Talk:Matthias Rath/Archive 1

POV dispute

Rath is very controversial where he is active (mostly Germany). He seems to claim to have discovered revolutionary cures for cancer and other diseases. The pharma establishment is allegedly trying to keep his cheap medicine from becoming publicly known. He seems to be quite successful in selling his drugs, books, and other merchandising to his cult-like following, though (apparently to the tune of millions of Euros). He certainly has some prominent enemies among established scientists, but that doesn't prove he's right. There are (or have been) related court cases in 2005. All taken from the German page. Caveat emptor. Rl 17:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links to the articles with English translations would be greatly appreciated to moderate the main article.

Additions in the form of minor translations have been added. --203.61.148.216 14:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clean of links added --203.61.187.204 09:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am about to make what I believe will be an edit to improve NPOV. I will make these small edits every so often and watch the response to avoid edit wars DJ Barney (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK MastCell. I'm happy with the edit you made. A sort of compromise. That article also is in dispute so it may muddy the waters even more. My intention at the moment is to put in the point of view that I think is lacking. I'm checking out a number of sources that show that proper nutrition is especially important in cases of AIDS that may neutralise the balance of the article somewhat. So when I have proper refs I will put those in. I'd appreciate it if you added to the discussion here when you make such an edit. Is that not standard practice for an article under NPOV dispute ? DJ Barney (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proper nutrition is always important, especially when you're ill. Unless these sources are specifically to do with Rath or support his stance in a material way (that isn't WP:OR) then they aren't relevant. I'd rather you, and others, brought your suggested additions and references to the talk page first unless they're very clear. If you're referring to mastcell's removal of the orthomolecular link, this seems to be fully justified by his edit summary, especially as it wasn't sourced. All the best, Verbal chat 10:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rath and AIDS

Rath has stirred up considerable controversy in South Africa with his stance on AIDS (his position on cancer, heart disease etc is not well known in the country). He has presented standard anti-retrovirals as toxic, and suggested that they should be replaced with vitamin treatments. He has started clinics in impoverished area where vitamin treatments are distributed despite his not being registered as a doctor in the country (the Treatment Action Campaign have accused him of undertaking illegal experiments on people in these clinics).

The South African Medical Association, the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, UNAIDS, WHO and UNICEF have all condemned his actions. Harvard researchers Wafaie Fawzi and David Hunter accused Rath of misrepresenting their studies so as to get AIDS sufferers to cease anti-retroviral treatment and to take vitamins instead. Halfsnail 12:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

So where are those condemnations ? The sources. DJ Barney (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of reports of the controversy over the Rath Health Foundation in South Africa can be found at a former employee's web site: http://www.aids-vitamins.org/indexnew.htm.

Broken link DJ Barney (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A relatively well-balanced view of Dr. Rath's claims, litigations, and opponents' views can be found on the Skeptic's Dictionary website: http://skepdic.com/rath.html This might be helpful in putting together a more balanced Wikipedia page.

I don't really see any balance there. There is plenty of evidence out there that natural, safe (almost zero side effects) work. I will try and edit in the sources when I can, but I think we're dealing with a sort of fait accompli here. Search a medical database, as I did, and you will find studies that show that numerous natural treatments work, very well in fact. I also think that the "Quack Busters" are extraordinarily naive about the world. Pharma drugs are very expensive products. Does no one ever think that there might be some derring do going on here ? What if some Pharma companies are just plain flat lying, or the TAC organisation really does spread black propoganda ? It's happened before in history, it will happen again, Everyone is far too trusting about what they are editng here if you ask me. DJ Barney (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to be in place to have links to the pamphlets that were distributed. For anybody who is interested to know what these pamphlets did in fact say, they can be found online http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/pdf-files/ol_wanttomarch.pdf http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/pdf-files/freedom_day_pamphlet_2005.pdf and http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/pdf-files/pamphlet_NYT_2005.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff forssell (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Those. BUT they are on Rath's site. This would not qualify as a neutral source. Am I correct ? There must be copies somewhere else. DJ Barney (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-retrovirals are not toxic?

"He has presented standard anti-retrovirals as toxic..."

There is a wealth of information on this topic. ARV's are most definitely toxic as substantiated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiretroviral_drug :

"Antiretroviral regimens are complex, have serious side effects, pose difficulty with adherence, ..."

