Talk:Joel Brind

message: I realize it's a short stub, but after a short (nicely neutral) intro the second paragraph contains only allegations that accusations levelled against Brind are specious. Now, I recognize this is a contentious topic, and I'll admit I don't have the answers, but a quick perusal of the internets leads me to believe that this is not quite the whole story.  I understand that in Wikipedia, articles don't get written unless people write them, and so it goes here, but I think an NPOV note is still warranted.  Geoff.green 02:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - RoyBoy 800 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. - RoyBoy 800 01:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for referencing this on my talk page; I'd probably have missed it otherwise.  You write (on my talk apge) --> "After re-reading your comment on Talk:Joel Brind, I'd have to disagree. I did not write "allegations"; I wrote verified inaccuracies on how Dr. Brind's position is presented." Which is fine.  I didn't mean to say that what was included is necessarily inaccurate, and I apologize if my use of the term "allegations" implied that.  My only objection is that the article does not contain information about what he actually does, beyond a portion of one sentence, nor does it contain much of the content of the criticism against him beyond the two examples that the article criticizes.  (You've added some subsequently.) Like I said, I don't think that you were trying to write a biased article, but merely that because it is incomplete and because of how it is incomplete there probably should be an NPOV warning until it's expanded upon. What you added, brief as it is, is a big step in that direction. Let me know what you think. Geoff.green 21:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: One suggestion for how to expand this article: a discussion of Brind's publications (http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/faculty/brind.html). Those of his publications which involve the ABC link tend to be published in National Review and National Right to Life News, as well as on National Right to Life websites (http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/breastcancer.html). He is also a fixture in National Right to Life Conventions, as well ( http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL07/tapes.htm ; http://www.nrlc.org/convention/Schedule2006.html) In fact, he offered the keynote address at the NRLC 2001 convention (http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL07/conven.html). Needless to say, this sort of thing impugns his credibility and scientific objectivity (http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/hatedabortion.html)
This would by no means render the article NPOV, and a good deal of biographical information has yet to be added, but though not NPOV it would at least be a bit more balanced for the moment. Dicksonlaprade 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestions, though I disagree with your overall conclusions. Barry Yeoman isn't an impartial observer based on that article. It's an excellent article overall, but see here; Yeoman isn't as thorough as we'd like. Will look into incorporating those links into the text; further feedback/discussion welcome. - RoyBoy 800 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding this article

message: Why isn't he a scientific advocate? - RoyBoy 800 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! Mostly that sentence was just bad grammar.  What someone was trying to say is that Joel Brind is a scientist and an advocate for the ABC hypothesis - not that he is an advocate for science in general.--IronAngelAlice 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific advocate? 

message: Phyesalis, while it is OR and can be conveniently removed on this basis, it is hardly POV to state what is verifiably wrong in J. Arthur's article. Further, taking a page from ya here, her claim is an exceptional one as she does not provide a quote/source and more importantly, is asserting Brind (an endocrinologist) is getting something wrong that is within his expertise. I find your use of POV disappointing... and yet curious at the same time. - RoyBoy 800 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, color me confused. She obviously wouldn't state it, especially since she participated in this talk page on that paragraph in question and misunderstood what was wrong with her article to begin with; though that did help improve the article. She doesn't have to admit a mistake, actually anyone else (outside of Wikipedia) pointing out the mistake could be sufficient to reinsert "incorrectly". Something I'll look for, but I doubt I'll find. Thanks for the clarification(s). - RoyBoy 800 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I understand now, yes it was inadvertently sourced to Joyce (since it was OR). Good catch. - RoyBoy 800 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joyce Arthur "incorrectly" 

message: This was removed describing Brind as a pro-life Christian. I have already warned the user about using the minor edit. Anyway, if references are found should it be readded. It is relevant to why Brind is notable, ie. taking a strong stance on the ABC issue, as a potential conflict of interest. - RoyBoy 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wish is my command, RoyBoy.  I have found a reference for Brind's conversion to Christianity and subsequent initiation of his pro-life advocacy, which I have added to the article.  I have also expanded the section heading "Early Life and Education" to include "Religious Conversion" as well. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed political / religious affiliation 

message: I have added a sentence to the intro, pointing out that Brind is openly contemptuous of mainstream medical professional orgs and journals, accusing them of a cover up and calling the NCI "another corrupt federal agency like the NSA and IRS".  I have backed this up with references to Brind's own articles.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Brind accuses the mainstream medical establishment of a cover up, asserts NCI is corrupt

message: I have removed a claim about the alleged benefits of glycine supplements, posted by an editor who calls himself "TheTruth".  This claim was sourced to Brind's own glycine-supplement company's commercial/advertisement/propaganda web site!  (http://www.sweetamine.com)  Not a reliable source.  Also, the claim that glycine supplements are beneficial at all is contradicted by mainstream medical opinion, in particular by my source, which is Webmd.  2604:2000:C6A1:B900:4810:3ED1:3D23:2159 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed poorly-sourced (and false) claims about glycine

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joel Brind. 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/20110113001029/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011133808/http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report to http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.gov/cancer_information/doc.aspx?viewid=15e3f2d5-5cdd-4697-a2ba-f3388d732642
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) 16:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified