Talk:George D. Lundberg

Why no mention of his controversial firing from JAMA?
His being let go from JAMA was very controversial at the time. A number of people disagreed with the arguments used to justify his firing, namely that publishing a study on the varying definitions of “had sex” right around the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal amounted to dragging JAMA into the political debate inappropriately and that the study was outside the proper scope of JAMA. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been added to the article. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha, so the process continues if anyone dares to suggest that the current orthodoxy may be wrong, then your job is to try to ruin their reputation. Nice One.Congratulations for confirming everything I already thought about the policicization of wiki editng. Those who set up wiki would be turning in their graves to discover the extent to which it is now failing its remit.

All from some faceless guy who appears to be able to hide behind anonimity. Shocking truly shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandazz100 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to ruin his reputation. He was fired from editing the Journal of the American Medical Association because he wrote a controversial article about oral sex. I merely added mention of this to his article, as it was a notable event in his career. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Amandazz100
can you explain why you are repeatedly trying to add a link to Malcolm Kendrick's blog? . It is nothing more than link spam. George D. Lundberg has had a long career and holds a diversity of opinions and has cited many different researchers on different occasions, there is no reason why a single mention of Kendrick's blog in a Medscape article he wrote needs to be mentioned on his Wikipedia biography. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Because you asked for references to Mr Kendrick from reputable figures. Mr Lundberg is a reputable figure.

Your repeated attempts to remove Dr Kendrick speak to your own biases. Please make clear who you are and who you represent.


 * Your removal of my comment on Dr Lundbergs page speaks to your bias. It is fully in accordance with the concepts of Wiki. It clearly updates a statement which is 20 years out of date and is itself completely accurate referencing Dr Lundberg’s own views as of 2018.


 * I note that my references to diabetes as a reversible condition controlled by a low calorie, low carb or ketogenic diet, complete with medical references and the statement that this has been adopted by the UK NHS has also been removed.    Why do you want to prevent readers of wiki finding out that there condition is reversible?  It is the fastest growing disease state in the world and it can be controlled simply through food for which there is abundant  scientific evidence and thousands of individual successes.


 * What right do you have to impose your own ideas on this science?  What qualifications do you possess to opine on this subject and how is that more significant than my own when I also have actual evidence of reversal of T2 diabetes ?


 * Many will no longer subscribe funds to Wikipedia as a rest of your actions, including myself. Indeed  a twitter campaign is about to be launched to achieve precisely that.


 * Thousands of people who have reversed diabetes, lost weight and improved metabolic health who also support the writings of Dr Kendrick among many others, will join that campaign because if Wiki is  not capable of allowing other views than the mainstream to have air space then it is no longer relevant and as such it should be allowed to wither and die.


 * If wiki is so far under the influence of the processed food and pharmaceutical industries that you are prepared to condone people losing limbs, eyesight and lives in preference to finding out that there are three specific nutritional treatments that work to control diabetes as adopted by reputable government agencies  then it can no longer hold itself out as a source of information on any subject.


 * I for one will ensure that every single person I know, knows that to support wiki is to support killing people by omission.   I along with others will actively campaign to make sure that if you follow any  of the  medical members of the low carb / keto community, or have experienced any health benefits from either that or a Very Low Calorie diet then Wiki is  actively working against you in trying to help other members of the public recover their health.  Shame on you.


 * The information Dr Kendrick makes available is the same information many of us are using to resolve our metabolic problems, he does so in a clear concise way and is followed by many members of the public including myself  and Dr Lundberg ( I have contacted him directly to discuss this as Dr Lundberg himself has made clear his current views in the article I reference which shows wiki is at least 20 years out of date.  )  I should point out that my own knowledge includes two years full time research into nutrition,  lipids and health and that as part of that I have both improved my own health and lipid profile  to an excellent position. Nothing Dr Kendrick has stated in public is “ quackery” in that context.


 * Wiki will lose a substantial source of its funding if it continues to assume that it somehow knows more about science and the reputations of those involved treating metabolic disorders of which  Dr Kendrick is  a well respected such doctor providing clear and concise information that one of the most respected medical editors of our time chose to reference.
 * Lundbergs’ own wiki page states a position which is now 20 years old and has been overtaken by his recent pronouncements which I have correctly referenced as he is a notable figure and he himself has referred to Dr Kendrick writing as the best he has seen on the subject.


 * I don’t know who is paying wiki to ensure that the news about the links between metabolic disorders, lipid disorders and nutrition is not understood by the general public, but in the end Wikipedia will find itself irrelevant if it decides it has a right to close debate including this one, the most important problem for global health.   It does not.    Your recent actions will backfire on Wikipedia whoever you yourself purport to be.


