Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred R. Klenner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE. The issue I have with this is that it appears to me that Mr Klenner has not published enough in notable publications. While he may be one of the founders of orthomolecular medicine, this isn't really a mainstream theory. Therefore, I believe that the article on Fred R. Klenner should be deleted. If it is necessary, it might well be worthwhile noting that he is one of the principal founders of the discipline in the history section of the Orthomolecular medicine. It's worthwhile noting that he doesn't even rate a mention in that article, which may just be an oversight. I should note that there was a lot of tangential talk - even to the point of talking about the U.S. Constitution at one point - and this has only made my job of closing harder as it tended to muddy the waters. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred R. Klenner[edit]

Fred R. Klenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)


This AfD is being refocused on Fred R. Klenner only. Please see the below sub-section for the conversation to date. Djma12 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for deleting these pages have been already discussed at length at the successful Robert Cathcart Afd -- and the Cathcart article was far more notable than these articles. Like that former article, these articles share many, if not all of the following WP:PROF and WP:BIO violations.

  1. Some of these articles use self-published books as their only citation. This hardly falls under the criterion of "independent sources."
  2. A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage. [1] This is hardly a reliable source.
  3. To bolster their citation, some articles cite the "Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine" (self described within Orthomolecular medicine as "We had to create our own journals because it was impossible to obtain entry into the official journals of psychiatry and medicine") or the non-peer reviewed "Medical Hypotheses." This also fails the criterion of "independent source", along with the criteria of "significant and well-known academic work." (The definition is provided by WP:PROF, it is the basis for a textbook, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.
  4. Simply being published (especially in random, unreviewed journals) does NOT fit WP:PROF criteria. Otherwise, every published author would somehow be notable. What is required is, and I quote, ""an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."
  5. Notice that this is not a merely listing of all orthomolecular authors. Some orthomolecular indivdiuals such as Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Györgyi are indeed notable. They are notable because they have been awarded internationally recognized commendation, or have published in journals such as Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These citations fit WP:PROF criteria -- self-published journals and Melbourne-based Greek newspapers do not.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above rationale:

Carl Pfeiffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (recommend merge with Orthomolecular psychiatry)
Thomas E. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Archie Kalokerinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Horrobin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (recommend merge with Medical Hypotheses)
Julian Whitaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abram Hoffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irwin Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Djma12 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the recommendations of DGG and Realkyhick (Talk to me), I think re-listing the other individuals separately would add to more complete debate. Even though I think the above individuals easily fit my above criteria, others (vociferously) disagree, and deserve their own forum. Djma12 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this mean? Are you still trying to get the above 7 doctors' entries deleted? If so, where are the pages that discuss the suggested deletions? If you aren't trying to get them deleted, why are there still deletion notices on the pages?--Alterrabe 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tags are still on b/c Wiki rules do not allow you to remove deletion tags, even if they were your own nomination. I recommend Keep for the above seven pending renomination at another date, and have this AfD refocused on Fred R Klenner. Djma12 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pleased to hear this. However, I would like to know who, in that case DOES have the power to remove such tags? Could somebody please inform me of this? I noticed that on the David Horrobin site, whose listing was always wholly inappropriate, the 'notability' tag was indeed removed, but the 'deletion' tag persists, having been placed there by Djima after very significant editing and referencing. What gives? Further, I draw attention to the fact that each of the persons who were nominated had some connection with nutritional medicine. I am highly suspicious that the nominations were not at all agenda based in some way. They do not appear to have been random, or merely based upon some criterion of 'notability' or whatever. Brigantian 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep David Horrobin Both for reasons stated below, and for those which a cursory look across the content, external links and references on his site will make clear as the light of day. Brigantian 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Until Djima comes up with both a plausible explanation for the surprising similarities of the opinions and comittments of this particular grouping, to demonstrate that this is not merely a mass attack on an interest group in science, since none of these appear to be linked directly within Wikipedia; and until someone wholly independent nominates them individually for reasons more plausible than those which have been put forward.Brigantian 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all, as they fail WP:PROF. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Change to Keep and relist individually. After some prodding by a fellow editor, I think that a blanket delete may not be in order here after all. Klenner probably fails WP:PROF, but maybe some of the others don't. At least a full discussion on each is merited. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reconsideration. From WP:BIO: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Klenner originated the high dose IV vitamin C regimes for cancer, many toxins, and viruses, but his results remained completely untested and ignored in mainstream medicine almost 60 yrs, until recently. Klenner also cites an oxidative mechanism at high IV ascorbate doses over 50 yrs ago for viruses, some toxins, and cancer. Now ca 2000+, 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNautilus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination for Horrobin is based upon the fact that the article is basically just a bio -- it names little that he is actually notable for. Other than founding "Medical Hypotheses" (and having the journal he founded name a prize after him), and being runner up in a book prize, what is he notable for? I suggest that his article be merged with Medical Hypotheses. Djma12 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if you have reservations about why the listings are too sweeping, please do share why specific individuals are notable. I am not adverse to taking individuals off the list if citations fitting WP:PROF can be found.Djma12 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even a perfunctory medline search reveals that CC Pfeiffer's research was published in, among other journals, Science, JAMA, Biol Psychiatry, Ann NY Acad Sci and similarly august journals. I am adamantly against the (unwarranted) deletion of Pfeiffer's entry (and most of the others as well)--Alterrabe 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I believe I have overcome the worries expressed above in regards to the entry on Carl Pfeiffer.--Alterrabe 11:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are these concerns overcome please? A simple pubmed search for "Carl Pfeiffer" brings up none of the citations you claim, and the specific article citations are not included in the bio. Furthermore, simply being published does not grant you WP:PROF criteria. (Otherwise, every single published author would be notable.) What is required is, and I quote, "an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."Djma12 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For future reference pubmed and journals work with surnames and initials!! "Pfeiffer CC" gets you more than 100 articles. Unfortunately, you misquote WP:PROF. There are 6 criteria, any one of which suffices to establish notability. Being Chair at Emory does make you a "significant expert." And even if none of the criteria are met, a person may still be "notable." Can we agree on this? FWIW during the Cold War the US government counted Drs. Pfeiffer and Hoffer among its experts on the use of LSD. This alone almost certainly makes them notable.--Alterrabe 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, thank you for pointing that out. I'll try to address you statements individually.
