Talk:Gideon Koren

2006 Vandalism
suspected repeated vandalism deleted Ciche 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no previous familiarity with the subject of this article, but how, precisely, is information from reliable sources vandalism? The sources here appear to meet WP:BLP and the information should stay. JChap2007 03:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be right. It just seems that this slants the treatment, perhaps intentionally judging from the large bold text. I remember this issue in the media and think that Wikipedia is not the place to play out possible vendettas. See for example for different points of view and many parts to the affair over many years. The way these references to it were selected in isolation suggests maliciousness I think. Perhaps you don't agree? Ciche 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the history of the page and understand your concerns. However, this seems to be an important event in the life of the subject and should be discussed.  Perhaps you would like to try your hand at a more balanced treatment? JChap2007 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This material is disputed and we should try to arrive at a more balanced version before inserting. JChap2007 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it and try to contribute along the lines you suggest. Thanks for taking a close look at the history and understanding what struck me. Ciche 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The material is certainly not disputed. His supporters here at Wikkipedia really have only two choices, 1. to withdraw the biography here entirely or 2. to accept a balanced documentation of the reality. 207.61.84.162
 * No, there is a third alternative. To discuss what would constitute balanced coverage of the matter on the talk page.  This is much better than edit warring, no? JChap2007 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[I have restored chronological order to the 2009 discussion (now below) as best I could. It was a mess, with deletions and comments inserted both above and below others.Ciche (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Repeated edit reverts January 2009
disputed material removed and copied to Talk until more balanced and better referenced treatment is written: [content by Springatlast mentioned in this comment by Ciche from early January 2009 was deleted by another user including signature]

Controversial Behaviour as inserted by Paul Burns - unsigned
Gideon Koren was investigated and reprimanded after he admitted sending hostile anonymous letters denigrating a colleague, Dr Nancy Olivieri. He denied authorship until his DNA was found on the correspondence. Both the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children reprimanded Dr Koren. However, a 2001 report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) noted: "When the institutions eventually imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, these were limited, even though the presidents of the University and the Hospital found that his actions “…constitute gross misconduct and provide sufficient grounds for dismissal." (Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto and Apotex Inc., page 268). The CAUT report also found: " Dr. Koren violated accepted standards of conduct in regard to publication in biomedical journals, when he published an article in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in 1999 on Apotex’s drug L1 without disclosing the company’s financial support for his research, without acknowledging the contributions of Dr. Olivieri and others to generating the data he used or giving them an opportunity to review or participate in the publication, and without noting previous publications on risks of the drug. " (page 36)

Controversy secetion as revised by Springatlast after it had been reverted twice
Viewpoints have altered over time with regard to the dispute mentioned above. The complex nature of the issues involved was brought to light in a 2005 piece by Jonathon Gatehouse in Maclean's Magazineref Gatehouse, Jonathon, Maclean’s Magazine, Toronto, May 4, 2005. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255, which takes "a hard look at the celebrated whistleblower" who was dangerously put "up on a pedestal". At the time, following her actions, Gideon Koren was investigated and reprimanded by the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children after he admitted sending hostile anonymous letters at the height of the dispute. A 2001 report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) noted: "When the institutions eventually imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, these were limited, even though the presidents of the University and the Hospital found that his actions '…constitute gross misconduct and provide sufficient grounds for dismissal.'" ref Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto and Apotex Inc., page 268).  The CAUT report found that " Dr. Koren violated accepted standards of conduct in regard to publication in biomedical journals, when he published an article in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in 1999 on Apotex’s drug L1 without disclosing the company’s financial support for his research, without acknowledging the contributions of [the "whistleblower" and others] to generating the data he used or giving them an opportunity to review or participate in the publication, and without noting previous publications on risks of the drug."(page 36)  A balanced view of the dispute would also require the perspective of later sources with regard to the efficacy of the drug and the behavior of the "whistleblower", as mentioned in Maclean's and The Drug Trial by Miriam Shuchman, published by Random House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciche (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Paul Burns 10.1.09 (Wendwell)on Changes Made by Springatlast
The Mclean's article cited is partial. It is largely a review of and dependent on the views in the book The Drug Trial by Miriam Schuchman. The article author does not use any comments from Olivieri or her supporters. The British Medical Journal panned The Drug Trial, saying, "It is disappointing that Shuchman's book hardly touches on these issues. Instead, it retells the story from a worm's eye view, dwelling on the personalities of the people involved, what they said about each other, who was sleeping with whom, and the tricks they got up to blacken each other's reputations." (Christopher Martyn BMJ.2005; 331: 115)

Professor Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba has written about Shuchman's book. (Bioethics, Vol. 21 (2) 2007, pp 111-115). He concluded, "I was repeatedly struck by how often Shuchman's account of events is contradicted by the findings of a series of independent inquiries - all public documents, all easily obtainable. Almost all of the anti-Olivieri "revelations" presented in Shuchman's book are warmed-over versions of allegations already disproven by one or more of these impartial inquiries, and the others are undocumented hearsay."

David Healey in the Monash Ethics Review also cast doubts on The Drug Trial. (Vol. 24, No 4, 2005 – available at http://www.healyprozac.com/AcademicStalking/Post%201%20-%20The%20Drug%20Trial.pdf ) “Having investigated the Olivieri case, long before this book came out, I can say that there are lots of similar background events in this case that just do not feature in The Drug Trial. I can also say that again and again, the specific details outlined in this book seem to me simply wrong.”

The Wiki entry in question is about Gideon Koren. Biographical entries do not exist for PR purposes. I mentioned Olivieri because she was a recipient of the hate mail sent by Koren and CAUT found other behaviour by Koren that involved Olivieri that fell well short of the mark. It is not reasonable or fair to relay innuendoes about Olivieri in Wikipedia without citing credible sources. My name is here for all to see. I have no connections with either Koren or Olivieri. I invite others, especially those who edit my copy, to make known their names and any connections with Koren or institutions and companies that he is associated with.

I would welcome the referral of our different views to an independent mediator. Paul Burns


 * Since I'm the most recent to revert your edit, I'll reply: I have no connection to any of these entities. As far as your concerns stated above: Feel free to add any well-referenced information you would like, so long as that information is properly cited per WP:BLP --Uncle Milty (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad the discussion I intended is now taking place. I moved Springatlast's version to this space because I thought it was an improvement on the previous version but that more sources needed to be added to reach an appropriate biography of a living person, which takes care not to be libelous. The user who repeatedly reverted to his own version and now has the user name Wendwell seemed to be vandalizing by not letting any edits of his work stand. About the Random House book, I see that there are many differing reviews. Are we here to trade quotes and edit-war? All sources have their bias, I suppose. CAUT, the only source the UK user had in his original entry, is a teachers' union if I understand correctly, and therefore might be biased towards its members, too.  In general, the issue seems not simple at all. Wendwell can edit and offer more sources, as can all Wikipedia users.Ciche (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Paul Burns (Wendwell) 11.1.09 on the Charges of Vandalism & Vindictiveness
Firstly, my apologies if I have not followed correctly Wikipedia’s protocols. Last time I was involved in Wikipedia I left it to others to complete the task because I felt lost in this part of the Internet. I still struggle with some aspects.

The changes I made today to the entry for Gideon Koren are token. I intend to revert to my original entry if the comments made here are not responded to. I have waited over 24 hours for Springatlast to respond to the comments I last posted here, after he accused me of vandalising the entry.

Firstly, let me explain how my interest in Gideon Koren started. As an UK Organization Consultant I was asked by a local authority to investigate a number of allegations made in anonymous letters. I had conducted enquiries into open accusations and mediated disputes but poison pen letters were new to me. I accepted the work assuming I would find resources to help me. To my discomfort I found nothing directly relevant to anonymous allegations. After completing the assignment, with my wife / business partner, I researched and wrote guidance for organizations dealing with such issues. While researching in 2003 for “Poison Pen or Positive Protest” (available at www.wendwell.co.uk/Resources2.htm), I came across the Koren case.

I have had no personal dealings with Dr Koren or any of the other people involved in the disputes in Toronto that led to the CAUT investigation. In April of last year my detached retina was saved by the skill of an eye surgeon and the pioneers of eye surgery. My point is, I have every reason to be grateful to those who dedicate their lives to medical research and practice. However, I also expect high standards from any professional. Ciche and Springatlast remain anonymous. I hope I have made clear I am not partisan but as yet neither of these contributors has declared disinterest.

Last week I looked up Dr Koren and found a Wikipedia entry that might have been assembled by a PR agent. There was no mention of controversial behaviour despite the following at least being beyond dispute. 1.Dr Koren sent anonymous hate mail. 2. Dr Koren denied sending such hate mail until confronted with DNA evidence. 3. Dr. Koren violated accepted standards of conduct in regard to publication in biomedical journals.

If I was considering seeing or using a professional found by a credible body to have done one or more of these things, I would want Wikipedia or any other reliable source to mention them.

To date, no one has presented evidence or even claimed that these are not facts. Springatlast refered to the complex nature of events. However, complexity does not excuse hate mail, lying or failure to follow accepted standards in publishing. Nor is there justification in the suggestion that others made mistakes at around the same time. Having investigated disputes, I would be surprised if there was not another side to the story. But the story and other people are not the issue. Dr Koren is responsible for his actions and the entry I amended is about Gideon Koren.

I am not in position to say whether Dr Koren believed he acted in the best interests of patients in regard to actions 1-3 but even if he did, his behaviour still breaches academic and professional standards.

Ciche accused me of being vindictive in adding my section on Controversial Behaviour but I am not seeking revenge. I come to this simply as an outsider who finds Gideon Koren’s entry lacking. His behaviour was unacceptable, even appalling, but I moderated this by saying it was controversial. My heading “Controversial Behaviour” was watered by Springatlast down to the “Controversy”. No reason was given for this amendment.

I have studied the Wikipedia guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. If others think that I have breached this, please specify where you think I have strayed.


 * Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment.  If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!


 * I believe that if you look closely you will see that the words "maliciousness" and "vendetta" appear in a talk posting here dated from 2006 (not in the present context). Perhaps "vindictive" was used then. I do not recall using it now. Another Wikipedia editor intervened, as well, to assist in maintaining a neutral point of view at that time. Thank you, Uncle Milty, for your assistance. I think we should proceed carefully. I will continue to examine relevant material. Perhaps we will achieve suitable proportions and perspective for this biographical entry. We can try. Ciche (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow - what's all the yelling about?
 * I left 99.99% of Wendwell's changes in tact - super for Wikipedia. Springatlast (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Springatlast, I note that you still hide your identity, have a strange take on percentages, and have not answered any specific points. I am yelling, as you put it, because you raised the charge of vandalism. If you cannot substantiate your accusation or refute my evidence, then please do not amend my copy.

My apologies to Ciche. I realise now that the comments you made were about an earlier amender. However, you still radcially changed copy without providing the evidence that Wkipedia expects. Again, you have not stated whether you have any connection with Dr Koren. Paul Burns 12.1.09


 * Your apology accepted, Wendwell/Paul. Addressing your requests: Several days ago, I explained briefly but accurately below why I judiciously moved to this discussion section Springatlast's edit, within which much of your copy was preserved. We may all amend copy. I know you understand that authorship is not proprietary here. I proceed from a position of good will, as I believe you do from the apparent sincerity of your comments. I believe that a biographical entry that entirely isolates controversial actions from their contexts is hollow, hardly useful and possibly defamatory, too, by implying a narrative that may be far from what actually took place years ago. Again, I will seek material to try to avoid tendentious reporting that isolates any past item in this manner. This is what interests me. Because you ask again and again, I will repeat that I indeed thought Springatlast did a reasonable but not good enough job of expanding and revising your work here. This is my opinion. Although I need not give you any personal information (you may give yours, of course, if you like), I will say to you that my connection is that I am all too familiar with the destruction that misuse of the media, of words, can cause to people who are too busy doing good works to take control of the blitz others create. That's my slant on this entry. I respect yours. Ciche (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am writing in support of the changes made by Paul. All of them are both factually correct and salient. The facts are all a matter of public record. Without them, readers will have an imbalanced and seriously incomplete picture of the controversial nature of Dr. Koren's scientific contributions and his scientific demeanours. For the latter, he has suffered serious discpline by his hospital (Sick Kids, in Toronto), his university (U of T) and his profession (The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario). Grabbist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabbist (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Grabbist, welcome to Wikipedia. Paul/Wendwell quoted that the discipline was "limited". (His citation can still be found in the present entry.) I understand this to mean that among the aspects we must consider in ascertaining as complete a picture as possible is the fact that they limited it. In general, though, I'm afraid all these extrapolations of ours are beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Ciche (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As no one has pointed out where I have erred in terms of fact or from Wikipedia's code, I have more or less reinstated the section that I first created. I have added a second reputable source and therefore I am even more confident that there will be no grounds for defamation. The second body takes a different view on the issue of publication and I am happy to point this out. I still struggle with the insertions of URLs but everything is referenced. If anyone is going to make amendments, please have the courtesy to provide equally good sources. I will keep an eye on this entry and will not allow it to act merely as a PR platform. That is not what Wikipedia exists for. Paul Burns PB (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Balance - response to Wendwell/PB/Paul Burns/ 128.189.133.146 / 86.160.119.55 and Grabbist:
To Wendwell/PB/Paul Burns/ 128.189.133.146/ 86.160.119.55: I will respond to a small part of your large posting on this biography with my opinion and amendments once I have had a chance to study your entire contribution thoroughly. One initial response is that the expanse of new material you have written may appear obsessive in that it is out of proportion, also including extensive citations from limited sources, within a biographical entry. I will do the best I can to deal with some of the particulars later. For now, I want to focus on a subject that I hope you will finally work out for yourself. Despite your protests, I'm sure you are able to understand the clear, standard directions above and can click on the link provided there in order to advance the discussion in the proper order, as is customarily requested on discussion pages, with new postings at the bottom. It's simple to do this and not force others to always have to "one-up" you as you insist on posting above them time and again. By creating this pattern of oneupmanship, it is as if you force participants to "bully you back", pushing your post down each time. I have tried and tried to put this discussion, which began some time ago, before you entered, back into the order it was originally posted. How can anyone join in if they can't make head or tails of what's transpired? I would rather give my attention to substance from here on. I would also like to request that you consistently sign with four tildes at the end of your posts, which you understand is also expected, although anyone might innocently forget to do this on occasion. Still, it is a simple, courteous, helpful, orderly approach, which I hope you will now finally decide to adopt as we continue this discussion. Your Wikipedia skills do indeed seem adequate. I address this request to Grabbist, as well. I am posting this UNDER your posting signed PB and will also enter it at the bottom of the discussion under a new heading in the hope that you will follow suit. Ciche (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PB: FYI - As I began considering your contribution of extensive quoted material, I formatted your references. Ciche (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have amended your opening statement to correspond with the source you cite. Ciche (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputing weight and presentation of quoted material
Here is Springatlast's most recent version that was again just totally replaced by Wendwell's. I have mentioned before that I thought this version was at least an attempt, too "creative" perhaps, but sourced nonetheless, to take Wendwell's lengthy quotations out of isolation.

Although Wendwell, in the section signed by PB up above, wrote that no one has disputed him, I did indeed offer my opinion that his isolated, non-contextual presentation implied a narrative that was defamatory to the living subject. I also addressed the possible bias of CAUT. Wendwell/PB/Paul Burn's current version seems slightly more balanced with regard to this, with the addition of quoted opinions within the two sources he cites, but it is still quite isolated from context and therefore tendentious, and weighted heavily in proportion to the biography. I sense that we need to be careful, especially as I now understand from the mention of "sides" just how "hot" this dispute continues to be.

I have corrected Wendwell's section's opening statement, which contained a generalization that could be defamatory (showing the subject in a generalized false light -- in writing and therefore perhaps also libelous), especially because it was not supported by the sources Wendwell quotes. I hope this helps with NPOV.

