Talk:Aseem Malhotra

Analysis of sources for lead article (Please maintain and do not archive)

Malhotra is a controversial character. I have analysed all the independent sources (not those written by the subject himself) in the following table so the lead paragraph can give a balanced reflection of what the sources say. As time goes on and there are new sources and new points to be made please add to the table. Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What gives you the right to label someone controversial? People everywhere disagree with most everyone. Which makes everyone controversial? Stop injecting your opinions on readers. We are smart enough to draw our own conclusions. 24.50.25.23 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Source Type	Source	Year	Personal words	Ref to work
Positive Notability	ST5002016	2016	Cardiologist	Founding Action on Sugar High Sugar
	KF2015	2015	Cardiologist Anti-obesity expert Practicing NHS doctor Highly respected public health campaigner	Founding Action on Sugar Reducing sugar Sugar's role in T2D and obesity
	Sustain	2013	Cardiologist Uses media profile	Weaknesses of Responsibility Deal Choc filled vending machines in hospital Marketing of junk food to children Advocate of sugary drinks duty
	HSJ2013BME	2013	Interventional cardiologist specialist registrar Uses media profile "Yes. He challenges people"	Educate the public on health issues against big corporations’ profit making at the cost of increasing health risks to the general public, particularly children original research on the effects of sugar rich diets on obesity and heart morbidity/mortality highlighted unhealthy hospital meals calling for a ban on the sale of junk food in hospitals
	HSJ2014BME	2014	Honorary Consultant Cardiologist Member of the Academy of Royal Colleges Obesity Group "An upcoming star"	ignited debate over diagnosis: doctors’ treatment of simple cases that bring “no benefit to the patients” a culture of over-investigation” includes excessive use of antibiotics and imaging for non-sinister headaches catapulting the BMJ’s “too much medicine” campaign into the media
	EvStd2014Supersmart	2014	Media Savvy Consultant Science Director Action on Sugar	too much attention has been on saturated fat, while the dangers of sugar have been under-stated want to pressurise the Government to regulate the food industry to reduce the amount (of sugar) they’re spiking our food withs excess sugar consumption increases the risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes even in those of normal weight
Critics Not all articles describe Malhotra in person Some articles are discussing very particular points	ButterNonsense	2018	Cardiologist dissident scientist	chlorestrol sceptic statin critic urges a low carb, high fat diet
	sbm	2020	British Consultant Cardiologist statin denialist	circular reference This article quotes from WP article Quotes from the WP article not included here
	ARS Technica	2017	Controversial UK Cardiologist	high profile on media and television advocate of high fat diets written scores of editorials

I don't understand this table, and separating sources between "Positive Notability" and "Critics" is bound to lead to POV violations. --Hipal (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Biographical Bias

Several paragraphs of the biographical and work history section read like they're written by the subject and are heavily biased. They are not neutral at all and I suggest rewriting to remove much of the glorified fluff. 82.8.55.103 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please can you be more specific. Other than the quote about his motivation, as far as I can see, the second and third paragraphs are sourced and referenced from third party sites. Viv Hamilton (talk)

I have added some quotes from the Sarah Boseley article "Butter Nonsense". This section is dealing with Malhotra as a person and his career - the article already has a lot of criticism of his statements under the specific issues in the next section of the article. The issue of balance is that overall organisations tend to give positive recognition of people but there are very few that give negative ones (ignoble and Darwin being some exceptions). So on average for a biography it's not unexpected that the balance of what the Reliable Sources say is positive. There is plenty of criticism of Malhotra out there but most of it is in self-published articles so cannot be used here (there is also plenty of praise for him too in self-published material, which is equally not included in the article). Viv Hamilton (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This article looks like a government propaganda piece

The article goes on and on about NHS guidance, which we all know leads to an obese population, same for many western countries. No matter this article's editors' opinions about the diet, the article should restrict itself to a couple of paragraphs on the book, and a couple of paragraphs and published criticisms. The rest is just extra fluff.--Tallard (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Or a public relations piece. The lede is a mess. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I've posted to WP:FTN, hoping for some help. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, placing counter-arguments in an article, especially a BLP, is a violation of WP:SYN. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree Tallard. The reference in the first paragraph to Malhotra being an "Anti-vax proponent" is false. Malhotra advocates certain vaccines, but not others. Pontificateus (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

New source

• Gorski DH (3 October 2022). "'I know you are, but what am I?' Dr. Asseem Malhotra rails against COVID-19 'misinformation'". Science-Based Medicine.

