Talk:Casey Means

Falsely this falsely that

Falsely is a common word on wiki and should be banned. If a wiki contributor thinks a statement is false, just contrast it with correct, cited information. Calling something false or true expresses an opinion and is only valid if a cited source, not a wiki writer, makes that claim. The statement that medical specialties exist for profit is neither true nor false. It is an opinion, which most people would reject absent a great deal of supporting information. It speaks for itself and doesn't require an editorial. 76.16.131.53 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. I've added that statement and I think it's so objectively false that it (the claim, and I quote here, "researchers

can identify a person with depression or schizophrenia just by analyzing their gut

bacteria composition") might well be called false. more importantly, proving the negative is often impossible. How would you want me to disprove this statement? Find scientific articles explicitly analyzing this book of hers and disproving it? No one in his right mind is gonna do that for much the same reason we dont publish books proving that telepathy doesnt exist or that aliens didnt crash in Roswell in 1947 5.44.170.181 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I just addressed one of these cases: "Means has ... has falsely claimed that the third leading cause of death in the United States is "medical error and medication". Looking into this, it's not really her claim but comes from an analysis in the BMJ by Marty Makary (now head of the FDA). This seems to be controversial and disputed rather than being a falsehood. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Medical doctor?

She completed an MD degree but dropped out of residency. Is she a proper medical doctor or not? What are the rules in the US about this? 77.127.213.3 (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The question is: who is a physician?

Is this someone who graduated with a medical degree? Cause she did.

Is this someone who practices medicine? She practices "medicine" but has no license, therefore right to do this.

I think she is a medical graduate, not a physician. Being a physician means to legally practice medicine. It's an occupation and she's "just" a graduate of medicine but is not practicing it or is practicing it without legal basis (license). Kowalmistrz (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

She is an unlicensed physician, like Jay Bhattacharya. According to the American Medical Association, a physician is someone who graduated medical school. But I think it's always important to specify if someone is unlicensed and not treating patients. ScienceFlyer (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You get your license after 1 year of residency. 96.65.253.18 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

She is a medical doctor, a licensed physician. She spent 4 years as a surgical resident. You only need 1 year for a license and 3 years for a board certification as a surgeon. Other programs are longer, for example neurological surgeons require 7 years. However, residencies aren’t the brain work, that’s what your MD is for, residencies are the monkey work. Doing surgeries over and over hands-on until your as good at them as your are tying your shoe. You know how to do them when you enter, you’re experienced in doing them when you exit. It’s like changing a tire, we all know how to do it, but it’s not something anyone is very good at unless they do it for a living. 96.65.253.18 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

She completed her internship, second residency (3-years), and passed the USMLE, which means she has a MD license and can practice medicine and perform surgery. She dropped out of her 3rd residency which would have given her a 5th year and allowed her to get a board-certification for a specialty in Otolaryngology surgery. It doesn't mean she can't perform surgery, she can and is fully licensed to do so, it just means she doesn't have an Otolaryngology certification.

She's had a PG-MD license since 2014, and a full MD license since 2018, her license number is MD191266. It's labelled inactive, but that just means she hasn't formerly practiced medicine at an institution in Oregon, however it's still full effective with no restrictions or actions until January 1st, 2026. According to the Oregon Medical Board, her MD License (Medical Doctor), means:

"A doctor of medicine (allopathic) is licensed to practice medicine, prescribe medications, perform surgery, and utilize any of a number of recognized modalities of therapy in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, illness, injury, and physical conditions. Medical doctors utilize knowledge gained in the western tradition of scientific study, observation, and experimentation, including anatomy, cellular biology, chemistry, and other areas. In Oregon, an MD's scope of practice also includes the practice of acupuncture."

