Talk:Paul D. Thacker

Criticism

I just saw this page, and it seems as if Mosstacker, a Wikipedia editor who is now permanently blocked, added a lot of negative information about how Thacker's stories had resulted in his firing at EST, and corrections or retractions in PLOS and STAT.

This may have been with the intention of discrediting Thacker. I think they're important for a different reason, which is censorship.

Many science journalists have been fired from JAMA, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Science, Chemical Week, and others for writing legitimate stories that the publisher objected to, and other stories have been retracted. Most of these firings have been thoroughly covered in the science journals and newspapers. I'd like to see the full accounts of these incidents with Thacker, assuming they're supported by WP:RSs as required by WP:WEIGHT as User:Welovegv started to do. I don't think the corrections in STAT would meet that standard, but I'm interested in the full story behind EST and PLOS. Were they the result of serious errors by the journalist, or were they pressure from industry? I'll have to check Retraction Watch. --Nbauman (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I just read the STAT article, The pharmaceutical industry is no stranger to fake news, By PAUL D. THACKER JANUARY 30, 2018. It's a great autobiography of Thacker and his work, which should be incorporated into the Wikipedia entry. However, the editor ignored the entire article and cherry-picked the one-paragraph correction at the end. --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

More Gorski

"investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank Paul Thacker" --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ventavia piece can benefit from reaction from more sides

I see the article was already updated with the Ventavia revelations. Can we insert the reaction from the Ventavia executives to the allegations? We already have the reaction from uninvolved anti-vaxxers, so the article can benefit from reactions from the agents directly involved. Forich (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about Thacker, so that would be a bit WP:COATRACK-y. We could probably lose the anti-vaxxer sentence here too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this article should give too much coverage to the single Ventavia story, and maybe none, but lest it be thought David Gorski is the only one who has commented on the story, here are some others. Again, this information might be more appropriate in another article, or nowhere for the time being, per WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:PROPORTION. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• McCreary, Joedy (3 November 2021). "Fact check: Report questioning Pfizer trial shouldn't undermine confidence in vaccines". CBS17.
• Kolstoe, Simon. "Vaccine trial misconduct allegation – could it damage trust in science?". The Conversation. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
• Clark, Cheryl (5 November 2021). "Experts Blow Whistle on Alleged COVID Vaccine Whistleblower Claims". MedPage Today.
• Coombes, Rebecca (17 November 2021). "Re: Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial". BMJ.

Paul Thacker is Anti-GMO, Anti-Vaccine

And "good faith" editors here like Alexbrn keep deleting this information from well-sourced outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, raise it at WP:BLPN. Otherwise, go away. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Uh-oh. That's a rule violation. And yes, I will. 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

More neutral verbage

In the "career' section, their was a line noting that his whistleblower report "is considered inaccurate by experts"

I think this verbage is too strong considering only a single source, which only cites two vaccine experts. Reading that article I would go a step further to say that the criticisms in the article do not support such a broad statement about Thackers report. I've revised it to "Has been criticized as being inaccurate by some experts." Frankly I think it should be further revised to "The significance of Thacker's claims has been disputed by some experts" which is more in line with the criticisms made in the cited source.

edit I've thought about this more and feel further revisions are warranted. the article makes three somewhat specific claims about Thacker's report.

1. Paul offit is quoted as criticizing the allegations as "vague", its a bit hard to parse his quotes but i think he's taking issue with a lack of hard evidence in the report

2. An unnamed expert is quoted as saying some of the allegations have little to do with data integrity --> I think this argument is a distraction at best and not worth mentioning, yes some of the items raised in Thacker's report do not involve data integrity but many of them do.

3. Paul Thacker allegedly did not contact ventavia ahead of publishing the article -> I'm 50/50 on mentioning this one, on one hand it ties into Paul offit's point that the criticisms may be vague/without hard evidence, but on the other hand ventavia has had plenty of time to offer a proper rebuttal since.

The original verbage that "the report is considered inaccurate by experts" is clearly misleading imo, I will go ahead and revise it to the following which i think best reflects the report.

