Talk:Nancy Olivieri

Untitled
The reality in this case is that we will likely never have all of the details required to make a valid judgement. Apotex is not going to release the data in question and Dr. Oliveri is still bound to the nondisclosure.

Courageous? Not at all. She was wrong, couldn't admit her error and victimized others. The drug is now finally approved in the US, but what about those who died while Dr. Olivieri was grandstanding?Prone123 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous contributor. Nancy Olivieri has done what she should have done, that is revealing undesirable secondary effects in a clinical trial, without giving to intimidation from Apotex. She is a model for all researchers. I would appreciate to see the real names of all the people on this page who seem to take pleasure in denigrating a courageous doctor. Florence Piron, March 2011

I have to strongly disagree with the previous contributor. First, the entry is NOT well sourced. Show me scientific evidence contradicting Dr. Olivieri's research results, please, before getting to that conclusion. Nothing less than a full-fledged meta-analysis is acceptable here! Second, at the time of the public clash there was so much dirty playing done by other less-than-ethical characters, particularly at the Hospital for Sick Kids, that I have to be suspicious with respect to Tokiyoyo's hidden agenda here. dariengap

174.23.140.223 - "nutjob" is an unfortunate choice. The entry is well-sourced. It is balanced precisely because it does refer to Olivieri's scientific shortcomings and does not ignore existing questions about the purpose and outcome of her media campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokiyoyo (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The large negative emphasis is still troubling, in particular the lack of additional details on the fight that brought her to where she is now. It leaves readers wondering what happened on the science end - was her science bad? good? incomplete? how did her financial backers react? What was the result? The answers to these questions puts the rest into perspective. The current article makes her out to be a nutjob, and it's clearly not balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.140.223 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard to comprehend why her exaggerated public freedom fighter persona should be lauded so in Wikipedia? Dr. Olivieri's fraud accusations of others were proven false and her research proved weak. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. 209.226.201.238 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The large negative emphasis is troubling and raises suspicions that BigPharma is not yet done trying to take out Dr. Olivieri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.76.51 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's biased now. It seems very balanced. It looks like it was biased for a long time before I put in negative references yesterday and today. Maybe you saw how much weight the very short summary was giving to only praising this Nancy Olivieri, a person who did terrible damage. There's no substantial recent research by Nancy Olivieri. There's more about how people finally saw the light about her. She has many critics. Tokiyoyo (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This very short summary seems very biaised, giving more weight to Olivieri's critics than to her fight. I wonder who chose to present this story that way. I hope that someone will write a much more substantial and objective paper on that researcher. 13:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Florence Piron

Are those calling this bias familiar with the details of the story? It was poor science, pure and simple, so an over arching negative theme is to be expected.

I agree with the above anonymous comment - that the negative theme does not represent bias. It reflects the preponderance of sources in the literature.Official thom (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously a bio shamefully written from the Apotex point of view. Nancy Oliveri took very corageous steps to report her findings and it would be nice to have some facts in here. Apotex tryed to shut her up and it would be nice to find that here too. There is not a single piece of information about what she did. Strange isn't it? By the way: Dr. Nancy Olivieri received the AAAS Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award last year. jvmalheiro

Disconnect of text quotes and cited references
I am having a bit of difficulty with some of the text here. I seem right now to be unable to understand how some of the Wikipedia text relates to its 3 attached references.

Wikipedia states: "Spokesperson for the University of Toronto, Professor David Naylor, then Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Vice Provost for Relations with Health Care Institutions and later President of the University of Toronto, and others went on record regarding Olivieri's having "advanced 'demonstrably incorrect' allegations against others" and having used "hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees and services" from teachers' union funds, and then being "unable to admit she made a mistake."[11][12] Naylor also went on record citing the bias of CAUT and its Inquiry as having favored Olivieri and her Union and pointing to the lack of independence of both committees.[13]

Reference 11 seems to be an informal personal quick response to a thinking exercise (including several misspellings and grammatical errors). It doesn't seem to support the language marked up as being quoted in Wikipedia.

Reference 12 is Olivieri's response in CMAJ to Naylor, and would seem to be utterly bizarre referencing for the immediately preceding sentence to which it is attached.

Wikipedia asserts IN QUOTES that Naylor states that Olivieri "advanced 'demonstrably incorrect' allegations against others". Logically, this would have to be reference 13. But recursive electronic matching to that reference completely fails to match individual words or even close matches.

Because this is a complex issue, and POSSIBLY relates to other text and references that was removed some time ago, I am not immediately redacting the statements. But I will flag the article and the statements. I will return for another fresh look at another time. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)