So, yes, she is a physician and a medical doctor fully licensed and that license is currently in full effect through December 31, 2025. Now if she doesn't renew it, it will be expired on Jan 1st, 2026, but until that point, she's a licensed medical doctor. OnePercent (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the Oregon Medical Board, her license (MD191266) is inactive. 75.164.19.20 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Medical Doctor (MD) is a degree. Those who graduate and earn their MD degree are medical doctors. This doesn't require the individual to practice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WCNo47 (talk • contribs) 15:00, May 8, 2025 (UTC)

She can be referred to as a physician or medical doctor. According to the American Medical Association, policy H-405.969: Our American Medical Association affirms that a physician is an individual who has received a "Doctor of Medicine" or a "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" degree or an equivalent degree following successful completion of a prescribed course of study from a school of medicine or osteopathic medicine. "Definition of a Physician". AMA-ASSN.ORG. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/H-405.969?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-3589.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCNo47 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's all pretend that someone not currently licensed to practice medicine is still a physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8000:4cf:2c6c:b9dd:8320:7148 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It's an uphill battle, with many examples of editors conferring professional titles on the basis of a doctorate (see for example Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an 'astrophysicist' who hasn't been a practicing astrophysicist in decades). Personally I think it's misleading, especially when you've got someone like Casey Means, who frequently pushes crackpot pseudoscience. The average reader hears 'medical doctor' and thinks this person is actively treating patients and/or performing mainstream medical research, which she is not. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Her medical qualifications seem to compare well with the current Surgeon General, Denise Hinton, who has a degree in nursing, or the previous one, Vivek Murthy, who got an MD and did a standard 1 year residency. Neither of them seem to have been actively treating patients when they became Surgeon General so it doesn't appear that is normal for such a high-flying role. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  That is not even close to true. Vivek Murthy did a 3 year residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital and then was hired as an attending physician. He worked as a hospitalist (an internal medicine doctor in a hospital) from 2006 to 2014. He is ABMS board certified and his license (#226024) is active according to the State of Massachusetts. 75.164.19.20 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• A reasonable compromise is to describe her as a "non-practicing physician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.mcgeer (talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with something along those lines. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests

Five edit requests so far -- none done. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests

since someone decided to lock the article, and Im too lazy to write a paragraph myself, could someone please mention that she implicated in the detox bullshit as well (e.g. https://www.caseymeans.com/learn/newsletter-47), while also advocating removing plastics and switching to (no doubt more expensive) cast iron cookware, and opting for organic products (because... toxins, I'd guess?; https://www.caseymeans.com/learn/article-six-factors-that-affect-glucose-besides-food?rq=blood+glucose) --5.44.170.181 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC) 5.44.170.181 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC) 'detox bullshit'? Source please. PFAS on non stick pans is well documented, as is contamination from microplastics. WCNo47 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC) Casey Means is NOT a doctor. She does not have a medical degree or any kind of license to practice medicine. 2600:4040:510E:7C00:29F2:5065:47D3:8D16 (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC) This is false. Her license number is MD191266 and it's effective through December 31, 2025. the inactive label just means she's not formally practicing at an institutional facility. She is still fully licensed to practice medicine, prescribe meds, perform surgery, and everything else a medical doctor does. She has a degree from Stanford School of Medicine where she graduated with honors and has completed 2 residencies and part of a 3rd. All of this is verifiable and recorded by the Oregon Medical Board. OnePercent (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)  Not done: This is false. While her medical license is currently inactive and is currently not practicing, she is a graduate of Stanford School of Medicine, having received an Medical Doctor (MD) degree in 2014. This is noted in numerous, independent sources. She is not a medical doctor as she has not completed her residency. Its a massive discrepancy, she is not qualified to treat any patient in any hospital in all of usa. Please change from doctor to herbalist. Doctorrx (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)  Not done: This is false and has been repeatedly addressed. She is a graduate of Stanford School of Medicine, having received an Medical Doctor (MD) degree in 2014. There is no requirement to actively practice to be referred to as a Medical Doctor. The degree from an accredited medical school is. This is noted in numerous, independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCNo47 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC) The degree is Doctor of Medicine, not Medical Doctor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8000:4cf:2c6c:b9dd:8320:7148 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC) Casey Means’ credentials are inaccurate. She is not a medical doctor because she did not finish her residency, and does not hold a license to practice medicine. 2601:18C:8384:6430:E02D:469:1AAC:DB04 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)  Not done: per the discussions above. Day Creature (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC) This page should specifically state that she is an UNLICENSED MD. While she finished her 4 year MD, she did NOT finish a residency and does NOT have an active license. She should not be called a Dr at any point without specifying that she is an unlicensed MD. 2603:7081:2700:7DE4:C632:2F6E:55C1:87FA (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As this is clearly a contentious issue given the discussions on this page, a consensus will need to be reached for the proposed change before any edit request is accepted. Day Creature (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Citations

