Talk:William Donald Kelley

message: I also agree with the above comments that this current page is very biased. I have tried to update this site to include the references providing a more accurate and descriptive view of the clinical trial. The trial was affected when the principal investigator assigned was a doctor who helped develop the conventional GTX chemotherapy regime, a clear conflict of interest. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17440727) The investigator's group sent patients to Gonzalez that did not qualify for the treatment, but they were still considered failures for his protocol in the trial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ-diONXCZc) This was reviewed by the Office of Public Health and Science that found 40 of 62 patients in the trial had been admitted inappropriately. (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR08/jun08a.pdf)  The study was allowed to be published despite conflict of interest, and the fact that it was known the patient populations were not comparable. (http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/engel_1_05.pdf )
This information regarding the trial should be included in the page to provide a more complete view of the history. The Gonzalez protocol has not had a full unbiased randomized stage III clinical trial. To say it has is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.71.148 (talk • contribs) 
:The WP:GEVAL fallacy. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We report what reliable sources say. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzalez Clinical Trial 

message: Although 3rd part published opinions of SKCC do in fact qualify as a legitimate resource for medical claims, in contrast the claims noted on it's website are self-published, and have no verifiable editorial board, nor verifiable fact-checking process WP:USERGENERATED.   Furthermore as it is a for-profit entity, opinions for which a financial incentive might do in fact exist, and according to wikipedia specifications they then at a minimum must require a clear "in-text" reference for whenever their opinion is being statedWP:BIASED.  As they are in fact a "cancer center" that part of their identity must be included as that is the part that identifies them as having a vested financial interest.Davea0511 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As a "nationally or internationally recognised expert body" MSKCC is a strong source by WP:MEDRS standards. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 01:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Yobol (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center an a source for medical claims for their website content 

message: This article is clearly biased.  I am not sure who the moderators are, but the fact that nothing has been changed even though several people have disputed this tells me that it will remain biased.
even aside from EVERYTHING else, the fact that the wording
"By the 1980s, his marriage had broken up" is included shows a bias.  why is that not said of the millions of divorces on wiki pages.  broken up clearly has a negative connotation.
the rules state to be courteous, and I will be, but again, I would love to know.. who are the moderators?
also, I am not saying that his 'marriage had broken up' is the only thing biased about this article.  just about everything is. 
there are different stories of the McQueen situation, and the fact is that one can never 'prove' one way or another which cancer treatment is better.   sure mainstream media is going to side with the establishment.  the establishment is often wrong, or at least does not have a monopoly on the truth.
thanks for listening
GoodKingJohn (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: The rationale provided for the deletion of the findagrave template is not legitimate. Inclusion of this external link is well established and used on such other biographies as Jim Henson. WOPR (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reliable source per WP:RS and this is not a useful EL. Also, you are edit warring. If other articles have problems, that's no reason to worsen this one. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only you think it's a problem. WP:OWN? WOPR (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, WP:CLUE. Maybe get one yourself by reading WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. We're not going to be linking to the dodgy content about Kelley. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find A Grave