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource updated by knowledgeable members of the public. I am such a member of the public Your actions are inappropriate.
 * Please refer me to whatever the process is to make an appeal against your unreasonable  and inappropriate  non evidence based deletions.


 * I do not appear to have been notified of your deletion of my entry to the diabetes page. So I will refer that here as well.


 * This is the deleted entry


 * In 2018, increasing evidence has shown that T2 Diabetes can be reversed or controlled  with a resulting  reduction in diabetic complications  . Individuals  have been shown to be able to record non diabetic HbA1c through adapting their nutrition in one of three ways
 * a ) low carbohydrate diets   https://diabetes.jmir.org/2018/3/e12/
 * b) very low calorie diets https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext
 * and c) ketogenic diets.
 * Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, Williams P, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at One Year: An Open Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Diabetes Therapy. 2018; 9(2): 583-612. doi: 10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9
 * These methods are increasingly being trialed by heath organisations including the National Health Service in the UK    Low Carbohydrate      https://diabetestimes.co.uk/nhs-green-light-for-low-carb-programme/
 * Low calorie https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-12-calorie-diets-trialled-nhs-tackle.html
 * For T1 diabetes
 * New research published in the journal PEDIATRICS reveal the power of a very low carbohydrate diet to normalize blood sugars for t1 diabetics of all ages.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/6/e20173349


 * Please advise th grounds for this deletion . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandazz100 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

,, , etc this is another conspiracy theorist from Malcolm Kendrick's blog, also spamming the Diabetes mellitus article. I am too tired to deal with this. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please explain how updating the positve news on diabetes reversal is in any way " spamming" - you have no right to determine that 3 references to science plus the change in position of the NHS is "spam"  Nor does it actually have anything to do with either this article or your deletion of Dr Kendrick.


 * By what right do you have to determine that your views are better than an entrie body of scientific evidence?


 * As reagrd George Lundberg similar " notable event "  was his statement regarding Big Pharma aetc which I have referenced - what gives you the right to add information  which is scurriclous regarding a living member in preference  to any other event in a notable career?  It is clear that you have included this statement in retaliation for me updating his views on nutrition . This is clearly biased editing  not befitting of any pretensions to unbiased editing.  The actual submission came months ago regarding  the event question came in May, but you choose to update it today?   That is pathetic.


 * Whoever you are, you are not worthy of being an editor of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandazz100 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No one's going to read all that, but regarding the edit I'd just say that blogs are not reliable sources. Brad  v 🍁 19:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my above comment, I've removed two sentences from the article which were not supported by third-party reliable sources. Are there better sources for these statements? Remember, we depend on information written about the subject, not information written by the subject.  Brad  v 🍁 20:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs are reliable sources for some things, and not reliable sources for other things. (Generally, a blog is a reliable source for a statement about what the blog author said, rather than for a statement about whether the blog author is correct.)  You may be interested in reading the item in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ that begins, "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?"
 * In the instant case, the Kendrick and Taubes citations are "reliable" but not "necessary". The sentence in question says that Lundberg criticized industry, and cited Taubes and Kendrick for his claims.  In terms of a verifiability analysis, this is citing your source's citations in addition to your source.  This is okay.  In fact, it's even typical for certain kinds of statements, such as "Alice Expert says that the first mention of X in the scientific literature is a paper by Bob".  In such cases, you may, and many editors choose to, cite both Alice's paper and Bob's original paper for that statement, in case any reader wanted to find Bob's original paper.  But it's also not mandatory:  you could say that Lundberg criticized the industry and leave off the rest.  Both approaches are acceptable.
 * What's probably not acceptable is writing an article about a scientific writer and editor, and leaving out information about important (or notorious) views held by that person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

First proposed addition to Lundberg article
After the introductory sentence, I propose replacing the existing text with a different introduction (and after this is hopefully approved, I will propose adding other sections such as Education, Work, etc.). The old text (which, as you can see, is incorporated into the proposed new text) is: "For seventeen years, Lundberg served as editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). In 1999, Lundberg was fired from this position after attempting to publish a controversial article on how college students define oral sex. The article coincided with President Clinton's impeachment trial.[2] Executives from the American Medical Association stated that the article had nothing to do with medicine and it jeopardized the high standard of the journal.[3] Lundberg from February 1999 to January 2009, was the editor of Medscape.[4] He currently serves as an editor-at-large for the site.[5]"

The proposed new text to go in place of the existing text, which now includes additional reliable documentation, would read as follows (please note again that (a) I am NOT eliminating the existing text but only expanding upon it, and (b) I have changed existing wording very slightly to reflect that the controversial article was not ATTEMPTED to be published but that it actually WAS published, including a link to the article itself):