Rath does more than simply present ARVs as toxic. In adverts in South Africa he claims they make AIDS worse. This is despite the evidence that ARVs reduce mortality and morbidity for people with AIDS, albeit that they have side-effects. Rath is a charlatan and this needs to come out much more clearly in the wikipedia article. He has a long list of rulings and findings against him and there is growing evidence that his actions in South Africa have resulted in a number of avoidable deaths. For example, a woman on his South African website, Marietta Ndziba, claimed that his vitamins made her better. She died a couple of months later. She should have been on antiretroviral treatment. As of 28/12/2005 Ndziba's testimony is still on Rath's website. The man has no shame. A detailed expose of his wrong-doings can be found on the TAC website, www.tac.org.za as well as on quackwatch, with references to original sources. The most critical ones should be incorporated into the wikipedia article.

So where are your sources ? Where is the evidence that he has actually killed anyone ? That's a very serious accusation. You seem more interested in forcing the issue on Rath being a "Charlatan" than actually encouraging neutrality. What about the other issues that Rath and many other actually cover ? Would that not be worth documenting in the article ? What about the Court cases going on in the USA and elsewhere, especially with El Lilly ? This balanced info is woefully missing from the article. Where are the other voices out there involved in this debate ? The article is clearly anti Rath and this is not the use for Wikipedia. It is to inform the reader and allow THEM to decide what is going on. DJ Barney (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is only only TAC that claims he has conducted illegal experiments on people, so does the South African Medical Association.

Equal Opportunity Paranoia

To the defenders of Matthias Rath: A certain distrust of large pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession is probably healthy, but please be reasonable. Physicians could probably be better regulated, but all the same they operate in a controlled environment, and they are accountable legally and ethically for the decisions they make. Matthias Rath operates completely outside any kind of effective regulation, and clearly accepts no legal or (worse) ethical responsibility for the impact of his actions. The huge profits he undoubtedly realizes off the backs of the desperate people who come to him are hidden from scrutiny. OK, be suspicious of the medical establishment and its motives, but at least be consistent; why are these same folks so quick to accept that Matthias Rath's motives are pure as the driven snow?

Do I detect a hint of encouraging neutrality ? I congratulate you Sir ! Yes, Rath must also be treated in a neutral manner. You're right. He cannot be assumed to be "good" of the Pharma companies "bad". But do you know about the Court cases going on against El Lilly at the moment (Google would turn the up) ? Lilly have been pushing a drug that is a known suiicide risk. They have also been pushing for it's use with elderly people. A use unauthorised at this point, but it's still used regularly in old people's homes. Yes, the Pharma companies do work in a regulated environment but you assume that regulation works all the time and is perfect. A very niave assumption in an area where people's health and life is at stake. DJ Barney (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs work

This article is in sad shape in a few ways. It seems neglected, it's disorganized, there's plenty that doesn't directly relate to Rath, and the grammar and prose style need work. I've tried to start cleaning it up so it can be re-expanded, preferably by someone who knows more about Rath than I do. MastCell 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition of POV

The previous edit by User:Whitedragon1976 was reverted; it contained POV and lacked citations for its claims. If we address issues like the cause of Dominik Feld's death, then we need citations from reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources for guidelines). In other words, it's fine to quote Rath's website (or that of his colleagues) as long as it's made clear that it expresses Rath's point of view; but more reliable sources are needed to back up claims that Feld's physicians killed him, etc. Finally, it doesn't seem fair to characterize Rath's opponents as engaged in a "smear campaign" when the Rath himself has been found guilty in court of slandering his opponents and ordered to desist. MastCell 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if the article could put out a request for more editors ( I think that can be done). I think there are good sources out there to support Rath's "side" and make the article more neutral. It's just finding people who are prepared to dig them out. DJ Barney (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not logically follow from Rath's loss of a court case that others are not engaged in a campaign to smear him. In fact this article, as well as many articles on alternative medical practitioners and dissidents on Wikipedia, are written from the point of view of attempting to discredit them, and NOT from a neutral point of view. "Reliable sources" are cited when and if they fit the POV criteria of the editors and administrators who are behind these tactics. It is instructive that the majority of them hide behind pseudonyms. I would ask editors like Mastcell to disclose their occupations in order to lay bare any potential conflicts of interest that exist. Thanks.JonasDeBeer (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and cleanup tags

I'm going to remove the cleanup tag, which I placed myself. About the POV tag, can we get a rehash of where the POV issues are so they can be addressed? Ultimately of course we should remove it, but it seems that discussion on this article has been dormant for some time, so it's hard for me to know where the concerns are and who has voiced them. I think a "sources" tag might be more appropriate, since much of the information about Rath's history and practice are unsourced or poorly sourced. MastCell 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Having heard nothing, I will remove the POV tag. If there is a feeling that it needs to be reinstated, please discuss here. MastCell 02:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Marburger Federation Claim Questionable

I would suggest looking into the current status of the rulings from Germany, not any of my own "POV." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitedragon1976 (talk • contribs) .

