Talk:Stephanie Seneff

Notability

I'm concerned that this person doesn't really pass WP:NOTE requirements for notability. In fact it seems a clear candidate for WP:BLP1E but before starting an AFD I thought I'd see what others think. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to be a very notable computer science researcher, with many highly cited papers in that area (see Google Scholar). Her glyphosate research is outside of her area of training, but apparently that is what makes her known to the general public. I think the article should be expanded with some stuff about her real scientific contributions, which should be the meat of the article, as opposed to the stuff that is controversial, but a much smaller part of her career. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think this wiki page would exist if she had never spoken publicly against the big firms who's products demonstrated possibly serious large scale harmful effects without giving the wiki entry more of a full spectrum detail and less bias content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

Continuing on with Seneff's controversial ideas she has now followed Kerri Rivera (of chlorine dioxide and autism fame). Honestly there seem to be no places where Stephanie doesn't step on someone else's field. There is some (limited) discussion on Twitter about having her fired from MIT. Here's an example of Seneff talking to Riverra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybiHGCA71G8 Smidoid (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued coverage

It looks like Seneff is getting continued coverage of publications in line with WP:FRINGE. The most recent one covered here tries to claim GMOs, glyphosate, etc. are responsible for concussions. Not sure if it's worth expanding on in the article at this point, but it does appear her main reputation now is trying to correlate a bunch of things to vaccines, GMOs, etc. and overall being criticized for it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and weight

I don't want to become involved in editing this article, so I'm leaving this as an admin comment only, related to the BLP issues.

An issue arose during the AfD about the self-published sources that were in the article in violation of WP:BLPSPS. So far as I can see, they have been removed, except for Snopes, which I believe is also an SPS. Even if it isn't, it's not an RS for a BLP or autism.

There are other issues. The paragraph about Seneff's views on autism is very problematic, as is the paragraph about cholesterol. She isn't an expert in these areas, and the Pacific Standard isn't an RS on autism. We ought not to use SPS and non-RS to counter material that shouldn't be there in the first place. Re: "Seneff and her MIT colleagues have also done research on the relationship between fat and cholesterol consumption and health in America" – if it's published, let's see it; if not, let's not mention it.

Because of the minimal sourcing, the whole section should probably be reduced to something like "Seneff has become a controversial figure within the scientific community as a result of her views on autism, cancer, gluten sensitivity and glyphosate, as well as her views on cholesterol consumption." The rest of her biography should be developed so that those aspects aren't the main thing.

Because this kind of issue keeps cropping up, editors active in this area should consider drafting something for BLP about not creating bios on borderline figures notable only for highly contentious views about scientific matters outside their area of expertise, where the sourcing is so minimal. Or at least drafting advice about how to write them. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

re crackpots like this lady -- I think it is a good thing to leave these articles up. It's a public service to discredit people who have undeserved credibility. For instance, I came here to find out who the heck this "MIT researcher" was, who writes such ridiculous articles. When the press prints her stuff, they always mention the PhD and MIT but somehow neglect to mention that her position is in computer algorithms, not biology. It's a good thing to be able to find this info quickly. Thank you, wikipedia 203.160.80.62 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephanie Seneff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160606170517/https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-glyphosate-researchers-use-easy-oa-journals-to-spread-their-views/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-glyphosate-researchers-use-easy-oa-journals-to-spread-their-views/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New article

Just came across this article that looks like a good summary of Seneff: https://mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephanie-seneff-strikes-out-again-glyphosate-and-covid-19

I don't have time to write anything up right now, so I figured I'd drop that here for future reference in case anyone else wants to take a crack at it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is written by Dr. Joseph Schwarcz of McGill University's Office for Science and Society (OSS). He seems to have a vendetta against Seneff, particularly particularly regarding her publications questioning the safety of glyphosphate, Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. He's written numerous articles for the OSS coming to the defense of glyphosphate against Dr. Seneff and her colleagues. It would be prudent to ask why he would be so defensive of glyphosphate?

On their site, the OSS states they do "not accept funding from any vested interest." However, as late as 2007, the OSS acknowledged funding from The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI). According to the Biotechnology Innovation Organization: "The Council for Biotechnology Information is a coalition of eight leading life-science companies including Aventis CropScience, BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca Ag Products, as well as two trade associations, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA)."

Dr. Schwarcz has a bio page on a JewAge.org that states: "Schwarcz has consulted for a number of Fortune 500 companies, including Monsanto."