"Some experts have expressed skepticism over the allegations made in the report. Prominent vaccination expert Paul Offit has criticized the issues outlined in the report as being vague and has cautioned against assuming the claims made in it are true."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:95A2:5100:2495:B5BF:13A8:775C (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Please indicate references that support such changes. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Socking?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanemicrobiologist. Bon courage (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extensive removal of content with little justification

Removing multiple paragraphs along with at least 24 sources -- including the Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Politico, Stanford Daily, and Yale Daily News -- is not a good faith attempt at editing this page. It borders on vandalism, and it makes me wonder if this is yet another socking attempt. Phillycheesesteak1964 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Phillycheesesteak1964: First off, I am not a sockpuppet, nor have I ever used a second account in my over 10-years of editing, while your account is only 3 months old. Welcome, you've got a lot to learn. While some content I removed (and you restored) might be appropriate to retain, a good deal of it violates Wikipedia policies, most importantly WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Some was addressed in a 2022 discussion. The "Allegations of Harassment" section is sourced primarily to self-published blogs and Reddit posts, a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS policy, which states: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself. The "Anti-vaccine activist" occupation shoehorned into the first sentence after journalist is a contentious label not explicitly verified by the any of 3 purported sources: Politico comes closest, calling him a "Grassley staffer-turned-anti-vaccine reporter" in passing, while neither Sense about Science nor Gorski in Science-Based Medicine use this term with respect to Thacker, and per WP:SBM, articles by Gorski and other editors are considered self-published sources. Having a story popular among antivaxxers, or being associated with anti-vaccine activists, does not make someone an anti-vaccine activist themself, and the Politico source alone isn't strong enough to use this label in Wikipedia's voice, even if some writers hold the opinion that's what Thacker is. The "Controversies and False Claims" section you added gives undue emphasis to controversies (see WP:STRUCTURE and the essay WP:CRITS), and also improperly uses primary sources (e.g. posts by Thacker himself) juxtaposed with content to reach a conclusion not stated in the sources, e.g.: "Thacker presented his arguments for the lab leak hypothesis origin of COVID,[30] despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (see Origin of SARS-CoV-2)": this is also false, as the BMJ article does not present any of Thacker's arguments on lab leak theory as far as I can tell, but rather his reporting on the controversy around the theory. Per WP:PSTS, primary sources should be used sparingly and with great care, otherwise it's easy to cherry-pick individual posts, tweets, or stories to push a certain narrative or lend undue weight to salacious aspects. And on a lesser note, just one more of the many problems you've added: giving every item in the controversy section it's own one- or two-sentence paragraph is tedious, amateurish writing: see WP:PROSELINE. We try to write this encyclopedia in paragraphs, not "Something happened. And then another thing happened. And then yet another thing happened. And then something else happened. And then... and then... --Animalparty! (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. But there was actual sock puppeting on this page not even a year ago. There has been suspicion that Thacker edits his own page.

Regarding the current edits: Let’s make actual edits, not sweeping deletions of content that includes sources like Bloomberg, Politico, and Reuters and then dismiss the content as “poorly sourced.”

Since I have much to learn, teach me. But please don’t delete 24 references and multiple paragraphs and claim to be following the spirit of Wikipedia.

I agree, you can start by trimming down or removing the allegations of harassment section. I think at least one or two sentences somewhere is appropriate given Thacker’s behavior.

If you think that Thacker isn’t anti-vaccine, then I would humbly suggest you scroll through his Twitter feed or read his blog. Spreading vaccine and COVID conspiracy theories is almost exclusively the only thing he does now. But we’re not supposed to reference self-published materials, so we have a paradox. He self-publishes mostly conspiratorial nonsense, but we can’t use it as evidence on Wikipedia.

I agree that a narrative is better than a list of events. So let’s work on it to make it better.

07:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC) Phillycheesesteak1964 (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the "Allegations of Harassment" section as it is entirely unsupported by reliable sources. It should not be re-added without reliable sources per WP:BLP.

I can see some worthwhile edits amongst the other sections, but simply asserting "24" sources doesn't mean that they support what is claimed or meaningful, or the content well written. For example the whole paragraph on Thacker being critical of CCDH for instance is extremely laboured for what can be summarised in a single sentence. Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would also add, the changes fall foul of WP:Criticism. Koncorde (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That works for me.

