Talk:Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] False information?
The statement about the ALF appears to be false. I can't find any information that claims Dr. Barnard has been associated with the ALF, even on the CCF and ActivistCash websites. I have removed the sentence. —Nickdc 16:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Nickdc, That statement was not false. Please re-read... http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23
- Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
....
- In 2001, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of over 40 letters (on PCRM letterhead) with Kevin Kjonaas, a former “spokesperson” for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the then-U.S.-director of the violent animal rights group SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty).
....
- Neal Barnard is more circumspect about violence. The Animal Rights Reporter has written of him: “Although he disavows the use of violence, he says that researchers ‘have set themselves up for it’ and ‘have to worry’ about animal rights violence.
Additionally, please read: http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/010920_PCRM.pdf
- Letter co-signed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine president Neal Barnard and former ALF "spokesperson" (and current SHAC leader) Kevin Kjonaas. - ConsumerFreedom.com
The associations are there and there are more, go to google and type in "Neal Barnard" +ALF +PCRM
I found more incorrect information in the article and removed the sentence: "The 7 board members of the PCRM have authored more than 70 diet books, the most popular of them is the well known 'Eat More, Weigh Less!' by Dr. Ornish." Dean Ornish is not a PCRM board member and PCRM's advisory board actually consists of eleven members, not seven.[1] I also removed the sentence: "There is a significant amount of research on the PCRM website focusing on Seventh Day Adventist communities, as a testament to the vegan diet." Only a handful of pages on www.pcrm.org make any mention of Seventh Day Adventists.[2] —Nickdc 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A bit biased?
This article seems to be cheerleading for PCRM a bit too much. It doesn't reflect that PCRM has been criticized by the American Medical Association for misrepresenting facts about animal research, and that its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is a psychiatrist by training - not a nutritionist. The article also leaves out PCRM's documented connections to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Can someone jump in and make this a bit more NPOV? Otherwise I'll list this as a NPOV dispute. 24.229.25.11 19:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree it's POV, but there's no actual dispute yet. Just go fix it instead. —Ashley Y 08:29, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
....
- I just added your text fixed up a bit. —Ashley Y 08:32, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
.... Is it true that this organization has only 5% Physician membership[3]? That would be relevant in this article to show that it might just be a front group for animal rights activists. DHN 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, please read: http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/010920_PCRM.pdf
- Letter co-signed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine president Neal Barnard and former ALF "spokesperson" (and current SHAC leader) Kevin Kjonaas. - ConsumerFreedom.com
[edit] PETA/FSAP/PCRM
I've added the relevant information neccessary for somebody to confirm for themselves the relationship between PETA and PCRM. This includes the front organization FSAP which is housed out of the PETA offices and consists of the presidents of both organizations. Additionally I've made reference to the proper location to find the federally required tax forms showing that PETA/FSAP funded PCRM for up to half a million dollars, until 2001 when FSAP stopped providing that information in its itemizations.