Despite claims made on the OSS website, there is evidence that Dr. Schwarcz might be in a conflict of interest which warrants further investigation before concluding his article is a reliable source. It's also notable that while the Seneff article he's criticizing cites numerous sources in support of her findings, Dr. Schwarcz fails to cite a single source in support of his criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.179.38 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Noone needs to have an axe to grind about Seneff to be able to report a number of inaccuracies in the low quality published papers, it's also not necessary to have an affiliation with Monsanto to do so... As such, Schwarcz is also not the only source about this. —PaleoNeonate – 20:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just noted that Seneff's Twitter account has been suspended. There's no way for us to know how long or what for. I would hope it's for spreading glyphosate misinformation (of which she has produced voluminous quantities) but I would guess she's jumped on the Covid 19 bandwagon again. The way she behaves makes me question how she got a Ph.D in an engineering subject and, I think, at least a degree in some biology discipline. 82.24.18.184 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Seneff has a formal education in Biophysics. In fact she has 4 degrees in hard sciences all from MIT. For anyone reading this, please note that Seneff has been the target of smear campaigns funded by big agriculture. This editor references "glyphosate misinformation" as if there is a public outcry to protect glyphosate. The reality is that Monsanto has already paid $11B to plaintiffs who have sued for it's damaging effects on health. See lawsuit updates here: https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/roundup-lawsuit.html Austin.true86 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

8/11/22 Edits

Hello, Silver seren, et al. My take on the 8/11 edits: (1) The IARC supports Seneff on cancer, but importantly, provides a view contrary to refs incl. Monsanto statement; for NPOV facts re: Monsanto’s specific position should be referenced not even concerning Seneff’s position. (2) She did not publish, Food and Chemical Toxicology published; (3) Per its wikipage, Food and Chemical Toxicology “is a peer-reviewed scientific journal” (4) ‘this publication retracted’ is an unnecessary duplication: “Despite some scientists trying to get a retraction, the editors refused to retract the publication.” is balanced and not overly wordy; (5) Frontiers in Public Health is italicized as a journal, check its wikipage. Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I kept all the useful changes you made. I reverted the clearly biased and SYNTH claims regarding IARC. The IARC claim itself has been debunked by the scientific community, but it also has no relevance here because the source has no mention of Seneff whatsoever. The Monsanto reference, meanwhile, is directly about Seneff's study. As an experienced editor, you should know full well what the WP:SYNTH policy is. Your IARC inclusions are not appropriate unless you have actual reliable sources that include Seneff in such a discussion. Silverseren^C 02:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your reply here, Quaerens-veritatem. Silverseren^C 02:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren I’m glad you learned from the edits I made and hope you didn’t wait too long. I am aware of WP:SYNTH, find WP:SYNTHNOT useful, and note that SYNTH is not a rigid rule, but a guideline for helping to determine the difference between summarizing the information from sources and extrapolating new information from sources. What I find useful for the reader is a response to what the ref notes was “reiterated” information, it was not just a response to Seneff‘s study, but also a blanket, general, statement. Should there be information contradicting a blanket self-serving statement? I would also appreciate your information on the debunking of the IARC claim as it appears not ever scientist has debunked it, and the judicial system seems to disagree. Even if all agree the IARC is debunked, how do you explain the multiple million dollar verdicts and Monsanto/Bayer willing to pay billions of dollars in addition to end litigation? I dare say Monsanto/Bayer recognized it would continue losing and wished to stop fighting a lost cause. Perhaps the reader would benefit if at least the wikiarticle on the litigation were referenced. Although, like you, I am waiting for your reply, note that I have a life and may not reply to you for some time. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I asked for a reply before because you were continuing to edit the article for 30 minutes before replying here. And all you've done here is shown that you have a POV problem with this topic area and shouldn't be editing in it. And also a clear (and seemingly purposeful) misunderstanding of our No Original Research policy and how referenced information is to be used. Your opinion of informative additional material for the readers has no place in Wikipedia articles. If the references do not actually discuss the subject matter, which in this article is Stephanie Seneff, then they shouldn't be used at all. Silverseren^C 04:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

New articles

Some newer articles that might be able to support improvements to this Wikipedia article, such as further discussing Seneff's long-time opposition to vaccines: Mother Jones, Health Feedback, Factcheck.org, USA TodayScienceFlyer (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversy 2

Stephanie's page seems to be the target of a smear campaign. This is not at all surprising since Stephanie's research poses an extremely costly risk for the big food business. Stephanie is still a senior researcher at MIT and her work is well respected. For those who care about journalistic integrity, please watch out future bad actors. The user who posed the above has been deleted. Austin.true86 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Austin.true86, this page is written in relation to what the reliable sources say about Seneff. Which, for years, has been covering the fringe pseudoscience topics she's been pushing. Please remember that Wikipedia is not here for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you are here only to push your own POV and personal opinion on topics devoid of actual reliably sourced references, then Wikipedia is not for you. Silverseren^C 23:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" anything. On the contrary. This page has clearly been captured by people that want to defame Stephanie. The article is devoid of information on her recent work, which is why I added some and referenced her MIT page and a link to her book. It also makes it seem like she her research is universally dismissed and she just makes false claims about things. This is not true and the motivations to assert this are highly suspicious given that her research poses such a big thread to big agriculture. What is your motivations @silverscreen? Is there a reason why you want a negative quote from some small time blogger be a central feature on her summary section? Is there a reason why you don't want her the work she's focused on in the last decade and half to be spotlighted on her wikipedia? Do you know that there are many articles that attempt to smear her are funded by industry? Example: (Article: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2023/01/17/viewpoint-mit-turns-blind-eye-to-misinformation-on-agricultural-biotechnology-and-vaccines-promoted-by-infamous-crank-computer-scientist-stephanie-seneff/) Funding: https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/

I am new to wikipedia, and am just learning the rules, but I find it extremely suspicious that you reverted by edits in a matter of minutes. Austin.true86 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist (which you can also do by hitting the "Watch" button on the top of the page), so I saw the change the moment you made it.