PROPOSED NEW TEXT:


 * [NOTE: First sentence with GDL’s name etc. is okay as is.]***

For seventeen years, from 1982 to 1999, Lundberg served as editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), followed by a decade (February 1999 to January 2009) as editor in chief of Medscape [1], where he has served as editor at large for the site since 2013 [2]. Lundberg is currently president and chair of the Lundberg Institute, which presents annual lectures in collaboration with the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco [3]. Lundberg was elected to the National Academy of Medicine in 1992 [4]. In 1999 Lundberg was fired from his position at JAMA after publishing a controversial article [5] on how college students define oral sex. The article coincided with President Clinton's impeachment trial [6]. Executives from the American Medical Association stated that the article had nothing to do with medicine and that it jeopardized the high standard of the journal [7]. Lundberg’s work has comprised four phases: (1) Government service (US Army, LTC, Vietnam Era, in Los Angeles), (2) Academia (University of Southern California and University of California, Davis), (3) Not-for-profit publishing (American Medical Association), and (4) For-profit and not-for-profit sectors, including Medscape from WebMD [8]. These venues also have included MedPage Today from Everyday Health [9]; CollabRx (chief medical officer and editor in chief) [10]; Self Care Catalysts [11]; Cancer Commons (editor in chief) [12]; Cureus (executive advisor) [13]; the Lundberg Institute (president and board chair); the Curious Dr. George Blog (through the Lundberg Institute, editor in chief) [14]; and PotentiaMetrics [15]. As of 2020, Lundberg continues his work through several of these same venues. He has recently acted as consulting professor of pathology and health research and policy at Stanford University [16], sits on the medical advisory board of Cancer Commons [17] and on the board of visitors at the University of Alabama at Birmingham [18], and is clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine [19]. REFERENCES: 1. Romaine, M; Zatz, S; Brown, K; Lundberg, GD (2009). "So long but not farewell: The Medscape Journal of Medicine (1999-2009)". Medscape Journal of Medicine. 11 (1): 33. PMID 19295954. Retrieved February 21, 2009. 2. "George D. Lundberg, MD". Medscape. Retrieved December 08, 2018. 3. “The Lundberg Institute”. Retrieved November 19, 2019. 4. Northwestern University (2020). Feinberg School of Medicine: Notable Faculty and Alumni: National Academy of Medicine. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 5. Sanders, SA; Reinisch, JM (1999, January 20). “Would You Say You ‘Had Sex’ If … ?” JAMA. 281 (3): 275–7. doi:10.1001/jama.281.3.275. Retrieved March 27, 2020. 6. "Editor Fired Over Sex Article". CBS News. Retrieved December 08, 2018. 7. "Health Editor fired over oral sex story". BBC News. Retrieved December 08, 2018. 8. "George David Lundberg, M.D.". Retrieved December 08, 2018. 9. PRNewswire (2010, March 1). “George Lundberg, MD, Joins MedPage Today as Editor-at-Large”. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 10. BioSpace (2013, September 4). “CollabRx, Inc. Appoints George Lundberg, M.D., as Chief Medical Officer”. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 11. Self Care Catalysts (2018, February 15). “Self Care Catalysts Appoints Dr. George D. Lundberg as Its Chief Medical Officer and Chair of Medical & Scientific Advisors”. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 12. Cancer Commons (2020). Team. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 13. Cureus (2020). “George D. Lundberg”. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 14. “The Lundberg Institute”. Retrieved November 19, 2019. 15. PotentiaMetrics (2020). Our Team. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 16. “The Online Medicine Man”. College News, University of Alabama College of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved July 29, 2019. 17. Cancer Commons (2020). Team. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 18. The University of Alabama at Birmingham (2020). Board of Visitors. Retrieved April 17, 2020. 19. Northwestern University (2020). Feinberg School of Medicine: Notable Faculty and Alumni: National Academy of Medicine. Retrieved April 17, 2020.

Debora Holmes (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Requesting comments on the above, please and thank you! Debora Holmes (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the template has to be posted like this: [now moved to top]. TSventon (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is a backlog of requested edits, so I have a couple of suggestions:
 * First, the reviewer will need the website addresses for your new references. I suggest putting them into cite web format by copying the wikicode of the example below. There is more detail at Template:Cite web.
 * 4.
 * Second, I think the introduction is far too detailed, compared with articles about other JAMA editors like Catherine D. DeAngelis and Morris Fishbein. You could use it as a career section and write a new introduction of about three sentences which summarise the main article. The introduction does not need references for information referenced in the body of the article. TSventon (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)