  • Looking at the citations list, most of them are to the unreviewed "Medical Hypotheses" and other small journals. There are two JAMA listings but both of them appear to be editorials or reviews rather than actual original content.
  • Simply being a Chair at Emory does not make you notable. Otherwise we'd have an article for every chairperson from every department from every university. What is required is still third party verification of a significant contributions made to the field. The article in the current form definitely does not provide that.
  • Yes, WP:PROF criteria are not exclusive, but you still need to provide third party documentation of notability somehow. Do you have a citation that he was a "LSD expert." If so, does the citation state what contributions he made to the field? Djma12 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 103 articles, 8 are in Biol Psych, 5 or so in the Ann NY Acad Sci, some more in experentia, Arch Gen Psych and more. These are all blue chip publications. I cannot agree with you that these are "other small journals."
  • Yes, being the the Chair at a top tier university won't suffice. My friend, read Pfeiffer's original works, talk to his collaborators and friends, as I have, and to grateful patients, and any doubt that he was noteworthy, and perhaps even ahead of his time, will evaporate. The Pfeiffer Treatment Center, to which Pfeiffer lent his expertise, is at if not the cutting edge of research into the neurobiology of criminal behavior.
  • If your read Colin Moss' book on Operation Bluebird, MKULTRA etc Hoffer and Pfeiffer's names are mentioned in connection with their expertise on LSD. Hoffer developed his "adenochrome theory" of schizophrenia from his knowledge of what LSD does.--Alterrabe 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So of his 103 publications, only 13 or so of his publications are in recognizable journals? (And middle-tiers one at that. Biol Psych has an Impact factor of 6, compared with say JAMA which has a I.F. of 22.) All this only proves is that he is an academic with a few published papers, it doesn't go towards why he is notable.
  • I would love to "talk to his collaboratos and friends" as you have, but that constitutes original research under WP:NOR. While I trust your intent, wiki seeks verifiability, not "truth". What I would love are citations on why his work is notable and important.
  • Again, I would love citations, both here and within the article, about Pfeiffer's role with MKULTRA and how that pertains to notability.
Djma12 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic (or total lack thereof) baffles me!! Are you serious?
  • You get the impact factors totally wrong, don't have the magnanimity or acumen necessary to overlook an obvious typo, don't understand that you can talk with people, and do original research as long as you don't incorporate it into the article, and that doing so can make for a vastly better article. I have referenced the to date most authoritative book on the US government's interest in LSD. I have no doubt that one if not several attorneys carefully scrutinized every letter in that book, as I don't have it with me, I am not about to do more than mention the book. Their involvement automatically makes Pfeiffer and Hoffer germane not only to the History of Science, but also to the Ethics of Science and to Cold War History.--Alterrabe 03:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and relist separately. I don't believe this joint nomination allows sufficient time for full consideration of the individual merits of this ill-assorted group. Espresso Addict 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second I second that proposal, excellent idea. --Crusio 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and relist, using judgment about which ones to relist. ISI highly cited is a clear statement of notability as judged by hundreds of other researchers. A journal with an impact factor of 6 is--in any subject--a first rate journal, not a middle tier journal. Being a chair at a research university like Emory is a reasonable indication that people think someone notable. This does look alike POV motivated attempt to delete articles on everyone with a particular point of view on vitamin C. DGG (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to defer *any* relisting for 6 months, and allow time for articles to mature, as well as for concerned editors to gain more familiarity. "Educating" unfamiliar editors to various science issues, even dealing in the best faith and significant technical background, is extremely time consuming and sometimes enervating. For instance DGG, another "conventional" editor's take on Glyconutrient still loudly repeats the WP:V (mis)statement dietary supplements that contain a blend of eight simple sugars (monosaccharides) which is also simply WP:V wrong (the starch filler contained therein will yield some saccharides *after* ingestion, most of the rest are fermentable polymers among other properties, and the closest major monosaccharide in the original formula appears to be the aminosugar, glucosamine, not exactly one of the "8 essentials"). This is the problem with many "conventional" medical edits & claims here at WP, they simply can't tell Shinola from the other, er, stuff. (In this latter example, the most notable commercial promoter also technically confuses the situation, aggravated by the current editing in the current article at WP. And, yes, you've seen me before.) Thank you for your observations and comments here.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fair - I'll relist the individuals on separate AfDs. To be honest, I grouped them b/c I really don't have the time to sludge through eight separate AfDs, but perhaps that's better in the long run (though more time consuming.) Djma12 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the individual editors were not contacted, although not an absolute requirement, it is a common courtesy to individual editors on individual articles. I really think this is extraordinarily premature and, frankly, wasting a lot of peoples' time and patience. The Cathcart article assassination was out of the blue with a number of statements that appear to be false but take time for uninvolved editors to develop rather than five days notice (e.g. the 60s-70s contemporary value and notability of Cathcart's artificial joint that apparently made a lot of money at a time individuals' high tech patent millions were often harder to get than hi tech billions today). Also another problem with deletion is that it becomes hard to follow up on threads of questions or patterns of action. Decency would be to withdraw the nomination and try to collaborate first, several other oncologists here have done so in my experience, quite well, without POV becoming COI or vice versa.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'll notice - The articles were tagged for some time as needing improvement. I can't help it if the interested parties can't be bothered to update their own articles. And if you'll read the "Cathcart assassination" AfD, its pretty clear what the consensus was. I also can't help it if the preponderous of wiki editors disagreed with your assessment. Djma12 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think that the nominating editor needs to attempt to collaborate over some time first. Some of the individuals biographed are highly referenced in conventional medical literature that takes a while to dig out (my state doesn't even go that far back, much less Medline...or at least, even some of the editors here yet born). There has been precious little prior discussion here at WP on the articles by the nominating editor (dismissive), much less meaningful attempts to gain broader or deeper information on these subjects, to ask useful questions of other WP editors, and make meaningful trial edits back and forth that can develop better content. One of the presumptions the the nominator makes seems to be that common, highly commercialized, ad versions of science and the history of science dictates notability, it doesn't. Notability for individual altmed is different, whether dealing with prejudicially handled legitimate hypotheses, unfounded phantasms, or master showmen (see Dudley J. LeBlanc), than notability in the recognized mainstream of medicine. In a number of cases, individual distortions by the nominator also seem to be lumped upon the whole group, as well as seriously erring. (e.g. Djma12: ...A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage. [1] The exact link 1 Djma12 used, the website homepage, is not the same page for the external link that I found[2] (or [3]) at Irwin Stone, which is a webpage of convenience links to very old vitamin C papers in mainstream journals back to 1935 that include Irwin Stone's papers as well as related papers, hard to get where I live.) Orthomed contributors, who are a scientific group in a medical minority, have frequently been dismissed here at WP as pseudoscientists when obscured by so-called "mainstream" statements that turn out to be highly misinformed by conventional science reckonings (e.g. violating principles of hypothesis testing/replication and not using complete information for whatever reason), mere innuendo, or outright scientific misconduct by their "mainstream" accusers.