This article was nominated for deletion on 24 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Discussion of the practice of medical tourism in general belongs at Medical_tourism#Germany not here. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: Since the case refers to the Patient Paul-Thomas Peter - http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk, http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk/?s=hallwang+clinic from the Hallwang Clinic and the controversial section is missing any controversies (negative versus positive), a positive example should be cited in contrast to the negative example from David Gorski: (I have included that it is "a very exceptional case", as wished).
In contrast, a very exceptional case of the Hallwang Clinic has been commented on BBC Look North: Professor Dr. Christian Ottensmeier [16], Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine and director of NIHR (National Institue for Health) and CRUK (Cancer Research UK), Southampton, describes the patient´s therapy response to a specific Immunotherapy at the Hallwang Clinic as a "dramatic benefit" and "durable" and "as dramatic as it gets with any oncology treatment".[17] Professor Dr. Ottensmeier is highly reputated medical oncologist and is at the forefront of research into cancer vaccines.[18] Checkpoint18 ( talk) 11:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Question? I agree with the blog source. The blog source should just give you both the evidence that the citation used from BBC is about a Patient from the Hallwang Clinic. The BBC prtesented a leading medical UK oncologist, Professor Dr. Christian Ottensmeier, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine and director of NIHR (National Institue for Health) and CRUK (Cancer Research UK), Southampton, who independently evaluates and describes the therapy response of a patient from the Hallwang Clinic. Why would the opinion of a leading oncologist from the NHS about therapy responses at the Hallwang Clinic as an independent evaluation be of no interest for a cancer patient or reader to get a balanced view on the article about "Hallwang Clinic"?
Currently, the article is lacking an independent feedback of an medical oncologist and the BBC, as highly valued source, is providing here an independent feedback by Professor Dr Ottensmeier.
I understand that some authors seem to be more on a negative site, and of course there always exist several opinions that influence us how we are writing and how we balance the facts, but since I want my part also to be respected, what is your suggestion, how to include an independent and therefore important information from a leading UK oncologist? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm doubting the independency of David Gorski in order to judge German clinics, private clinics and particularly clinics that obviously use complimentary therapy. Furthermore, he appears not be familiar with the German health system. Looking at his Wikipedia page, it becomes for everyone clear that he is critical about clinics with a complimentary therapy possibility. This is for sure not a problem at all, since he gets a reasonable part in this article. But therefore the article is lacking a balanced and neutral weigh for everyone to get independent information about the criticism and the positivity. I think that cancer patients and readers who do not have such a strong opinion about complementary medicine as David Gorski does would be influenced by the one-sided presentation. Since Gorski is getting literally cited from a blog, he runs, I would suggest to include the BBC news in the same way for Prof. Ottensmeier. Phil, I think a BBC report is as valuable as a citation from a blog. And since the article is mainly covered by media reports, I don't see any argument against it. As proven before Dr. Ottensmeier is presenting a case from the Hallwang Clinic, or there any doubts? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 11:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The sentence cited is not from his book chapter and he is not a medical oncologist. Since you take this quite personal - I'm not interested to delete David Gorski. But there is no argument to not include another valued opinion by the BBC, Prof. Ottensmeier, as you wish to include the opinion of David Gorski. Checkpoint18 ( talk) 12:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
[
[1]] makes no mention of hallwang.
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The patient from the Hallwang Clinic himself is referring to this video about him and about Prof. Ottensmeier commenting his case: https://vimeo.com/247520605 (@3:05) http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk/author/paultp/ Together with the patient link it should become clear, that this video is an interesting part about the clinic. Sunitinib ( talk) 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this the piece [ [2]]? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Why do we have GmbH? surely it would be better to just call it the Hallwang Clinic? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a thread about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
NEUTRALITY ASPECTS: What is the interest to violate a balanced description Checkpoint18 ( talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)?
Most of these are not available on the United Kingdom's NHS. The clinic is accused of exaggerating the likely effectiveness of the treatments it sells.
Professor Dr. Malvy from the Institute Gustav-Roussy, one of the leading cancer centers in Central Europe, and Professor. Dr. Christian Ottensmeier, director of the Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) UK, have commented on therapy strategies at the Hallwang Clinic. Prof. Dr. Malvy defends so called off-label therapy strategies at the Hallwang Clinic.
Prof. Dr. Ottensmeier has been cited by the BBC "Look North" that immune therapies at the Hallwang Clinic have achieved treatment responses "as dramatic as it can get in cancer treatments."
There has been further noticeable attention that patients and physicians from other European countries are asking for second opinions from the oncologists at the Hallwang Clinic. Dr. Gerard Lascols, a physician from France, who herself suffered from triple negative breast cancer, reported to have achieved a complete remission with immunotherapy that is currently non-approved in France, so-called off-label therapy.
You are citing one- sided and redundently citing Gorski as you main source. Publications and comments from leading scientist are getting repitatively deleted although they would be of importance to provide a neutral information. The Hallwang page is not providing any neutral balanced information and appears completely one-sided. You have obviously a conflict of interest. I‘m surprised how you can accept a such one sided presentation of a topic that would in this form only harm the reputation of Wikipedia. Of course you are responsible yourself for this one sided presentation but I would recommend to increase the quality by neutrality Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the citations as outlined. Happy to discuss but now I got blocked ? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Really wired :) asking for a balanced and neutral description in the sense for readers and it appears that if one is not attacking a firm with new shut, it should not be added ?? This is wiki or is this rather you can through with shit better contest :)) Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Professor Malory is a highly decorated and international reknown scientist and director of the leading cancer center in France and his defense for the Hallwang clinic is not accepted ??? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Come on! Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Director of Cancer Research in the TV is personally saying that therapies at Hallwang are outstanding but expensive- and his comment is less worthit than a surgent talking about oncology in his blog news?? And personal pseudoscience army? Come on !!! You get it Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Then you should accept the news paper article from professor malvy or not? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I should write a pdf and get a book number - this seems to be a more relevant citation for wiki :))) Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That‘s crazy and unfortunate- particularly for people looking for balanced and neutral information Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I note that the addition of this category was reverted. Why? This seems to fit fairly and squarely in the category. Pinging User:Kashmiri, who added the category, and User:Trivialist, who removed it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 16:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I am making some edits as below. If any issues, please post your opposition reasons here:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddjanna ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
which means that he is biasedNo, it means he agrees with the state of the evidence and represents the scientific consensus, just as Wikipedia does. You should read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I made some edits here that were reverted by @ Bon courage, so this message is mainly for him to explain why I cannot add the additional info below, which were well cited. This info is about what the company does and has done, so it is also historical info. This is common info that most similar pages have.
Ddjanna ( talk) 06:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
What is this edit supposed to be? It should be obvious that in formal writing such as in an encyclopedia we use surnames rather than first names, and I can see nobody else with this surname mentioned which would make disambiguation needed. If this is not obvious to you I'm sure it's written down somewhere in policies and guidelines, probably in the manual of style. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Discussion of the practice of medical tourism in general belongs at Medical_tourism#Germany not here. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion: Since the case refers to the Patient Paul-Thomas Peter - http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk, http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk/?s=hallwang+clinic from the Hallwang Clinic and the controversial section is missing any controversies (negative versus positive), a positive example should be cited in contrast to the negative example from David Gorski: (I have included that it is "a very exceptional case", as wished).
In contrast, a very exceptional case of the Hallwang Clinic has been commented on BBC Look North: Professor Dr. Christian Ottensmeier [16], Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine and director of NIHR (National Institue for Health) and CRUK (Cancer Research UK), Southampton, describes the patient´s therapy response to a specific Immunotherapy at the Hallwang Clinic as a "dramatic benefit" and "durable" and "as dramatic as it gets with any oncology treatment".[17] Professor Dr. Ottensmeier is highly reputated medical oncologist and is at the forefront of research into cancer vaccines.[18] Checkpoint18 ( talk) 11:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Question? I agree with the blog source. The blog source should just give you both the evidence that the citation used from BBC is about a Patient from the Hallwang Clinic. The BBC prtesented a leading medical UK oncologist, Professor Dr. Christian Ottensmeier, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine and director of NIHR (National Institue for Health) and CRUK (Cancer Research UK), Southampton, who independently evaluates and describes the therapy response of a patient from the Hallwang Clinic. Why would the opinion of a leading oncologist from the NHS about therapy responses at the Hallwang Clinic as an independent evaluation be of no interest for a cancer patient or reader to get a balanced view on the article about "Hallwang Clinic"?
Currently, the article is lacking an independent feedback of an medical oncologist and the BBC, as highly valued source, is providing here an independent feedback by Professor Dr Ottensmeier.
I understand that some authors seem to be more on a negative site, and of course there always exist several opinions that influence us how we are writing and how we balance the facts, but since I want my part also to be respected, what is your suggestion, how to include an independent and therefore important information from a leading UK oncologist? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm doubting the independency of David Gorski in order to judge German clinics, private clinics and particularly clinics that obviously use complimentary therapy. Furthermore, he appears not be familiar with the German health system. Looking at his Wikipedia page, it becomes for everyone clear that he is critical about clinics with a complimentary therapy possibility. This is for sure not a problem at all, since he gets a reasonable part in this article. But therefore the article is lacking a balanced and neutral weigh for everyone to get independent information about the criticism and the positivity. I think that cancer patients and readers who do not have such a strong opinion about complementary medicine as David Gorski does would be influenced by the one-sided presentation. Since Gorski is getting literally cited from a blog, he runs, I would suggest to include the BBC news in the same way for Prof. Ottensmeier. Phil, I think a BBC report is as valuable as a citation from a blog. And since the article is mainly covered by media reports, I don't see any argument against it. As proven before Dr. Ottensmeier is presenting a case from the Hallwang Clinic, or there any doubts? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 11:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The sentence cited is not from his book chapter and he is not a medical oncologist. Since you take this quite personal - I'm not interested to delete David Gorski. But there is no argument to not include another valued opinion by the BBC, Prof. Ottensmeier, as you wish to include the opinion of David Gorski. Checkpoint18 ( talk) 12:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
[
[1]] makes no mention of hallwang.
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The patient from the Hallwang Clinic himself is referring to this video about him and about Prof. Ottensmeier commenting his case: https://vimeo.com/247520605 (@3:05) http://tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk/author/paultp/ Together with the patient link it should become clear, that this video is an interesting part about the clinic. Sunitinib ( talk) 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this the piece [ [2]]? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Why do we have GmbH? surely it would be better to just call it the Hallwang Clinic? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I have opened a thread about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
NEUTRALITY ASPECTS: What is the interest to violate a balanced description Checkpoint18 ( talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)?
Most of these are not available on the United Kingdom's NHS. The clinic is accused of exaggerating the likely effectiveness of the treatments it sells.
Professor Dr. Malvy from the Institute Gustav-Roussy, one of the leading cancer centers in Central Europe, and Professor. Dr. Christian Ottensmeier, director of the Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) UK, have commented on therapy strategies at the Hallwang Clinic. Prof. Dr. Malvy defends so called off-label therapy strategies at the Hallwang Clinic.
Prof. Dr. Ottensmeier has been cited by the BBC "Look North" that immune therapies at the Hallwang Clinic have achieved treatment responses "as dramatic as it can get in cancer treatments."
There has been further noticeable attention that patients and physicians from other European countries are asking for second opinions from the oncologists at the Hallwang Clinic. Dr. Gerard Lascols, a physician from France, who herself suffered from triple negative breast cancer, reported to have achieved a complete remission with immunotherapy that is currently non-approved in France, so-called off-label therapy.
You are citing one- sided and redundently citing Gorski as you main source. Publications and comments from leading scientist are getting repitatively deleted although they would be of importance to provide a neutral information. The Hallwang page is not providing any neutral balanced information and appears completely one-sided. You have obviously a conflict of interest. I‘m surprised how you can accept a such one sided presentation of a topic that would in this form only harm the reputation of Wikipedia. Of course you are responsible yourself for this one sided presentation but I would recommend to increase the quality by neutrality Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the citations as outlined. Happy to discuss but now I got blocked ? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Really wired :) asking for a balanced and neutral description in the sense for readers and it appears that if one is not attacking a firm with new shut, it should not be added ?? This is wiki or is this rather you can through with shit better contest :)) Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Professor Malory is a highly decorated and international reknown scientist and director of the leading cancer center in France and his defense for the Hallwang clinic is not accepted ??? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Come on! Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Director of Cancer Research in the TV is personally saying that therapies at Hallwang are outstanding but expensive- and his comment is less worthit than a surgent talking about oncology in his blog news?? And personal pseudoscience army? Come on !!! You get it Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Then you should accept the news paper article from professor malvy or not? Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I should write a pdf and get a book number - this seems to be a more relevant citation for wiki :))) Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
That‘s crazy and unfortunate- particularly for people looking for balanced and neutral information Checkpoint18 ( talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I note that the addition of this category was reverted. Why? This seems to fit fairly and squarely in the category. Pinging User:Kashmiri, who added the category, and User:Trivialist, who removed it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 16:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I am making some edits as below. If any issues, please post your opposition reasons here:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddjanna ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
which means that he is biasedNo, it means he agrees with the state of the evidence and represents the scientific consensus, just as Wikipedia does. You should read WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I made some edits here that were reverted by @ Bon courage, so this message is mainly for him to explain why I cannot add the additional info below, which were well cited. This info is about what the company does and has done, so it is also historical info. This is common info that most similar pages have.
Ddjanna ( talk) 06:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
What is this edit supposed to be? It should be obvious that in formal writing such as in an encyclopedia we use surnames rather than first names, and I can see nobody else with this surname mentioned which would make disambiguation needed. If this is not obvious to you I'm sure it's written down somewhere in policies and guidelines, probably in the manual of style. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)