Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding

Corrections Needed

I haven't looked at this page for a while, but it's gotten pretty bad again. There are statements in the current version that I believe have come back after being removed that were originally introduced by a sock puppet.

In the discussion about the controversy, there is a single throw-away line about his tweets being criticized as inaccurate. Only one scientist (who happens to be supportive) is mentioned in the text, and it's his supervisor (so not a neutral party) who has no (or at least negligible) credentials in infectious disease. The fact that prominent scientists who are at the same institution as his supervisor who specialize in infectious diseases have publicly called Ding a "charlatan" is surely at least equally worthy of mention if not of more relevance.

The section on the "controversy over how to do science communication" being presented as a simply an argument over style is a red herring. The controversy is over whether making false or misleading statements is appropriate in science communication. The discussion about his lack of qualifications is also a distraction. People can lack official qualifications but still have gained the expertise to know what they are talking about. The problem is that his misrepresentation of basic concepts seems to stem from his lack of understanding, and then he uses his similar sounding expertise ("epidemiology") to get people to accept what he says. I know that when challenged he has made the statement that he never claimed to be an expert on infectious diseases, but frankly, that statement was dishonest. He has repeatedly claimed that he has relevant expertise. Joelmiller (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time/capacity to take this on - @Crossroads are you able to bring in some of the sources you listed of scientists criticizing him as a source of misinformation?

Things that need fixing/discussion

I'm making a list of things that I believe need fixing Joelmiller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Since I had a glance at this page today and saw a lot of things that shocked me, here's a go at trying to document some of them for others to think about: @GlobeGores @Shibbolethink @Yug

1. The link to "Harvard Faculty Profile": The site scholar.harvard.edu is a place where people with a current or long-since lapsed affiliation with Harvard can have a website. See for example https://scholar.harvard.edu/joelmiller by someone who hasn't been affiliated with Harvard in about 10 years. To see what a Harvard Faculty Profile really looks like, consider https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/marc-lipsitch/.
2. The statement about his "rise to prominence as a leading ... commentator and expert during the COVID-19 pandemic" should not say "and expert", unless a source is provided saying that he is a leading expert on COVID. No question about being a leading commentator. But expert? Given that this is a section about questions on his expertise, seemingly calling him an expert seems to not be neutral.
3. the mention of his "epidemiologist peers" such as Simin Liu (who is a nutritionist). Certainly Liu's linkedin profile is not a valid source. And if Liu's commentary is deemed relevant, then surely the infectious disease experts who have criticized him should be heard with equal prominence.
4. The lack of a quote from a highly regarded infectious disease expert stating that he spreads misinformation.
5. There should be discussion of what to do with the mention of "Toxin Alert". I cannot find the organization. Maybe it's been abandoned? I can find a dormant facebook page with <300 followers and a link to a webpage that doesn't seem to exist (at least on my browser).
6. Is it appropriate to use a statement from the president of an organization he is a member (FAS) to provide support?
7. Is there a firm feeling on disallowing tweets as sources? If so, the reference to twitter.com should go.

I maintain that if you can read the criticism section and you do not get the impression that at least some experts on infectious disease believe he frequently mis-states facts then you are missing the primary criticisms.

Less clear to me: I don't see a purpose for the section "A case study of social web early alert" - is this worth keeping, especially if we aren't including mention of his inaccurate claims? That'll do for me for a while - I've got lots of teaching this semester. Good luck. Joelmiller (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Two quick things. One, you may want to move this section of the talk page to the end so that sections aren't out of order, or else make this a subsection.

Seconds, I think that "case study of social web early alert" is an attempt to make Feigl-Ding's early concern about COVID seem more unique than it actually is. The info is likely worth keeping, but I hope it is framed differently. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 19:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done : Moved section down.

Point 1: if I understand well, https://scholar.harvard.edu/ericfeiglding/bio is self managed by EFD, and must therefore be handled as such. Right ?

Point 2: I added "rise to prominence [in media] as a leading as commentator and expert" as a move in your direction. If we state that EFD rose to the level of media commentator alone, then why do we bother looking for his PhD and academic publication in infectious diseases epidemiology ? It's well known that a whole industry is based on the possibility of man or woman to give [dubious] opinions in medias, as long as those are entertaining. We can remove it yes. (But then I don't see why we criticize a mass media commentator for doing commentary/pundit speeches.)

Point 3: n.a. yet.

Point 4: already explained in former discussions, we have to be careful with biographies of living persons and critical quotes, the standard for inclusion is high. See BLP, WP:NOSCANDAL, WP:BLOGS/WP:TWEET, WP:LIBEL. Critical quote from self published platforms are not accepted. Critical quote must be

Point 5: no idea.

Point 6: no idea. Possible COI must be stated (?)

Point 7: Twitter quote are regulated. See WP:TWEET and WP:BLOGS. For short, if Mr. X tweets about Mr. X (himself) in a serious tone, it's okish, we can include. A person is the primary source for his/her lifepath statement. If Mr. Y tweets about Mr. X, it's not a reliable source.

