Talk:Fred R. Klenner

Comment

Fultz quads, first african-american survivors Let's see risk factors: poverty, mom 37 with physical issues, father, 56, hospital x-rays (20s, 30s, 40s fryer?) often used liberally then, premature, possibly familial link mentioned, ~1970s Virginia Slims cigarette advertising. Survivor is the (surprise #4) who didn't show up in the "family album" x-film (shielded)? Might be interesting to know if there was a position to source (dose) relationship in the three dead sisters, eh? Given the number of down checks, FRK did ok. Vit C did it? - yes just like JAMA & NEJM say all the time. puleeeeez.

This gratuitously denigrates the scientific and clinical life work of FRK that remains mired in controversy even today. Please find another home for this kind of irrelevant, morbid humor.

Son of heroically hard working, brilliant local physician goes to Duke. Drops out college, perhaps not hard working enough or not quite as bright as the old man. Floats along on trust and a lie, works at family clinic for several years. Old man dies, gradually forces lies out. Humiliated, overstressed amplifying any other weaknesses, son gets in trouble. Somewhat protected by family's status and trust, he pairs up with another disturbed soul, spirals out of control longer and wreaks more havoc. A tragedy for all. Interferes with the name, life and work of FRK. 02:41, 21 January 2006 137.229.184.137

Perhaps he should be inside separate entry under the book/movie tiles, I would class the current form as "distracting" with low relevance if not indirect character assassination of a controversial medical figure. 02:58, 21 January 2006 137.229.184.137

RfC

There was a RfC about whether to include implications his son was involed in murder. Without a great deal of knowledge on this, here is what I think. It should only be included in the article if it happened before he died which of course would have affected his life story. If it was after his death and the son is notable enough for his own article it should be noted in the See Also section.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it happened in his lifetime then I would include it in the biography. If everyone who learns about Klenner also learns about his son's involvement in a murder, then it is a 'notable' fact and also should be included (regardless of when it happened). Other than that I don't think it should be included. Matt 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This drama, more than a year after Dr Klenner's demise, looks well outside the Klenner article's scope, at least several ways. The Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy on deceased people, the verification policy on Guilt by association seem pretty clear as does NPOV tutorial on Insinuation. See also Halo effect, Reductio ad Hitlerum, profiling. Several exact legal classifications (the action, his state) are also technical discussions if the son had become unfit but not yet diagnosed. I think dump it. 69.178.31.177 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's a notable fact, I don't see why it should not be included. If it's true it's not libel. - JustinWick 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is malicious, extraneous claver (non-notable) for this article on a physician-scientist and his career work. Pls read the policy links, presented above. Pls see "subversion" below. --69.178.31.177 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A biography should be about the person and the achievements of the person. The fact that he "achieved" a son, a marriage, a career and so on and so forth is relevant. But the doings of his family is not relevant unless it can be established that it affected Dr. Klenner and his work significantly. Just because murder is an interresting subject dosn't mean we should print it in connection with any given subject which has the slightest connection with it. Relevance or not - that is the question. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to hinge on the notability of the son's story. There seems to be no question of the notability of the father, or the connection between the two. If the son's story isn't notable enough, then the only inclusions warranted would be effects of the son's actions on the father's life. However, if the son's actions were notable enough to have an effect on public perception of the father, then an inclusion would be warranted regardless of the effect on the father's life. For example, what if Dr. Klenner's research had directly resulted in major findings after his death? Most would agree that such findings would warrant inclusion. In this case, I would recommend a brief acknowledgement of the connection. It seems that the hesitation to include such information is based on an unwillingness to impugn the character of this admittedly notable man. However, I personally don't think it reflects on his character at all, and furthermore believe that's not a proper basis on which to judge inclusion. Trevor 02:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trevor. What his son did doesn't reflect on his character (and I wonder if there'd be such resistance to inclusion if his son had done something creditable). I don't think his son is greatly worth including in the article itself, but I'm more worried about the efforts of 69.178.31.177 to avoid even a link to a reference that mentions this detail in passing. It is a repeated issue with Wikipedia articles on alternative medical figures that proponents want them to be hagiographies rather than biographies. Tearlach 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there'd be such resistance to inclusion if his son had done something creditable

Heh - I notice no one's complained about the link to another relative, Susie Sharp, or indeed the Susie Sharp article's reference to the Bitter Blood case. 86.145.94.24 (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

whale.to

see Talk:MMR_vaccine#Summary_of_Whale.to_controversy_for_RfC and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whale.to--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 07:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. Let's say whale.to has 5000 web pages. 4990 of them are counterfactual nonsense (the moon is green cheese), hate, opinion, maybe Mein Kampf for the German citizens. 10 pages are pre-1923 JAMA articles. Are you saying someone can't (will be censored, attacked, blocked, Wiki war, whatever) directly link a drilled down specific URL to the old JAMA pages at whale.to to ease the dead trees (print) refs?

