Talk:Viera Scheibner

message: This one?
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/
When mentioning books, giving either the title or the ISBN makes it much easier to verify whatever is being said.
So could we see one of those for at least one of the books about pedophile encounters, please?
The firm includes an imprint they describe as scholarly, but since nobody can have any idea what books are being referred to, nobody can look to see if the title is, for instance, related to medical or legal professional work with mad bad or sick people or injured children, which would, as an example, make the mention above look like an attempt to mislead and possibly a risky one.  Midgley 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prometheus Books 

message: ISBN 064615124
ISBNs are usually a 10 character string, the last being a check digit.  That one is 9 digits.  THe link does not find the book.  Midgley 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: Isn't it about time to remove it? The article has grown and the other article is already too large to tolerate a merge. -- Fyslee 23:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and done.  Ombudsman 23:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. -- Fyslee 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to remove Merge tag? 

message: What does this piece of info The Bent Spoon Award for 2006 went to the pharmacists of Australia who manage to forget their scientific training long enough to sell quackery and snake oil in places where consumers should expect to get real medical supplies and advice. have to do with the article subject?  Removed due to relevance per WP:N.  Shot info 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1997 v 2006

message: Wewoka can I suggest you add in some citations?  Also I am going to (re)delete (when I get a moment on this slow PC) the 2006 reference to the Bent Spoon Award bizzo, as it has absolutely zero relevance to article. Shot info 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also do the (short) list of letters need to be included as letters to journals are actually not peer reviewed and largely irrelevant to the overall flow of the article (other than to pad it out).  Besides it copies information provided at http://www.drgoldmanonline.com/MVIEditors.htm (along with most of the article).  Are there any other sources for the subject's background rather than what seems to be a rather dubious fringe journal? Shot info 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations??

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

message: === Contradictory ===
This article directly contradicts itself in various ways:
* "Although she has no formal health sciences training," and "In 1953, Viera Scheibner studied medicine at the Medical Faculty (school) of the Czechoslovak state-run Jan Masaryk University in Brno"
* "since her retirement and immigration to Australia in the early 1980s" and "In 1968, Dr. Scheibner immigrated to Australia"
* "During her distinguished career, she wrote three books and had over 90 scientific papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals in Australia and overseas." and "During her academic career 1958-1968 in Bratislava, she published 35 scientific papers" (emphasis added)
Also, it contradicts sources:
The article claims that she is actively researching vaccination. However, http://www.drgoldmanonline.com/MVIEditors.htm lists her medical publications as:

Medical Journal Publications
  [1]  Scheibner V. Evidence of the association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections, and cot death. Immunisation: The Old and the New. Proceedings of the Second National Immunisation Conference. Canbera, Public Health Association of Australia; May 27-29, 1991:90–1.
  [2]  Tye K, Pollard I, Karlsson L, Scheibner V, Tye G. Caffeine exposure in utero increases the incidence of apnea in adult rats. Reprod. Toxicol. 1993 Sep./Oct.;7(5):449–52.
  [3]  Scheibner V. Response to Leask and McIntyre’s attack on Viera Scheibner as a public opponent of vaccination. Vaccine, 2003 Dec. 8;:22(1):vi–ix.

The "public health association of Australia" is not listed in List of medical journals, nor in ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Medline.txt which the WP article points to. Since I am not a medical researcher, I do not know whether Reproductive Toxicology and Vaccine are major journals. Thus, she has at best a mere two publications in over 20 years. This is not "active" in any scientific field. She has mostly written for non-scientific alternative medical publications, and the conspiracy-theory magazine Nexus.
The article says that after researching vaccines, instead of publishing the results in a scientific journal, she wrote a book. This indicates that she possibly did not intend her study as scientific research.
Pcu123456789 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "anti-vaccination" article seems to have a more neutral treatment. We should strive for that in this article, too. Pcu123456789 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove the unverified info, or if verified, the weaker of the contradictory pair.  Often it is WP:OR editorialising that creates the conflict and often it can be safely removed.  Shot info 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right that it isn't about "our" opinions of her, but it is about published opinions of her, as required by NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet its quite obvious when reading the opening that the general leaning of the article/biography is that the authors think she is unrespectable. Which in my opinion is just an opinion. Really I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about since a bio is not about 'published opinions' of a person anyway, a bio is about the person. It needs to be more balanced. sunja (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but that is what she is notable for.  See WP:LEAD for info appearing in the lede.  Personally I'm not getting the feeling that she is "unrespectable" at all.  You are more than welcome to make the recommendation here to see what you would like it changed to.  Shot info (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: hmm ok, I just read the current opening again and it desn't seem as bad as i remember. But it would be more balanced to mention that she is accepted as an expert witness in law courts, which kinda makes stating that 'her honesty has been called questioned' somewhat badly stated, since it gives the impression that she is unprofessional. I tried to change this before. Also I'm adding links to her personal website which should be present in the article. sunja (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you read the large number of cites, you can see that in fact her honesty has been called into question - which is probably why she is notable - a scientist who is (was) an expert but found out to be dishonest.  But the lede shouldn't just be your first stop.  Shot info (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

text: I'm new to editing, so someone please feel free to fix this if I screw it up.  There are several statements in this article that are very absolute, without validating evidence.  For instance, the statement that there's been no subsequent research regarding vaccines and SIDS.  There has been.  It may or not be accepted as valid/trustworthy by the average reader, but it does exist. A2jc4life (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lot of this seems to have been added recently,. I have rolled back the unsourced and questiomnably sourced edits. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory and biased 

