Talk:Tom Perls

Stub starter
This article is just starting. Try to 'improve' this. References to Tom Perls are easy to find. Ryoung122 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Expand. This needs to be expanded. 131.96.70.164 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed so: I tagged it for this. Extremely sexy 16:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long, final paragraph must stay
Sorry, but I don't think that this individual is important enough to merit such a long article. I do not see a Nobel Prize or even membership to the National Academy of Sciences or anything like that. On the contrary, it looks like his one big paper ended up having to be retracted from Science! This article is too long. Furthermore, the fact that the paper had to be retracted was well covered by major media sources. Because there are a lot of good references documenting this retraction, it should not be removed per Wikipedia policy.Boab (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Correcting the scientific literature
This person that goes by the name "Boab" insists, regarding the retraction in Science, the "problem was never really corrected, they just published in a journal that accepts just about anything. It is rare to be retracted from Science, so this needs to stay".

First of all, we went through a year's worth of work with an independent lab at Yale University to generate a corrected and valid data set. Then the analysis was performed with the new data set, in collaboration with the independent lab. Then the paper was submitted to PLoS One and it underwent an extensive review by independent geneticists and the corrected work was published.

It is not true that Plos One publishes all the papers that it receives, as Boab asserts. All papers considered by the editors to be worthy of review then go through the typical peer review process. Papers deemed to be scientifically correct and of appropriate interest to PloS One are then published. "Boab" asserts that the work was not corrected and this is blatantly false. Further I ask, does Boab have any sort of germane scientific background to make this assertion? In my opinion, Boab's assertions entirely smack of bias.

Boab further asserts that I should not be referred to as "Dr. Perls", but I am a state licensed, practicing physician.

He says I should not use the term "anti-aging quackery" because it is non-specific, but I have published several articles with that term in the title. If it is an acceptable term to the Journal of Gerontology, it is good enough for Wikipedia.

I believe volunteers should not be anonymous. This would make them much less likely to provide incorrect (biased?)and far-too casual reviews.

Thperls — Preceding undated


 * Request edit closure rationale: Please provide specific textual changes you'd like to see and provide references which support the changes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)