Talk:Joel Brind

Untitled

I realize it's a short stub, but after a short (nicely neutral) intro the second paragraph contains only allegations that accusations levelled against Brind are specious. Now, I recognize this is a contentious topic, and I'll admit I don't have the answers, but a quick perusal of the internets leads me to believe that this is not quite the whole story. I understand that in Wikipedia, articles don't get written unless people write them, and so it goes here, but I think an NPOV note is still warranted. Geoff.green 02:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing this on my talk page; I'd probably have missed it otherwise. You write (on my talk apge) --> "After re-reading your comment on Talk:Joel Brind, I'd have to disagree. I did not write "allegations"; I wrote verified inaccuracies on how Dr. Brind's position is presented." Which is fine. I didn't mean to say that what was included is necessarily inaccurate, and I apologize if my use of the term "allegations" implied that. My only objection is that the article does not contain information about what he actually does, beyond a portion of one sentence, nor does it contain much of the content of the criticism against him beyond the two examples that the article criticizes. (You've added some subsequently.) Like I said, I don't think that you were trying to write a biased article, but merely that because it is incomplete and because of how it is incomplete there probably should be an NPOV warning until it's expanded upon. What you added, brief as it is, is a big step in that direction. Let me know what you think. Geoff.green 21:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Miscarriage

I have deleted the section about the alleged "mischaracterization in the article by Joyce Arthur (me), claiming that I erred in saying hormone levels in miscarried pregnancies are "lacking" rather than just "low" as Brind said. This is an immaterial mischaracterization of my article. Whether hormone levels are "low" or "lacking" is a quibble. Here's the key issue: Brind believes that miscarriages are caused mostly by low hormone levels, that miscarriages do not increase the risk of breast cancer, but that abortions DO increase the risk of breast cancer because of the effects of interrupted high hormone levels. In fact, my article explains that most miscarriages are caused by genetic defects in the egg/embryo and other causes, and only a small number of miscarriages are related to hormonal deficiencies. Therefore, my article falsifies Brind's hypothesized mechanism for how abortion leads to breast cancer. Joyce Arthur 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect quibble. As quoted from your article you assert Brind thinks low hormones "cause" miscarriages. To quote fully:

Brind claims the "raging-hormones-cut-short" problem does not affect miscarriage, since most miscarriages are caused by a lack of pregnancy hormones.

Key word here is "caused", and this is not a quibble, it is wrong. If you have a quote and a reference that says otherwise; please do refer me to it. But based on my cross referencing that is not, nor has it ever been his position. Brind is pro-life, but he also happens to be an endocrinologist; and for him to make such a basic error is unlikely... especially since I haven't seen anything to indicate he did.

As to your article falsifying the hypothesis from Russo and Russo (Brind is the primary advocate, but he did not create the hypothesis) you are unfortunately incorrect. As most miscarriages are indeed "characterized" (not caused) by low hormones; they do not have the same hormonal impact as would a normal early pregnancy. It took me 30 minutes of internet research to understand that; then a trip to a medical library to look over the scientific studies which confirmed it. Kunz J., Keller P.J. (1976) PubMed HCG, HPL, oestradiol, progesterone and AFP in serum in patients with threatened abortion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1976 Aug;83(8):640-4.

If you would like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to, though prolonged discussions are discouraged on talk pages. I am putting back the original text; as you have misidentified the quibble and have not provided a basis with which you can maintain Brind thinks miscarriages are "caused" by low hormones. I thank you for writing this note as a explanation for your bold edit; and though I know little about you I'm sure you've done much to help your cause. However – in this instance – I believe you have overstepped your research. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This has prompted me to make an additional edit, to clarify with italics Brind's position versus your articles characterization. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding this article

One suggestion for how to expand this article: a discussion of Brind's publications (http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/departments/natural_science/faculty/brind.html). Those of his publications which involve the ABC link tend to be published in National Review and National Right to Life News, as well as on National Right to Life websites (http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/breastcancer.html). He is also a fixture in National Right to Life Conventions, as well ( http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL07/tapes.htm ; http://www.nrlc.org/convention/Schedule2006.html) In fact, he offered the keynote address at the NRLC 2001 convention (http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL07/conven.html). Needless to say, this sort of thing impugns his credibility and scientific objectivity (http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/hatedabortion.html)

This would by no means render the article NPOV, and a good deal of biographical information has yet to be added, but though not NPOV it would at least be a bit more balanced for the moment. Dicksonlaprade 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions, though I disagree with your overall conclusions. Barry Yeoman isn't an impartial observer based on that article. It's an excellent article overall, but see here; Yeoman isn't as thorough as we'd like. Will look into incorporating those links into the text; further feedback/discussion welcome. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific advocate?

Why isn't he a scientific advocate? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Mostly that sentence was just bad grammar. What someone was trying to say is that Joel Brind is a scientist and an advocate for the ABC hypothesis - not that he is an advocate for science in general.--IronAngelAlice 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Arthur "incorrectly"

Phyesalis, while it is OR and can be conveniently removed on this basis, it is hardly POV to state what is verifiably wrong in J. Arthur's article. Further, taking a page from ya here, her claim is an exceptional one as she does not provide a quote/source and more importantly, is asserting Brind (an endocrinologist) is getting something wrong that is within his expertise. I find your use of POV disappointing... and yet curious at the same time. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the citation - you sourced it with Joyce, not Brind, find a reliable source that states that and you're good to go. Otherwise, I doubt you'll find too many editors willing to believe that she states that she "incorrectly" claims Brind has a flawed mechanism. Phyesalis (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, color me confused. She obviously wouldn't state it, especially since she participated in this talk page on that paragraph in question and misunderstood what was wrong with her article to begin with; though that did help improve the article. She doesn't have to admit a mistake, actually anyone else (outside of Wikipedia) pointing out the mistake could be sufficient to reinsert "incorrectly". Something I'll look for, but I doubt I'll find. Thanks for the clarification(s). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, yes it was inadvertently sourced to Joyce (since it was OR). Good catch. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed political / religious affiliation

This was removed describing Brind as a pro-life Christian. I have already warned the user about using the minor edit. Anyway, if references are found should it be readded. It is relevant to why Brind is notable, ie. taking a strong stance on the ABC issue, as a potential conflict of interest. - RoyBoy 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, RoyBoy. I have found a reference for Brind's conversion to Christianity and subsequent initiation of his pro-life advocacy, which I have added to the article. I have also expanded the section heading "Early Life and Education" to include "Religious Conversion" as well. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Brind accuses the mainstream medical establishment of a cover up, asserts NCI is corrupt

I have added a sentence to the intro, pointing out that Brind is openly contemptuous of mainstream medical professional orgs and journals, accusing them of a cover up and calling the NCI "another corrupt federal agency like the NSA and IRS". I have backed this up with references to Brind's own articles. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed poorly-sourced (and false) claims about glycine

I have removed a claim about the alleged benefits of glycine supplements, posted by an editor who calls himself "TheTruth". This claim was sourced to Brind's own glycine-supplement company's commercial/advertisement/propaganda web site! (http://www.sweetamine.com) Not a reliable source. Also, the claim that glycine supplements are beneficial at all is contradicted by mainstream medical opinion, in particular by my source, which is Webmd. 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:4810:3ED1:3D23:2159 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joel Brind. 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/20110113001029/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011133808/http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report to http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.gov/cancer_information/doc.aspx?viewid=15e3f2d5-5cdd-4697-a2ba-f3388d732642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)