Yes, this article need a revamp. @GlobeGores:, would you like us to team up in March or April to first merge current contents ? I think we can prune it some more so to have a better view and article. Yug (talk) 🐲 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Point 1: it is indeed self-managed by EFD.

Point 2: if worded that way it seems to open the section with an unequivocal statement that he is an expert (and not just any expert, but a leading expert). It's okay if we state that some view him as an expert. Or that he claims to have relevant expertise. We shouldn't state he is an expert - a part of the controversy is the fact he presents himself as an expert (while the main controversy is the fact that he spreads misinformation).

Point 4: My request is that a quote from a reliable source repeating what a recognized expert said to the reporter be included (namely he is a source of misinformation). I do not see any reason you mention that precludes that. Can we add it?Joelmiller (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, it's hard for me to make time for editing this page.

I noticed you (referring to User:Yug here) had a specific concern about "Lack of relevant epidemiological expertise" as a heading and changed it to "Debate over relevant epidemiological expertise". I just split that section into two pieces - one titled "Lack of expertise in infectious disease epidemiology" (which I think is more objective and clearly provable by the citations) and one titled "Debate over approach to science communication" (where I think there is genuine debate, as there has been both praise and criticism for his approach). WDYT? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I like this change. I wonder about swapping the last two sentences in the "Debate" section. Obviously given personal biases, I'd prefer that the paragraph end with a critical statement, but I think it makes more sense in the other order. Joelmiller (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight of preprint issue mention. It was literally the last afterthought in that article. And the main expert of the article Carl Bergstrom even expressed regret for his attitude towards EFD. It was a brief thing that Bergstrom (the protagonist of that article) admits is water under the bridge. Besides, sharing a preprint is very common practice during pandemic. Sahiljain22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the editors in this section and under #This article does not make it clear that Eric Feigl-Ding's approach to science communication has been criticized that this article has POV issues. These edits are a start at fixing that. Many sources, including the ones I and GlobeGores cited, go into great detail about his tweets having been alarmist or misleading. The Science article says so in its own voice, and while Bergstrom is somewhat forgiving, he also is clearly saying that EFD is alarmist about new variants, saying EFD thinks they will "kill us all" (hyperbole but the point about EFD is obvious) and that too much certainty is misinformation. Do not make any more removals of pertinent and well-sourced critical material. I note that almost all of your edits in the last few years pertain to this article - even commenting at a 2018 AfD, well before COVID - and that you have been given notices repeatedly about WP:COI. For a Canadian doctor (according to your userpage) you also have quite an interest in things about Boston University, where Feigl-Ding has been. If disruption occurs a report at WP:COIN will be necessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There has been a few folks over the past 2 years who keep inserting 'he is a nutritionist' line as a standalone, while seemingly deleting/omitting/downplaying his epidemiology doctorate. those types of edits should be stamped out first of all.

There are already lots of discussions on EFD's science communications - any new additions should be added into relevant sections in the debate section. plenty of people have already called him alarmist, and older 2020 articles are referenced a lot already, as well as counterpoints too. the new Science one makes a passing mention of Bergstrom's early 2020 interactions with EFD, which Bergstrom has since recanted his stances. thus, its a footnote at most, especially given how long ago, and its subsequent position change of the person who made it. But i'm open to small mention in the debate section. Dthut (talk) Dthut (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We do agree that "is a nutritionist" is not accurate and shouldn't be there, because it is nutritional epidemiology. However, the lead remains POV after your reversion by removing the fact that other scientists do criticize him for alarmism and inaccuracy. This was noted earlier in this section: "The lack of a quote from a highly regarded infectious disease expert stating that he spreads misinformation." In fact, this is more a general phenomenon by various scientists. By the way, Bergstrom did not "recant" - he was still somewhat critical in describing him, as I said.

The "Coronavirus preparedness advocacy" section also has issues as it gives space to individual scientists that favor him, and devotes much space to the more favorable David Wallace-Wells piece from March 2020, but says nothing about later criticism from individual scientists and very little from later sources that are more critical. A foremost example of this is this article from Undark Magazine, which goes into great detail on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources describing criticism by other scientists