Regarding Controversies, what’s the best headline here? Like Alex Jones (though far less extreme), Thacker’s reputation is that he intentionally misleads readers on vaccines, COVID, the pharmaceutical industry, and how the scientific process works. He has accused all scientific journals of being corrupt (with little evidence), and assumes (again with little evidence) that scientists are shills for pharmaceutical companies. These are pervasive themes in his “journalism,” which is almost exclusively restricted to his Substack blog.

If someone like this is to have their own Wikipedia page, how do you properly communicate that?

Phillycheesesteak1964 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

We limit ourselves to what reliable secondary sources have reported. We don't base this article content, nor its structure, on aspects we think should be given more emphasis based on reading his tweets or Substack. Controversial actions should certainly be included, but given no more or less emphasis than warranted per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. If certain themes emerge from the totality of reliable sources on Thacker that warrant a subsection, those can be given neutral titles like "vaccine reporting" rather than "anti-vaccine reporting" or "false claims", which serve to restrict or downplay coverage that isn't anti-vaccine or 'false'. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Accusations in lead

I'm concerned that the information currently in the lead is not BLP-compliant and so will remove it. Some of it is not supported by the sources, or is the opinion of the author's so must be attributed as such and consequently, is unlikely to be worthy of inclusion in the lead. We have a long section

• described as a right-wing vaccine critic is suitably sourced, with the source stating right-wing vaccine critic Paul Thacker but this is an opinion piece, so it must be attributed.
• accused of anti-vaccine activism but the only mention of Thacker in the source is former Sen. Chuck Grassley staffer-turned-anti-vaccine reporter Paul Thacker. This is a very brief mention in passing and writing anti-vaccine articles does not mean they are an anti-vaccine activist.
• promoting Big Pharma conspiracy theories is seemingly based on this source but the closest I can see is Thacker’s obsession with a pharma industry conspiracy
• COVID-19 misinformation is presumably based on this source but the closest it comes to is: In my opinion, Thacker’s report from 2021 qualifies [as malinformation, which the source explains is distinct from misinformation]

SmartSE (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for re-organizing the page @Smartse. I was not the one who initially included these criticisms but when I independently investigated the subject it became clear he is not a credible journalist but rather a conspiracy theorist who has a history of publishing misinformation. I am concerned that the current lead portrays this individual as a credible journalist while in fact he has a well-documented history of harassment, trolling, and anti-vaccination reporting. I realize there are concerns about WP:UNDUE but in addition to the above, the sources quoted from these scientific organizations also say this; "he frequently misrepresents and mischaracterizes his targets", "Thacker’s track record of untrustworthy narration" and that he is a "conspiracy theorist" who amplifies anti-vaxx messaging and attacks pro-vaccine doctors. Some of this is coming from David Gorski (no affiliation) but he is a credible scientist and doctor as far as I can tell. He is also referred to as a 5G conspiracy theorist by a different group of scientists. Science2.0 describes him as a 'discredited journalist'. The way I had re-written the lead was, I thought, by attributing these labels as accusations others have made, rather than stating them as fact. Anyway, I would be in favour of at least making clear in the lead that his journalism has been widely described as misleading or anti-vaxx or conspiratorial as currently it is one-sided portraying him as just a regular journalist, potentially violating WP:NPOV.