[edit] NPOV flag
In referring to controversies about the organization, articles often fails to name or cite critisims but presents detailed rebuttals. The writing tone is not sufficiently neutral for an encyclopedia. Durova 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Membership
I can't find anywhere a source to verify that PCRM has 6,000 physician members. The PCRM web site indicates that you just pay to become a member, doesn't specify you have to be a physician, scientist, whatever. It doesn't even say how many members it has in total. So will edit accordingly unless someone can provide verification. Ermintrude 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] minor/major rewrite
Not sure, I didn't really add or remove much content, just rephrased and reorganize and stuff... I added citations when I could find them, it still needs some. Clarified a couple of thing. There's still a section about links between PETA and PCRM that I couldn't really make much sense off. I guess I just don't speak the "conspiracy theorists" language. So I didn't really touch that. Yay and I had problem with the references, I'm gonna do an help call now and see if I can fix that. Finally the last link, about the AMA rescinding their anti-PCRM policy, I couldn't link to that doc directly, it's only a temporary fix and I'll see if I can fix that too. Jean-Philippe 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed the reference section, but I couldn't find a way to link directly to www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc. I've done an helpme about that, I'll see if someone gave me an answer later. Jean-Philippe 03:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Who gutted the criticism section? A lot of people, myself included, consider the PCRM nothing more than an animal rights front group which is used to cynically flog a vegan agenda in the press. The criticism section should reflect that. I wrote a little bit, if someone wants to clean it up, they are welcome but my point should remain.--Rotten 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but our opinion is not notable. If you wish to include that sort of citicism, you need a reliable, attributable source and the criticism needs to be framed in neutral language. Rockpocket 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Editors don't get the priviledge of judging who's an extremist and who's not. It's a loaded term. So we make it clear it's a claim by who's being referenced. That's why the quotes are there and will stay. Jean-Philippe 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
On the topic, "PCRM has also been criticized for not being candid about its anti-meat and anti-dairy agenda [13] and misrepresenting medical studies to promote a vegetarian diet [14].", I took the liberty of removing the first part, as the ACHS reference seemed to focus almost entirely on the Reuter article, while not specificly claiming PCRM as responsible for that omission. It's blurry at best. Did I read the article wrong? Jean-Philippe 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, you didn't read it wrong, but it is valid criticism, so it should remain. --SpinyNorman 06:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- If I did read this correctly, then the blame is leveraged at Reuter, not PCRM. Anyway, weither it is valid or not, the reference isn't a proper source as it doesn't backup said criticism. Also, I didn't removed the mention of research misrepresention, just moved it to policy and expanded on it. I don't see the purpose of duplicating it down in the criticism section. Jean-Philippe 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This diff explain my claim for duplication. [4] I'll give you some time to comment before doing any more reverting. Isn't my little piece of text more accurate and better situated in the flow of that article? Jean-Philippe 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry... my bad. I got the article numbers confused. You're right, there's no reason to duplicate the same link in two sections. However, I would like to keep the reference to them not being candid about their POV. In one sense, you're right that Reuters had an independent responsibility to report the bias but that doesn't relieve the PCRM of their own responsibility to be clear about their agenda. --SpinyNorman 07:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
I'm putting back in: " PCRM has also been criticized for misrepresenting medical studies to promote a vegetarian diet." Because that aspect should to be mentioned on the site. It's in the ActivistCash section as it's included in that criticism.--Rotten 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Already discussed, read above and look at the diffs. As for your mentioning CCF having a bone to pick with the PCRM it's also already covered. Please revert yourself unless you have something else to add. Jean-Philippe 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think this specific charge should be in there, for example the PCRM attacks low carb diets in a way that many find less than truthful. I feel that the fact that there has been criticism that they misrepresent medical studies is an important one.--Rotten 16:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've repeated myself too much on this talk page, so, hum, look up and read. It's already there is what I'm saying, you know.
- I hope you realize that by using the wikipedia article as a reference (as you've done [5]), you're being quite silly :) Jean-Philippe 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, I meant in that citation. And I don't see where you've mentioned anything about misrepresenting medical studies.--Rotten 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I honestly don't see where you're getting at. "The American Council on Science and Health is critical of PCRM's nutritional policies, saying that the group emphasize and exaggerate the reliability of certain research, to further an animal rights agenda.". If it isn't obvious enough by the above discussion this is what I rewrote the sentence to. I used the original source. Jean-Philippe 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they are different groups alleging simliar things, if you want to eliminate one, I suppose you can.--Rotten 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I honestly don't see where you're getting at. "The American Council on Science and Health is critical of PCRM's nutritional policies, saying that the group emphasize and exaggerate the reliability of certain research, to further an animal rights agenda.". If it isn't obvious enough by the above discussion this is what I rewrote the sentence to. I used the original source. Jean-Philippe 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, I meant in that citation. And I don't see where you've mentioned anything about misrepresenting medical studies.--Rotten 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