Springatlast wrote:

"The complex nature of the issues involved in the above mentioned dispute was brought to light in a 2005 piece by Jonathon Gatehouse in Maclean's Magazine(ref: Gatehouse, Jonathon, Maclean’s Magazine, Toronto, May 4, 2005. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255), which takes "a hard look at the celebrated whistleblower" who may have been dangerously put "up on a pedestal". At the time, following her actions, Koren was investigated and reprimanded by the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children after he admitted sending hostile anonymous letters at the height of the dispute. [Here, in addition to much of Wendell's wording above, Springatlast kept Wendwell's quotations, which he followed by:] A balanced view of the controversial dispute, however, would also require the perspectives of other respected academic and scientific bodies and the wisdom of later sources with regard to the efficacy of the drug and the behavior of the "whistleblower", as mentioned in the Maclean's article cited above and in the 2005 book, The Drug Trial, by Miriam Shuchman, published by Random House )ref:(ISBN 0679310843) http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Trial-Olivieri-Hospital-Children/dp/0679310843.)."

Again, this was Springatlast's most recent version taken from the history of this entry as an example. I support a similar, but less creative, better sourced contextual version of this sub-topic. I hope that we can reach this without edit warring. It seems to me, quite simply, that totally wiping out contributions is not always the best way to go. I'll cautiously try to revise a little more along these lines. Ciche (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments posted by 128.189.133.146 have been moved to own section below to try for correct order of discussion, to allow responses. Ciche (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

comments posted by 128.189.133.146 moved here to allow responses
I have huge problems with this article. I'm not very good with wikipedia and find it difficult to format my post so please bear with me. That said, I'll number them off:

1. "He had a role in a controversial hospital dispute [7], and later that year on the basis of his outstanding medical and academic achievements was awarded the endowed Ivey Chair in Molecular Toxicology at the Schulich School of Medicine at The University of Western Ontario. "

This sounds extremely biased. On the one hand, harassing coworkers, destroying evidence, and lying to the authorities has been rendered "a role in a controversial hospital dispute". And then on the other, to build his character back up he "later that year on the basis of his OUTSTANDING MEDICAL AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS WAS AWARDED THE ENDOWED..."? Why don't you state what the evidence shows and what he's admitted to?

2. Macleans blurb

Dr. Koren's involvement in the Olivieri case was known well before the 2005 article in Macleans, but this blurb implies that it's not. In addition, why rely so heavily on a Maclean's article? Why not rely on what the Olivieri Report states? Or on what the University of Toronto stated (since, as this article vehemently points out, he's still a faculty member there).

3. External links

Why do the external links include a "Canadian Who's Who" from 1997 before these allegations occurred? Why is the only URL outsourcing which mentions Dr. Gideons inappropriate behavior to the Maclean's article? If you type Dr. Gideon and Olivieri into Google, more than 2000 hits come up. Why can't we allow the reader to read from both sides?

4. "Dr. Gideon in the Arts"

How is this relevant? Again, as far as I can tell, all this does is build up his character. This sounds like good PR, and it takes up roughly 1/3 of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is someone who works for Dr. Koren, a family member, or he himself working on this page? I'm troubled by the extraordinary lack of objectivity. I don't have a problem with including a bit of the Maclean's article, but this entire page sounds totally subjected to the one side. I'm going to keep tabs on this page, and do whatever I can to see that it shows both sides equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both sides? Ciche (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The side which tends to term Dr. Koren's behavior as "a role in a controversial dispute", and the side which tends to term it with more abrasive terminology.


 * What a difference a day makes! This is already starting to look a lot better then it did yesterday, having said that, the way this article is organized troubles me. Why need we structure it so that his biography and professional accomplishments are stripped apart? Why no mention of the controversy in his introduction? The Olivieri case garnered international news headlines, and even Nature published on Dr. Koren in association with the dispute.


 * That said, more background information on the Nancy Olivieri case in general needs to be written in as context for Dr. Koren's erratic behavior during the controversy. Also, can someone please justify to me the section on his dedication to the arts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability -- apparently, from his sourced credits, no less notable in the "arts" than in the other portions of this interesting biography of a notable person, I would say.


 * I'm glad you approve of most of the editing I've done this evening to put some order in this entry. I do disagree with your opening of the biography of a notable person with one specific incident cited in the article, such as the Nancy Olivieri scandal, regardless of past press attention. I will try to revise this and put the information in the appropriate section.  Otherwise, this risks becoming about her, and although that issue did make the news, we see coverage of Dr. Koren's research in the international media relatively frequently. I would not put all of these items in the opening, regardless of how very important many of them seem to be to the public. Why open with the 10 year old Olivieri case -- for the questionable media value? For headlines? There is a place for the issue here, but not as "headline".


 * In addition, since the drug is apparently no longer frowned on in some places, who knows what the truth is or was. Is this for us to decide? In the meantime, while we can cite much documentation pro and con, etc., if we can't present a true picture of the controversy we can at least formulate the biographical entry in a way that does as little harm as possible to all of them. I hope our job is to present a balanced biography of the subject, not an exhaustive report of an old scandal. That doesn't seem to be the point. Ciche (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What a difference a week makes! You folks will sort out your controversy, I bet. I found lots of sources on him. He makes local and worldwide press with his research work a lot. I found even more research he's done. I was reading up above here. I don't want to make a mess, but I don't know how you could glom the biography and the professional stuff together? Springatlast (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The added material about research achievments is interesting and, I believe, relevant to the notability factor I was discussing above, as well.
 * It needs a little copyediting, which I will try to do, and maybe some internal links would add to the depth of the entry. I do believe that the formatting could be better. Before I attempt to improve section formatting, however, I will give serious thought to further refining the organization of the entry as a whole.
 * Combining major sections may not be the answer. Ciche (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the end, I did try a little more rearranging of internal sections, in addition to a small copyedit and internal links. Together with everyone else's contributions and suggestions these past few weeks, this seems to be another major step towards a coherent entry. Ciche (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to "In addition, since the drug is apparently no longer frowned on in some places, who knows what the truth is or was. Is this for us to decide?". I'm not of the belief that this article should be about the Olivieri case. My emphasis is on the fact that Dr. Gideon's conduct during that controversy was inarguably abhorrent, irregardless of how you feel about what else went on. One truth that I know of which was proven with DNA evidence is that Dr. Koren wrote hate mail to colleagues slamming Olivieri, and lied about it frequently. I still believe that while this article should highlight his research accomplishments, if his incredible array of servitude to the arts warrants a blurb in the introduction, so too do his actions during the Olivieri case.

I think we really do need to separate what the arguments in the Olivieri case are about, especially since there's a tendency to reference a particular Macleans article. There IS debate over efficacy of the drug, whether it should be banned in Canada or not, and whether Olivieri did anything wrong - although her name has been completely absolved. There is NOT debate over what Dr. Koren did, and whether or not it was wrong. It most certainly was, irrespective of what beliefs one might have about Apotex, the thalassemia drug, etc.

With that in mind, I'm going to edit with this in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that the sources cited show that Dr. Koren's songs have won many national awards and are widely known to the public. These are achievements worthy of note that have spanned decades. Your "servitude to the arts" may not be fitting.


 * For the sake of accuracy, regarding your repeated complaints about the MacLean's article (as if it is an isolated lone source), as I now look back into the edit history of this entry, I see that in reference to the affair, alongside the MacLean's reference (and the book The Drug Trial), there has always been a reference and a live link to the very Committee report that Wendwell and you, 128.189.133.146, felt should be included. That source has indeed already been there for a very long time, long before the current round of comments and editing.


 * Today, the present version of the entry has a large section, disproportionately large in my opinion, about the letters. Although I believe that any editor would expect the extensive quotes to be condensed in this format, I'd prefer not to enter into an editing war over the section. My only fear in leaving this and the introductory general section to you and Wendwell is that even disproportion may be viewed as defamation, which is libel the moment it is put into writing in this format. We are identifiable and responsible for our actions here. I hesitate to be involved where the matter of libel becomes as obvious as it clearly did in the last introductory sentence Wendwell chose for his section, which had to be revised immediately. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the spirit of your remarks. Ciche (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortened
the intro, controversial and arts parts to tighten and balance Springatlast (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the In the Arts section is improved now -- seems less wordy -- but especially because it is chronological and, if I'm not mistaken, therefore easier to follow. Although before it seemed to divide the areas better, i.e. productions for children, popular songs and his band. I wonder, in general, whether there's a third alternative. I'll look at other articles. Ciche (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I had only believed that the part of the article considering the Olivieri Case and Dr. Koren's part in it ought to have been modified when it was dedicated purely to the Maclean's article, which doesn't even mention him. And while the Committee report may very well of always been referenced, it was not included in the article itself. I don't want to beat a dead horse with the Maclean's article, though, and I'll condense that section so that its message remains in tact, but the amount of words that message is conveyed in does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There. I edited the first paragraph, condensing it. I didn't touch the second paragraph, as it quotes Defence Counsel. How are we doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment.  If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!