"...and the compromise of WikiSource" ????? Please accurately link. 69.178.31.177 11:13 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All we are doing here is linking to e copies of papers published by Klenner. We are not endorsing everything that is hosted by that site. If anyone can show the papers have been tampered with to promote a point of view then that would be a reason not to link. Otherwise they should stay. Lumos3 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably easiest if you join the discussion at Talk:MMR_vaccine#Summary_of_Whale.to_controversy_for_RfC rather than split the discussion. However, the current compromise between several editors who do not appreciate the tone of whale.to and those who rightfully argue that there is some important information on the site is to copy the old JAMA articles, etc. into Wikisource and link there instead of directly to whale.to. It's worked so far and we would appreciate any thoughts or comments within the context of the RfC discussion! InvictaHOG 17:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the linked articles and fixed not only dates of the papers, but also entire titles incorrectly represented. Because the linked articles were clearly marked copyright of seanet without any sign on whale that there was permission granted to reproduce, I simply re-linked to the same pages on seanet. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise! InvictaHOG 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

stealth subversion

The changed "fq" link under "see also" is clearly an attempt to subvert the RfC and applicable Wiki policies, discussed above. Pls stop this.

remarkable - The treatment/dosage itself was literally remarkable, still so after ~60 yr, people still talk about, goggle at it; several of its specific results were unusual and uncontested over several decades. This is an area of FRK's career that is theoretically of interest to most - childbearing - and concisely written by noting it as "remarkable". This is not mere puffery, not to mention citing a still disputed/fluffy policy. Webster's 1828 Dictionary - remarkable - 1. Observable; worthy of notice. 2. Extraordinary; unusual; that deserves particular notice, or that may excite admiration or wonder.

The changed "fq" link under "see also" is clearly an attempt to subvert the RfC and applicable Wiki policies, discussed above. Pls stop this.

Conversely, choosing #4 (Corporate adoptions, golden futures) as the entry point for a six-part article, all of whose parts except #5 mention Klenner, could be read as trying to put a rosy spin on the whole reference. His role in the delivery and 'corporate adoption' is mentioned in #1, therefore it should be a reference. 86.133.141.120 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First pg contains at least two inaccurate and/or prejudical sections, sensationalism at least, that impugn the featured subject, FRK. This problem was well addressed in the first two talk categories, above. It clearly violates at least three Wiki policy links. Frankly, I think the whole article is slightly biased at the expense of FRK. If we can't agree on a link, I might suggest a reference to contemporary (1946-1964) magazines about the Fq births instead. Right now #1 is accessible after #4 if the reader really has that much interest. #4 does show a downside to corp adoption. I am really disgusted with ad homs on the individual medical pioneers, "subtle" doesn't cut it. This link series is mostly peripheral to FRK himself. --69.178.31.177 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First pg contains at least two inaccurate and/or prejudical sections

It's in a reputable publication: a major regional newspaper. Wikipedia's job is to summarise information from reputable published sources, and if some such sources take a negative view of someone, it is a breach of WP:NPOV to airbrush it out. Criminal relatives are of general biographical interest (e.g. Margaret Thatcher mentions her son Mark Thatcher's three million rand fine and four-year suspended jail sentence in South Africa). 86.139.139.57 14:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Specious several ways. Your "counter example" is clearly within the Wiki notability policy (per RfC discussion, above), Margaret Thatcher is still alive. Her son's ongoing 23 yrs misadventures with his own article several times longer than FRK, even while she's in power, get a toned down sentence in a loooong article. You have repeatedly tried to build up and justify including tertiary tawdry POV remarks, almost 60 yrs after the relevant event - notable survival and sustenance arrangements for inherently endangered births, after the life of a long snubbed humanitarian physician-scientist. That link violates several Wiki policies (and the initial RfC comment) no matter how you try to sugar coat the gratuitous poison as "reasonable". The Wiki article discusses FRK's medical life work, action and achievements. Showing up decades after his life with non-professional events occurring after his life by nonprofessional persons in a disparging way may meet some tabloid standards but Wiki is *supposed* to be an encyclopedia. Presuming 86.140+-1.xx.xx since Jaunary are all one author, your FRK additions have had a patterned, persistent scurrilous undertone despite repeated attempts to point out the various Wiki policy problems. --69.178.31.177 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, I hope it was an accident that this diff [1] replaced a functioning reference with a broken link. If a newspaper text was used to source the article (and the article history shows that it was) then Wikipedia:Cite sources expects that it should be cited. Tearlach 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the broken link was only for several days in April at most, apparent change in article's archival address. Actually the basic sources are Ebony and Life magazines ca 1946-1965, the newspaper article even uses the same photos.--66.58.130.26 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the link I added. The one you used is just to an isolated picture of the quadruplets; a direct link to the article text is more useful. Tearlach 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Klenner is Notable

Klenner is very notable to orthomolecular medicine.

• The person has been the subject of published[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.[2]

o If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. o Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[3] o Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.

• The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.

Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (2007), Medical Mavericks (1989)

• The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.

ortho- and altmed

• The person has demonstrable wide name recognition

Primarily in orthomolecular & alt med circles, but I have run in to mention of his orthomed protocols in political economy magazines a generation ago and (rich) 3rd world people (not the administering doctor) from overseas familiar with parts his protocols from over 40 years ago, when this was still shocking to me.

• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[4]

His megadose papers are considered pioneering by orthomolecular medicine, radical but plausible in medicine today (still waiting for institutional level tests on even, or especially, the easiest ones after 1/2+ century), Linus Pauling himself recognized Klenner's papers as objects of future study (Foreword: Clinical Guide). And before you even start, Pauling is trivially vindicable on his protests about fraudulent reporting of certain Mayonnaise malaise, for gross distortion of the tests & results, such as qty range tested for conclusory stmts, time, controls, and adminstration route, not to mention even NIH is starting to recognize this, for relevance and mechanisms.

• Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products

no, was pretty recognized as a charitable humanitarian in his locale.

• Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.

o The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

Throughout orthomolecular medicine itself, he is recognized as a pioneering figure in the field.

o The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Yes several foundational protocols to orthomolecular medicine, especially megadose IV ascorbate protocols, still greatly misunderstood in conventional medical and pharmacology based on FUD and innuendo, i.e. "negative knowledge".

o The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Klenner's IV C papers are the subject of Levy's (MD, previous Tulane med prof) book on Klenner's IV ascorbate treatment protocols.

o The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.

Permanent recognition in Intl Orthomolecular Society, his work represented in the permanent Pauling collections at OSU.

Several of these are more than sufficient for notability.--TheNautilus 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war over this, but all these arguments were already addressed in the successful AFD for Robert Cathcart. Being "very notable in orthomolecular circles" does not translate into being notable per Wiki criteria. What is required is independent, third party verification. Orthomed journals do not count. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks more like the start of a POV war on orthomolecular medicine and especially on vitamin C articles. You have inserted "knowledge" that is not consistent with current references on various concerns (e.g. iron) and will take me a while to clean up to date (unlike some medical editors, I am not the one sitting on a medical research library, or also with good database subscriptions).

"Orthomed journals do not count" is incorrect. They certainly show Orthomolecular positions, background & sentiment about orthomolecular issues and history. Although the mainstream journals have great impact (so far) despite repeated scandals and other mainstream doctors & scientists' criticism of the journals policies and track record, the "mainstream" articles have been severely criticized since Pauling showed some of the common scientific mistreatments and misrepresentations. Pauling continues to gain ground in a number of areas despite his being in the ground over a dozen years. The known bias & reliability of mainstream papers/journals with respect ot orthomed is such that both sides' sources have to be subjected to various forms of WP:V scrutiny to arrive at final content on orthomed articles. The "mainstream medical" articles negatively concerning orthomed subjects have repeatedly been heavily criticized for poor/biased test design and biased reporting *by their own mainstream community or authorities*, but seem to gather little coverage in comparison to mere negative rumors and innuedos "incidentally" favoring pharma advertisers. In normal social frameworks, the competitive interests of "mainstreet/pharmaceutical medicine" should heavily burden & discount the credibility of supplier POV in comparison astute, paying users/consumers. But it is not yet so.

The Cathcart article AfD merely shows that it is possible to mug or POV lynch a legitmate article about a medical minority here at WP, where the science part is literally ignored by the supposed mainstream^* at Wiki in 5 short days where the less numerous editors do not have great dead tree library access, as well as large amounts of time related to employment.

( * Note: (If a rich, dominating, well funded group ignores repeated, serious, biologically plausible claims & observations of otherwise unaccounted data in supposed "mainstream" dogma, after decades prompting for proper, funded trials, whither the dominate group's claims to the science part? This is the continued (non)relationship of "mainstream" medicine & government/institutions to orthomed & simple scientific diligence despite repeated, strong clinical observations that are being cited as current today. e.g. Klenner cites an oxidative mechanism at high IV ascorbate doses over 50 yrs ago for viruses, some toxins, and cancer. Now ca 2005, so does the NIH, starting to think about relevant clinical cancer trials. Klenner is notable for originating high dose IV ascorbate concepts 50-60 yrs ago, relevant to articles in Can Med Assoc Journal & Proc Natl Acad Sciences now[]... )--TheNautilus 14:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete this article.

Anyone (e.g., Frederick Klenner) who has been cited by a Nobel laureate (e.g., Linus Pauling) as making a significant contribution deserves to be in Wikipedia. In this case the Nobel laureate is one of the all-time greats of science. If you happen to believe that orthomolecular medicine (a term coined by Linus Pauling) doesn't deserve to exist or be written about, then go write that opinion somewhere on your own web site and let Wikipedia do its job of presenting factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Yost (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And take your soapbox somewhere else. As far as I can see, no-one is proposing deletion of the article, so why raise it as an issue? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fred R. Klenner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060922130132/http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/inv/htm/04898.html to http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/inv/htm/04898.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 03:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)