Talk:Paul M. Fleiss

Headings

Can we please take particular care with headings? I have just corrected "Abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion against Fleiss" (an obviously POV viewpoint which I could not find asserted in any of the cited sources) and "Accused by Aids Denier" (when, in fact, the accusation was by the medical board, and which merely involved an AIDS denialist). Jakew (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

All headings are now very neutral and could be used for a BIO article on almost any medical academician - 1. History, 2. Publications (Joiurnals, Books), 3. Views and Opinions, 4. Public Speaking Engagements, 5. Pediatrician Pracice, 6. Awards and Recognitions, 7. Controversies, 8. Family and Personal Life, 8. Refernces. PPdd (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bold text

MastCell's suggestion to revert back and talk page refactor suggestion

Note: The following was MastCell's last comment which I kept as a refactor, then archived the talk page.

Adding: I'm really concerned about the responses above from PPdd. There's a real impasse here, and I'm going to strongly recommend that we revert back to the last stable version, which as best I can tell did not contain any serious BLP issues, and work piece by piece from there. It's hopeless to sort through the article in the current mess it's become, and the talk page is also becoming a bit unusable. We're probably best off going to the last stable version and dealing with one issue and one source at a time, because this massive profusion of talkpage threads and dubious argumentation is just unworkable. MastCell ^Talk 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Following MastCell's suggestion and comment, "recommend that we revert back to the last stable version... It's hopeless to sort through the article in the current mess it's become". I reverted back to the last stable version.
• Following MastCell's comment - "this massive profusion of talkpage threads and dubious argumentation is just unworkable", I archived the talk page. I am suggesting a standard BLP article structure below, and will create talk page sections for each suggested section. PPdd (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm No, no, no. The solution is not to archive threads that are still active. The solution is to stop opening new threads. Instead, focus on one issue, wait for other people to comment, actually listen to them and take their comments on board, and resolve that one issue before moving on to the next. I'm unarchiving the recently active threads. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article structure and content

This article should look no different than a BIO on any highly published and cited scholar, public speaker, and celebrity in his field, who later in life becomes involved in a public scandal unrelated to his career. There should be no unsourced controversial material.

I propose the following standard structure used in other BLP's for famous scholars, which appropriately fits secondary sources on him.

• I. Lead - First sentence defining Paul Fleiss, and first paragraph outlining the article. The next three lead paragraphs should summarize the body.
• II. Body-

• A. Section on personal and career hstory
• B. Section on Academic and Scholarly Work
• C. Section on Awards and Recognitions
• D. Section on Public Speaking Engagements and interviews
• E. Section on Pediatrician Practice, with subsection on unusual popularity and subsection on unusual large number of celebrity clients
• F. Section on Family and Personal Life
• G. Controversy Section with subsection on daughter and possible subsection on Medical Board record keeping incident

I kept all of the material in the article as I found it yesterday into these sections without deleting anything, and added to the other sections to take care of my ownh UNDUE objection. PPdd (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is sufficient secondary source material to justify sections B, C, or D. If secondary sources can be found, however, they should be included. Regarding G, please note that WP:CRIT#Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies" specifically advises that "Likewise, sections or articles dedicated to "controversies" should be avoided." The material should preferably be integrated into the rest of the article. Jakew (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on personal and career history

Personal history and career history is a standard section in a BIO, and needs to be filled out with sources. The article as I found it contains some such information, but I do not want to put anything more in the article without RS. I will not object if others do. I will simply add cit needed tags to any unsourced sentence. PPdd (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We may have to remove this material if it cannot be sourced. This is relevant, however: "While most doctors train initially at traditional medical schools, he started out as a pharmacist and osteopath. In 1962, California passed legislation that for a brief time allowed an osteopath to convert the degree to an M.D. So Fleiss moved to Los Angeles from his hometown of Detroit to take advantage of the new law."[1]

This doesn't look like the most reliable of sources (it's blatantly promotional, and the Cancer Control Society appears to be a little dubious), but it might just about be adequate. Jakew (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That first quote goes a long way toward explaining the unusual (almost bizarre) viewpoints and history. It should definitely be included. Sticking it in verbaitm is fine in my own opinion. Which then leaves open the question of how came about the professorship in medicine in a major university based on an osteopathic degree, not MD. PPdd (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's confirmation in page 1 of the Medical Board's complaint: "Paul Fleiss, M.D. (Respondent) was issued an Osteopathic Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate Number 2-A2845, on or about July 9, 1962. He subsequently elected to utilize designation of M.D. rather than D.O." Jakew (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for LLL Award