--TheNautilus 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orthomed contributors (...) by their "mainstream" accusers -> this problem you have with the way Wikipedia works will not go away until reliable sources have documented this and mainstream science has stopped dismissing orthomed contributions as pseudoscience. Placing "mainstream" in quotes here shows a clear (minority) POV: it states that really mainstream science does not dismiss orthomed, and suggests it supports it. Avb 11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This statement continues to confuse pharmaceutical commericialism, numerously cited for its scandals, aka "mainstreet clinical medicine", different from currently accepted mainstream medical research, and confused with mainstream *science*, a process, despite numerous cited transgressions in the literature that should give chemical sales reps lurid fantasies. Orthomed is science based, but a minority relative to highly subsidized and advertised xenobiotic pharmaceuticals in medicine.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why complain in an AfD about Wikipedia content that has been written according to its rules? If you can show that the status quo as described by you is also described in reliable, preferably secondary sources, nothing should stand in the way of changing the encyclopedia accordingly. Conversely, if/where the rules have been violated, feel free to use the relevant dispute resolution processes. I also refer you to these comments. Avb 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the nominating editor needs to attempt to collaborate over some time first --> I think this comment on the nominating editor is not warranted. It does not inform the debate and may, therefore, be interpreted as a slur, or an attempt to discredit the nominator's arguments. It certainly is not an argument to keep the articles. It might be acceptable at the editor's talk page, in the form of advice. Just my opinion, of course. Avb 11:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the AfD is far too early given the resources and number of editors concerned with orthomed being diverted by processes counterproductive to content time without any attempt to learn or edit more. The nominator has been pretty dismissive of things he shows a strong POV and little real background on, with the very real threat of additional disruptive deletions and restructuring rather than productive editing.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your content/process/etc-related comments are most welcome, just like your personal POVs. Your comments on the nominator are not. Please do not proffer other editors' (perceived) POV as a reason to keep articles. Note that the nominator's POVs (whatever they may be) are just as valid as your POVs. I refer you to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DELETE. Avb 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Pfeiffer's work as a distinguished part of the mainstream from the 1930s to the 1950s/60s may not be likely to show up on the proposed web / pubmed searches.--TheNautilus 14:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. But note that this is not a special problem of older material; even for recent work, while inclusion of a subject in the encyclopedia can be based on material found through these resources, exclusion cannot be based on lack of material found here. Regardless, Google Scholar does yield 107 hits for CC Pfeiffer in the period 1930-1969. Avb 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am unfamiliar with the other nominees, and do not have time to research. However it is absolutely clear that David Horrobin should be kept. He publlished more Peer-Reviewed papers in journals of unimpeachable quality (see his extraordinary bibliography currently linked from the site, as well as listed in bibliography on the ISI site) than do a dozen more average scientists in a lifetime. The reference to Medical Hypotheses entirely misses this, and further misses the point of the journal itself. It appears only to show an ignorance of the intended function of the Journal Medical Hypotheses in particular, of the very extensive work of Dr. Horrobin in general, and also of his own publication history related to the subject of peer review itself. (Try googling "David Horrobin" and "peer review" and peruse some of the 299 hits that specific search alone turns up!). Further, the reference at the outset of this discussion to Medical Hypotheses makes it seem as though this journal is somehow disreputable. Aside from missing the point of the journal entirely, it should be noted that Dr. Horrobin attracted the following as the journal's original editorial board in the mid 1970s: the double Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the Nobel Laureate in medicine Sir Macfarlane Burnet, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, the Nobel Laureate in physiology Sir John Eccles, and the acclaimed physiologist A.C. Guyton. These understood the purpose of the journal, and it would be good for the nominator for deletion to consider its function as well. As for both the scientific and general notability of Dr. Horrobin, just take a look a the ISI site, or google him. In a main Google search, Fred Klenner produces a total of 211 hits, whereas David Horrobin produces 16,700- every one of which refers to him. Horrobin is an unusual name, and he was unusually notable. A Google Scholar search produces 478 hits, and pubmed search of "Horrobin D" produces 510. Every one appears to be by the David Horrobin in question. Quite apart from being a notable scientist, he was notable enough to have been accorded obituaries in almost all the major broadsheet British newspapers, as well as (notably!) in both the BMJ, and in the Lancet. The nomination is entirely unjustified, and its motivations are therefore rather questionable. Brigantian 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
  • Keep all. My personal opinion is that the notability of one, perhaps two, of the doctors, where fair minds can disagree ought to be debated, if only to once and for all establish their notability or lack thereof. However when the contributor initiating the discussion has:
  • deleted a perfectly good link to a scientist's publications at the NIH's medline, falsely claiming that it was bad,
  • misrepresented wikipedia's guidelines (original research may not be entered into articles, but can be extremely helpful in finding acceptable sources for wikipedia and forming one's opinions)
  • misrepresented the importance of various preeminent scientific publications
  • made other suggestions whose logic other contributors cannot fathom,

I feel the wisest and most productive course of action is to immediately adjourn these deletion proceedings sine die until we can be sure that we will discuss them based on factual evidence and according to wikipedia guidelines. Scientists need not have had their contemporaries accept their theories to be sufficiently notable for a wikipedia entry; otherwise Galileo Galilei's entry would have to be removed, nor do they have to have been correct at all; otherwise Trofim Lysenko and Ptolemy's entries would have to be deleted.--Alterrabe 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Generally agree with Alterrabe's comments, especially the latter ones. Also, WRT David Horrobin once more, on the note of controversy, "Notability" does not, as Alterrabe suggests, necessarily mean "positive" notability. Dr. Horrobin certainly attracted controversy, but then so did Darwin, and Copernicus. However his NOTABILITY is unquestionable. The very negative obit which he received in the BMJ (the only one which was so, out of many, only some of which can now be linked to the site) elicited the largest number of responses (in his defence) for any such article in the history of the British Medical Journal. Now "Djima12", how do you account for that, if he was not NOTABLE!? Good grief. Brigantian — Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).Djma12 (talk)
  • For the record - I based these nominations upon the articles themselves, which were sparse and poorly sourced when I found them. I even tagged them for some time to allow for expansion and improvement, to no avail. Now if the people who are complaining about the nominations have since found all sorts of Google hits, etc... after the nomination, then please put the citations within the articles. I am more than happy to reboot the nominations on an individual basis and allow time to add sources. Instead of all these accusations of "out of the blue assassination", however, why not look at the actual history of the articles and the requests for collaboration? Sheesh Djma12 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, that's odd, since (as you must know) I found it very notable in itself that you (Djima12) both attached the notability tag, and then attached the tag for deletion, in this case after the article had been extensively referenced (esp. by proxy with the ISI site and the David Horrobin Bibliography site) and enlarged, in response to the initial notability tag! This is of course clear from the revision history of the page, if anyone else wishes to check it. Brigantian— Brigantian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).Djma12 (talk)