Perhaps a good solution is to re-instate at least "he has been described as a right-wing vaccine critic" and "anti-vaccine reporter" though the other sources clearly describe him as a conspiracy theorist in elaborate detail. ∞ HardScience (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Gorski's writing in Science Based Medicine is considered self-published per WP:SBM as he is an editor there, and his writing in his own blog RespectfulInsolence is definitely self-published, so WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS considerations apply ("Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."). Science2.0 looks like a blogging platform akin to (and possibly now owner of) ScienceBlogs, and the author Hank Campbell is the founder and apparent owner of the site, so his works may also be self-published. American Council on Science and Health is an advocacy organization, so their own blogs should be treated with appropriate weight and attribution, if cited at all. I don't doubt that various people have accused Thacker of a variety of things, but mere accusations on blogs may not rise to the notability level of inclusion. And we risk WP:SYNTH or WP:OR by cherry-picking a handful of blogs and stating in Wikivoice he is known for whatever is in the blogs we cite. The best sources to evaluate due weight would be reliable third-party sources that comment and contextualize the criticism and controversies around Thacker, not just the sources directly engaging in the criticism. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Animalparty I think that makes a lot of sense. I agree that we shouldn't be relying on self-published sources as per WP:BLPSPS (I didn't realize he was writing on his own blog under a pseudonym). The advocacy aspect of ACSH should also be taken into account. However, there are two reliable mainstream sources that describe Thacker as an anti-vaccination reporter, the LA Times and Politico. The Politico piece is not a mention in passing as that article describes RFK Jr's view that Thacker and others "journalism has been relegated to substack" and "none of them are being carried in the mainstream media now". I have added this important context to the body of the article but my concern still stands that the lead mentions he's a "journalist" while we have at least two reliable sources which characterize him as an anti-vaccination reporter not covered in the mainstream media. I think not mentioning anything in the lead may violate WP:NPOV and would be undue? My concern is that we're potentially ÷whitewashing an anti-vaccination activist on Wikipedia as a regular journalist. I'm happy to raise an RfC on mentioning he's an anti-vaccination reporter in the lead if helpful. ∞ HardScience (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Michael Hiltzik is a business columnist at the LA Times. His article is labeled as "Voices", e.g. an op-ed. If the Politico source is the only non-opinion, non-self-published source calling Thacker "anti-vaccine", (and it is in passing, as Thacker is mentioned once, not significantly) then maybe it's not as significant as might be thought. Per WP:NPOV we go by the preponderance of reliable, secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs" or place an undue editorial thumb on minor aspects or gossip. There are certainly many blog posts, tweets and personal opinions about Thacker circulating online (some from people who Thacker has written about, making them not-entirely-independent), but WP:BLP and other policies require a higher threshold for inclusion than mere existence. Other sources like Science continue to refer to Thacker as a journalist as recently as June, 2026 without the need for qualifiers like "anti-vaccine" or "conspiracy theorist". Please also see the discussion immediately above this one ("Extensive removal of content with little justification") and a previous discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

These are good and valid points of course but there are more sources. For example, investigative journalist Russ Baker refers to Thacker as an "anti-vaxx advocate" on WhoWhatWhy - an independent not-for-profit news organization. This is not in passing but a whole article about his harassment of a female doctor. He's also been referred to as a "pseudojournalist" by Steven Novella though that's on a blog, nonetheless the amount of anti-vaccine reporting references are plentiful. I'll raise an RfC to get some more input. ∞ HardScience (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

There may be some usable article content there, but Russ Baker is the CEO, founder, and editor-in-chief of WhoWhatWhy, and responding to criticism of a writer who writes for WhoWhatWhy, bringng up issues of independence and self-publishing. There's certainly a lot of toxicity and mudslinging between Thacker and his critics, some of whom buy ink by the barrel, but it's still open as to how much of this rancor has been covered by third-party sources, how much belongs in an encyclopedia article, and how much, if any, belongs in the lead (I do believe the lead warrants some expansion). Meanwhile, the Guardian, Washington Post, Stat News, The Express Tribune, Inside Higher Ed, Drop Site News, and Science as I linked above continue to treat Thacker as a journalist/reporter without comment. Surely some of those journalists Googled Paul Thacker before citing him, and proceeded anyway. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Animalparty, I appreciate your thoroughness and carefulness here. As you might have seen, SmartSE was unhappy with my editing and raising an RfC (which I thought was the consensus-building thing to do but clearly not) so I will refrain from editing this article and I'm not sure if I should respond further here but I just wanted to agree with you and some of the other editors who have commented that this clearly requires a closer look. I'm also thinking now that there's a big feud going on between a dozen or more scientists and Thacker, some of it seems quite toxic as you point out, but as a former scientist myself, I might be biased in assuming Thacker is attacking vaccine science and scientists. For what it is worth, the Washington Post and Express Tribune sources describe Thacker specifically as a 'Substack journalist/reporter', which I think is accurate and in line with the Politico article where RFK Jr basically says Thacker & a few other journalists are now substackers (which is self-published). Though admittedly you've found 1 or 2 mainstream sources where he's still covered in passing but he hasn't published a story as a journalist in a credible mainstream news outlet for some time it seems. I hope the community will continue to explore the open questions you pose. My Wikipedia mentor has advised me to stay away from drama so I'll exit the discussion but just wanted to acknowledge your helpful response. ∞ HardScience (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Jonathan Howard calls Thacker a "juvenile pseudojournalist", and Howard is not the editor of SBM, so, not self-published. Of course, people will find another excuse not to use this one either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• In general, for situations like this it is often helpful to refocus on the nature of the statements the person has made, rather than personalising them in pronouncements about the nature of the person making them. As well as leading to less emotive, more encyclopedic content, this can help to defuse BLP concerns while honouring Wikipedia's requirement to be forthright about WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, that's very helpful feedback. ∞ HardScience (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm glad I received a notice about edits on this page, and I think more editors and people with journalism and science backgrounds should take a look.