This is the first article I've edited with this different citation style. I prefer inline citations as having citations at the end is difficult to follow. Any reason why citations are like this? ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The use of {{sfn}} short footnotes was introduced in this edit by ElijahPepe. It's a system often found in featured articles and seems most appropriate when books are used as references and different pages of the books are cited for different parts of the article. I'm not convinced that it will survive the wave of editing that this article is undergoing now. See WP:CITEVAR for details. Thriley, as the first editor, may have a view. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I am willing to put in the work to maintain the citation format. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not much bothered myself but, when I added a citation earlier today, I used the automatic generation feature of the Visual Editor because that's easy. I've no idea how to do a {{sfn}} using the Visual Editor (VE) and only recently learnt how to do list-defined references in VE. I could convert the format manually using the source editor but that seems a lot of work for little benefit.

Elijahpepe's motivation seems to be to make this a GA. The topic seems too contentious for that to be easy but the article is getting lots of traffic currently (about half a million so far) and so the readers may appreciate the effort.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You would be right, and I'm quite shocked that this article has garnered so much attention. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Dropped out

She dropped out because she got disillusioned with the US health system, or she dropped out because she SAYS she did? she might have been failing 103.192.194.32 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

She withdrew, you don’t drop out of residency, every year counts towards your experience and your tenure. OnePercent (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

She completed her 1st two residencies. She withdrew from the 3rd, but that was to complete a 5th year so a specialty program for an otolaryngology board-certification. She passed the USMLE which is evidenced by her full MD license. OnePercent (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

A residency is a program

of study in an accredited training program under licensed physicians. An MD gives you a basic general education covering core general topics in medicine and surgery. The MD training gives you limited clinical experience in all core areas of medicine including family medicine, general internal medicine, general surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry and some electives as chosen by the candidate. Medical students go on to residency training in areas they apply and match too upon completion of their medical degree. There are a variety of surgical, medical and other areas of training such as radiology, nuclear medicine, oncology,family medicine, pediatrics, public health pathology etc etc. These are all separate disciplines of practice that one can apply to do a residency in straight out of medical school. Residents train in one discipline with the exception of family medicine. For example pediatrics focuses on children. Internal medicine is adult focused medicine, family medicine is comprehensive care spanning the life span. Neurosurgery is brain and spine surgery, cardiac surgery is heart surgery etc. each of these is a separate 2-5 year residency and you choose one discipline and train in that. You can’t practice until you’ve completed all years of residency training and passed a series of examinations. In the US some residency training will allow you to practice general medicine or family after only one year. As a practicing physician I don’t see how someone with her limited training has the qualifications to be the surgeon general. It’s quite astonishing. To understand medicine and have an idea about the scientific, socioeconomic factors that impact health requires a lot of real life experience and interaction and collaboration. It’s hard to see how her reported experience adds up. 2604:3D09:7481:2700:CC67:3593:8BC8:B6AB (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

She did not do three residencies lmao. An internship is just the first year of a residency. I don't know why there are two separate entries following that that are both labeled for the same, I presume the first is general ENT and the second was beginning a surgical component so she could qualify for a fellowship to complete the speciality. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Means does not have a full medical license. Her license according to the state of Oregon is inactive, and there is no indication she ever had a full, active medical license or board certification. 75.164.19.20 (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The LA Times has an extensive account. Robert Lustig said

“The reason she quit was because she saw that the same patients were coming back with the same problems, and her mentors, the faculty at Stanford, when she would ask, ‘Why is this happening?’ would say, ‘Shut up and operate,’” Lustig said. “She had a crisis of confidence that she was actually not helping the problem, or was actually part of the system that was actually making the problems.”