  • Comment Further, the addition of the "few or no other edits" by Djima12 to my comments on this page is entirely irrelevant. I have only just begun to do so, and was moved to to so particularly by the clear inappropriateness of the deletion nomination of David Horrobin. I do not have time to be spending hours, or generally even minutes a day editing Wikipedia. If you wish to challenge the accuracy of what I say, then by all means do so, but flagging the number of editorial contributions smacks of ad hominem. I do wonder why it was thought necessary to add this sub tag. Are you attempting to discredit me in some way because my comments are not to your liking? Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just find it odd that someone with no prior interest or edits in wiki can suddenly find a random AfD with a clear understanding of wiki tagging and editting. Djma12 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In turn, I find it odd that you have added this note to my comment, having excorciated a commentator above for inattentive reading, since I make it clear that my comments here are the very opposite of random. They are wholly specific. Brigantian
I didn't to say it but you seem to want it force it out of me. I suspect you of being a Sockpuppet. No one with no prior experience in wiki knows both the AfD process and the editing process this thoroughly.Djma12 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is laughable. Apart from its clear ad hominem irrelevance, do you really think it so difficult? I learnt to do this in about half an hour. I simply followed the links from the notability and deletion flags themselves. On your own user webpage you claim to be a peer-reviewed published scientist and electrical engineer or some such. How on earth did you get to that level without the wherewithal to learn to edit something like this in a few minutes? I am operating from a British University with a stable web address. I will log out and post a comment to demonstrate my web address immediately after this. And in the future, I would suggest that you don't issue such ridiculous accusations, lest you reveal the little man behind the curtain! Brigantian
  • Brigantian here. Here is my web address. Have fun attempting to prove your accusation. It will waste even more time than your nominations have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.110 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, my first comment on this particular page was unsigned, and I recieved a message from TheNautilus earlier today, which is why I created the Brigantian account. That message, just for further proof, can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:129.215.49.110&redirect=no In any case, if he's still watching, the Nautilus can confirm themselves. In case you think I am them, you could perhaps request their IP address in like manner. But this is really getting ridiculous and is in any case unnecessary, since it is clear that the message Nautilus sent was indeed to my specific web address, and was sent 2 hours PRIOR to your silly accusation. The bottom line appears to be that while you are obviously very happy to call into question the notability of scientists who have published hundereds upon hundreds of papers, you don't like criticism yourself. Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, see, I've just visited my own user page for the first time, and learned something new: how to sign automatically. Any more school playground attacks, or are you prepared to actually look at the facts concerning David Horrobin, which is the purpose of your ill-considered nomination after all, no? Brigantian 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, I have saved a full copy both of the edit history and of this page, as is. Brigantian 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finally, as I do need to do some other work, your call for the references to be comprehensively included in the site is wholly overdemanding especially in the case of David Horrobin. Or do you think it reasonable that I or anyone else should add some 800 or more links individually, rather than one or two to perfectly compiled and accessible bibliographies on such unimpeachable sites as ISI? Brigantian —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus on Fred R Klenner[edit]

This AfD is being refocused to concentrate only on Fred R. Klenner. I recommend that the other individuals be listed as Keep for now, with relisting for deletion at another date.

  • Thanks for the update, as I tend not to use Google Scholar for medical searches. So we have a total of 5 original articles published in South Med Jour, J Appl Nutr, or Southern Med Surg. Does anyone else have other sources? Djma12 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added an article on his presentation to a meeting of the AMA. Others have written of an article he published under the auspices of the AMA, which I can't corroborate. He wrote far more than 5 pages. One chapter in Levy references 19 articles alone. I see no need to include all them in the article.--Alterrabe 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::*Again, do you have a citation for this? The citation within the article is merely to someone else's article, not his. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs more sources if it is to be kept. Articles have to show the notability of the subject; this one doesn't. I'm reserving my opinion because I hope that editors will supply sources. I'm afraid arguments without third-party sources just don't cut it. Avb 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In keeping with the refocussing on this one individual alone, I strongly suggest that you remove reference to Medical Hypotheses on this page, as being both irrelevant, and indeed ill-researched and inappropriate for reasons stated earlier in the discussion. Brigantian 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure what you getting at. While Medical Hypotheses may be a useful journal for proposing additional avenues of research, it is non-peer reviewed and thus does not fit WP:CITE criteria. In reference to the Fred Klenner article specifically, though, I don't believes it cites this journal and thus the critique would not apply. Djma12 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE gives no stipulation that sources must be peer reviewed. In fact Medical Hypotheses does fit Wikipedia's WP:V criteria as a published source. Lumos3 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to comment on Med Hypotheses, as it remains a part of your denigrating list above. I find it ironic that you have suggested a merge of David Horrobin with Medical Hypotheses, as well as deletion of the former, if you clearly have no knowledge of either, as you have appeared to claim above, saying that your nominations were simply based on the entries alone. But for the record, Medical Hypotheses was founded precisely to solve the issue of the stifling effects of Peer Review upon innovation in Medicine. The principle is simple: new ideas are always somewhat to radically outwith the scope of the conventional and the established. Peer Review fairly effectively allows the assessment of ideas in accordance with ESTABLISHED principles and wisdom, but is singularly ill-equipped to deal with truly new, radical or revolutionary ideas. A forum for such ideas is warranted, the principle being that if even one in 100 were true, then the power of the forum to promote revolutionary change would be immense. David Horrobin established the journal precisely to be a non-peer-reviewed journal so that such ideas could be aired. It is not that it is not edited. It is for this reason its original editorial board was so impressive. Its present editorial board is both intellectually powerful and scientifically credible, counting among its number, for example, Antonio Damasio and the Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson. Do you still feel comfortable with your using its name in a deprecating manner at the outset of this discusion? If so, I would really like to know why. For that matter, Djima12, I have yet to see very good reasons for any of your particular judgements in this sorry episode.Brigantian 19:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several reasons for my decision:
  • (A few years back) I found medline to be of little to no use when investigating research from before the late 60s. Coverage was, to be polite, spotty. Medline cannot be the ultimate arbiter of pertinence for medical research conducted decades before medline was conceived. Moreover I have added one citation, and hope to add more. It's a fair assumption that the various authors on the uses of vitamin C, Pauling, Levy, Cathcart and others, all have sung Klenner's praises. It would be an act of pedantry to insist that all these authors, whose beliefs largely overlap, be quoted individually. I think it would be fair to set guidelines for how extensive the article must be to really be an addition to wikipedia.
  • Klenner's research which was an important new concept, theory or idea which was profiled in an article in the JAMA, which is a WP:RS. Moreover Linus Pauling, a two-timed Nobel Laureate, intrepidly followed in his footsteps. Within the world of alternative medicine, Klenner has become something of a folk hero due to his research with sodium ascorbate.
  • Do you have a citation for this? The citation within the article is merely to someone else's article, not his. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last, but far from least, there is a haunting potential historical parallel which I believe provides a clear answer; that of Joseph_Goldberger a doctor in the American South who proved in 1916 that the 100,000 cases of pellagra in the American South were caused by a dietary deficiency and not by an infectious disease as was then thought. Goldberger, despite being employed by the PHS, was unable to convince the medical establishment of his findings, and thus the pellagra plague continued until 1937, when the missing nutrient was isolated. Roughly 100,000 people spent 20 years essentially living as imbeciles because Goldberger was unable to get his findings into the canonical medical texts of his day. Had Klenner been a Nascar driver, I wouldn't worry at all about his not being included in wikipedia. In the past - such as with Pellagra - huge mistakes have been made, and I think it is an ethical imperative that those who bother to read - and even donate to - wikipedia should be able to decide for themselves if Klenner was closer to being one of the more notable cranks the South has produced or another Joseph Goldberger, whose findings though never disproven, have yet to be adopted into the medical canon. Let the people decide!!!--Alterrabe 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I appreciate the sentiment, I don't believe this argument is relevant. Per WP:NOT, wiki is not a forum to broadcast your personal ideas -- it is an encyclopedia for detailing published literature. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to blithely misunderstand the points I was making.
  • 1) Klenner was published so these are not my personal ideas! Insinuations to the contrary are deceptive. Orthomolecular medicine hasn't taken off stateside, perhaps because other medical philosophies employ enforcement mechanisms redolent of the Spanish Inquisition. Farther afield however, orthomolecular medicine is not nearly as close to a "fringe" discipline; my pharmacist, gp, and dentist are all aware of it, and practice it to a greater or lesser degree.
  • 2) There is another aspect: a physician is well within his rights to inform a patient that he or she discharges the services associated with his or her art according to the generally accepted practices of his or her peers, and doesn't wish to experiment with unconventional approaches. Yet even American constitutional law acknowledges that there are limits to the freedom of speech that the First Amendment affords; falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded and darkened movie theater is not protected by law; in fact, if frightened movie-goers trample each other to death, the malefactor can be, and generally is, held accountable in a court of law. Wikipedia requires that its users assume good faith, even in extremis; other spheres have different burdens of proof. For this reason, I believe that Wikipedia has at least a moral obligation to protect its readers from the suppression of innovative theories and therapies that are practiced outside of the United States and from edits that smack of censorship and the rigid enforcement of a particular ideology / point of view.--Alterrabe 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no doubt of Klenner’s notability within the field or orthomolecular medicine. To suggest that he needs to be recognised by other medical fields as well is to take a particular side in the ongoing argument between orthomolecular and "mainstream" medical science. Notability is proven within orthomolecular medicine and this is enough. In no other area do we insist that notability is proven to exist outside the field of a subject’s specialism. This deletion request, linked as it was to a range of workers in this field is clearly an attempt to further a particular anti-orthomolecular point of view on Wikipedia. Lumos3 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Lumos on this. I am extremely suspicious of the motives of Djima12, who at the same time as attacking a very particular grouping such as this, claims above in discussion with me not to know much about any in particular, beyond what was comprised in the original article. How, I wonder, would one go about compiling a list of orthomolecular scientists SPECIFICALLY, if not through personal knowledge thereof? And why should one do this? Interesting that Djima12 appears to accuse me of a surprising specificity on this (I have indeed not commented on any other Wikipedia page, and was indeed moved to do so by the outrageous Notability/Deletion tags specifically on David Horrobin), as it appears almost inconceivably unlikely that he would just "happen upon" such a group without prior and intimate knowledge...Brigantian 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There appears to be no doubt that he is perceived as a pioneer within the vitamin C field. Though his works were never widely recognised they were published in peer-reviewed publications. Agree with Alterrabe that older medical research is poorly represented on Medline. Espresso Addict 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, then what do you propose using as citations per WP:BIO? I don't find "www.seanet.com" or "orthomed.com" to be the most objective of sources. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JAMA reference meets reliability standards; the recent J Othomolecular Med articles also seem to establish notability within that community and are clearly independent of the subject himself. His own peer-reviewed publications are also appropriate primary sources. Espresso Addict 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do you have a citation for this JAMA article please? Everyone has been mentioning it but the only citation within the article is to someone else's paper, not Klenner's. Djma12 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books finds reference to what it was about in the Thomas E. Levy book. More a pointer than a ref though: Xlibris is self-published, so not a peer-reviewed publication. Gordonofcartoon 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These issues were all addressed at the Robert Cathcart Afd. Simply "being notable within the orthomed community" is NOT enough per WP:FRINGE. And I quote
In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual.
