motivation for spreading misinformation since he himself has refused to directly address the issue despite solicitations.  If he were to offer some kind of defense, then that would be relevant, and that then would have to be "balanced" with the documented medical consensus opinion.
As far as it being an attack, I will freely admit that I am posting the entry in an attempt to push back against the misinformation of this widely read and watched author and supposed journalist.  I wish I had something complementary to post, but Gupta's campaign against brain death is resulting in the unnecessary death of children (as well as adults) on the organ transplant waiting lists.  He needs to be ashamed.  His confusing the public is also blocking informed debate on necessary changes to definitions of death and brain death protocol.
Michaelpholloway (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ohconfucius' apparent objection to brain death controversy entry

message: Restoring entry apparently deleted by Carlstar3 who failed to make any case for deleting it.  The comment on the history entry was that it promotes a political agenda.  This is obviously not the case.  I could address misconceptions if someone were to post what the problem is.  The section addresses serious errors in medical fact committed by Sanjay Gupta.  Politics is not involved.
Michaelpholloway (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Carlstar3, not promoting political agenda, these are the facts

message: # Please resolve dispute between michaelpholloway and carlstar3. The section regarding brain death does have an attack quality to it and is neither sourced or validated. Gupta, the author of the book in question, is a board certified neurosurgeon and has sourced the book thoroughly. He has endorsements from Henry Friedman, who is widely considered a leading neuroscientist. Furthermore, a simple search of existing scientific literature illustrates the controversy surrounding brain death is not novel. (21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've started four threads about this one, I'll respond to the bottom one. What you're trying to put into this article is original research, and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources showing your accusations are notable, you can provide them, but otherwise it doesn't belong in any article, especially a biography of a living person. Another user has also left you comments on your talk page, I'd suggest you review those as well for more information on Wikipedia's policies. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third party resolution

message: I don't understand how you can possibly cite The Nation as a reliable journalistic source. I am astounded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.3.180 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing The Nation in discussing journalism?

message: I'm Peter Aldhous, the reporter with New Scientist magazine cited in this section:
Peter Aldhous criticized Gupta's "enthusiasm for many forms of medical screening – even when the scientific evidence indicates that it may not benefit patients." He and other medical journalists accuse him of a "pro-screening bias" in promoting widespread electrocardiogram and prostate cancer screening, even though medical authorities like the US Preventive Services Task Force recommend against it.[23] The US Preventive Services Task Force was asked to retract their recommendations regarding mammography for women aged 40–49.[citation needed] This was a relevant news story that Peter Aldhous chose to ignore, while Gupta pointed out the inconsistency in the organization's flawed reasoning.[citation needed]
The last two sentences, as well as lacking citations, seem to be inconsistent with the timing of events. It is suggested that I "chose to ignore" the controversy surrounding the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on mammography screening. I presume the reference is to the recommendations that were released in November 2009 (see http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm). This was several months after I wrote about Sanjay Gupta's suitability to be US Surgeon General. 
The definitive statement that the task force's reasoning on mammograms was "flawed" also seems highly contentious, and there is no reference to who asked for the recommendations to be retracted. The recommendations are clearly controversial, and some people would like them to be retracted, but the statement as worded hints at some form of official request, without identifying what that might be.
For these reasons, I propose deleting these two sentences. I'd welcome any feedback before I do so.
Paldhous (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You've deleted the entire criticism section and added some unsourced trivia so I've reverted your changes and tweaked a sentence. Opining whether or not the criticism is valid is original research. --NeilN talk to me 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies section

message: There is a back and forth regarding sourced material. This page now has additional sources, that are updated. Dayewalker, please stop removing that sourced material, or updates of sourced material. Will Await your reponse Carlstar3 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about me reverting your edits like this one , your edit is also removing two large sections of properly sourced material. If you want to readd your section about Gupta appearing on the Late Show, go ahead. However, if you want to remove the sourced negative material, you'll need to discuss that on the talk page and gain consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dayewalker removal of sourced material

message: ISSUES
by Sandi Trend
Tonight, June 3, 2010; I watched part two of CNN's special two-night investigative report with Sanjay Gupta, MD; "TOXIC CHILDHOOD".
Dr Gupta spoke with the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson concerning the chemicals children are exposed to and their toxicity.  Dr. Gupta additionally spoke of "chemical pesticide" exposures and advocated for the use of "organic" products.
On June 3, 2010 an email was sent to to Dr. Gupta by way of the CNN; "Contact us - Questions or comments? Email" section:
  