Others have a different perspective but, either way, it appears that she was dissatisfied with being a surgeon and wanted to try a different approach. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casey Means/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 00:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been studying this article after reading about the subject in the NYT. I'm inclined to Quickfail this on the following grounds:

1. It's a BLP and the subject is in the middle of a life-changing event – being nominated as the US Surgeon General. As this is not resolved and Trump cabinet roles tend to be volatile, this is a moving target and so the article will not be stable until the subject's life settles down.

2. The topic is contentious and the subject is being attacked on multiple fronts – for example, as being insufficiently pro or anti vaccines. There has been a corresponding spike in editing and so this again means a lack of stability.

3. The article has OR and POV problems. For example, the section Casey_Means#Good_Energy attacks the subject as making a false claim. This is just sourced to their book and there is no independent source for this. And the section fails to state that the book was a NYT best-seller. This section seems to be mainly a hostile and opinionated view of the book based on the editor's own reading rather than respectable reviews and reception.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree here - the section on Good Energy is synthesis that is cited directly to the work itself and not a secondary source that analyses it. That's a failure of critera 4 or 2c depending on your perspective. I would ask the nominator to spend time looking for or waiting for publication of sources that discuss Mearns in depth in regards to her recent work. -- Reconrabbit 16:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

And here is the exact situation I was trying to avoid. I did not add those references, nor did I write the content in them. Please do not attribute that writing to me, it is most certainly not my work. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if you didn't write it, that information is in the article. I run into this problem constantly when nominating articles for GA. It unfortunately means that a large part of the process of writing a good article is reviewing, excising or rewriting the work of others. -- Reconrabbit 13:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:GAN/I#N1 explains what's expected of the nominator: "Make sure that the article is written with a neutral point of view, is verifiable and has no original research. Then check the article against the good article criteria and make any improvements that you think are necessary." If this has not been done and the nominator disowns the content, then this is another reason for a quickfail. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

>This is just sourced to their book and there is no independent source for this

as someone who was the person who has added this, do you really need a special source for that? I work in academia and I've kind of became accustomed to not having to source self-evidently obvious things (e.g. the sun is a star, homeopathy does not work, etc), idk if things are different on wikipedia. Because otherwise proving the negative problem becomes important. I woudlnt be surprised if there turned out to be no high quality sources explicitly stating that this statement is false (unless maybe after that edit was added and the sources just copied that claim from Wikipedia), but that's not because it's not self-evidently false, it's because no person in his right mind would go through a book that explicitly presents itself as a pseudoscientific book on wellness and try to argue through every point there. That would be like picking up a pseudo-geology book by a religious fundamentalist who believes the earth is 6000 years old and trying to disprove every claim there. Pointless. 5.44.170.181 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If there is no independent, critical commentary on pseudoscientific works, like said pseudo-geology book, then generally Wikipedia doesn't discuss it at all. There is no limit to what someone might consider as self-evidently obvious. There are people who believe in homeopathy out there, after all, and not just people who make their money with it. The relevant guideline here is: WP:FRINGE, where it is stated that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. -- Reconrabbit 03:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

actually I think you're wrong

This might be a more appropiate rule: Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed

To quote from it: "General common knowledge: Statements that the average adult recognizes as true. Examples: "The capital of France is Paris" or "Humans normally have two arms and two legs.""

