Talk:Robert Sears (physician)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015 (reworked first paragraph so that is does not make conclusory statements as facts when they are only opinion
Although his alternative vaccination schedules have been embraced by parents and watch-dog organizations, many main-stream health care professionals believe that it contributes to a dangerous under-vaccination among the national child population.[3] Dr. Sears denies accusations that he is an "anti-vaccine" doctor and openly acknowledges that vaccines work.[10] However, he does not believe that all vaccines are always warranted for every child.[4]

72.219.186.121 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Robert Sears (physician). 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://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/123/1/e164

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 12:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Autism and vaccinations
There is a kind of anxiety all over the article to make sure that finally " vaccines are OK" --- look even Dr. Sears says that. Is this true? Of course not. He says that ’he read " ALL the research, and both sides present good data and good arguments. I’m not sure who is right at this point. Until I see enough evidence that shows vaccines are linked to autism, I certainly am not going to tell anyone that vaccines contribute to autism. But at the same time I can’t say for sure that vaccines absolutely do NOT play any role at all in contributing to autism."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHoy (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
There are some pro-vaccine biased sentences in the article. I and another user have tried making them more neutral, however, our attempts have been reverted a couple of times. has said that "Rv -- "neutrality" doesn't mean what you think it means in a context of this sort.". What should be done about the situation? Evancahill (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By "pro-vaccine", I think you mean "pro-science". Which also means I think we're done.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , you pinged me, but I think you meant to ping the editor who actually reverted your edit,, no? Everymorning (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. :) Evancahill (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And to, I don't think we're done. Pro-vaccine does not mean pro-science. Evancahill (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Weasel wording
The emphasis on 'suspension and revocation' in the section on charges of negligence was 'weaselly,' emphasizing the most severe sanction. To be fair the phraseology was borrowed fr/ the LA Times article title, but they're allowed to weaselly, unlike Wikipedia writer/editors. Tapered (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent Dispute
Two editors have been battling in the Lead section.

Let's start with Sears' anti-vaccination creds: when an NIH website posts an article which states that Sears' public position on vaccination has caused under-vaccination and harm to public health, that's NOT 'it may have,' or 'some say it has.' It means there's scientific consensus that it has caused public health problems.

Now for Celebrity doctor: the genesis of this recently created article is the title and concept of a sort of op-ed piece from the 2010 LA Times. The author is not a public health authority, and in point of fact, has no Wikipedia article—not a notable person. From there, a series of references grouped around this concept are used to flesh out the page. The unifying factor is the author's connection of all the articles to the concept of "celebrity doctor." I contend this is original research and violation of Wikipedia's no soapbox guideline from What Wikipedia is not. This article was initiated by the same editor using it here. I'll be nominating the article for deletion.

As of this edit, both of the above bad edits have been removed from the Article. Let's hope it stays that way. I'll contact both editors to that end. Tapered (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your description of recent editing as a "battle" is inaccurate - if you think that little back and forth is a "battle" in WP I don't know what to tell you. And We'll see how the AfD goes!
 * Sticking to content in this article as we should do - I do hear you that you think celebrity doctor doesn't apply. However it is supported by the source I provided here: "Dr. Robert Sears, author of "The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child," has become a celebrity among parents who see danger in immunization." which is also echoed in the text.  Like a lot of celebrity doctors Sears is finding himself in some hot water.
 * Sources I didn't bring yet:
 * Celebrity doctor's alternative approach to vaccines frustrates disease experts
 * this is not reliable but it notes the sentiment in the medical community: "Regrettably, many celebrities, "celebrity" doctors, and individuals with websites have received a disproportionate amount of media attention and have fueled the fire of controversy by preying on parents' fears. ...Dr. Robert Sears, MD, perhaps the best known "celebrity" doctor and author of "The Vaccine Book – Making the Right Decision for Your Child (2007)" has been used by some parents as the model for the alternative vaccine schedule."
 * Please respond about the sources. Thanks.   Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Becoming a celebrity among antivaxers or any other angenda-driven minority is not the same thing as being a celebrity. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting argument. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not all science supports the argument "all vaccines are completely fool-proof and have no disadvantages". Check out articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/27/vaccines-are-dangerous-says-the-government.aspx this]. Evancahill (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * mercola is not a reliable source for content about health in Wikipedia. Please see WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to leave Wikipedia for awhile because it's clear that Pan and Allen run the site. Evancahill (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Question
sorry if this is a silly question, but second paragraph of what? some clarification of how this is not SYN would be helpful Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The source cited; and it is second-to-last. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the whole thing and this still sounds like synth or at least poor writing. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have been more specific.
 * "article is titled: "Anti-Vaccine Doctors Should Lose Their Licenses"
 * piece says: "The anti-vaccine movement has been driven by lay people such as Jenny McCarthy, and disgraced doctors such as Andrew Wakefield, the author of the fraudulent autism-vaccine paper. He's no longer permitted to practice medicine. But there have been a few actual licensed medical voices over the last several years fighting to keep our kids sick." (in case you are unaware, Wakefield lost his license in the UK; that is what "not permitted to practice medicine" means)
 * piece says in the second-to-last paragraph: "State medical boards are notoriously toothless but doctors speaking out against vaccination in the midst of an ongoing outbreak should be investigated, warned, and censured. They should have their licenses suspended until undergoing 150 hours of continuing medical education on public health and infectious diseases (except that cardiologist--he should just lose his license)."
 * The content, "like Andrew Wakefield" is not SYN, but rather is exactly what Lipson is saying. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok so the source mentions Wakfield losing his license, and say sears should too, but doesn't explicitly compare the two, it would be different if Lipson said "just like Andrew wakefield did" in a direct quote, but he didn't, this is synthesis, as it is your interpretation of Lipson's statement. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does. That is the whole purpose of the piece from its title onward. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I made it more straightforward by adding a quote. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, the quote is clear and not SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your objection was groundless. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020
this article is terribly biased, you need to remove the reference to him as dangerous, that's a matter of opinion AGoodPitch (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done. Absolutely not. The characterization is well-sourced and accurate. We reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about contentious labels (not suggestion)
I'm new to editing and I'm curious about the use of the word "dangerous" in the first line of this article. Why doesn't this count as a contentious label? I see that the word is cited, but it seems to me that any number of contentious labels or other words to watch could be cited with reputable sources written by credentialed people. If this is relevant: I am not against vaccines or a fan of Sears or anything. I don't doubt that his advice is dangerous. Just a genuine question about the way editing works on Wikipedia! Mniotilta (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is it "contentious" though? Are there reliable sources contending that these views are safe? Bon courage (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for the response. Mniotilta (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)