EMAIL TO DR. GUPTA
Dr. Gupta,
I am curious about something that I believe to be very important.
Beings you PROMOTE organic in the place of chemical pesticides; are you the Legal Representative/Business Owner of Neesa Agritech Pvt.LTd. in India?
Neesa Agritech Pvt.LTd. states:
"We have BIO FERTILIZER, BIO INSECTICIDE, BIO PESTICIDE, TISSUE CULTURE, BIOMASS Briquettes (Natural Coal) AND Frozen Food Recipes, OUR BIO FERTILIZER KNOWN AS VARDHAK VAM POWDER AND VARDAAN and we have BANANA TISSUE CULTURE OF G.9 VERITY, and we have Bio Mass Briquettes (White Coal) with best quality, "
If you are the Legal Representative/Business Owner of Neesa Agritech Pvt.LTd. in India then aren't you biased in your representation's that organic is better?
If I am incorrect; I sincerely apologize.
______
"IF" DR. SANJAY GUPTA IS IN FACT AFFILIATED WITH BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS:
This is alarming as the Environmental Protection Agency definition of Biopesticide is; "Biopesticides include naturally occurring substances that control pests (biochemical pesticides), microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides), and pesticidal substances produced by plants containing added genetic material (plant-incorporated protectants) or PIPs."
BIO-CONTROL PRODUCT SEARCHING:
In the search for "novel" microorganisms for bio-control products; LIVING fungus, bacteria etc., to be used on food crops and for insect control: 
NUMEROUS biotechnology scientists become "microbe hunters" and search the world to find "NEW STRAINS" of fungi and bacteria.
This SEARCH takes biotechnology scientist's to jungles, rain forests, ocean caves, etc.  The scientist's search in soil, plants, plant roots, lichen, leaves and/or it’s litter, mulch and other decaying organic matter, fruit, bird feathers, dead insects, lake beds, forests, dunes and ocean caves, animals from terrestrial sources, marine sources (sponges, sea urchins, etc.) insects of all kinds,  rain forests, jungles, dry creek beds, orchards, farm fields, and gardens - just to name a few.
THESE SCIENTISTS THEN BRING THE FOREIGN MATTER BACK TO THEIR HOMELAND IN SEARCH OF BACTERIA, FUNGI, ETC.:
In searching for microorganisms in a sample of plant material; there can be "BETWEEN ONE AND UP TO THIRTY INDIVIDUAL MICROORGANISMS"; This is a direct quote from Gary Stobel in his video, Jewels of The Jungle!SERIES 2 PART TWO         
The commentator in Strobel's video, Jewels of The Jungle!SERIES 2!PART!THREE goes on to say, "'Dr. Strobel's next and final step is to now share the details of his discoveries with the rest of the scientific community'."
THESE microbial "discoveries" are not only shared with pharmaceutical companies, but with biotechnology companies as well, that experiment with the newly discovered microorganism for use on our food supply and for insect control.  They are then manufactured and sold as "bio control" products that are on the market across the world.
The MAJORITY OF BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE LIVING MICROORGANISMS; BACTERIA, FUNGUS, ETC:
ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE LISTED on the product label is the "active ingredient"; the bacteria or fungus that is used against a "target pest".  The "target pest" doesn't only relate to an insect, but a bacterial or fungal disease of a plant.
The "active ingredient" can be as low as .07%.  THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE A "RIGHT-TO-KNOW" what the "other ingredients" are.
WHO IS TO SAY THE "NEWLY DISCOVERED" MICROORGANISM IS SAFE?
WHO IS TO SAY A "NEW SPECIES" OF A MICROORGANISM IS SAFE?
WHO IS TO SAY ALL FERMENTATION BATCHES OF THE BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE NOT CONTAMINATED?
**IF THERE IS "NO FEAR" OF CONTAMINATION IN BIO-CONTROL PRODUCTS:
WHY does the EPA Form 8570-6 say?:
QUOTE:
“After fermentation and prior to further processing, each batch must be tested for the following microbial contaminants and have levels below those listed”:
•”E. coli Coliform Bacteria”
•”Salmonella”
•”Shigella”
•”Staphlococci”
•”Vibrio”
•”Yeast”
•”Mold”'''''
New diseases are emerging at a very fast rate.   IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY?
AMERICAN WORKERS' EXPOSED TO "UNKNOWN" TOXIN'S IN BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES; CHEMICALS - VIRUSES - BACTERIA - FUNGUS  - PARASITES - NEMATODES: 
  