If you want to add material about her book, then you need secondary coverage of it. Has it been reviewed by any news or academic publications? Or even just mentioned in anything like that? The lede can certainly be rewritten to better encompass the body of that article, but that's still not going to be a positive summary, per what the content of the body is and what the sources have actually stated about Seneff.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Genetic Literacy Project, since it doesn't appear that source or any other to that group is used in this article currently. Silverseren^C 23:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

When I have time, I will come back and add references to the book in the body of her page. I am new to Wikipedia so I do apologize for not being in the know will all of the guidelines. The book received book reviews from The Boston Globe and other outlets. If that's not the type of review you're referencing, please let me know. Can you explain to me why Seneff's profile is focused mostly on the controversy of her work rather than her actual research? There citations are completely cherry picked to make it seem like she's a kook. My reference to the Genetic Literacy Project is related to the fact that Seneff has been targeted by bad actors (PR front for Monsanto, Bayer) and her wiki paid is very suspiciously slanted to be negative. Austin.true86 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

A certain prestigious university has an AIDS denialist on their faculty that they can't get rid of due to freedom of speech and tenure (but can reduce their courses to a single lab section). Just because someone is faculty at a well known university, and in expert in one area, doesn't mean anything about their beliefs in other fields. This article covers how her work, in different fields, has been received by those relevant to those fields. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I should've mentioned this earlier, but Harvard Book Store is a small, locally owned bookstore named after Harvard Square, and is not affiliated with Harvard University. The reviews listed there might seem solid at first glance, such as "David Perlmutter, MD, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Grain Brain". But you might want to look into them. Perlmutter is an advisor to the The Dr. Oz Show and has been widely criticized for his book "Grain Brain" which blames diverse neurological problems on the consumption of gluten, going so far as to refer to whole grains as "a terrorist group that bullies our most precious organ, the brain". In general an opinion-based book review would be reliable about statements attributed to the author (e.g. Person X says "Y") per (WP:NEWSOPED). However, inclusion of opinions from fringe sources usually gives them undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Photos of Japan (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a far reach to say that Stephanie's profile as it currently stands accurately reflects the true balance of how she is perceived by peers in her field. As shown above, there is clear evidence of paid actors working to discredit her. For anybody that reads this and wants to make a clear-headed decision for themselves, they should at least review some of her public presentations and decide for themselves if Stephanie is a crazy anti-vaxxer as alleged or actually a legitimate and very thoughtful researcher taking on important research (Examples: Slides from the US Congressional Hearing on Glyphosate: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/DC_congressional_hearing.html, Presentation on harmful effects of glyphosate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqWwhggnbyw) Austin.true86 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

how she is perceived by peers in her field Why would that be relevant? Her field is computer science. Other computer scientists are not any less incompetent about medicine than she is.

clear evidence of paid actors If the only explanation you can think of for information that contradicts your preconceived notions is "paid actors", you should urgently try to widen your horizon. We have here a person who studied one field and talks about another field. Those who studied that other field disagree with her. Maybe they are more "clear-headed" than her and than you?

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources talking about the subject (Seneff). They are not based on your conclusions from unreliable sources (such as politicians) talking about something else (glyphosate). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The relevant policy you want to refer to is WP:WEIGHT. It might be the case that this article isn't giving enough weight to her work in computer science, but that is resolved by adding material on her comp sci work which is supported by reliable sources (independent of the subject), and not by deleting other content. You may also want to be aware of WP:AGF. All across Wikipedia you can find articles whose subjects are criticized have had people go to the talk page to accuse the editors being shills for vaccine companies/zionists/corporations/nuclear energy/etc. Such behavior is widely seen as contrary to our guidelines for assuming good faith, and nonproductive as even if it were true that wouldn't change the content of their edits/arguments. Even the subject of an article is allowed to come onto Wikipedia him or herself and argue against their own criticism, and editors have to address their points and not dismiss it as them just being biased.

As far as Congress goes, Marjorie Taylor Green once said of "the so-called plane that crashed into the Pentagon" that "it's odd there's never any evidence shown for a plane in the Pentagon", and they put her on the Committee on Homeland Security, specifically the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations. Instead of watching her give a one-sided presentation to some Congress person that knows nothing, I would invite anyone to read her paper on glyphosate and Celiac disease, note the journal isn't indexed in any selective indexing service (such as Medline), look up data dredging, and then read what people who study this topic have to say about her work in this field. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)