Cavarrone removed the {{primary source-inline}} tag for the sentence "Fleiss received the Founders Award from the La Leche League, a breast feeding advocacy group", stating "removed pointy tag, per WP:PRIMARY: "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The fact doesn't require different interpretations". The trouble is, WP:BLP#Misuse of primary sources states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" (emph in original). This indicates to me that a primary source is insufficient by itself; to include this material we need to find a secondary source that has commented on the LLL award. Jakew (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite careful searching, I was unable to locate a secondary source for this information. I've therefore removed it. Jakew (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy, "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction", Aids denial

There is alot of stuff in a Google search of his name with "homeopathy", and the subordinate doctor in his office was a homeopath according to that doctor's website. I recall seeing him in the media talking about homeopathy and putting forth one of the bizarre "vibrating quantum physics water" theories. There is clear indication online of an association and possible promotion of homeopathy. We should try to find RS on this. PPdd (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

*1. We have this - [2]. A "doctor" with an MD who prescribes nonsense homeopathic remedies and remains popular and not a subject of ridicule is significant. This is the kind of thing that is really about Paul Fleiss that should be prominent in an article about him.

(striking this as being covered elsewhere) *2. We have this section title - "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction" - That is outrageously misleading and WP:UNDUE. There is a reason for the "one day" sentence and community service that he was already doing without the "conviction". That is because it is trivial. There is a federal law that if someone receives $500 from someone else, it must be reported as income on their tax return, or it is technically conspiracy and bank fraud. Take anyone who has a daughter who already has an article on them at WP, and there is a likelyhood that at least thousands of them have recieved $500 from their daughter, and an almost infinitesmal chance that they reported this on their tax return. Any of them could then be prosecuted. This tiny thing should never cause the creation of a section in their article with the sensational and msileading title "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction". This misleading section title should be immediatly taken down as a BLP violation attack section. A violation so minimal it gets a 1 day sentence (in a plea bargain!, and not even a real conviction), and of such a trivial nature as depositing one's daughter's money in excess of $500, should not have a section with such a title. The title should not be aq yellow press headline, but accurately describe what happened in a neutral way. What reallyh happened, as everyone who saw the story in the press would agree, was a media hungry prosecutor went after a 22 year old female and her family, and ignored all her mega-powerful male clients, including in the DA's own office! This has very little to do with Paul Fleiss other than that he was the victim of prosecutorial indiscretion that caused havoc in his family. There are thousands of secondary television sources reporting the story the way it really happened. This section title should be removed as a BLP violating and very misleading attack. PPdd (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (striking this as being covered elsewhere) *3. This guy had a world famous AIDS virus denier as a patient. She would not listen to him. He did not make note of this. The only reason to make such notes is to save your medical insurance company's butt in what would be a frivolous lawsuit. Imagine yourself in an exam with a person with AIDS who denies the existence of the virus. This is a very minor incident in the career of a celbrity "alternative medicine" doctor with whacked out medical advice constantly in the television news since the 1970's. It is insignificant as being about Paul Fleiss. The whole thing is WP:UNDUE. To put it and the "felon" stuff in the lead is an attack, and a disservice to the user of this encyclopedia, who would read it and get a completely unbalanced view of this man. If you want to attack him, write about who he actually is, not this prosecutorial abuse and AIDS denier stuff, which is more about the prosecutor and AIDS denier than about Fleiss. PPdd (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy seems interesting, but I couldn't find any reliable sources stating that he's involved in any way. Your other points seem merely to repeat what you've said elsewhere on this talk page. Jakew (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources, so cannot be included insofar as I have seen so far, but the sheer volume, and wording, indicates there is at least a highly unusual large scale association with homeopathy and homeopathists. In fairness, however, given the content and tone of his lectures, he may simply believe that homeopathy is better than most surgeries in that it is nothing, and surgeries are often worse than nothing. We need to research this issue more for RS. PPdd (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of secondary source summary of Fleiss' 30 year career and 30 years of media portrayal in Southern California