Furthermore, just b/c an individual is a folk hero of the orthomed community does not make his article exempt from the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Simply stating that "his many publications just can't be found on medline anymore" doesn't cut it. The burden of proof falls upon the author to provide citations demonstrating notability, not vice versa. Djma12 (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just went over this. He devised a pioneering therapy for the treatment of poliomyelitis referenced in the article that was referenced in the JAMA, as well as the other journals he published in. Another point that you overlook is that the New England Journal of Medicine began, as its name implies, as a Journal of Medicine for one part of the country; the Southern Journal of Medicine would obviously have been its Southern counterpart. It would be unwise to assume that the relative standing of these journals has not changed over the last 50-60 years. I cannot follow the logic of those who claim that a man who published multiple articles on a revolutionary new therapy in a counterpart of the NEJM is not noteworthy.--Alterrabe 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I think you misuderstand NEJM and South Med Journ. NEJM is named as such b/c is published through Brigham and Women's hospital (i.e. Harvard), not b/c it only applies to the Northeast. The South Jour of Med is NOT the equivalent of the NEJM in the South. Nor does it have even a fraction of the Impact factor of NEJM. Secondly, as was established in the Robert Cathcart Afd, you cannot establish notability off of someone else's coattails. He was referenced in passing in one JAMA article. Any JAMA article has literally 50-60 citations. Merely being cited in passing in someone else's paper does not establish notability. Djma12 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that it is misleading if not deceitful to include words in quotation marks in a reply when these words were not used in the text being replied to; demagogues know this practice as a strawman. I never once suggested that the Southern J Med and the NEJM were "equivalents," but rather that they had been "counterparts."--Alterrabe 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NEJM is "is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society" as can be read on its website. (http://content.nejm.org/) The South J Med was established by the Southern Medical Association, which itself was established to educate physicians in the states of the Confederacy, Maryland, Texas and the District of Columbia. The two journals obviously enjoy different levels of influence, but were manifestly established to fulfill the same needs in different parts of the United States. It would be interesting, and perhaps pertinent to the discussion, though tedious, to learn more about the impact factor of the two journals in the past decades. Could it be that, in those distant and perhaps benighted days before the abolition of Jim Crow and introduction of the fax machine and email, doctors within the confines of the Confederacy were expected to correspond with the organ of the Southern Medical Association? If so, would it make sense to expect Klenner to act according to procedures that didn't exist at the time? I agree that if Klenner's only accomplishment had been to get mentioned in passing in the JAMA, he definitely wouldn't be noteworthy. Klenner did more than just that.--Alterrabe 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've hit on the crux of the issue. To understand the impact factor of these two journals is not just "pertinent", but crucial, "tedious" as it may be. Southern Medical Journal currently has an impact factor of 0.780, compared with the New England Journal of Medicine who has an IF of 51. South Med Jour has never been an organ of original research, and even self describes itself as "devoted solely to continuing medical education." The fact that Klenner published to a small, post-confederacy medical society on an outdated topic in continuing medical education does not establish notability. Your commentary on the days "before fax machines and email" is interesting, but original research, as if correspondence did not exist even in the early days of NEJM and JAMA.
  • I'm sure that you misconstrue my thoughts. I deliberately couched my suspicions in a question, with a question mark at the end, to emphasize that I was not asserting that this putative scenario was factual. Airing hypothetical possibilities cannot constitute original research for obvious reasons. Would you have a source for your statement has S Med Jour never been an organ of original research? Bear in mind that in Klenner's day, double-blind placebo-controlled studies were rarely if ever done; rather doctors shared their experiences with one another. How can you be sure that the use Vitamin C as antiviral is "outdated;" perhaps its day hasn't come.--Alterrabe 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the hypothetical question posed, but I think you misunderstand the burden of proof here. If you are going to use a journal with an impact factor 0.78 and no medical reputation for research, the burden of proof lies with you on why this establishes notability for Klenner. Djma12 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Crusio makes an important point. The fact that Klenner has not been widely cited since the 1950s establishes that he made no lasting contributions to medical notability. If his work was truly the foundation for further work by Pauling, etc..., surely he would have been cited within the literature. Djma12 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not necessarily the case. Scientific research is full of examples of pioneering research that wasn't properly cited by later work in the same field. Pauling acknowledged that Klenner's papers were important in the foreword to the summary of Klenner's publications [4]. Espresso Addict 16:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Djma's repeated mis-citation of WP:SELFPUB, as above & misrepresented again as "www.seanet.com/~alexs". The "www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate" related links to are 're-published papers in mainstream journals for convenience, with properly cited original references. My reply,(e.g. Djma12: "...A number of these citations are merely posted on someone's homepage..[1]" The exact link 1 Djma12 used, the website homepage, is not the same page for the external link that I found[5] (or [6]) at Irwin Stone, which is a webpage of convenience links to very old vitamin C papers in mainstream journals back to 1935 that include Irwin Stone's papers as well as related papers, hard to get where I live.)--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a certain logic to this proposition. And yet there are also strong arguments that speak against it. One is that Klenner's work has faced a Catch-22: in order to be accepted it had to be published, and at the same time in order to be published it had to be accepted. Marcia Angell, a former editor at the NEJM, has bewailed the decision making processes at some medical journals. Klenner, and similarly minded individuals, found it easier to publish in journals beyond the index of medline. The problem with the logic of this proposition is that the logic, i.e. that a therapy must be accepted by mainstream American medicine to be valid or notable, leads to views that defy common sense, such as that acupuncture, an ancient Chinese practice, was not notable in the 1970s because it wasn't openly practiced in America. My personal opinion is that the wisest course of action is to include all the applicable caveats, but let the article stand.