Equal Opportunity Criticism

As MastCell mentions, it is unfair to estoppel the position point of one party while letting those opinions of the other party flow freely. While Dr. Rath may have accused certain pharmaceutical entities of perpetuating the more than 2.2 million verified and documented polypharmacy or monopharmacy deaths, certain entities accuse Dr. Rath of wrongdoing. So while it is fair to document some of the criticisms against Dr. Rath, it is not neutral to avoid the facts regarding the millions of people who die from properly prescribed synthetic medication. Argument and conflict between competing medical factions is not something unique. All these facts may be reliably sourced. In Rath's cancer book, he himself mentions at the end that his discoveries may not work in cases of advanced disease and that he is making efforts towards efficacy in this regard. Despite this, there is solid independent science supporting his claims just as there is solid science supporting the claims of pharmaceutical drug manufacturers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitedragon1976 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure exactly where we're going with this. My additions to the article consist of a summary of legal judgements against Rath for libel and false advertising, peer-reviewed literature in respectable journals indicating that he makes claims unsupported by medical evidence, and an independent study of his claims by a group sympathetic to alternative medicine. These are all backed up by sources that meet WP:RS guidelines - that is, non-partisan legal documents, peer-reviewed medical literature, etc. I haven't edited the section about Rath's claimed discoveries, because I'm not as familiar with that area. If you, or anyone, are more familiar and interested in summarizing Rath's beliefs, claims, etc, then please edit away. But be aware that blanket claims will need to be backed up by reliable sources; if they're based solely on Rath's claims on his website, then they need to be clearly identified as such. MastCell 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The "respectable journals" you are always prone to cite, Mastcell, are those that support your POV. Those that don't seem to be by definition not respectable. This article as well as your comments here and elsewhere reek of someone in the pay of a pharmaceutical company. Sorry if I am wrong about that, but it certainly seems that way. For example, you NEVER criticize unsupported derogatory comments, but you do swing into action on the need for "reliable sources" when someone says something positive about Dr. Rath or others who pose a threat to establishment medicine and its profit machines. And then those sources are adjudged reliable or not based on agreement with your POV. Something smells. JonasDeBeer (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been a parting of the ways on this article. It's all very well saying that everything is backed up by peer reviewed literature, but who picks and chooses from that literature ? Pick a well respected medical database such as http://pubmed.com ... I've heard some people say "there is no evidence that natural treatments work, or that vitamins can be used in the treatment of serious disease" yet when I search this database there are thousands of studies that show in one way or another that natural treatments DO work in the treatment of serious disease, and yes, and those pesky vitamins. Now the next comment is usually "you're not qualified to understand the search results". This is fallacious. Presumably I can't understand my own car engine, or how the Space Shuttle works either. I wouldn't jump straight from a pubmed search to treating someone with the info gained, but that's a different matter to not understanding it. We need brave editors (bold?) to stride in and start putting in these references and not be afraid if they are edited. DJ Barney (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The "respectable journals" you are always prone to cite, Mastcell, are those that support your POV. Those that don't seem to be by definition not respectable. This article as well as your comments here and elsewhere reek of someone in the pay of a pharmaceutical company. Sorry if I am wrong about that, but it certainly seems that way. For example, you NEVER criticize unsupported derogatory comments, but you do swing into action on the need for "reliable sources" when someone says something positive about Dr. Rath or others who pose a threat to establishment medicine and its profit machines. And then those sources are adjudged reliable or not based on agreement with your POV. JonasDeBeer (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I will give them careful consideration. Do you have any specific suggestions for article content or sources? MastCell ^Talk 05:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the article claims that "the foundation is estimated to have earned "millions" through nutritional supplement sales," I note that there is no mention made whatsoever that the people taking these supplements have anything positive to say about them. IMHO, this is a serious omission and a clear example of the POV pushing described above. As a means of remedying this situation, here's a WP:RS article which states that patients from the Silondoloze Vitamin Programme in Khayelitsha, who received free vitamins from the foundation, have testified to their use instead of antiretrovirals.[1] Any objection, MastCell, if we include this in the article? Vitaminman (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to any attempt to cite testimonial evidence as actual evidence of efficacy, especially when it appears in a source that does not meet WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto that. I'm not sure how that source could be used for anything at all. We're writing an encyclopedia article here, not participating in yellow journalism. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, so "the foundation is estimated to have earned "millions" through nutritional supplement sales," but you want to pretend that the opinions of the people taking those supplements either don't exist or don't count. Speaks volumes, gentlemen, speaks volumes... Vitaminman (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We follow our policies and guidelines here, not what you personally think should be in the article. If you have a problem with our guidelines on reliable sourcing, take it up on the appropriate page. This is not the place for soapboxing. Yobol (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not soapboxing, Yobul, simply the expressing of a difference of opinion regarding the content of the article and the ways in which WP's policies and guidelines are being (mis)-applied to it. As regards your claim that sources should cite WP:MEDRS, I note that sources currently quoted in the article include the Sunday Times (Johannesburg), the Treatment Action Campaign, the South African Council of Churches, Communist Party officials and other minor politicians. As these don't meet WP:MEDRS, your argument is considerably weakened. Vitaminman (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be soapboxing. Instead, let's all focus on content and sources, and remember that we're writing an encyclopedia article. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty deep misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS. The point of that guideline is that we have an obligation to present medical information responsibly. It seems rather irresponsible to cite the testimonials given in that article to imply that vitamins are effective against HIV/AIDS or that antiretrovirals are not. It's all well and good to play games with policy, but in the end we're actually trying to write a serious, useful reference work that conveys (or at least does not actively mislead readers about) the current state of human knowledge. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the IoL report[2] merely states the opinions of a group of people who believe they have benefited from using supplements. Point being, the opinions of those who want to pretend that such people can't possibly have benefited, or that they shouldn't even have been allowed to exercise their free will to make such a choice in the first place, are already included throughout the article courtesy of the Sunday Times (Johannesburg), the Treatment Action Campaign, the South African Council of Churches, Communist Party officials and other minor politicians. Given that the IoL report clearly conforms to WP:RS, it is simply inexcusable that some people are desperately intent upon ensuring this article remains one-sided.Vitaminman (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Abundant misinterpretations abound in this article.

