Talk:Mirko Beljanski

removing "questionable" from the first sentence

His discoveries have been peer reviewed and trials done by major universities and hospitals. As i can see here. Integrative Oncology for Clinicians and Cancer Patients: Part 4, Book: Healing Or Stealing?: 2. I have found other sources published by The New York Times in 2009, Flush Those Toxins! Eh, Not So Fast --LorengoK (talk)

Bad use of primary source + biaised presentation

@CNMall41 as asked, here I am.

I think that the primary sources that are used in this article are misused because they are used to make an original research about Beljanski and his work which is prohibited on Wikipedia.

Futheremore, the introduction should present Beljansky as he is, a person whom promoted and sold fake medicine [1], and that, after his death, her wife and his followers were sentenced for selling his quack medicine [2] [3] which is not effective [4]. Durifon (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion and civility (which has been rare here as of late). I have not looked through all of the sources you linked but will do so tomorrow with fresh eyes. In the meantime, your heading states "biased presentation." When I started editing this a while back, it was a poster child for POV-pushing. Almost like a sounding board for anyone who didn't like the guy. I wrote what I could from a neutral perspective and you can see that his arrest and laboratory seizure are included on the page, just from a neutral perspective. If there is something specific you feel is not NPOV, let me know and I will be happy to discuss. As far as the lead ("introduction"), that needs to be a summary of the major points in the body. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not from a neutral perspective. His arrest and the sentencing of his followers are central for this topic. Durifon (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutral is not about highlighting one aspect or another. It is about listing what is covered in reliable sources giving appropriate weight to everything. Per WP:BRD, this needs a discussion. There are many issues with your edits. For example:

1. Removing his work on RNA and DNA which is what he is primarily notable for. You added "notable in the latter part of his career for devising and promoting a number of ineffective cancer treatments. Why remove his work on RNA and DNA? That is what is covered in the vast majority of sources, including books, textbooks, research papers, and secondary reliable sources.

2. Again removing his earlier research and adding a prominent "criminal prosecution" section. We avoid controversy sections and this information is not weighted appropriately. It is already covered in the article. I also do not see an edit summary stating anything about what was changed or the reason for, which is the reason for discussion as well. I cannot guess your contention.

3. You removed this stating "advertising." I am not sure how stating the a foundation was created in his name is in any way advertorial. It would be if we coatracked it and listed all the things the organization has done.

I understand we may not agree so let me know specifically which points you would like to discuss for inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an edit I support as it does appear to be original research.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: How do we better support the fact that an historical figure continues to be cited in scholarly publications other than to cite contemporary scholarly publications citing that figure? There will be very few for whom a source will actually note the fact of this continued citation. To me this seems to be a WP:BLUESKY issue. BD2412 T 23:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of OR would be that we cannot say he is cited simply by showing the cite. Or, is this a common practice for researchers, PROFS, etc.?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

To the extent that we have disputes, they usually involve people for whom a Google Scholar profile exists. Beljanski is well-cited, but died before these profiles started being created. I'm not sure how one goes about initiating the creation of a profile for a deceased person. BD2412 T 01:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not really sure how to go about this then. I see he has a ton of papers on Research Gate but no real profile on Google Scholar. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep cancelling my éditions? Is it not well sourced enough? Durifon (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping the edit war and rejoining the discussion. The concerns are stated above and in the edit summaries. Being well-sourced is not the issue. See WP:VNOT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a mistake since I believed you had cancelled everything but it wasn't the case. For the deletion I made and you cancelled, [5] doesn't speak about Mirko Beljanski.

Furtheremore, I think the sentence " He also obtained patents" is OR because the only citation are patent.

The sentences about his discoveries of the reverse transcriptase has for ony citation articles written by himself, isn't it too OR? Durifon (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The other issues were addressed below. For the citation to mskcc, you are 100% correct. When I cleaned up the page I must not have checked it close or saw that it was cited to a "journal" and too it for granted. Either way it was my fault for not verifying. I added two book references that support (and there are more if you search Google Books). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

With respect to obtaining patents in a technical field, it is usually fairly easy to find third-party sources noting that a particular subject has been issued patents. I think it's rather silly to require an external source to say that someone was issued patents when you can point to the patent that has been issued, but I have found two sources mentioning Beljanski's patents, and will add that to close the loop on this discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Justitia patents is not a secondary source.

What about those paragraphs? Aren't they acceptable?

He was dismissed in 1978 from the Institut Pasteur: "Mr. Beljanski is a hard-working and enthusiastic researcher, but he is too inclined to take his dreams for realities. He is totally uncritical about his own work,” writes a director of the institute.

After 1988, he continued his research in a laboratory installed in a garage in Ivry-sur-Seine, the CERBIOL (Biological Research Centre). This garage is put at his disposal by Pierre Silvestri, a doubtful Lyon businessman, fond of occultism and parapsychology, who takes passion for the work of Beljanski.

It was in this laboratory that Beljanski began to produce and distribute his first «medicines» without having a marketing authorisation.

An association called COBRA (Centre Oncologique et Biologique de Recherche Appliquée) is set up, chaired by Pierre Silvestri. In fact, the members of the association promote and market Beljanski products, directly approaching patients to offer them alternative treatments.

Cancer: A Practical Guide to Treatment and Surveillance Assessment, written in 1997 by Jean-Marie Andrieu, Pierre Colonna and Raphaël Lévy, summarizes the opinion of the majority of cancer specialists on Beljanski’s work. The authors write, "Beljanski’s theories and therapeutic applications remain totally questionable and the documentation presented has many obscure and unconvincing points."

The lack of a marketing authorisation (MA) for Beljanski products has triggered several lawsuits for the illegal practice of pharmacie.

In 1995, a request for an MA was rejected by the French health authorities, as the dossier was incomplete, in the absence of clinical trials in the standards specifying benefits and risks.

Following a lengthy investigation, on 23 May 2001, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Créteil sentenced some 15 people, including Monique Beljanski, for illegal practice of pharmacy, lack of authorization of a drug manufacturing establishment, failure to authorise the placing on the market of a product represented as a medicinal product, illegal advertising of medicinal products, misleading or liable to harm public health, illegal advertising for a medicinal product for unauthorized human use, unregistered or non-compliant with the marketing authorization, advertising to the public for a medicinal product for human use without an advertising endorsement, deception on a good causing a danger to human health, and complicity in these offences.

This decision is confirmed on 27 September 2002 and sentences Monique Beljanski to 18 months in prison with a suspended sentence and 200,000 francs in fines for illegal practice of pharmacy

At the same time, in 2002, the European Court of Human Rights condemned the French State for the excessive length of the judicial procedure. Durifon (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

About the patents, your citations only cite Beljanski patents, they don't even speak about them... I don't think it's a very pertinent information. Durifon (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not as though we have an entire paragraph about how great or novel his patents were. The citations provided support the four-word observation: "He also obtained patents". Obtaining of patents by a scientist is informative, as it indicates that the scientist discovered or invented something useful and original (as patents are required to be). I don't see how it would serve the reader to pretend he did not. BD2412 T 22:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Patents can be used as primary source. Per WP:PATENT, "They are reliable as a citation to the existence of an invention and its date (e.g., "A patent was issued to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...")." So we could list them and use wording such as "In 1994, Beljanski was issued a patent for Cytodiagnostic method using alstonine as a selective marker, and diagnostic kit containing marker." - And then list each one out in the same manner, citing all seven of them. However, this gives too much context in the page. Keeping a simple statement of "he was also issued patents" gives appropriate WP:WEIGHT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I'm pretty sure you mean per WP:PATENTS, not WP:PATENT. In fact, I find it kind of odd that policy permits the use of the patent itself as proof of the existence of the patent (as it should), but we question whether the existence of articles citing the subject's work can be used as proof of articles citing the subject's work. I do agree with your point on the context, both with respect to the patents and the other matters under discussion. BD2412 T 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Reasoning for why this is not detailed in such as manner has already been given. You have simply asked if it was appropriate and then listed what you wrote on the page. If you have a contention per [{WP:ONUS]] as to why we need to give that much WP:WEIGHT to it I would be happy to look at it. However, it is the same as with the patent information. It is too detailed for something that is covered in only a small percentage of the overall reliable sources about him and his work.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

THis is wrong. The reliable sources about him and his work mainly speak about how he was selling quack medicine.

But, you are right, most sources about him aren't reliable and are advertising for him and the Foundation her daughter created. But Wikipedia shouldn't take those sources into account. Durifon (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References