Seems like a lot to take in ... Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting source. Aseem Malhotra was also recently on the GB News channel and was supportive of the carnivore diet, [1], he says towards the end that it can "cure" people (he cites Jordan Peterson's daughter). Completely irresponsible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is an interesting source, and there is a more recent on related to Malhotra talk at the Friends meeting house. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-aseem-malhotra-lecture-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/ This goes over the 20 points made and reviews the evidence for each. Authoritative author, so good source I believe. (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

New source (2)

• Flynn A (September 2022). "Enquiry into concerns raised by members at ARM 2022" (PDF) ('Lessons learned' review). British Medical Association.

In which the BMA investigate the fallout of Malhotra falsely claiming to have received an award from the BMA chair, and note that he "holds views that are contrary to BMA policy, particularly regarding vaccination for prevention of SARS-CoV-2". Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I think we need to be careful using a primary source such as this - do you know if this was picked up by any news organisations? From a quick search I couldn't find anything. SmartSE (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. But I'm also not sure it's a primary source – isn't the author/investigator (Flynn) at a remove from the evidence/people involved in the incident? And in any case a BMA publication is surely reliable for its own view wrt Malhotra. Is there anything here you see as contentious? Bon courage (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it fits WP:PRIMARY pretty closely - Flynn and the BMA were closely involved in the events. WP:BLPPRIMARY says that we should be very cautious about using primary sources in BLPs. A broader issue about this regardless of whether it is primary or not and why I asked whether anyone else covered this, is WP:WEIGHT. It looks to me like there was some controversy within the BMA about the award and tweet but it doesn't seem as if anyone else took much notice. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I wasn't aware Flynn was involved in the events. Out of caution I've removed this though I feel what the BMA feels about a doctor's COVID views (which we air) is relevant to the article. Let's see what others think. Bon courage (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I am relatively new to editing so happy to take guidance, and have added the Flynn source back in. Reading the source material and the BMA website he is a BMA staff member and so oversaw the enquiry. As such I don't believe the primary source is this piece. One could argue that the primary source are the two tweets and the photograph by Malhotra and the chair of the IMG. Then the investigation is a secondary source. The other sources I have found discussing this are various blogs. (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Excessive detail on controversies

I firmly believe that the article, in its current shape, has way too much detail on the various controversies regarding cholesterol, statins, saturated fat etc. These are of course topics that Mr. Malhotra has opined on, but I don't think it's due to include entire paragraphs on what national health authorities recommend for human consumption in his biography. I do think we ought to describe the pushback Mr. Malhotra has received from various experts in context, but that ought to be more specific regarding the debate he has engaged in, rather than simply repeating what the general health guidelines recommend, which is already duly covered elsewhere in the Wikipedia. Nutez (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy on biographies is that we should only cite references that actually mention the person, otherwise the content is original research or off topic. I would agree with your removals, I don't think we can include huge chunks of text about what the mainstream guidelines say, only if they specifically mention Malhotra. All that material can be found elsewhere. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, prolly should be slimmed down. Per WP:PSCI/WP:GEVAL any of Malhotra's numerous nonsenses, if aired, should be contextualized with some sane source. But not to excess. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for help at WP:FTN. Looks like we're all on the same page. It might be helpful to look for more references (or better use what we have) that clearly reference Mallhotra's viewpoints.

This may only tangentially related: At a glance, I'm unclear if all the non-independent references are being used appropriately, especially his own works. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Nutez keeps messing up this talk page, apparently in an attempt to obscure the fact the Malhotra has come out with a load of dubious claptrap in his time. Nutez stop it - it is disruptive and it looks like you're advocating for quackery. Bon courage (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Please stop the personal attacks. You are derailing a productive discussion by constantly throwing aspersions about my personal beliefs. That is unacceptable. Hyperbolic language like "nonsense" or "claptrap" is also not helpful to the conversation. Thank you for your understanding. Nutez (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Career" section needs to be rewritten from the independent sources. Much of it is a resume, and the quotes are excessive at best. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Any objections to removing his two HuffPost articles and the corresponding content? --Hipal (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If the HuffPost refs were removed, little of "Reducing the consumption of sugar and junk foods" would remain without a rewrite. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheMouseMen: took a stab at cleaning it up [2], but attempting to do so in huge, single edit makes the edit summary far short of what's needed to move forward in this dispute, while making it impossible to review. Please work in smaller edits, ideally no more than a single section at a time. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Roger, understood. TheMouseMen (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you have improved it and I would also agree that it still a bit top heavy on the general evidence and advice from other places. (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

slander

it is really interesting to see how much this person has changed, according to Wikipedia, in a single year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Aseem_Malhotra&diff=1128155984&oldid=996492464

So sad that wikipedia is being abused for politics and slander. How can somebody who advocates taking vaccines be Anti-Vax ?

--Mick2 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the reference to Malhotra being an "Anti-vax proponent" is blatant disinformation, not misinformation. It needs to be removed forthwith.

Malhotra praises some vaccines, and has only raised objections to specific ones. Pontificateus (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, that seems to be the case. Also in favour of the covid vaccine when it was launched, with article and TV appearances on record. (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Protection?

This page is now subject to frequent minor changes by recently created accounts - particulalry on the vaccine content. Would it benefit from a reinstatement of some of the previous protections it had? Pocketfullofposies (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In particular, would value others' views on whether he should be described as controversial. This has been repeatedly removed by one edit accounts. To me, it seems a reasonable and unbiased term to describe someone where there is substantial disagreement about the quality and veracity of his advice, as evidence by the both the number of critical opinion and fact-checking articles in reputable news sources. But keen to be advised by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketfullofposies (talk • contribs) 02:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would remove it, personally. "Controversial" is an editorial weasel word and could be construed as an unsourced opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which we shouldn't do, especially concerning a living person. It follows WP:NPOV better to just describe the controversies in neutral terms and let readers form their own conclusions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

For sure - that's no way to WP:BEGIN. I'll remove it. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I must own up to just adding the term controversial back in - before reviewing this talk. On reviewing the numerous controversies he is now involved in it is evidenced I observe that he is controversial. The controversies include but are not limited to covid vaccines (but not others), use of statins, and dietary advice. So it would seem evidenced and fair to me. Some of the other more specific terms that have been removed such as anti-vaxxer - those editorial decisions make sense. Apologies for missing the conversation. I should have contributed my thoughts here first. And argued the case, and also have learned from more experience editors. (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think "controversial" is a fair descriptor for someone who has attracted criticism from established medical organisations. It is not passing judgement on whether or not he is correct, but is highlighting to readers that his views are not widely accepted across his own profession. TheMouseMen (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Source for: “public questioning of the need ever to use statins”

As I read it, the source given does not say this of him. In the meantime, in his recent interview on the BBC, he said something on the lines of: they are useful for some patients and of marginal use for others. So it would be helpful to know what the source is for our statement that he has questioned the need ever to use statins. Springnuts (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

From the Guardian source:

On BBC radio, he went further. “It was actually probably an underestimate,” he said, and questioned the benefits of the drug for any patient, citing the cholesterol sceptic Michel de Lorgeril.

Incidentally, for up-to-date coverage of this guy's antics. The Guardian ran a story a few days ago.[3] Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then we should say that, rather than adding our own gloss. Springnuts (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We should summarize the whole source. What we have is fine. Or do you see some edge-case difference? Did he mean people should take statins if they wanted to harm themselves do you think? Bon courage (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian are clearly not seeking to represent his views fairly: they take a view, and that’s their right to do so. So they quote him in an BBC interview – they don’t give the date – as questioning the value of statins. It’s possible to question the value of something without saying it has no or negative value. From other things, he says it’s clear that thinks they are overvalued. But he does see them as having value in the right place for the right people. In his recent interview on the BBC he said that he has prescribed statins and that he sees the greatest benefit for those at the highest risk; especially those who have had a heart attack. So that does not sound like our summary of his position. Springnuts (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you heard or read that correctly? Here is an interview with Aseem Malhotra with a naturopathic organization just 3 months ago commenting on statin effectiveness [4] (he doesn't believe they are statistically beneficial for those at highest risk, he gives some figures), he also authored the book A Statin-Free Life [5]. Here he says "be aware that their effects are marginal at best" [6]. On his website the general gist is telling people to not take statins [7]. He's also lectured claiming statins are a "con" [8]. I have not seen him anywhere recommend statins. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the Friends meeting (if we are talking about the same one, is important and there may have been more than one) was about vaccines and I have added a short text, with two citations about it, one from The Lancet. (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

have checked - and one of the issues is he seems to give multiple talks and quotes and has also changed his views over time. (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

“I have prescribed statins, particularly to high-risk, people…“; “People who have had a heart attack or a high risk; that’s where we see the greatest benefit from statins“. He goes on to say that it is amongst lower risk patients that he does not think the blanket prescription of statins is the whole answer. I accessed it here [[9]] but I assume it’s also still available on the BBC website. Springnuts (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• There's also quote a lot about fallacious reasoning and antivax in this recent article from WP:SBM.[10] We should be using this (and the Guardian) to expand the article, not picking random stuff out of Youtube videos. Bon courage (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC interview and hardly random. And the reference you give has only two substantive reference to him and statins: one that says that he considers them equal, or perhaps superior as a way of dealing with heart issues, and the other is his own tweet that he is critical of the overprescribing of statins. So it doesn’t support the statement in the article that he takes a blanket view opposing them. It’s difficult to judge the perennial Guardian as entirely a RS on this point, but nor would I want to use self-source to balance it. So my point is that we need better sources to make the encyclopaedia accurate, which it self-evidently is not at the moment (unless we are claiming that his words in the BBC interview and in the tweet in the source you mention are untrue, but we’d need some exceptionally RS for that).Springnuts (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we trust that RS know how to interpret these things (including strategic disclaimers); Wikipedia editors don't. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So I think for me the issue is trifold: (1) whether the Guardian - notwithstanding that it is a perennial source - is a RS for the specific statement that he "has questioned the worth of statins, saying they may not be of benefit to anybody", (bearing in mind clear POV in the article and that we have to use the WP:BLP standard of sourcing here) and (2) if not, whether there are any RS which do support it to the required standard, and (3) if so, how we deal with that statement given that we know it is at the very least an incomplete statement of his position on statins.

Does this seem a resonable summary of the issue? Springnuts (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We follow RS. Every antivaxxer (for example) says they're pro-vaccine; doesn't mean Wikipedia gives that weight. From the replies above you can see how the world at large (i.e. reliable sources) understands the statin "message" being put out. Basically, you're being fooled by rhetorical tricks while reliable sources are not. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:SYNTH. There is no doubt that he "has questioned the worth of statins" - the precise point at issue is whether we can RS the specific statement that he believes statins "may not be of benefit to anybody"? The Guardian doesn't meet the standard for this, and nothing else you have offered does either. Springnuts (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not synth, but a fair summary of the source. However since there are other sources on this I have added one (BHF) and adjusted accordingly. See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - so I have tweaked the wording to reflect the sources accurately. Springnuts (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

you did the opposite: source: "Another of the authors, London cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, is a prominent campaigner against statins." Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Education?

Nothing on this topic. Where and what did he study? I browsed the Internet and could not find anything. 90.198.173.41 (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, outside his personal statements (which list quite a few education/jobs etc), no much there. He has a profile piece on Edinburgh Uni site which could be useful, as they would not quote his year of graduation without confirmation. https://www.ed.ac.uk/alumni/services/profiles/graduation/2000s/aseem-malhotra (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Controversial term

Why do you add controversial? Who has the authority to declare or label someone controversial? Not Wikipedia. This is why I stopped supporting you. Please remove the controversial label to the person. Just give the facts and let the reader draw the conclusion. 24.50.25.23 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The references support it. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the citations clearly demonstrate he is a controversial figure - whether he is correct or not is up to the reader.Tannim101 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)