This edit was a deletion of a secondary source summarizing 30 years of television coverage. It should be restored. Being "popular" is completely different from being "competent", so it is not an NPOV violation in any way. It is a matter of a fact, and of the characterization of that fact by a major reliable secondary source summarizing a 30 year career of a pediatrician as being beloved in an entire region and extraordinarily popular, whether or not he deserves such polularity by competence or simply by riding a mass delusion of belief in alternative medicine and pseudoscience (e.g., homeopathy).PPdd (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead already notes his popularity, stating: "He is widely sought after as a physician in Southern California". There is no real need to include an additional paragraph; the point is made. A case can be made for including a paragraph describing how he is characterised in the media, but only if that paragraph is balanced, containing both positive and negative descriptions. Jakew (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the second senence of the lead is enough. PPdd (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative medicine and pseudoscience

Fleiss is not just another practicioner of alternative medicine and pseudoscience based practice, he is used by its advocates as a kind of authority to "prove" that it "works". This is often based on the number of movie stars he has as clients, with the media . This needs to be sourced, and should be the most prominent fact in the article. What I have typically seen on the news or on entertainment shows, is him giving advice on using alternative medicine, then showing a celebrity saying they followed his advice and "it worked for them", i.e., Hollywood media celebrity-science. This needs sourcing. The home page of this is an example of a marginal source. There are thousands of such sources. Their reliability is a problem because they are alternative medicine sources. PPdd (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

MD, MPH, reliabiliy of source

This is from an alternative medicine site -

""PAUL FLEISS, M.D. received his B.S. Degree in Pharmacy from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in 1956, his M.D. Degree from The University of California, Irvine College of Medicine in 1962 and his M.P.H. Degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1976. Dr. Fleiss did his Residences in Pediatrics at the California Hospital Medical Center, Los Angeles, California and Los Angeles County – University of Southern California Medical Center. Later, he became an Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, Lecturer at the University of California at Los Angeles, School of Public Health and Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific."

This appears to contradict some of the the LA Times sources cited (e.g., "MD Degree from University of California" vs converted DO degree). The LA Times is more reliable than an alternative medicine site, but newspapers are notoriously not reliable in reality. PPdd (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

See #Section on personal and career history. There's confirmation from the medical board that Fleiss converted his degree. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just goes to show that an alternative medicine site is about as unreliable as it gets. And this alt med site appears to be a site that he works from, too, given he appears to have posed for a pic for it. PPdd (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical views and opinions

Breastfeeding advocacy and anti-circumcision are not unconventional medical views? Are there any other medical views he holds which would justify this sentence... "Fleiss is known for his unconventional medical views"Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is already sourced to this article, which says: "Fleiss, Gordon and Incao all are known for their unconventional approaches to medicine. [...] Fleiss is a vocal critic of male circumcision." Jakew (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that but what is it exactly that makes his approach unconventional? Can it be expanded and explainedTheroadislong (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What about the sentences that follow? He opposes circumcision, promotes sharing a "family bed", regards vaccination as optional, is sceptical about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS, etc. Jakew (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposing circumcision certainly isn't unconventional where I live, but the other three are so perhaps they could be included in that section to give more context for the first sentence? Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand: they're already included in that section. Jakew (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct... it just doesn't sound as succinct in the article. I should have read it more carefully. I've moved a sentence so that it flows better with the unconventional bits following the first sentence.Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are so many references to unconventional beliefs (homeopathy, etc.) in NONreliable sources (such as patient testimonials on discussion pages about doctors), that it indicates that a diligent search combing through the Google results might yield reliable sources. We just need to do that diligent search. PPdd (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo

A photo would be nice. PPdd (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading the primary sources

From a brief reading of the primary sources, it appears one of his main focuses is on nonintervention, on diet, on micronutrients, and on medicines that he calls "natural", whatever that means (is it opposed to "unnatural" medicines?, to to "synthetic" medicines?). The article as it stands is nothing like what a historian would write based on his primary source publications. But I have not found secondary sources to back this indisputable fact of his publication record. More searching is needed to find secondary sources to bring the article in line with his publication history. PPdd (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Still to do - Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Alternative Medicine, Diet and micronutrients

The entire article now looks very good. An internet serach yeilds much information on homeopathy, naturopathy, other alternative medicines, and diet and micronutrients. We need to filter the reliable sources out of the mass of other information on this. PPdd (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Diet and real science and medicine stuff

More reliable sources on his diet stidies and view needs to be added, such as on this raw food study, which sounds just like what I have seen him talking about on television, but less scientifically. PPdd (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavy handed section title

The "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction" section title is very heavy handed, can be misleading as to what really occured to readers who think there was a major conspiracy and bank fraud event, and is overly general when more precise language is available.