--Alterrabe 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO specifically allows ANY notability, even negative notability to be used. Even if the majority of the medical community believes your idea to be junk, if they have published an attack on you in a reputable journal, you are notable. However, if your idea is so unknown that no one even takes notice (hence publishes nothing for or against it), you are NOT notable. Djma12 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re ... if your idea is so unknown... You are perhaps suggesting that CMAJ, PNAS, NIH, Ann Int Med & J Am Col Nutr, are now unknown or non-notable bodies, after the HD Riordan and Mark Levine et al papers concerning potential cancer treatments with Klenner's IV vitamin C blood levels? Also Levine et al, again in PNAS, (2007): ...These data provide a foundation for pursuing pharmacologic ascorbate as a prooxidant therapeutic agent in cancer and infections.[7]. Please especially note the ...and infections part.--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the point is that until it became clear that that pioneering research was indeed pioneering, it was not notable. Klenner has not been cited, so he has not been notable. If in the coming years it will turn out that his work was right and seminal and his day comes, he will become notable. Without a good crystal ball, there's no way of telling who will or will not become notable. That's why it is important that he is not notable now. --Crusio 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to be cautious about the word "pioneering". It carries a strong connotation of vindication: if that vindication is not generally agreed-on, it's not a neutral word to use. Gordonofcartoon 17:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the brunt of your comment, except for the notion that a "crystal ball" is needed. There were a number of other scientists who were interested in Vitamin C as an anti-viral; among them Jungeblut (Jungeblut C (1937 Vitamin C therapy and prophylaxis in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exp Med 65:127:146) Kligler and Bernkopf, (Kligler I. and Bernkopf H. (1937) Inactivation of vaccinia virus by ascorbic acid and glutathione. Nature 139:965-966), Holden and Resnick (Holden M and Resnick R. (1936) The in vitro action of synthetic crystalline vitamin C (ascorbic acid) on herpes virus. J Immunology 31:455-462), Baur and Staub (Baur H. and Staub H. (1952) Poliomyelitis therapy with ascorbic acid infusions Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift 84:595-597), Salo and Cliver (Salo R and Cliver D, (1978) Inactivation of enteroviruses by ascorbic acid and sodium bisulfite. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 36(1):89-75) not to mention Linus Pauling, to quote just a few via Levy. These and many others suffice to demonstrate that Klenner was not alone in his beliefs, and that while interest in Vitamin C as an antiviral is not generally accepted, there is a continued and abiding interest in the ideas behind Klenner's pioneering work. Wikipedia has pages dedicated to rock and roll musicians few would be caught listening to dead, which confirms me in my belief that there's also space for Klenner and his work on wikipedia.--Alterrabe 18:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any citation that these individuals used Klenner's work? Remember, this AfD is about Fred Klenner, not orthomolecular medicine. Djma12 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my point was that the Vitamin C has been the subject of continous interest as an antiviral, which Klenner pioneered it's wholly besides the point if they did so independently of Klenner.--Alterrabe 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put things into perspective, wikipedia strongly rejects the argument that it's just not notable WP:JNN, that it's unencyclopedic WP:UNENCYC, that I don't like it WP:ITBOTHERSME, I've never heard of it WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Additionally, I think it's good that rock and roll afficianados are allowed to have pages on wikipedia; there's more to music than classical music only.  ;-)--Alterrabe 17:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think it's sufficiently demonstrated that he is important within the literature relating to this field, and the Fultz quad connection adds notability that's not solely connected with this angle. I think the Doctoyourself.com bio, as it's reprinting an obit from J Orthomolecular Med, 2007. Vol 22, No 1, p 31-38., is OK as source for filling out basic biographical details. That said, I think that article needs scrutiny for WP:SOAP; it looks somewhat a coatrack for vitamin C. And the AFD looks iffy too, both for the original blanket nomination on basis of orthomolecular topics, and for the level of soapboxing in opposition to this (I'm also suspicious of the arrival of an entirely new account, the majority of whose edits are to defend this article at AFD). Gordonofcartoon 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that you refer to me. Your suspicion is wholly misplaced. I was, as I stated, prompted to find out how to do this precisely because I was outraged that David Horrobin's page was tagged as "not notable" or whatever. Good grief, I proved this quite adequately above. This is an open contribution resource- what on earth is the issue here? My edits to the page itself and my contributions on this one should be judged on one criterion alone: do they or do they not establish notability for David Horrobin. The answer is obviously that of course they do. What would it matter if I was new, old, or the fairy godmother? Brigantian 11:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But yes, it does matter. As I said elsewhere, although it is indeed an open contribution resource, in practice the appearance of new editors solely for an AFD is a common form of abuse of the AFD process, so it pretty well always raises suspicion, especially if the topic is contentious. Gordonofcartoon 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordonofcartoon- is that from the Robert Girardi novel Madeleine's Ghost? I remember it being used as a joke in a mugging scene. Well, it is not so in this case, and I feel I have demonstrated that amply enough. Also, can you or anyone else please tell me how and when the "delete" tag will be removed from David Horrobin's site? Brigantian 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the AfD tags from the withdrawn nominations. Thanks for bringing this up; it should probably have been done when the nominations were withdrawn. Espresso Addict 11:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much! Good call. Brigantian 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you calling Orthomolecular Medicine a "Fringe" therapy? Are you building to a RFD for the whole subject? We are arguing here about the notability of Fred Klenner yet you return in you arguments to your belief that OM is fringe and it seems by your behaviour, you want all articles related to it to be deleted. Wikipedia is not paper and there is room for articles on notable people in all fields. Thats what makes WP bigger better and more useful than a paper encyclopedia. Your campaign is blatant POV pushing and censorship. Lumos3 08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I urge you to reread WP:DELETE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FRINGE. Comments like the one above are very likely to strengthen Djma12's arguments when the uninvolved closing admin makes a final assessment. Instead, you would do better to explain why you feel that Klenner's theories and findings do not meet WP:FRINGE, citing acceptable third-party sources. Avb 11:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By my understanding of the issues of hand, the exact opposite is true. Lumos3 makes some highly pertinent observations; while there is no scientific consensus on the viability of orthomolecular medicine, there is no debating that various countries in Europe, Asia, and, to a lesser degree North America, have societies of physicians who practice orthomolecular medicine. http://www.orthomed.org/ISOM/societies.htm and patients who willingly pay for their services. Although I believe I can understand the thinking that would lead it to it, I am strongly against a USA-centric approach to this article, which would presumably have it that since orthomolecular medicine is all but unknown in the United States, it cannot be valid.