This happens more than one would think... or ever could imagine.
BIOTECH INDUSTRY = PLUS $$$       BIOTECH EMPLOYEE = MINUS $$$:
The biotechnology industry has a win, WIN situation because of the willful concealment's of workplace related injuries, illnesses and/or death from the biotech employer's "total disregard" for employee's health and safety.
TRADE SECRET'S - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION:
The biotech employee's are never allowed to know what they are/have been exposed to because of "trade secrets", "confidential information" or "proprietary information".
FEAR OF RETALIATION - THREATENED,  HARASSED, LAID OF, LET GO or FIRED:
The biotech employees' are afraid to speak out about safety and health violations in their workplace environment; for fear of losing their jobs or being black-balled in the industry.  
BIOTECH INDUSTRY = MONEY -  MONEY -  MONEY = "GREED":
Biotech employer's DO NOT report the injures and illnesses that befall their employees for fear of "NOT obtaining": Federal and state funding; investor funding; Federal and/or state approval of their "product/s" AND global sales.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST & FINANCIAL TIES:
Further concealment takes place BETWEEN the biotech employer and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the EPA, USDA, and FDA; by Federal and state public 'as well as' elected officials and within the workers' compensation systems.  
~RECENT PUBLICATIONS ON FEDERAL AND STATE LACK OF OVERSIGHT IN THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY~:
*CRG Decries the Lack of Protections for Workers in the Biological Industries - A Pfizer Whistle-Blower Is Awarded $1.4 Million - NEW YORK TIMES, April 2, 2010
*"SAFETY RULES CAN'T KEEP UP WITH BIOTECH INDUSTRY" - NEW YORK TIMES, May 28, 2010
* BIOLAB SAFETY (electronic viewing) - COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS; GENEWATCH,  March-April 2010 issue]  
Ironically, on the same day the New York Times article, "Safety Rules Can't Keep Up With Biotech Industry" broke (May 27, 2010) the scientific watchdog group, The Council for Responsible Genetics-GeneWatch Magazine submitted the electronic version of the print subscription; March-April 2010 issue titled, "BioLab Safety".
'GeneWatch EDITORIAL by Sam Anderson 
"This may be one of the most important GeneWatch issues in recent memory";  "The same could be said of Becky McClain and David Bell themselves. These are not isolated incidents. Now that we have seen these two cases, one has to wonder; how many more are out there?
The 28 page electronic version of BIOLAB SAFETY can be read as you would the subscription “printed” magazine issue.  
'''
COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS; GENE WATCH - Volume 23 Issue 2' Biolab Safety EDITORIALS:
A Cruel and Unusual Corporation 
By Ralph Nader 
  
A Roach in the Kitchen 
By CRG staff - interview with Becky McClain 
  
Commentary: GM Crops 
By Eric Hoffman 
  
Dedication: Tony Mazzocchi 
By Jeremy Gruber 
  
Give Them an Inch... 
By Michael Siciliano 
  
One Bug, One Drug 
By Lynn Klotz, Edward Sylvester 
  
The Lab in My Backyard 
By Beth Willis 
  
Teatime in the Lab 
By Sam Anderson 
  
Book Review: Breeding Bio Insecurity and Germs Gone Wild 
By Andrew Thibedeau 
  
Flushing It Down the Rabbit Hole 
By Andrew Thibedeau 
  
Topic: Genetic Discrimination 
By Jeremy Gruber 
  
Topic: Forensic DNA Databanks 
By CRG Staff 
  
The Case of Dr. Malcolm Casadaban 
By CRG Staff  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biotechharm (talk • contribs) 08:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Biotechharm: I guess you can't write with green felt tip pen online so all those capitals and all that bolded text had to suffice instead, eh? 86.133.211.42 (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS A grammar hint for you too - plurals don't have an apostrophe. 86.133.211.42 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "TOXIC AMERICA" - Question for Dr. Sanjay Gupta 