The following three section titles are all true, all describe the same event, but the first can be misleading, and the second seems to violate NPOV to some editors (assuming it is sourced)Which of the following is most helpful to the encyclopedia article looking at a table of contents for this event?

• 1. "Conspiracy and bank fraud conviction"
• 2. "Prosecution for seldom pursued charges, terminated by plea bargain agreement where the proscutor got to declare a conviction, but Fleiss got the extraordinarily light punishment of one day time served and community service in clinics on Baja California beaches for Fleiss, indicating the prosecution evidence was not good, or the charges were not considered that serious by the prosecution"
• 3. "Prosecution for Heidi Fleiss Hollywood Madam incident"

The fact is that there was no proven "conspiracy", since there was no trial, and ther was no no real "conviction", since it was a plea agreement to stop the prosecution. The second bullet point is most precise (I have not provided RS for it, but those of you who followed this all remember it). The third description is best in brivity and preciseness, and completely neutral. PPdd (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy & bank fraud, and was convicted of these crimes; it's an undisputed fact. Second, describing his prosecution as a "Heidi Fleiss Hollywood Madam incident" is like saying that Buster Edwards was prosecuted for a "Bruce Reynolds incident". Heidi was a co-conspirator, true, but Fleiss wasn't prosecuted for her actions. He was prosecuted for his own. Jakew (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwards and Reynolds were in the same gang. Heidi F. had people in her proistitution ring (including prosecutors and cops as clients), but Paul F. was not really part of that. He was a father who deposited over $500 of his daughter's money and did not report it. No matter who the father or daughter is, this a technically a crime, one that is almost never prosecuted and for which there was such minimal criminality that there was essentially no pubishment (going to his Baja vacation to do free alternative medicine work for children there, but this time officially). The current title seems misleading and heavy handed, and not helpful for someone looking at the table of contents for the Heidi Fleiss incident. It makes the article look like it is about a mobster. If his role had been greater, there would have been substantial prison time. Heidi F. got 7 years for her bank fraud related conviction, and he got almost nothing. (Her prostitution ring conviction was overturned.) Can you suggest some other less heavy handed and more informative titles? PPdd (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

PPdd, other editors and I have repeatedly requested a source for these claims of yours ($500, Baja, etc), and you haven't provided any. It is not reasonable to keep making the same claims and expect other editors to give them any weight whatsoever if you haven't provided supporting evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, he was prosecuted, he pleaded guilty, and he was convicted. Thus, the section title seems entirely neutral. Jakew (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Baja vacation was widely reported in the television news, and a written source is the court transcripts. The $500 is built into the language of the charge he plead to. You are not responding to the fact that this was a plea bargain with the DA agreeing to no prison time other than the part of the day he was in jail when he was first arrested. The section title for such a minor incident as to get the DA to agree to essentially no punishment, is WP:Undue in an article about a pediatrician. Almost no other person notable enough to have a WP article has a section for the day they might have spent in jail and were found guilty of something. And the way the section is titled is misleading, and violates WP:MOS (use plain English), as being technical legal language, which means something much more severe in Plain English. I am certainly no fan of what this guy preaches (alternative medicine), but the section title does not improve Wikipedia and is inappropriate for the actual facts of the incident, and the weight it has in his career. (The rest of the article looks very good, and the content of the section is good. )PPdd (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not citing sources, PPdd. "The television news" is not a source, though a specific programme broadcast on a specific date might be. "The court transcripts" is far too vague: which document, which page? (It doesn't matter much anyway: it's a primary source.) What's the source for the charge? You're not making a convincing argument because this seems like handwaving rather than evidence.