message: This article directly contradicts itself in various ways:
* "Although she has no formal health sciences training," and "In 1953, Viera Scheibner studied medicine at the Medical Faculty (school) of the Czechoslovak state-run Jan Masaryk University in Brno"
* "since her retirement and immigration to Australia in the early 1980s" and "In 1968, Dr. Scheibner immigrated to Australia"
* "During her distinguished career, she wrote three books and had over 90 scientific papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals in Australia and overseas." and "During her academic career 1958-1968 in Bratislava, she published 35 scientific papers" (emphasis added)
Also, it contradicts sources:
The article claims that she is actively researching vaccination. However, http://www.drgoldmanonline.com/MVIEditors.htm lists her medical publications as:

Medical Journal Publications
  [1]  Scheibner V. Evidence of the association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections, and cot death. Immunisation: The Old and the New. Proceedings of the Second National Immunisation Conference. Canbera, Public Health Association of Australia; May 27-29, 1991:90–1.
  [2]  Tye K, Pollard I, Karlsson L, Scheibner V, Tye G. Caffeine exposure in utero increases the incidence of apnea in adult rats. Reprod. Toxicol. 1993 Sep./Oct.;7(5):449–52.
  [3]  Scheibner V. Response to Leask and McIntyre’s attack on Viera Scheibner as a public opponent of vaccination. Vaccine, 2003 Dec. 8;:22(1):vi–ix.

The "public health association of Australia" is not listed in List of medical journals, nor in ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Medline.txt which the WP article points to. Since I am not a medical researcher, I do not know whether Reproductive Toxicology and Vaccine are major journals. Thus, she has at best a mere two publications in over 20 years. This is not "active" in any scientific field. She has mostly written for non-scientific alternative medical publications, and the conspiracy-theory magazine Nexus.
The article says that after researching vaccines, instead of publishing the results in a scientific journal, she wrote a book. This indicates that she possibly did not intend her study as scientific research.
Pcu123456789 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: "Research on the subject of vaccines" seems to portray her beliefs as truth, without referencing conventional medical opinion. Several statements are problematic, especially the second paragraph.
Pcu123456789 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "anti-vaccination" article seems to have a more neutral treatment. We should strive for that in this article, too. Pcu123456789 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove the unverified info, or if verified, the weaker of the contradictory pair.  Often it is WP:OR editorialising that creates the conflict and often it can be safely removed.  Shot info 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right that it isn't about "our" opinions of her, but it is about published opinions of her, as required by NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet its quite obvious when reading the opening that the general leaning of the article/biography is that the authors think she is unrespectable. Which in my opinion is just an opinion. Really I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about since a bio is not about 'published opinions' of a person anyway, a bio is about the person. It needs to be more balanced. sunja (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but that is what she is notable for.  See WP:LEAD for info appearing in the lede.  Personally I'm not getting the feeling that she is "unrespectable" at all.  You are more than welcome to make the recommendation here to see what you would like it changed to.  Shot info (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: hmm ok, I just read the current opening again and it desn't seem as bad as i remember. But it would be more balanced to mention that she is accepted as an expert witness in law courts, which kinda makes stating that 'her honesty has been called questioned' somewhat badly stated, since it gives the impression that she is unprofessional. I tried to change this before. Also I'm adding links to her personal website which should be present in the article. sunja (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you read the large number of cites, you can see that in fact her honesty has been called into question - which is probably why she is notable - a scientist who is (was) an expert but found out to be dishonest.  But the lede shouldn't just be your first stop.  Shot info (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

text: I'm new to editing, so someone please feel free to fix this if I screw it up.  There are several statements in this article that are very absolute, without validating evidence.  For instance, the statement that there's been no subsequent research regarding vaccines and SIDS.  There has been.  It may or not be accepted as valid/trustworthy by the average reader, but it does exist. A2jc4life (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lot of this seems to have been added recently,. I have rolled back the unsourced and questiomnably sourced edits. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

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

message: I and another editor have been undoing the edits of the above anon user. The user has been removing large amounts of relevant and referenced information. They are rewriting with strong POV, removing referenced info and adding information that is not verified. Extensive use of weasel words.
Eg: The section as to the results of "cotwatch" and Scheibner's subsequent claims on the reactions of paediatricians are not proven nor published and have no references other than Scheibner's own publications and writings. Therefore, including such information is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See WP:RS. It is OK to use Scheibner's own writing as evidence of what she claims to be the case, but you cannot use it as evidence of what is actually the case unless it is supported by other verified sources. --Cruiser-Aust 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions by 122.148.93.58

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

message: Lon Morgan, DC, a chiropractor, has written a short analysis of her anti-vaccination stance,[4] as well as an examination of Scheibner's claims of a disappearance of SIDS in Japan.[5] He concludes that:
    "Whether it was due to personal bias, lack of relevant health science training, or inept research on her part, or a combination, Ms. Scheibner's claims have not withstood the test of time, or critical examination, and should be rejected."[5]''
If anyone is going to refute a full-fledged doctor's anti-vaccination "stance", it ought to be someone with more scientific substance than a Chiropractor.  Maybe there is a plumber somewhere that has an opinion.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting a Chiropractor on Microbiology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Viera Scheibner. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/b3/0c01a0b3.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified