Talk:Suzanne Humphries

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Criticism removed from article[edit]

Kotadog placed this in the article. I have removed it, because it's obviously commentary, but thought it should still be preserved for easy viewing.

The information contained in this document are 95% false. While Dr Humphries has been studying homeoapathy she has not earned a degree. She no longer works at NE Nephrology as she was too advanced scientifically to continue the base work of harming human beings with allopathic medicine. She does not know what the report is that she supposedly signed. She is currently seeking legal representation over the outright lies and slander herewithin. Is the document she signed. Please replace your misinformation. But not to worry this has all been screen shot and saved for the court hearing.

I checked out the linked document, which just seems to be the referenced petition.--ADtalkModerator 12:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More Kotadog[edit]

It's Bangor Maine you idiots. Who is doing your research. You should fire them before they get you sued!!!! She doesn't have her day job anymore as she quit in excellent standing.

It's Bangor Maine you idiots!!!! And she left her dayjob to practice real medicine. Unlike you all she practices what she preaches and not just the "evidence-based" ahem, message of pharma death squads.

Glad you at least fixed the other inaccuracies in this slanderous report as it is leaving you wide open to litigation.

Tytalk 15:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a little old, but......[edit]

She has taken notice of us. All the more reason to put some focus on this. I doubt she no longer cares. Anarcho Symphony Noise Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 14:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When exactly was "recently"?[edit]

"...who has recently become..."--ZooGuard (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The post is from 2010 it seems. Tyrannisan iron, yet caring fist 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

She wrote a book[edit]

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History

Paperback: 504 pages

Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (July 27, 2013)

ISBN-10: 1480216895, ISBN-13: 978-1480216891

Seems like it ought to be mentioned, but I'll leave that to someone else as I am not involved with RationalWiki. Here is a quote from the Amazon blurb: "Using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases." — Unsigned, by: / talk

Oh my. Graphs. Ikanreed (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


I guess whoever decided to write this manipulated pages of lies about Dr. Humphries failed to realize that she testified, under oath, as well as presented and submitted peer-reviewed research and studies to the WV Senate, on the vaccine research she conducted for the last 8 yrs of her life. Dr. Humphries is a kidney specialist as well as a Dr of Internal Medicine. This page is biased and opinionated and needs to be redone or removed completely. Source Footage: — Unsigned, by: Truthteller75 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.Christopher (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I want to say that none of what you just said supports the changes you tried to make to the article or the implication that it presents any lies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Childish wording removed[edit]

My edits to the page removed wording that comes across as completely juvenile, without changing any of the underlying references or meaning of the article. I'm not sure why it continues to get reverted, as it clearly keeps the existing substantiated rationale of the page while improving its accuracy.

Nrettap (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)NrettapNrettap (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nrettap That might be because adults call a fraud a fraud, instead of complaining about how it's said. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie As an MD, Suzanne Humphries studied all of the subjects this article claimed she did not study, therefore the removed sentence did not remove "tone," but rather removed an unsubstantiated claim. All of my edits removed unsubstantiated claims or intentional/unintentional mischaracterizations. Do you do not see the substantive difference created by adding the adjective "magical" prior to an exact quote that begins with a list of comma separated adjectives? Mischaracterizing a quote does not simply change the tone; it changes the meaning. If you believe that this type of adjective merely constitutes "tone," then you should agree that, "You magically conjured unsubstantiated claims about what constitutes adulthood." I'll assume that you wouldn't, because the "tone" clearly changes my argument. Rather, it's more accurate for me to say that, "You made an unsubstantiated claim about what constitutes adulthood." I'm not sure which edit I made does not fall into the category of increasing accuracy by removing unsubstantiated claims or by removing material mischaracterizations, but I will gladly discuss any of them with you if you'd like to offer actual criticism rather than empty platitudes. Nrettap (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)NrettapNrettap (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nrettap Yay, she has a degree completely unrelated to the woo-woo she's pushing. So... She's still a fraud, a grifter, a scammer, etc, it's just that she's misusing her medical degree as well. Still not seeing the bit where your edits are justified. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie When you ignore all of my points and questions, it makes it difficult to have a reasonable conversation with you. On one hand, you claim that she's not credentialed, therefore she is a fraud, a grifter, a scammer, etc. Then you link me to an article on "Credentialism," which roughly states that credentials do not form a basis for an argument. Your two points literally contradict each other. For a place called the "rational wiki," I expected more rational discourse. It's pretty clear that this article does not exhibit rational thought, and it's even more clear from your responses that it's not likely to change any time soon. Nrettap (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again... Also, cheers. Tinribmancer (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nrettap Show me exactly where I said she had no credentials. Link the exact edit. If you can't do that, apologize. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You're the one who should apologize for being dishonest in your response. She didn't say you said she has no credentials. She characterized your claim as being that she is "not credentialed", which is a fair rendering of what you actually said: "Yay, she has a degree completely unrelated to the woo-woo she's pushing." You should be very careful about using words like fraud, grifter, and scammer, or impugning their professional competence, and make certain that people aren't defamed on article or talk pages. — Unsigned, by: / talk
You actually have to prove defamation. Ta! Also "On one hand, you claim that she's not credentialed..." Except I didn't. At no point in my previous posts did I claim she lacked credentials, @Nrettap just assumed that's what I meant when I said "fraud". Just like they've just assumed that an MD (in a very niche section of medicine completely unrelated to immunology), gets you free of criticism for scamming people with known quack treatments. And yes I will keep pinging @Nrettap until they admit their fault and apologize. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
"Yay, she has a degree completely unrelated to the woo-woo she's pushing." This clearly implies that Suzanne Humphries lacks credentials related to vaccination. In addition to that, having both family and a number of friends who have completed medical school, I know for certain that all medical degrees issued in the United States require substantial study of immunology. Each of the Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 exams include sections on immunology. Every medical student in the United States takes a number of classes on immunology. While it's true that she did not choose a residency in immunology, it's unfair to say that she's uneducated on the subject, which both you and the article state. I will not apologize for your lack of diligence, and I stand by all of the edits I made to the article. Nrettap (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Goody for you, your edits still aren't going back in. Even with a degree in immunology, pushing vaccine hysteria and homeopathy (aka magic water, aka a scam) would shoot her credibility to shreds. Why? Because those have been proven to be false, end of story. I have no tolerance for those that abuse their station, and will call them exactly what they are. ""Yay, she has a degree completely unrelated to the woo-woo she's pushing." This clearly implies that Suzanne Humphries lacks credentials related to vaccination." Yes and? Yes, she lacks the degrees needed to speak authoritatively on the subject, much less diagnose patients and proscribe them treatment. Would you let a plumber perform brain surgery on you? This shit isn't fucking rocket science. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
"Every medical student in the United States takes a number of classes on immunology. While it's true that she did not choose a residency in immunology, it's unfair to say that she's uneducated on the subject, which both you and the article state. I will not apologize for your lack of diligence, and I stand by all of the edits I made to the article." Ah, so she isn't ignorant, she's a liar. Someone who knows better yet deliberately spreads misinformation for their own personal gain. In that not only are your edits not going back in, I'm adding that information to expose her for abusing her credentials. As I said, vacciene denialism and Homeopathy are proven to be false, are proven to be full of shit, and are not legitimate treatment options. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
You must not have read my edits. I didn't remove any references to anti-vaccine material or any references to homeopathy. What amuses me so much about all of this is that I don't know anything about Suzanne Humphries, and I have no opinions on vaccines or homeopathy. I found this article when I started researching her after reading one of her opinions online, and I was so appalled at the flagrant biases and irrationality that I decided to edit it. If your intent is to convince readers like me that Suzanne Humphries is a quack, then you should consider allowing my edits, because the wording in this article will send any academically inclined mind running. It also won't convince anyone who already agrees with her opinions that she's wrong, and you don't need to convince people who already promote vaccination. For me personally, I'm moving on from this article since it offers no useful information (i.e. presenting her arguments and then responding to them) for someone researching Suzanne Humphries or her opinions. Nrettap (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nrettap " I didn't remove any references to anti-vaccine material or any references to homeopathy." Liar. You removed several references to other articles and replaced them with "homeopathy", as if that makes anything she does better. It does not. In addition, congrats on not understanding the nature of bias. Bias is forming a conclusion, and then using that conclusion in further judgement. For example, most people are biased against pedophilia, and thus make decisions on that topic with that bias in mind. Is that wrong? Not really. Treating pedophilia as a unexamined neutral subject is fallacious, as it has been exmanined and found lacking in merit, thus it is an incorrect position. Both homeopathy and vaccine denialism, subjects you seem to at least view as neutral given your edits and statements such as "people who already promote vaccination" reveal, have been examined and found lacking in merit, and are thus to be discarded. In short, there is not two sides to this debate, Anti-vaxxers and homeopaths are very clearly wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin C[edit]

Why would you bash Vitamin C? It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1700:AB60:7FC0:4496:89D1:B581:2B4C / talk

Could you be more specific? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because vitamin C is an essential nutrient doesn't make it a panacea: see orthomolecular medicine, vitamin and mineral supplements, and Linus Pauling. The particular entry on this page is regarding crankery. Bongolian (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)