• But as Feigl-Ding’s influence has grown, so have the voices of his critics, many of them fellow scientists who have expressed ongoing concern over his tweets, which they say are often unnecessarily alarmist, misleading, or sometimes just plain wrong. “Science misinformation is a huge problem right now — I think we can all appreciate it — [and] he’s a constant source of it,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist at George Mason University and the University of Arizona who serves on FAS’ Covid-19 Rapid Response Taskforce, a separate arm of the organization from Feigl-Ding’s work. Tara Smith, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Kent State University, suggested that Feigl-Ding’s reach means his tweets have the power to be hugely influential. “With as large of a following as he has, when he says something that’s really wrong or misleading, it reverberates throughout the Twittersphere,” she said. Critics point to numerous problems....To Angela Rasmussen, a Columbia University virologist, this represents a pattern. “[T]his is his MO,” she wrote in an email. “He tweets something sensational and out of context, buries any caveats further down-thread, and watches the clicks and [retweets] roll in.”...And on any given day, it’s easy to find other experts picking apart a Feigl-Ding tweet, explaining what he’s gotten wrong, or what nuance he’s left out....Finding experts publicly correcting or critiquing Feigl-Ding’s tweets is not hard. [1], Undark Magazine, 11-25-2020.
• But along the way he has garnered harsh criticism from some fellow epidemiologists for opining about issues on which, they say, he knows very little. “Everyone is very frustrated with him and regretting that we didn’t band together to discredit him,” said one epidemiologist. Another called him a “guy with zero background” in infectious-disease research who is “spouting a bunch of half-truths.”...But one of the nation’s most prominent infectious-disease researchers, Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard and director of the university’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, has made no secret of his disdain for Feigl-Ding’s virus-related commentary, repeatedly calling him out as an unqualified publicity-seeker. [2], The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4-17-2020.
• Feigl-Ding’s followers rapidly grew, from around 2,000 to now more than 109,000, as they voraciously consumed Feigl-Ding’s often misleading, inaccurate or exaggerated tweets. Soon Feigl-Ding was on CNN, identified as “Public Health Expert, Harvard University,” and on CGTN as a “scientist” at Harvard. Colleagues and other experts on Twitter who tried to correct Feigl-Ding were attacked, dismissed, blocked or ignored. Feigl-Ding is a public health expert, no doubt, and he is a visiting scientist at Harvard. But that doesn’t mean he’s remotely qualified to speak on an infectious disease outbreak. Relying on someone who appears authoritative but isn’t actually an expert in the topic is dangerous, as you risk communicating inaccurate or misleading information to an anxious public. [3], Association of Health Care Journalists, 3-11-2020.
• In early 2020, for example, he took on Eric Feigl-Ding, a nutritional epidemiologist then at Harvard Chan who amassed a huge following with what many scientists felt were alarmist tweets. When Feigl-Ding tweeted about a preprint claiming that SARS-CoV-2 contained sequences from HIV and was likely engineered, Bergstrom called him an “alarmist attention-seeker.” (The preprint was withdrawn within days.) But the spat showed that defining misinformation is difficult. Feigl-Ding rang the alarm many times—he is “very, very concerned” about every new variant, Bergstrom says, and “will tweet about how it’s gonna come kill us all”—but turned out to be right on some things. “It’s misinformation if you present these things as certainties and don’t adequately reflect the degree of uncertainty that we have,” Bergstrom says. [4], Science, 3-23-2022

The above sources, except for Science, and also including this from Times Higher Education, also comment extensively on the matter of the debate over his qualifications. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The JAMA paper on Cox-2 inhibitor drugs shows that the kidney risks were evident by year 2000, according to figure 2 of the JAMA paper. The time-cumulative meta-analysis analysis shows it. this is mention in the discussion and results of the paper too, so its peer reviewed, not conjecture. 75.104.106.110 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think its also important to highlight this Georgia Straight article that notably says EFD's twitter feed is a 'goto destination' for pandemic info. Georgia Straight's editor Charlie Smith says, "Feigl-Ding also alerted me to a massive NIH-funded study showing that U.S. school districts with mandatory mask policies had 72 percent fewer in-school COVID-19 transmissions than districts without mandatory mask policies. This isn't something that Health Minister Adrian Dix ever mentions when defending the lifting of a provincewide indoor mask mandate. Nor is this research disclosed on the websites of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and B.C.'s health authorities.". Sahiljain22 (talk)

References

This editor is blocked for sockpuppetry, but in brief, this is WP:UNDUE to include as it is an opinionated article from a weekly alternative magazine that denigrates the mainstream public health authorities in favor of one man's opinion. Regardless of if such a thing is in favor of less COVID restrictions or more compared to the mainstream (more, naturally, in this case), it is undue. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Section currently titled "A case study of social web early alert"

This section, which already has an unencyclopedic, non-wiki complaint title for a BLP, has at least five statements that require attribution but that have none, and has at least one sweeping medical claim that does not have a MEDRS-compliant citation.

I propose that this section be dealt with by (A) deleting it; (B) moving it here to the talkpage until it is cleaned up and fixed; or (C) attributing everything that needs it and removing all medical/epidemiological claims not cited to a MEDRS source.

If the section is kept in any form, it needs a heading that works for a Wikipedia BLP (and that does not instead sound like the title to someone's term paper). Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have chosen option A; here is a diff containing the text: [5]. This article historically had an issue with sockpuppetry and evidently COI editing, with that text having been part of that favored by the sockpuppets, with the problem accounts only somewhat recently getting blocked because their socking got caught. There are more issues outlined above in the previous section(s). Crossroads ^-talk- 00:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely this should not be included here, it is blatantly WP:UNDUE and filled with PRIMARY supposition. Unencyclopedic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy

The subsection titled Coronavirus preparedness advocacy repeats itself word for word. Does anyone object to removing the repetition? Skywriter (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)