  Obviously, none of this will be resolved quickly, but it's important work. Underoke (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC - Thacker anti-vaccine reporting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to invite further views here on whether the article lead should -- in attributed voice-- mention that Thacker is known for anti-vaccination reporting. Please see extensive discussion above and below.

Include or exclude?

Discussion

My attempt at summarizing on-going debate. These are the sources under discussion:

1. The LA Times has described Thacker as a "right-wing vaccine critic" (in an op-ed by journalist Michael Hiltzik).
2. Politico has described Thacker as an "anti-vaccine reporter" (in the context of discussing RFK Jr's favorite journalists who are relegated to now being Substack journalists).
3. Investigative journalist Russ Baker has described Thacker as an "anti-vaxx advocate" on an independent news website.

Then there's a slew of science communicators and scientists who variously describe Thacker as an anti-vaccination reporter, including Yale doctor Steven Novella who described him as a "pseudojournalist", David Gorski referred to Thacker as a "conspiracy monger" on Science-based medicine, and the American Council on Science and Health called him a "5G conspiracy theorist". As others have noted, some of these sources are self-published, blogs, or coming from science/industry advocacy organizations but clearly there are many credible scientists, doctors, and news organizations reporting on this issue over several years leading to repeated discussions on this talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HardScience (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment - This RfC is premature because a) the conversation above has got nowhere near the necessary deadlock to initiate an RFC and b) because there is no proposal of what text to add. Further, I have good reasons to believe that the opener is a sock of a blocked account and has an undeclared COI with the article subject. I'll be posting about that at ANI very shortly. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realize there needs to be a deadlock for an RFC - I figured since we're not agreeing and there's only a small pool of editors here it would be good to get wider input from the community. The proposal of what text to add is right in the opening of the RFC. I have also asked my own Wikipedia mentor whether this is the right course of action (right after I created the RFC) for good measure. I am certainly not a sock of any blocked account and have no COI with the article subject. I have always tried to engage in good faith discussion on Wikipedia. ∞ HardScience (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SmartSE and HardScience, just so you know, WP:RFC doesn't require that a prior discussion end in a deadlock. It doesn't even require that a prior discussion happen at all. That said, WP:RFCBEFORE encourages (but does not require) editors to use non-RFC processes (such as asking a noticeboard or having an ordinary, non-advertised discussion on the talk page) whenever it seems like a non-RFC option will be able to resolve the dispute. These other approaches are generally quicker.

RFCs are also not required to include any "proposal of what text to add". Clear questions are more likely to get a response, but sometimes it's better to ask "Should we include this claim in the lead?" and work out the exact wording later, than to ask "Should we include these exact words in the lead?", because someone responding to the RFC might have a suggestion for better words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the policy WhatamIdoing, that's very helpful and good to know I wasn't entirely off the mark. Unfortunately, the RfC got shut down on the recommendation of an administrator before anyone had a chance to comment. Will leave it to others to decide how to proceed here. ∞ HardScience (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest participating in the discussion above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)