message: The open says "one of the 10 most influential people in the country" and cites this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/21/pundit-americas-top-oped-cx_tvr_0924pundits.html.  But the article lists top 10 pundits not people, and Gupta's not one of them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.204.56.10 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  one of the 10 most influential people in the country 

message: I noticed that this article is tagged as having a dispute over NPOV since January 2010.  Although there have been disputes over NPOV on this talk page, there is no indication what the current tag is for.  I did notice a discussion from January 2010 (in this section and this one), but it seemed to me that consensus was reached back then, yet the tag remains.  Rather than remove it, I thought it best to have a discussion started here as to whether it is currently merited.  I am also going to edit the tag so it points here so that there is no confusion.  I always thought it best  to have tags point directly to a section to discuss them rather than having someone try and guess why the tag was there -- that is why these tags point to talk pages, after all. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current NPOV tag 

message: Should we mention this article? http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/ 212.90.151.90 (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. very important policy change.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I changed my mind on weed 

message: Wikipedia policy advises against controversy sections. ScienceApe (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, material from that section should be incorporated into the rest of the article. Until that happens, it should probably stay. --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So then what are we waiting for? ScienceApe (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. Incorporate away! --NeilN talk to me 19:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the controversy section go? 

message: Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
 
 Cannabidiol has antibiotic effects on MRSA, gram positive organisms ,fungi, HIV and our studies are showing anti spirochetal effects. This could be tried on EBOLA patients to arrest the growth till a vaccine is made. 
Dr. Ernie Murakami M.D.Clinical Associate Professor Emeritus.UBC....
 B.A. Bacteriology and Immunology UBC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.55.56 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebola Dr. Sanjay Gupta. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sanjay Gupta. 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/20090325071900/http://jnsonline.org/spine/issues/v97n1/pdf/s0970007.pdf to http://jnsonline.org/spine/issues/v97n1/pdf/s0970007.pdf
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 11:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sanjay Gupta. 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/20080725115958/http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php to http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php
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 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sanjay Gupta. 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/20120705212141/http://www.umiasa.org:80/about-us/iasa-history/1990-1991/ to http://www.umiasa.org/about-us/iasa-history/1990-1991/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317171306/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/martens07202007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/martens07202007.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623073944/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120428/SCHOOLS/204280365 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120428/SCHOOLS/204280365#ixzz1tqFaaYHK
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615140116/http://www.worldchanging.com:80/archives/ to http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828190008/http://neurosurgery.emory.edu/FacultyGupta.htm to http://www.neurosurgery.emory.edu/FacultyGupta.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Sanjay Gupta. 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/20160303183636/http://pritzker.uchicago.edu/about/news/commencement.shtml to http://pritzker.uchicago.edu/about/news/commencement.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umiasa.org/about-us/iasa-history/1990-1991/
*Added  tag to http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1137
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211175323/http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/118484/in_defense_of_the_sanjay_gupta_appointment/ to http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/118484/in_defense_of_the_sanjay_gupta_appointment/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122195407/http://www.bradenton.com/living/story/1148201.html to http://www.bradenton.com/living/story/1148201.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924065626/http://emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26387 to http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=26387
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630015833/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/gupta_gets_endorsement_from_controversial_former_sg_109219.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/gupta_gets_endorsement_from_controversial_former_sg_109219.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/umn?q=Sanjay+Gupta
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//009154.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) 05:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Everyone knows that Gupta played a role in 2011 film Contagion that is very similar to his role in real life, even using terms such as "social distancing". Since this is a very important part of his career why is it not allowed to be part of his Wikipedia page?  Curious...you wouldn't be trying to hide something would you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.206.8 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The technical term for such things is "coincidence." Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Role in 2011 film Contagion and incredible coincidences with real life - why is this content not allowed on this page?

message: I've removed an odd series of statements about former licenses, whose point is unclear. An IP has reverted that, claiming that somewhere it states that he's licensed in four states. We should correct that statement instead. I've removed the out-of -place discussion again. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical licensing 

message: Dr Gupta my name is teresa I’m 69 years old I have ara and correctly take xeljanz X-ray 11 mg clopidogrel 75 mg methotrexate 2.5 mg and hydroxychloroquine 200 mg two pills a day and other issue my question to you is can I take the vaccine and is this or the other vaccine life  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.14.14 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccine  

message: *Specific text to be added or removed: Update photo to a more recent photograph
*Reason for the change: The current photograph is from 2011
Wildkarrde83 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change: Update Picture