As for the plea bargain, I can't see why it should be relevant. I don't find your argument about "technical" language to be persuasive. That is what he was convicted for. It's what the newspapers reported. It's not really accurate to say that he was convicted of anything else. Jakew (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Family

There is sourced matieral about the family here. It is appropriate for a Family section in the Paul Fleiss article. PPdd (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS (Use plain English) violation in BLP re "Hollywood Madame Heidi Fleiss plea bargain""

"Conspiracy" and "bank fraud" are technical legal terms of art. They have different definitions in different countries. Per MOS (Use plain English), they should be replaced whenever possible with plain English. Lying about employment on a daughter's loan application may or may not fall under this technicsal description in any given state or country. Per MOS, the section title and content should read, in Plain English, something like - "Hollywood Madame Heidi Fleiss plea bargain". This is also the most helpful title for a reader looking in the table of contents for the Hollywood Madame related information. A "plea bargain" is very different than a "conviction", which is again a technical term of art, with different meanings in different countries. This is especially those in which plea bargains are not the norm, and a conviction, in Plain English, means before a jury, not in a plea agreement. Please comment. PPdd (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't we already discussed this? Jakew (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt always go with what the references say and in this case the reference says he "agreed to enter guilty pleas to Federal conspiracy and bank fraud charges" The proposed version certainly isn't "plain English" it sounds more like a tabloid headline and this is an encyclopedia.Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What WP policy says "When in doubt always go with what the references say", wuoting from Theroadislong, and thereby ignore MOS in a BLP. This is especially important when the words in a source are technical legal findings with a country-specific meaning, and having a differnet connotation in plain English. I put the techincal language in the body of the section, but that was removed. This creates a BLP violating ambiguity, which must be immediately corrected. It is also not helpful to any reader, and unresponsive to my comment at the ouset of this section. PPdd (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fact plead to

"He helped Heidi launder hundreds of thousands of dollars by lying on her loan application and falsely claiming that she was an employee of his medical practice" is false. It is a misreading of an ambiguity in the source. His daughter was accused of laundering "hundreds of thousands of dollars", per the source. He was charged, not convicted, with money laundering, for some part of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not specified what part in the source. Furthermore, he was only charged with that, but this is not what he plead guilty to. He plead guilty to the opposite, per the pleadings in the alternative by the prosecution, as the court transcript and pleadings filings clearly show. He did not plead guilty to the money laundering aspect of the charges. He plead guilty to only a specific fact that he lied on her loan application to get money for her, not to hide money for her that she already had, which was the money laundering charge that he did not plead to. The facts presented in the pre-trial court transcript and initial filings had him boxed in for his clearly guilty conduct, however minor. Fleiss did not dispute (see "Undisputed Facts" filings) that he signed her loan application that she was an employee making more than $500 in the time period stataed. Fleiss did not dispute that he did not fill out a 1099 for an independent contractor, or employer tax forms for an employee. If you deposit over $500, and someone works for you, you must either fill out a 1099 form for an independent contractor, or file a tax return with them as an employee, He did neither. That is techincally clear "tax fraud", another charge, even if it is considered so common for a parent and child working for them, or trivial at the amounts in question, that is is almost never charged, except in stacked charges on top of more seroius charges filed. In Heidi Fleiss' (not Paul Fleiss') trial transcript, it came up that she in fact did work in his office, at some point in time, without specificity. By failing to declare her as an emplyoee with employer tax filings, or as an independent contractor having been paid at least $500, this is automatically a techincal tax fraud crime. The prosecution plead in the alternative in its filings, that alternatively, he lied on the loan application and that she never really worked in the office. He plead guilty to that, even though it was not true (Likely as part of the plea agreement so that both he and the prosecution could get out of a case in which they were both looking bad, but this parenethetical remark is not a sourced statement). Technically, lying on a loan application that a child works in your office when they do not is both conspiracty (if the parent and child discussed it), and bank fraud. In essence, he plead guilty to a fact that the prosecution in Heidi Fleiss' trial argued was false, i.e., the prosecution argued out of both sides of their mouth. He was, in fact guilty of money laundering (in my opinion, but only provable for an amount of $501.00), but that is not what the plea agreement was, and thus does not go in the article. So the source cited is ambiguous as to whether the "hundreds of thousands" applies to just Heidi Fleiss, or to both of them. IN either case, this is not what was plead to. This should all be fleshed out with sources more readily available to a reader not down here in LA to verify from the actual records, and with more common secondary sources if possible, if they do not have ambiguities as in the cited source. I am correcting this BLP violation. PPdd (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul M. Fleiss. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-19/local/me-47682_1_heidi-fleiss
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090305133936/http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/MedBoardResult.pdf to http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/MedBoardResult.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)