Talk:Boyd Haley

message: Does this article really need to be so one-sided? This biochemist (not a medical doctor) has been making claims about mercury, and has complained on the record about being called a quack. Now that appears notable to me, yet this article whitewashes the gentleman uncritically. What has happened to WP:NPOV? JFW | T@lk 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does need to be cleaned, but I do not appreciate your condescending tone to the fact that he is a biochemist. I would hate to rant here but the fact that Dr. Haley is not a medical doctor is completely irrelevant. Reguardless to the beliefs of the completley uneducated public who think all important discoveries pertaining to health are made by medical doctors, scientists are those who are responsible for intiiating new treatments and researching their toxcicity. Medical doctors have the primary responsibility of treating the sick with pre-developed techniques. While medical doctors are the defacto emmisaries of public health due to their personal contact, they are by no means the end all authority on human health. We all have our jobs. A biochemist attempting to perform cardiovascular surgery would be an overstep, but a chemist with a toxicology background and a chaired university position making a statement about mercury toxcicity is more within his field than a doctor would be making the same claim. Please get your facts straight on the hard sciences before you make a snap judgment about this man's credentials. Very few of the medical innovations of the past century have been made by medical doctors, and without biochemists we would still have no idea how heritable information gets passed on (i.e., DNA.) Stop assuming phd's are med school drop outs and insulting those who are bettering this country. Now, having attended multiple lectures by this man I should be able to find his references in one of my old binders this weekend, and I will type them out when I find them. Mercury and alzheimers have been linked in several studies. Whether this is definitive has yet to be determined, as it is a complex disease that has many possible causes.I do know that he has credible references, he was the chair of the UK chem department for years, a position that is not doled out to "quacks" as you so elegantly put it. I am not saying he is right on all counts, but that enough research has been done for the consideration to be made. Whiteknight521 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree -- it's a bit of an advertisement.  Phrases such as "Haley surmises ...", "Haley suggests ...", and "Haley speculates ... " abound, and yet there are no references for any of these "speculations" and no references to scientific articles anywhere in the article.  Without citations, there's no way of knowing if Haley even holds any of the views acribed to him in the article, much less knowing anything about the validity of these claims. Scot →Talk 05:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "His research results support the contention that mercury vapor exacerbates Alzheimer's symptoms." Really? Where is the reference? Mercury has well known neurotoxic effects, but that is quite different from Alzheimers. This kind of statement really must be backed up by credible references if it is to survive the cut.Jellytussle 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is severely unbalanced. This guy is very controversial with his fringe POV. His ideas are cited widely by mother's groups and conspiracy theory alternative medicine types, and are likely responsible for multiple child deaths because of failure to get necessary vaccinations. I have tagged the article accordingly. -- Fyslee / talk 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing? 

message: I added a reference for Hayley's observations about mercury in the hair of children with autism and substituted it for the autism.net link.  In addition, the effects of mercury toxicity are quite distinct from Alzheimer's...I don't think the two of them would necessarily be lumped in the same category.  Andrew73 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: So the people named or described here (and if this is to be a biographical page, surely it should only be about one person) are predicting a decrease in Autism starting 2 years after Thiomersal use declined?  Shouldn't that be brought out as well?  Didn't Thiomersal use decline more than 2 years ago in the US? Midgley 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another [[Thiomersal controversy]] page 

message: A quote overleaf tells us that mercury is well known for inhibiting the kidney... The first diuretics were Mercurial.  We have lots better stuff now, but unless one is ratehr careful to specify what one is talking about in that connection, one is apt to look like a buzzword generator. Midgley 00:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a medical (pharmacological) digression on the kidney 

message: "... Haley has produced evidence supporting his hypothesis ..."
The way to do it though, is to produce a hypotheis that explains the evidence.  Midgley 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pretty good description ... 

message: So shouldn't be in an article declared to be about Boyd Haley, should it...
:"Another researcher, Dr. Mady Hornig of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, is testing gold salts on mice specially bred to be susceptible to thimerosal."
Midgley 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not about him 

message: I recently changed lead to acknowledge what the text of the article already concedes - medical consensus is against Haley's positions. Thiomersal and dental amalgams as a cause of autism/dementia is not widely held in the medical community and rejected by major medical and governmental positions. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to lead 

message: In this biography-of-living-persons article, Haley's, see my latest edit [diff].  It corrects such putative "medical content" as user Alexbrn has tacitly deemed appropriate and properly sourced: sourced to a fringe journalist, and, at that, misrepresenting that journalists' summary of Haley's view.  Is the actual standard of editing enforced here merely to make Haley look, not like a holder of a minority viewpoint, but instead like a holder of only ridiculous viewpoints? — Occurring (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fringe journalist? Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-vaccinationism is now mainstream?  Olmsted "edited the Age of Autism website, an anti-vaccine site which he described as the 'Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic' " ["Dan Olmsted" Wikipedia article]. —  Occurring (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Double standard on "medical content" and reliable sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boyd Haley. 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/20141113004443/http://www.research.uky.edu/odyssey/exclusive/summer03/haley.html to http://www.research.uky.edu/odyssey/exclusive/summer03/haley.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) 06:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified