Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Marshall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Trevor Marshall

Trevor Marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article about Trevor Marshall needs to be removed. He is a scientist who is currently working on a hypothesis that has not been embraced by peer based review. I feel that he or someone close to hime is trying to push his case using wikipedia.
1. WP:NOT#OR
2. WP:NOT#SOAP
Also refer to Talk:sarcoidosis
The following sources have been critical of Trevor Marshall: [[1]](Authoritative BMJ source) [[2]]
His own websites, including a resume are: [[3]] [[4]] Note the similarity to the discussed Wikipedia entry
A man with two or three PubMed publications should not be on Wikipedia. Savisha 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The user already has his user-site on wikipedia on which he argues his hypothesis. It can be found on User:Trevmar.--Savisha 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - OR at its best, vanity at its worst. Delete as nn. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The more poorly understood the condition, the more odd hypotheses and unproven treatments arise. If the treatments are barely notable, the inventor is even less so. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to detract slightly from the apparent consensus. Please note that I have no affiliation with the above person, and had never heard of him prior to this morning. However, upon reviewing his recent publication list, I feel that Savisha's comment, though well-intended, is misleading: "A man with two or three PubMed publications...". More important is the fact that he has published in two of the five most prominant medical journals that exist, mainly the CMAJ and The Lancet, and thus, in my opinion, is entitled to a brief article that is neutral in nature and adequately presents both sides of whichever controversal hypothesis he argues. --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to say that I have no personal issue with that man. However I do have a problem with him advertising his methods on Wikipedia - He and his colleauge have tried to include the treatment (for which he has no accepted publication not to speak of a randomised controlled trial) in the article for Sarcoidosis. The two publications you are referring to are both short responses to articles, they are not true publications.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This appears to be a content dispute about a researcher whose notability is established. Saying "He is wrong" is not a good basis for deletion. Go and edit boldly or do RfC. Edison 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying he is wrong. He has not published anything important to be notable. And what is clear, is that his treatment, which he is so proud of has not been proven scientifically by Trials.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that I really wanted to get involved in this, but in my dealings with this individual I did do a PubMed search (which I have pasted below). You can clearly see that the "papers" published in CMAJ and the Lancet are not papers but are, in fact, author replies (i.e. usually disagreement with what the authors of the papers did publish).

1. Trevor Marshall. Are statins analogues of vitamin D? Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1234; author reply 1235. No abstract available. PMID: 17027719
2. Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE. Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b. Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1. PMID: 16403216
3. Marshall TG, Marshall FE.Sarcoidosis succumbs to antibiotics--implications for autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):295-300. Review. PMID: 15246025
4. Marshall TG. Puzzling vitamin D results. CMAJ. 2002 Oct 15;167(8):849; author reply 849-50. No abstract available. PMID: 12406940

So in reality that is just two papers, and one of these is in a highly specialized journal. I disagree with the inclusion of his aggrandizing, soapbox type article, and I do not think that he is anymore notable as a scientist than thousands of other people. Delete Just my $0.02.--DO11.10 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and slightly embarrased:) in my (premature) statement that he had published the papers in CMAJ and The Lancet. I suppose this is what I get for trying to edit on wikipedia during exam time! Anyway, if it can be established that he has insignificant notoriety then I say delete it. I would be in favour of adding a section on either sarcodiosis or vitamin D to something to the effect of: Researchers have also proposed blah blah blah treatment, etc (Marshall T et al.) and then site his journal or something. --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Nobody has yet mentioned the WP requirements for balanced coverage. We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. What we do is include a mention of them in the article on the disease or the theory, of proportional importance as judged by those editing there. As for the person, he needs more than this, right or wrong.DGG 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems I will need to add a few things in the view of the above comments.

• Dr Marshall (PhD in electric engineering/diabetes) and a user called Palbert have already tried to include their views on the articles on Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, and their views have been rightly not allowed to be included in the content. For the disscussions please see Talk:Sarcoidosis and Talk:Vitamin D
• I will take Sarcoidosis as an example. I am myself no big fan of corticosteroids, and I embrace the fact that Dr Marshall is hypothesising a different aetiology and treatment. This is worth looking for, and the Oxford Textbook of Medicine, 4th ed. does suggest a protoplast form of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as one of several possibilities. Now the problem: T Marshall is selling his treatment as being for Sarcoidosis, he has not published ANYTHING for that in peer-review journals. However, there has been Published literature on alternatives to corticosteroids one of the more notable authors being [R.P. Baughman], who recently even published [an article] in the Lancet. If you want too beef up the Sarcoidosis article I would suggest you add people like Baughman rather that Marshall.
• Lastly, why I got involved in this. I belive that the greatest danger for Wikipedia are not vandals or editors who post hoaxes. In a specialist field like medicine, people like Trevor Marshall or whoever wrote the article are far more dangerous - his article on himself looks very professional, and he uses what looks like scientific papers to back up his arguments (some of these he published in a journal he set up himself). To a lay user, who has sarcoidosis, for example, this may look very serious, and he may be fooled. He will then go onto Marshall's website and maybe even join his therapy, for which there is not a hint of scientific evidence (Please remember that a significant result in a Randomised controlled trial is needed to verify a treatment).
• Marshall seems to be very keen on putting his point forward, and his contributions have been doubtful at times: [[5]],[[6]. He has however been very active on the internet, and his wikipedia activity as well as his webpages are a testimony to this: [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]. He also not an academic at any University, but rather set up his own institute, with a few nurses.
• Marshall's Protocol seems to be a wonder treatment for [diseases] including Crohn's, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Sarcoidosis etc. see link.
• Marshall's Protocol is not alone in the world of unproven and unpublished hypotheses. There are many other so called Protocols as exemplified by this [website] on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Are you going to include Marshall and all other Protocols? None of them are proven scientifically. Or are you going to include Marshall because his internet presence is more bold? There are so many more important things than his small-print research.
• Finally @DGG: You say that We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. 1. What do you base his public attention on? His own publicity on himself? 2. In science I think that it IS important whether someone has been embraced by peer-based-review or has not been able to publish because his articles were seen as not up to the standard. I do not believe we are here to publish random hypotheses. Especially if you look at the Articles for Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, they include the barest minimum of information including a random hypothesis might lead a lay user to the idea that Marshall's small print stuff is mainstream!
• What is also funny, someone has added him as a notable producer of Home-made synthesizers on Wikipedia Synthesizer#Homemade_synthesizers. He is an electrical engineer, and as a medic I cannot assess whether his home-made synthesizer was more important than other ones in the history of these things.

Sorry for the lengthly elaboration. If users were reading the links, it would be much easier to argue. I think the whole thing is VANITY and he does not deserve a single mention on Wikipedia.--Savisha 05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)