I mean I'd like to find a source that does not itself reference this wikipedia article and that explicitly says that the claim that "researchers can identify a person with depression or schizophrenia just by analyzing their gut bacteria composition" is false, but I dont think anyone has bothered. 5.44.170.181 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit:In case you simply don't trust me (you shouldn't) and in the absence of explicit refutals from good quality sources, here I've asked Chatgpt about it: https://chatgpt.com/share/68288287-322c-8008-b965-1d025b428657 And sure chatgpt hallucinates still and all that, but probably hallucinates way less than the authors of that book LOL. 5.44.170.181 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I trust your judgment, but it's my opinion (and presumably @Andrew Davidson:'s as well) that the causes of mental disorders and other wild claims made in the book do not fall under the umbrella of "general common knowledge" and either need a secondary source or shouldn't be analyzed at all (e.g., "she co-wrote Good Energy, which argues that chronic diseases are produced by a failure of the human body to "produce energy"."[1]) -- Reconrabbit 16:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT is not an acceptable source. For one thing, note that its analysis cites Wikipedia as one of its sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source either.

There's a high bar for material in biographies of living people (BLP). WP:BLP states,

Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

And, for avoidance of doubt, I agree with Reconrabbit that the book and its details are not "general common knowledge". It appears that researchers have looked at associations between mental illnesses such as depression and the gut microbiome (example). Establishing exactly how far they have got with this would be specialist knowledge on the cutting edge. If the book makes too much of this, does it affect its main thesis? It's not clear why we should call this out specifically and make a big deal about it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Great, so what's your gameplan then? To remove the falsely part to present the statement uncritically to lend even more credibility to the pseudoscientific bullshit that has gradually over the years have already become ever so more common on wikipedia?

or just remove the entire statement (falsely and the qutoe itself) from the article thus depriving readers of that important contect and essentially again boosting the authors credibility que point 1? 5.44.170.181 (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As frustrating as it is, that kind of analysis is more suited to RationalWiki. The goal is either to represent pseudoscientific authors as they are characterized by established authors and critics or not to represent them at all. It's not as though the book should just be ignored - there are still some claims that were analysed, like the promotion of psilocybin therapy and MDMA as a treatment for PTSD[2] and false claims about seed oils[3]. -- Reconrabbit 13:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

well feel free to do whatever then i guess

id still check online if there are any new articles discussing the claims now that shes in the spotlight, or maybe wait a week and check that

maybe someone would take it upon themselves to dissect the book and all the bullshit contained within 5.44.170.181 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Reconrabbit is on the money here. Biographies of living people on Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible. The article for Adolf Hitler does not directly tell the reader that his actions were bad—the reader is left to that on their own. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

actually it kind of does, the very first paragraph calls him central to perpetration of the holocaust - a genocide of 6 million jews, "and others"

pretty sure that's worse than being responsible for making some false statements in a wellness book, but you do you 5.44.170.181 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

A Nazi could read that statement without issue. That is the point I am getting at here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

"And sure chatgpt hallucinates still and all that" And that's the end of that story. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have cut back the section about the book in line with the comments above. A brief and bland summary of the book's theme is provided, using a review from the journal Family Medicine as a source. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Going to pile on and say this seems far from GA, though the work folks have put into it. In addition to the issues I already raised at WP:FTN, the new version of the Good Energy section is sourced entirely to an apparent puff piece written by a fellow proponent of functional medicine. I don't know that journal, but if they publish reviews like that, color me skeptical. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

In general, I'm not sure why we need to dedicate entire paragraphs to the section for Good Energy. Give me specific things that are preventing this from getting to GA and I will amend them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I made three points at the outset and elijahpepe doesn't seem to have addressed any of them.

The book seems important as it is a substantial work which lays out Means' views and prescriptions in detail. Looking around for more material, I find a substantial profile in the New Yorker. This naturally refers to the book in analysing Means positions and I've added some quotes which seem helpful in summarising the tone and themes of the work.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)