 * 128.189.133.146, I'm afraid I wasn't able to fully understand either of your comments above -- typos perhaps? Looking at your revisions, I felt one change was needed. By truncating the beginning of the CAUT quote, I was again concerned that we might be entering into a question of "false light". The impression might be left that he actually was dismissed from the Hospital, which he was not. He continues there to this day. It is not enough that the next paragraph refers only to a reprimand and fine at a certain date. Someone might still think other sanctions, i.e. dismissal, were imposed at another time. This was not the case. CAUT went on the record with that statement, from which -- in its complete syntax -- it is clear that the measures taken were indeed limited, regardless of anyone's (theirs, mine, yours) opinion about this. In the truncated form, a wrong impression may be communicated, which could cause damage to the subject of a living biography, which equals libel. In other words, if the quote is to be used at all, the beginning of the sentence is required. As a quick solution, I reinstated the first few words of that quote. In general, however, I'm really not sure what the exact form of this section should be. It seems better than it was before -- before the quotes were shortened somewhat a day or two ago, but there may be a wiser way to present the facts. In any case, I haven't come up with it. In addition, while balancing the references, I fixed the reference you added to Nature so that the link would be live as you intended.  You ask how we are doing. Depends on the we. Ciche (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point. And yes, I know he continues there to this day. Thanks for fixing the Nature reference. Barring some dramatic reversion of this article, I'm done editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.146 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody out there fooled with the MD again. I fixed it. Springatlast (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The biography section setup looks strange. Somebody mentioned this. The big part of his whole life in the arts looks stuck on. Maybe it should be part of his general biography? Two sections - background in medicine and background in the arts. Springatlast (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After looking at other articles, I did try moving the arts career, along these lines, to follow the science career within the biography section, although I'm not sure the section headings are the best possible. Ciche (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed section
I added to existing material to balance POV of disputed section to give overview of surrounding controversy including heading change and NY Times source. Springatlast (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I added more sources for deferiprone dispute and controversy context. Springatlast (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism
I just reverted overall edits by a user who included libelous untruths making all information inserted by this user suspect until verified. It was Dr. Olivieri who was in the pay of Apotex. Look up the actual research information. If I were Dr. Koren, I'd be consulting with authorities and my lawyers to identify this party (at the very least) and proceed with a lawsuit. This is not the first time that this entry has been vandalized as if being used for a vendetta (against a person who is clearly too busy doing good works and science to control his PR) by questionable parties or by users who fall victim to cheap media hype and outdated public mistatements by biased groups. I noticed blatant vandalism to this entry years ago and have watched it since then. As it stands now, the deferiprone controversy section here is way out of proportion. I hope it won't be inflated further with libelous garbage. Ciche (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are hilarious. Are you Koren, his wife, his PR buzz? "...clearly too busy doing good works and science to control his PR?" He sure wasn't too busy to write anonymous letters and to deny them later. Koren does a lot of good and Motherisk is a great tool, but the man's not a saint and treating him like one just becomes comedy.Zhuuu (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You may think I fell victim to my own brand of hype. Sorry, I don't agree. While none of us are saints, this is clearly a prolific, creative individual. Vandalism is annoying and only exposes the weaknesses of the vandals. If I over-defended, so be it. Just trying to be constructive. Ciche (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

==My comments were reverted by Ciche (who clearly is or works for Koren) with the comment "reverted total recent edits by this user because it contains libelous untruths so all must be verified. see discussion page." Here is an example: Among the material was a link to copies of the actual letters sent by Koren, a correct rewording of the position of a former editor of the NEJM as quoted in a university newspaper not in NEJM as the writer implied, a quote from the CPSO reprimand letter, and mention of the CAUT finding confirmed in the CPSO reprimand letter, that Dr. Koren was a paid Apotex employee and failed to mention that conflict of interests in his positive publication supporting the continued use of Deferipone, "Dr. Koren did not disclose that Apotex was the source of a $250,0 00 research grant he received that year, that was listed in his University department’s annual grant listing. Nor did he disclose the subject matter of the research this grant funded."(CAUT report p.32) or the fact that the paper is still on record despite Dr. Koren's assurances that he had already requested it's retraction prior to the 2003 CPSO hearings.(para 12b) That and the fact that Dr Koren is now the editor of the journal in question, Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, so no changes are going to happen in the foreseeable future. Ciche seems to think a review published in the entertainment section of a pop magazine (Macleans) has more weight the 527 page CAUT report.) Instead of reverting entire additions, please follow wiki guidelines and ask for a source. It will be provided with 7 days. pikipiki (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your bias and venom is evident in other areas of Wikipedia. Whether or not you or I are Dr. Koren or Dr. Olivieri or any other interested party is not the point. Your agenda is clear. Looking in the histories, anyone can see which issue has been your pet (ritual circumcision) and why you have a vendetta against Koren. On other discussion pages, you have written libelous untruths about him. You may disagree with his opinions, of course, but your personal campaign against him will not be tolerated here. This is not your soapbox. If your material were to stand unsourced for seven days, he like any other subject of a living biography could sue Wikipedia and you. This entry cannot stay as is with your current sourcing. It is libel, doing damage in writing to a living person. Why you feel the repeated urgent need to act this way within Wikipedia, in general, is another question. You must know that this is not an appropriate place for such vengeful behavior. Anyone who takes a second to search can see that others have complained about your tendencies, Pikipiki, to edit in just this way. In this case, the source you cite, CAUT, is a union that has it's own undeniable bias, and the report is way out of date. Much has come to light since, as reported in the variety of sources that were brought to this entry by myself and others in recent months. It seems to me that if you do not, yourself, edit your own most recent additions, someone else here at Wikipedia will have to do it for you in a suitable manner. I'll come back and have a look soon. Ciche (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, Dr. Koren (Ciche) I'll play your game. First of all please be specific about which other pages I have "written libelous untruths about him." If you do not, you have libeled me. Next, please explain how stating that Dr. Koren is the editor of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring journal is "creative research - unsourced editorializing." It says so on the home page of the journal. That's not documented? That's "creative research"? When I write the 1999 paper that Koren agreed to retract as stated in the Ontario CSPO reprimand chap 12b is still on record uncorrected that's libelous? When I write the paper was the subject of academic misconduct and determined to be skewed because it only contains data up until mid 1995 when Oliveiri began withdrawing patients from treatment, (CAUT report p. 31 & 390) that's dishonest? Or is leaving a medical paper with skewed data on record after promising to remove it - dishonest? When I write "Likewise Koren had not informed the journal of his very serious conflict of interest as an Apotex employee." or his $250,000 grant from Apotex for unspecified purposes that he failed disclose as mentioned on page 32 of the CAUT report. that's "unsourced libelous material"? My link to copies of the anonymous vicious letters that Dr. Koren sent is Libelous? You have a very twisted sense of "balance" that is evident since you sent the letters in the first place. Regarding the one other area in WP where my comments have been challenged, if you look at the history page the person lecturing me has gone on to make all the same corrections that I continually made to keep the page honest with the exception of one very well documented link that he refuses to post. If you care to discuss circumcision or Herpes Simplex Virus we can do that as well. If you look through my history, Ciar and I wrote most of the herpes simplex virus page on WP. Unlike Dr. Koren, who has penned over a thousand medical papers, with only 6 even mentioning the word "herpes", most are on acyclovir toxicity and 2 are attacking ritual circumcision claiming an association with neonatal herpes simplex that Dr. Koren has never written about. (Don't feel bad, the other 21 authors have never written on it either.) Ignoring published Israeli HSV statitistics and published Canadian neonatal HSV statistics Koren and colleagues build a fraudlulent attack against ritual circumcision in their Canadian and Israeli cases based on American HSV statistics. Koren and two of his colleagues at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto go so far as to ignore the neonatal HSV guidelines issued by their own head of pediatric infectious diseases at the Hospital for Sick Children in arriving at their conclusions. (I repeat: conclusions by 22 authors none of whom have ever done a paper on neonatal herpes.)

My sources are much more authorative then a book review in the entertainment section of a pop magazine into which you put so much credence. It is not I but rather you that have a vendetta against truth and fact. So please be specific as to exactly which of my comments are unsourced or undocumented and I will re-post them with the necessary sources and links. I assure you I do my homework. Thank you and have a nice life. pikipiki (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who you are and neither do the readers here (so there's no libel against whoever you are). This is another example of your creative editorializing. You stretched a non-fact even beyond all logic by saying this. Simply not true. I don't know what the game is, so I won't play it with you beyond one simple example. You did not just write that Dr. Koren is the editor, you drew your own editorial conclusion from it within a Wikipedia entry. Inappropriate. And sneaky how you mention it in this discussion as if that's all you wrote. I am beginning to get an inkling of how your thinking works, but I'm not going there. Ciche (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

From Wendwell's talk page:

I, like you, I have posted documented comments to the Gideon Koren page, further documented them in talk and then had them reverted anyway by Dr Koren (Ciche.) serving as his own PR agent. What are our options. He claims the CAUT report is out of date and new information has come forward, but he doesn't post it. Then he puts more weight in the book review in the entertainment section of MacCleans then the 527 page CAUT report and the Supplement. Request deletion because WP should not serve as his personal free PR machine?. pikipiki (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So you say, but you do not represent anything accurately, including me. The documentation I and others have presented goes far beyond one article. What you've written here is a misrepresentation. But who can rehash with you endlessly? If a deletion of this entry were to be made, it would be because of this obsessive negative sort of editing of a biography of a living person, which has often ventured into libel -- and no, Pikipiki (or Wendwell or any others, if there are such... I repeat what I've said elsewhere, stop claiming that someone is libeling anonymous you. That's silly. Repeating your accusations about me in multiple locations does not make them true, nor justify the perspective you're propogating. We are not here to give our personal perspectives. I am protesting your actions as I did Wendwell's because of their gross disproportion. I have no involvement in this issue, despite your repeated slights to me, personally, but I am beginning to understand how those who do have a vested interest are operating to perpetuate spiteful edit warring. I came across this entry two years ago when one of you posted capitalized slurs in bold type across the brief entry that existed at that time. That was blatant vandalism. Since then, I have learned a great deal about the issue and have tried to foster NPOV. You have your axes to grind, clearly. Very tough to try to create a balanced entry under the circumstances. 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Ciche (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But really, there is the same problem as before. The deferprone section is way too big and needs to be trimmed down and cleaned up. Springatlast (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Every time the article provides a source explaining what the independent inquiries actually concluded, Ciche threatens libel. Ciche, if you believe that what Pikipiki is doing constitutes "creative editorializing", then explain how that is so. The article as it reads now still references Macleans over and above the independent inquiries, which is just plain wrong. This has been going in circles for 5 months now. Ciche seems intent on having the article justify Dr. Koren's actions as much as they explain them, and the way it reads now is one sided.

"By 2005, in the continuing coverage of the still ongoing deferiprone dispute, a New York Times review of Dr. Shuchman's book, The Drug Trial[35], entitled: In Drama Pitting Scientist vs. Drug Maker, All Are Punished, stated that Dr. Olivieri's claims about the drug's heart and liver toxicity "have not held up" and, although "it is no panacea and has its own side effects" the drug had already been licensed in 47 countries."

Three things. One, this is relevant to the controversy itself, not to Dr. Koren's actions during the controversies. You might argue that the two aren't mutually exclusive. True. But Dr. Koren's actions during the controversy are what they are irrespective of what physicians conclude. The university itself concluded what he did was illegal. This wasn't just a "scientific disagreement between colleagues", but the article reads as such. Two, this is one sided. This is a scientific dispute, and this cites only one half of the argument: the half that Dr. Koren believes in. Three, this is way too much text to provide context for what Dr. Koren did. Too much text.

"At the height of this much-publicized dispute, in the context of Olivieri's handling of clinical trials of the drug, Koren sent "five anonymous harassing letters relating to Dr. X and her research regarding the effectiveness of deferiprone in controlling iron-overload in thalassemia patients"[40]"

What difference does it make to him writing harassing letters whether or not it was at the height of the dispute, or whether it was in context of Olivieri's actions? Again, reads like its excusing his behavior.

"It defies belief that an individual of Dr. Koren’s professed character and integrity could author such vicious diatribes against his colleagues as he did in the 'poison pen letters'."[44] In a National Post article In 1999, Canadian legal columnist, Christie Blatchford titled her article on Koren’s involvement in the controversy, “They Goaded Him”.[45] In 2005, Dr. Shuchman wrote in her book about the complexity of this aspect of the “science scandal”, remarking that “Koren himself told a Globe and Mail reporter later, ‘The only way I could express myself was in those letters.' See, Sick Kids doctor breaks his silence, The Globe and Mail.”[46]"

The reference 44 I can't find using this article, please verify it. The CSPO wrote that? The CAUT certainly doesn't. Why is the Blatchford article relevant? It doesn't actually mention anything in the article itself, except for the title, which again tends to excuse his behavior. The complexity? Only way he could express himself? Again, excusing his behavior. So, basically, the article is structured as such:

1. Explanation of the Olivieri scandal, with references to sources indicating she was in the wrong. No references to her being in the right. (approx. 40% of the section)

2. Explanation of what Koren did, "in the context of Olivieri...". (approx. 20% of the section).

3. A bunch of crap worded to excuse his behavior. He was goaded! He did it to express himself! How could someone of such incredible reputation do this?!!

Ciche will probably edit this article for the rest of his life. I have a life myself, and I can't fight this to the core. So for those out there who are equally frustrated with his bias and the resulting bias of this article in general, is there anything we can do to more effectively ensure a balanced article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.90.5 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I did not contribute all you mention above, I do disagree with you. I think all the present sources are relevant, not only those you prefer. You wish to tell your POV in a version that slants by isolating one aspect (your personal agenda) out of context, creating implications which certainly are libelous in a biography of a living person. In addition -- a small but significant note, sources that don't have Internet links are sources, nonetheless, no? Pikipiki had added a personal blog as a reference, and he/you are complaining about MacLean's? Please sign your comments. Ciche (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that another user removed an obsolete link to the CPSO document. The document is no longer archived by that body on line. I also see that Pikipiki includes a live link to the document on a web page that has a bad certificate, so I will not add it to the reference in the entry.  I print Pikipiki's link here again for the anonymous user's benefit. https://dhengah.org/Lucey/collegeofsurgeons-koren.pdf -- go there at your computer's own risk.  This is privately stored on a Chasidic site http://dhengah.org/ehome.htm, returning us again to the above-mentioned ritual circumcision agenda of some of those defaming Koren. Ciche (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dr. Koren you are really a winner. YOU cite a 2002 CMAJ article that says "deferiprone 'has, at best, uneven efficacy and uncertain toxicity.'” In defence of your publishing a paper that says the drug is safe based on skewed data. You still claim the drug is safe despite numerous reports of adverse effects, including your own 1997 paper and an independant Cochrane review that found the drug should ONLY be used in cases where deferioximine is contraindicted or inadequate. Then you claim that publishing a 6 line erratum, 10 years after the research, six years after you submitted the paper, three years after you were found to have failed to declare $250,000 discretionary grant from Apotex, somehow retroactively exonerates you from failing to declare conflicts of interest among other scientific misconduct that the HSC and CPSO found you guilty of years before. You claim the information is defamatory? SUE the CAUT! Don't fight your battles on Wikipedia by constantly deleting references to charges to which you admitted guilt, go to court and prove it.pikipiki (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? You are the one who deleted sources and much material. But no one can discuss it with you because you are tricky about it. Pikipiki makes a big edit to the entry.  Then Pikipiki writes an edit summary and comments here in the talk section that are very different from what Pikipiki really did in the edit. Springatlast (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There must be a full moon. I deleted the false claim that usage in 50 countries vindicates Dr. Koren's paper, because the usage in MOST countries is ONLY licensed where the regular chelator deferioxamine is unavailable or contra-indicated and I cite these three medical papers on deferiprone  One, a 2005 paper by Hoffbrand, which specifically states "Deferiprone is now licensed in 43 countries for thalassaemia major patients for whom desferrioxamine is inadequate." You delete my entry with the comment "no false info evident. section was inflated already and added mass of material was not relevant to subject". You then delete details of that which HSC found Dr. Koren guilty of professional misconduct in the publication of a medical paper with skewed data as per the CAUT report and CPSO reprimand, along with three Globe and mail news stories and a link to the CPSO reprimand AGAIN, with the claim: "began reducing inflated deferiprone section working on NPOV. added ref for balance, removed material more relevant to Dr. Olivieri than Dr. Koren, removed resolved cross references to TDM publ.," Exactly which is part of the charges that admitted to, and are published in the CAUT report and CPSO are POV? The man admitted guilt. He agreed to retract the skewed paper that's still on record at the journal of which he is the current editor. You deleted that fact as well. That's number one. Secondly the Deferiprone controversy section is not only about Dr. Koren. It's about the deferiprone contronversy which includes Nancy Olivieri. Taking out Nancy Olivieri is as POV as it gets. The CMAJ article that you put back in (which also states: "iron-chelating compounds such as deferiprone are primitive and palliative "half-way technologies" & "a dispute about a single drug that has, at best, uneven efficacy and uncertain toxicity.")does not vindicate Koren and is extreme POV without allowing for  Nancy Olivieri's reply in the same Journal.pikipiki (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have attempted to make such points repeatedly. I am not convinced. Users presented us with references to the contrary that in my opinion made it particularly appropriate to remove such useless discussions from the body of the entry. Please do see my comment below about the use of this drug and the insignificance of the case you appear to be trying to make. As for Nancy Olivieri -- on the contrary! She is indeed mentioned several times. Discussing her fate is not relevant to the entry. There was even controversy about the committees you appear to hold in unassailable esteem. As we read through endless literature, it becomes clear that no aspects of this controversy have been formally "decided", as such, to the satisfaction of all esteemed bodies. Your statements about vindication or lack thereof are empty rhetoric and not productive here. For me and others, if there is a bottom line it would be that a drug exists that could improve the lives of some children and contribute to their survival. This drug has been denied them long-term if they live in Canada and the United States because of what now appears to have been an ego-issue on the part of a researcher who erred. Even this, however, must be presented with care and in the correct proportion within this living biography entry. Ciche (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits are destructive
I hope people are seeing Pikipiki for what Pikipiki is. This is strange talk, Pikipiki. The comments you made recently up above are aimed directly at the subject of the biography and include your own claims about scientific proof. Your edits can't prove anything. Your talk in this section is not improving the article. You include a lot of gossip and nastiness directed at this person. What you're doing isn't right, Pikipiki. People can see what's going on. You are having some kind of fantasy argument with the subject of a Wikipedia article.

This is not the first time there has been plain gossip directed at a person here. Somebody once gave the impression in this talk section that it was Dr. Nancy Olivieri who was manipulating this article behind the scenes because of her scientific difficulties.

But let's not start arguing with her here on Wikipedia. After I saw what Pikipiki did to the article now I looked again and read another source about Dr. Nancy Olivieri's mistakes and a kind of phony matyrdom she used to cover them up that could explain a lot of the warring about this article and why there's no point to continue. I'm absolutely not going to battle you with reliable quotes you'll just wipe out, Pikipiki.

The worst thing is that pretty much the very opposite of what you're saying now about the content was supported really well for a long time by sources that you just happened to conveniently delete now. Why should anybody go to the trouble of putting in more when you're going to vandalize again? You'll just call it whatever works to make it look legitimate.22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Springatlast (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be very specific when you make such comments and I will address them. Citing a Cochrane review from pubmed that deferiprone should only be used where deferioxamine is contraindicated is "my claim about scientific proof"?

"Somebody once gave the impression in this talk section that it was Dr. Nancy Olivieri who was manipulating this article behind the scenes because of her scientific difficulties." They did? Please point that out to me. I just remember half a dozen wikipedians asking Ciche if he was Koren or Koren's PR agent. [This is Ciche. Pikipiki is in difficulties here because in truth only Pikipiki has been carrying on discussions with me as if I were Dr. Koren, which indeed continues to strike me as odd.] Then you claim "the content was supported really well for a long time by sources that you just happened to conveniently delete now." When I deleted ONLY the CMAJ article that does NOT say the UNIVERSITY FOUND the CAUT report biased, that's POV. However when you delete my references to three medical papers that deferiprone did not get blanket approval Thats balanced and NPOV? When you remove Three Toronto Globe and Mail Stories with a link to the CPSO reprimand and the fact that Dr. Koren has not complied with the terms of the reprimand, Thats balanced and NPOV? You have a very twisted sense of NPOV. You must be related to or sleeping with Koren = Ciche.pikipiki (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that we lower the angry tones and absurd accusations. This is indeed not the place for such rhetoric. Pikipiki would like to draw us into a medical or scientific roundtable on an issue about which we may find abundant professional resources beyond any selections Pikipiki may make to bolster this user's case of choice. A different point of view was expressed by Alastair T. Gordon, President of the Islet Foundation http://islet.org/index.htm : (Posted by Al Gordon on http://tenderroad.org/forum030/messages/27664.htm on July 26, 2003)


 * "Now let's look at that heroine of the anti-corporate crowd, Nancy Olivieri. Dr Olivieri was running a clinical trial in Toronto of deferiprone, a drug that Apotex hoped to market for clearing toxic iron from thalassemia patients. Trials were also being run in Europe. Sufferers were mainly children who had to be connected for hours or days every week to an intravenous feed to deal with deadly iron accumulation. Deferiprone was a pill that would hopefully achieve the same goal without the horrible burden and loss of personal freedom endured by the patients. Dr Olivieri then went public with what turned out to be a totally erroneous observation, and fell so in love with the role of martyr, that she was unable to admit she made a mistake and act in he best interests of her patients. And guess what? The clinical trials in Europe proved the safety and efficacy of deferiprone, and it is now an approved treatment. What the anti-corporate crowd is unable to accept is that Nancy Olivieri was wrong! and had a greater loyalty to her own martyrdom than to her patients. Apotex were like a bull in a china shop (this was their first non-generic drug), but in my opinion there was a far greater villian."


 * It is arrogant to think that we have the ability to resolve any scientific issues surrounding deferiprone here. Further, I cannot imagine what possible significance it could have to show here that the drug's role may or may not be limited to its combination with other drugs? Ciche (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dr. Koren (Ciche), Thank you for telling us that you put more weight in a message on a public bulletin board than papers published in medical journals and indexed on pubmed. First I would like to address your main hallmark, your continuing dishonesty. You publish a bulletin board comment attacking Nancy Olivieri and stating trials proved "the safety and efficacy of deferiprone," but post no reliable or legitimate source, while supporting the deletion of my three pubmed indexed references that in most European countries deferiprone is only licensed where deferioxamine is unavailable or contraindicated.  This of course, after you alter your own comment that said "it is arrogant to think that we have the ability to resolve any issues surrounding deferiprone here." and then you arrogantly (you said it not me) insert a comment from a bulletin board that you claim resolves the issues surrounding defriprone. Ignoring the fact several sources inluding your own 1997 paper identified risks of deferiprone.   All the while toting the Maclean story that you first introduced in 2006,as the most authoritative information on deferiprone after you deleted a newstory and a link to the CPSO reprimand for the second time. Be sure to make further disparaging comments about me while you still fail to address the issues or come to terms with your chronic dishonesty. Give it up Gidi, you're wasting your time. There's no Nobel prize for dishonesty. BTW, it may be time to crank up the stress meter on your home page by a few notches. Oh yeah, and have a nice day :) pikipiki (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Section needs to be reduced
I still think the whole deferiprone controversy section is impossible to manage. It's inflated and ridiculous. It should be reduced to a one or two sentence remark. It looks like Wikipedia has not been able to give anything neutral on this subject for years. A short sentence or two is best just to point to the topic. Let people do further research if it is important to them. Then people can draw their own conclusions the best they can if they like. All sorts of material is available on the Internet. Wikipedia is not supposed to be just a collection of links anyway. These are already out there for anybody who bothers to look. Springatlast (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, everybody knows that you and Koren (Ciche) want to turn this into the Gidi Koren fan club page hosted on wikipedia. So why don't you just go ahead and delete the whole deferiprone section, like Gidi's been trying to do for almost three years.

When he posted above on 6 May 2009 that "I came across this entry two years ago when one of you posted capitalized slurs in bold type across the brief entry that existed at that time. That was blatant vandalism. Since then, I have learned a great deal about the issue and have tried to foster NPOV.Ciche" It seems he forgot that Wikipedia has a complete history and it was over 2 years ago that he actually wrote most of the Gideon Koren article in April 2007. The blatant vandalism was a reference to CPSO reprimand and a U of T news story. It was actually almost three years that he created the user "Ciche" for the specific purpose of writing and editing this page. As a matter of fact his very first edit was deleting all references of reprimand from the the Gideon Koren page and his second was the 2006 vandalism comment at the top of this page. After claiming the comment was biased because it was in bold print, Dr. Koren does not do the obvious and remove the bold, no he deletes the comment entirely to maintain NPOV of course. But actually Dr. Koren's editing predates that as well.
 * On August 15, 2006 using a Netanya IP, he deleted a link to the CPSO reprimand and an April 15, 2000 U of T news story on his reprimand and sanctions. The only other edit he made from that IP was to delete the Gideon Koren entry from the wiki scientific misconduct page.
 * On July 10, 2007 a Golden Lines Cable IP in Kiryat Shemonah IP 84.228.126.134 making it's sole contribution to wikipedia, edits the CPSO reprimand and buries it in the Macleans footnote.
 * On February 1, 2008 Dr Koren removed the factual account of denial of writing the harassing letters to which he later admitted after being confronted with DNA evidence that he was the writer. despite the fact the comment refers to conduct to which Koren admitted, Dr. Koren then writes "the affair was controversial."
 * On February 20, 2008, a friend of Dr. Korens in western ontario informs of his pingpong prowess. (This my favorite entry.)
 * July 12, 2008, enter springatlast =82.81.139.98 in Tel Aviv, who is either Dr. Koren wife, daughter, mistress, or a wide eyed intern bedazzaled by the thought that she has the privilege to work for the saviour of kindkind. In the interest of fairness and NPOV writing she deletes the entire account of the Olivieri affair and writes it as: "He had a role in a controversial hospital dispute"  Interesting how she knows about "Tails" and "Rachel Bluwstein" She must be a real GK fan.
 * On September 11, 2008. Dr Koren admits that he's a "has been"
 * January 5, 2009, The day after the factual accounting of the olivieri affair is reinserted, Springatlast immediately defends Koren writing "Viewpoints have altered over time with regard to the dispute mentioned above." and references and quotes from the maclean's article. Despite the fact that we are referring to behavior to which Koren admitted.
 * Immediately thereafter Dr. Koren (Ciche) deletes the whole section on the "controversy" and moves it talk for "more balanced treatment"
 * To make the article even more fair, Dr. Koren then deletes the reference ot the CAUT report.
 * On January 10, 2009 Springatlast reinserts her editorial defense of Koren that was deleted with the section.
 * January 28, 2009, Springatlast adds 31 lines of "noteable achievements" trying to offset negative POV and keep the article balanced.
 * January 30, 2009 in the context of shortening the controversy section, Springatlast turns it into a quote from the defence removing several paragraphs.
 * Springatlast also informs us that Dr. Koren's research group has now been expanded by 15 people from 70 to 85.

To be continued.... pikipiki (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pikipiki: This is now sounding delusional on your part. I protest. I came across an entry that had been vandalized, and it continues to be vandalized. I took it upon myself to follow this biography and have learned a great deal about the issues in the process. Following my reading, I now have opinions. This is not the place to debate our opinions, but rather a biographical article about a living person. Ciche (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC) It is positive to have a debate take place on this page rather than within the entry.


 * Looking again, Pikipiki, it may be clearly seen that the events you've selected to narrate indicate nothing more than that a number of users in a number of places have had different points of view over the years (different from yours, as well) and have made various contributions. Take a step back, I suggest.Ciche (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I have expressed some of my personal opinions above with regard to issues underlying this entry.  With regard to the editing of this entry, which we have learned requires special care, I continue to support improving it by eliminating more of the specifics packed into the too large deferiprone section. Because of the edit warring, I question working any further on this. Not only is the section repeatedly deluged with additional masses of words, but edits made to diminish the volume are now being countered, not with other constructive copy edits that perhaps involve a different emphasis, but with personal attacks on me and other users, and on the subject of the entry.Ciche (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged this article for deletion on the grounds that it does not follow the NPOV guidelines for living persons biographies. This article is extremely, extremely pro-Gideon Koren. The article emphasizes his composition of Israeli music, emphasizes his accomplishments, and completely muddles up the Olivieri case where he wrote hate mail to colleagues (which he eventually admitted to). Every attempt on my part, and on several other's parts, to change this article have been met with threats of libel, and change-backs to their previous state. Because this article does not give readers anything close to a NPOV and is about a living person, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.123.207 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As explained here, this is not a deletion issue. You all need to work out your dispute (use dispute resolution if needed). If legal threats have been made, No legal threats gives the correct way to handle those.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Following major deletions to deferiprone controversy by anonymous user, I added material added for balance. The controversy had important medical/scientific issues/impact. The deferiprone controversy was not just about letters.Tokiyoyo (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, I prefer a brief version of that section. The person who made that particular extensive erasure and edit undermined NPOV, however, by selectively eliminating many references that indicate the actual crux of the controversy and Koren's position within it. These references should be reinstated if there is to be such a section at all in an entry about him.Ciche (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the version of the deferiprone controversy left by Tokiyoyo, which I believe to be balanced, so I've reinstated that version (not the one I left to start, and not the one Ciche most recently left). Ciche, if you want to develop it further, then lets discuss it. I don't want this to get out of hand (as it has up above), I don't want the section to blow up in size, and I don't want it to be a one-sided section as it has been for the majority of the last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.123.207 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand your observation about the section's having been one-sided.  It has been reasonably balanced for most of this past year, with the exception of a few personal assaults by one or two editors, which were then counterbalanced. Looking at the history, we see that it was not touched for a period of months recently, which speaks to a good balance achieved, a consensus, before the erasures by you this week.
 * While I have no desire to enter into what might be misconstrued as edit-warring, I must note that you have unfortunately not only wiped out all of my varied edits, including simple links and reliable references, you have wiped out all of Tokiyoyo's references, as well. I am assuming this was a technical error on your part. I will begin by trying to help you reconstruct Tokiyoyo's source references from the history to achieve the version you sought, hoping that you will not construe this as edit-warring. (After all, the numbers remain with no sources attached to them.)
 * Then, I hope you can agree to my adding back in the references I, myself, restored yesterday, many of which were originally offered by other editors, not by me, and which you have once again reverted today. I hope you will not edit-war, reverting a third time.
 * These references point to the possibility of bias in the committees referred to in your initial sentences. Only with these references included will there be balance. I don't see how we can turn back the clock and ignore these significant voices and claim to have NPOV.
 * You may of course always edit text I or anyone else submits. I hope you will not persist in totally wiping out my contributions, however. Do note that your contributions were edited slightly, but respected enough not to be simply deleted. I hope we can rebuild the consensus.Ciche (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I reconstructed what I could of the deleted footnotes. I hope that you, 96.49.123.207, will also respect the efforts I made to revise my own restored contribution towards a version you may find more acceptable. If you have specific problems with parts of this version, why not briefly explain these to me here rather than just deleting everything I contributed? Thanks Ciche (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "While Olivieri was admired in some circles for defending academic freedom when news of the controversy first broke, others continue to question her publicity-seeking, concerned that Olivieri was wrongly placed on a pedestal during the deferiprone controversy and that her science was wrong."

The source for this line leads to a scientific paper with differing results than Olivieri's on the effect of deferiprone. It says nothing about questions on her "publicity-seeking". It also doesn't say, quote, that her "science was wrong". Can we find a better way to make the quote more reflective of what the source actually says?

2. "As a direct result of Nancy Olivieri’s relentless public media campaign, approval for the medication is stalled, meaning that North American children are still being denied a medication which has since been approved around the world in dozens of countries and could be the only hope for survival for some children." [43][44][45][46][47]

To who, is Olivieri's public media campaign "relentless"? The way this is worded, the article itself testifies to that. I'm not convinced, either, that medication is stalled "as a direct result of Nancy Olivieri's media campaign". Who specified that it's a campaign? The sources? Again, it's in the voice of the article itself, not the voices of the references for the article.

3. "The University of Toronto and others went on record regarding Olivieri's having fanned the flames of the deferiprone controversy against Dr. Koren and other parties, using “hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees and services” from teachers' union funds, and then being “unable to admit she made a mistake....”[38][39][40]"

Where does it say that Olivieri "fanned the flames" of the deferiprone controversy?

I accept the rest of your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.123.207 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input about my edit of yesterday. I will take some time to revise along the lines of your specific comments, and appreciate your giving me the opportunity.
 * You may know that there is a wealth of additional material, including many studies since then indicating that deferiprone's benefits decidedly exceed its risks for certain patients, negating and marginalizing Olivieri: too much for here, but perhaps a few more can be added to indicate where the substance of this drug controversy actually went so soon after it broke to the media for public consumption in one-sided form, so typically adoring the media-hound, although I agree with you -- this observation is not easy to ground in references, but not impossible either. The point needs to be made in the article in some more careful way, I agree.
 * For now, I will look more closely at the two sentences I added, but will not touch Tokiyoyo's material, which we had both accepted. To that part I may add the additional scientific articles.
 * I would offer you that a great deal of the difficulty with this Wikipedia article and with my recent postings stems from efforts to restore obliterated material by cutting, pasting, reconstructing, paraphrasing from memory... old edits and contributions by various persons. (Who has the time?) I also found this to be true with your somewhat "predigested" opening material, with regard to the phrasing and order in which it is presented, for example -- same situation, but I am able to accept it.Ciche (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly believe that the deferiprone controversy itself deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Of course, with a recognition that the problems everyone has had with this article would be amplified if a whole other article devoted to the subject matter were to come to fruition. I'll continue to check up on this article periodically to see whether the changes have been made, and whether we can improve anything else about the article. -96.49.123.207 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.174.33 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in controversy section
I'm concerned that the section about the deferiprone controversy is slanted with some POV pushing. The controversy, at least as it relates to Dr. Koren, concerns academic misconduct-- he sent hate-mail and denied that it was from him until subsequent DNA evidence disproved his denials. The way that it is written now introduces what seems to be fairly irrelevant facts about the safety and efficacy of deferiprone itself to set up a conclusion that basically reads like 'his harassment was okay because he was right.' The citations don't even really support the claims that are made -- for example, a 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study by Rund and Rachmilewitz is cited to support the claim that data around the world has shown deferiprone is safe. The cited line in that article cites a 2004 Journal of Hematology article by Franchini and Veneri that notes: "However, further studies are required to evaluate the impact of deferiprone on cardiac and liver disease." Since the basis of the dispute between Dr. Koren and Dr. Olivieri concerned whether or not there was a risk of liver toxicity, it seems bizarre that a series of evidence that explicitly is not about liver toxicity is cited to demonstrate that Koren was right (again, as if being right or wrong is the dispositive issue in this controversy). PStrait (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Mother Risk
I've never posted anything on Wikipedia comments before, but this article was so biased I thought I had to write something. The doctor was the leader of a drug testing lab which provided forensic evidence which resulted in kids being taken from their parents...when he was not qualified to do so and when his lab did not meet basic standards, let alone forensic standards. See the report from the Ontario Attorney General's office: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lang/ This is no secret, it was front page news. Treat Hull


 * Agree. This talk page was mostly filled in 2009, and there has been little discussion since then. I think it is time to trim the page down drastically and reformat it in a more usual style, where instead of puffery and unsubstantiated claims about the earth-shaking (sorry, ground-breaking) effects of each item he has published, a simple list of those publications would be more in keeping with the dignity of wikipedia. As you say, unsubstantiated testing methods in the Mother Risk department were grossly misused, resulting in much misery. I think that discussion of that department should be moved to a separate page, where it would be appropriate to have a See also section with a link to Charles Randal Smith, who likewise shines as a horrific phenomenon in the history of Ontario forensic medicine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Restored a separate Motherisk article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Gideon Koren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061001123302/http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/opru_network.cfm to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/opru_network.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926232137/http://www.hlthss.gov.nt.ca/Features/Programs_and_Services/fasd/fasd_initiatives.asp to http://www.hlthss.gov.nt.ca/Features/Programs_and_Services/fasd/fasd_initiatives.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120419053728/http://www.fda.gov:80/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm to http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/explosive-judicial-review-puts-lens-on-gideon-koren-and-sickkids/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Gideon Koren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212230605/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002120726/http://www.cpso.on.ca:80/Publications/Discsum/2004/discmay04.htm to http://www.cpso.on.ca/Publications/Discsum/2004/discmay04.htm#Koren
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141121022954/http://www.bros-and-sis.com/album_lihyot.shtml to http://www.bros-and-sis.com/album_lihyot.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213003825/http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/30158.html to http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/30158.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928142345/http://www.knowledgenetwork.ca/fasV/webcast/ to http://www.knowledgenetwork.ca/fasV/webcast/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Gideon Koren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519162713/http://www.judaicawebstore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=VT-32102 to http://www.judaicawebstore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=VT-32102
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525202443/http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32081.html to http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32081.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071010182024/http://www.circlesolutions.com/summerinstitutes/index.cfm to http://www.circlesolutions.com/summerinstitutes/index.cfm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722003456/http://www.motherisk.org/fas/en/webcast/indexwebcast.html to http://www.motherisk.org/fas/en/webcast/indexwebcast.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gideon Koren. 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/20120212230605/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20050509_105255_105255

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Gideon Koren. 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/20070928093743/http://www.sickkids.ca/tails/ to http://www.sickkids.ca/tails
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029160515/http://www.sickkids.ca:80/ProgramsandServices/Tails/index.html to http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/index.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) 18:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gideon Koren. 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/20101125085922/http://israel21c.org/201010218436/health/hair-reveals-stress-levels-and-heart-attack-risks to http://www.israel21c.org/201010218436/health/hair-reveals-stress-levels-and-heart-attack-risks
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120173548/http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44772.html to http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44772.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141119215826/http://www.fasdfoundation.ca/index.html to http://www.fasdfoundation.ca/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120121601/http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/History-of-tails/index.html to http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/History-of-tails/index.html
 * Added tag to http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/cw2w3.cgi?p=knox&t=66497&d=1246
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810000649/http://www.sogc.org:80/media/advisories-20060623_e.asp to http://www.sogc.org/media/advisories-20060623_e.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723131748/http://www.sogc.org/media/pdf/advisories/JOGC-dec-07-FOLIC.pdf to http://www.sogc.org/media/pdf/advisories/JOGC-dec-07-FOLIC.pdf

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) 19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gideon Koren. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107051636/http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/aboutus.htm to http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/aboutus.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129003557/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2d2d4615-68cc-403b-a6b6-a01077eaefa2&k=25973 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2d2d4615-68cc-403b-a6b6-a01077eaefa2&k=25973
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sickkids.ca/ProgramsandServices/Tails/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sogc.org/media/advisories-20060623_e.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906093920/http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/faculty/Koren_Biosketch.htm to http://www.clinpharmtox.utoronto.ca/faculty/Koren_Biosketch.htm

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) 11:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing information about Motherrisk
Someone has deleted information regarding Motherrisk. Under the subheader, Publication Bias, the second paragraph contains only one word followed by a period and reference number. The reference relates to the Motherrisk issues. The third paragraph also deals with Motherrisk. Mariner82 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)