  • Here, too, there is a historical precedent: in the 1970s, acupuncture was regarded as quackery in the United States and banned; today the NIH consensus statement states that: the data in support of acupuncture are as strong as those for many accepted Western medical therapies. To have insisted in the 1970s that acupuncture not be included in an encyclopedia because it "wasn't practiced here" would have defeated the entire purpose of an encyclopedia which is to educate and inform. To argue that orthomolecular medicine should be excluded or that it is invalid (as opposed to highly controversial) because it "isn't practiced here" would be as wise as refusing to even discuss acupuncture in the 1970s.--Alterrabe 15:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep in mind that this AfD is about Fred Klenner, not about orthomolecular medicine. Djma12 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over half of the listed therapies in the orthomed article involve Klenner, an attack on Klenner is frequently an attack on orthomed and vice versa, in some ways more so than Pauling.--TheNautilus 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see below) Web of Science lists very few publications with small numbers of citations. Non-notable scientist. --Crusio 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a matter of interest, how far back does Web of Science go? Espresso Addict 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're absolutely right there and I should have mentioned that in my comment: My access to WoS goes until 1975, after Klenner stopped publishing. However, it appears that only a few of his articles got very few citations since 1975, so it looks like his work never made much impact. The current article mentions that Klenner published 28 papers, which is not a very large productivity. If some (or even one) of those papers had made a huge impact, that would establish notability. As it is, I don't think this person is notable. --Crusio 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since my access goes back to 1900, I rechecked, but did not find any more. South Med J Volume: 113 Issue: 4 Pages: 101-7 Published: 1951 Apr has been cited 5 times, and South Med J Volume: 114 Issue: 8 Pages: 194-7 Published: 1952 Aug has been cited once. As for Medical Hypotheses, my understanding is that it deliberately publishes material that may be interesting and important, but not yet supported by evidence-in other, words, hypotheses. Scientific journals normally only publish hypotheses supported by evidence--there is surely a role for journals such as this--and this is a very well know and reputable one, but is not evidence that anyone has ever paid attention to the hypothesis. DGG (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...so it looks like his work never made much impact in increasingly notorious pharma sponsored journals, virtually a raison d'être for there being both orthomolecular and patented ("conventional") toximolecular medicines rather than just a unitary molecular medicine. For his age, Klenner has substantial coverage, beyond pharma captive journals coverage with insultingly thin deprecations of a mortal economic enemy (uncontrolled nutrients, economically "worse" than imported generic drugs). As for his publications, this was for a real, practicing doctor, in an age long before academic "minimum publishing units", with a substantial number of breath taking claims (to me, too). Klenner was clearly a man abrest of the advanced/experimental nutritional/vitamin science of his day, integrating current information with his clinical observations in real time, acutely observant in science without the frills, practicing as an unfunded, unsubsidized doctor, against the status quo. ~50 years after Klenner discusses metal enhanced oxidative mechanisms with IV vitamin C, Klenner's disciple, Riordan, holds NIH's feet to the fire, and now you see the CMAJ, PNAS, NIH papers that essentially say, "oh, yeah, thaattt IV vitamin C oxidative mechanism". So who were the real (non-)notable scientific boobs and reliable sources?
Again he is not some endowed, corporate or university scientist or conventional physician, rather a more humanitarian, citizen-scientist and country doctor persona important to orthomolecular medicine, and recently to mainstream research, a belated 50+ years.--TheNautilus 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheNautilus, I appreciate that you feel very strongly about orthomedicine. But your arguments above don't hold. First it seems like you argue that the very fact that "mainstream" journals do not cite Klenner proves his notability. Then it appears that his ideas are now being accepted. But then why is he hardly ever cited? The simple truth is that his work has basically gone unnoticed. And journals like PNAS are really not "pharma sponsored journals". Notability is not the same thing as being right or wrong. Some people become notable because they were wrong. Some other people were right about something and still don't become notable. Your arguments in this section only underscore to me what is becoming abundantly clear: Klenner is not notable in any encyclopedic sense. And I really start losing patience with this uncessant bashing of "mainstream science" as if "mainstream" equals "wrong". I change my "delete" vote above to strong delete. --Crusio 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my arguments. (1) I am not bashing "mainstream science", I am critical of those who have clearly abused it and fundamentally misused its name, often in economically conflicted medical journals that have not used scientific rigor in many ways. (2) I am citing PNAS articles to support my position that Klenner's ideas and protocols have broken into the mainstream via later authors who write/speak highly, and (WP:)notably, of Klenner. (3) I am simply saying don't count on finding much in conventional medical magazines, because of the intensely prejudical medical history of this subject and various large, economic conflicts of interest in certain quarters. (4) nn - is your opinion, unsupported by FRK's first use or discovery of *authoritatively demonstrated phenomena* that have global dimension *if finally conventionally examined & medically accepted* dispite great previous prejudice. Your argument disregards Wikipedia:Notability (people) as I started to cover in detail at FRK:talk. Biographies, books about, national front page results, as well as authoritative interest on broad scale therapies erroneously ridiculed, some editors here appear to be in total denial.--TheNautilus 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Klenner's work made 1946 national front page news with the survival of the Fultz quads[8][9] at birth. Riordan, co-author on recent high dose C treatments on cancer cases with NIH's Mark Levine (conventional recognition)[10][11] and related work [12], wrote a chapter in his book, Medical Mavericks profiling Klenner as well as in numerous speeches[13]. Ewan Cameron and Pauling were initially interested in directly testing much stronger Klennerian cancer regimes (e.g. 40 - 50 grams / day) but had too little support (and too much resistance) to proceed past 10 grams/day IV vitamin C for 7- 10 days ("Vitamin C and Cancer", Pauling, 1st ed), a milder Klennerian regime. Klenner's work was acknowledged by Pauling in the foreword of The Clinical Guide to Vitamin C and Pauling's collection at OSU libraries has a copy of Klenner's 1960's book. Thomas Levy, former professor at Tulane medical school, wrote a *whole book* discussing, updating the published evidence on IV vitamin C for various medical conditions in a book dedicated to Klenner and his IV vitamin C work. Cathcart's 1978 interview with the American Chemical Soc acknowledges Klenner's IV ascorbate inspired development of (maximum) oral vitamin C dosing to bowel tolerance for illnesses. Klenner has a recent biography in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (2007). Clemetson, whose (fragmented) quotes ca late 1970s/early 80s were used as mainstream sound bites against Pauling in the media as to what had been officially proven, built up data that showed an inverse correlation for histamine and ascorbate in the blood levels and histamine neutralization to hydantoin as another mechanism that support claims of benefits in the Klennerian regimes. Clemetson, a bulwark of mainstream medicine on vitamin C in the 70s/80s press, came to inject infants with 500mg ascobate, a Klennerian first shot, immediately upon signs of adverse vaccine reactions. The recent[14] and current medical trials by Jeanne Drisko at U Kansas are Klennerian levels of IV sodium ascorbate for cancer treatment.--TheNautilus 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_R._Klenner&oldid=1068874839"