This article seems to serve the purpose of providing misinterpretations of Rath's positions and methodologies quite well.

The 2004 SKAK report is an opinion paper or more specifically a position paper directly targeting the vitamins and herbs contained in Rath's formulations while leaving the same vitamins and herbs used in other formulations manufactured by countless nutraceutical companies unaddressed and the numerous epidemiological studies unaddressed. While they find no proof that vitamins and herbs have any effect on human cancer, they also provide no definitive disproof other than the reason that they cannot find any proof. This is somewhat akin to not being able to find a lost item and then claiming it doesn't exist.

Certainly, an objective evaluation of standard chemotherapy/radiation/surgery will reveal some harsh realities regarding the real statistics of who lives for how long when on this treatment. It is not up to anyone other than the patient and their relations with good faculties of decision to decide the course of their health and how they will manage it. The not so occasional lethality of standard cancer therapy is the very reason for Rath's goodwilled approach in providing avenues for discovering, demonstrating, and implementing alternatives.

Regarding heart disease and the vitamin C connection, which is actually an inflammatory condition brought about by lack of vitamin C, there is too much scientific literature to fit here that will be instantly torn down if posted on the article itself. The missing link is protein up and downregulation by vitamin C as well as cytokine signaling by the arterial wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitedragon1976 (talk • contribs)

The 2004 SKAK report independently examines Rath's claims, from a POV that is sympathetic to alt-med in general. That particular report focuses on Rath's products; therefore the billions of other nutraceuticals were not addressed. SKAK found no proof to back up Rath's claims. It seems we agree there. Your analogy is misleading; Rath should probably try to prove his treatments actually do something, rather than basing his pitch on the the fact no-one has definitively proven they're worthless. A comparison with chemo is also misleading; chemo treatments are rigorously studied and require FDA approval, while Rath's vitamins are untested and unregulated. Of course people should decide on their own therapies; that's not at issue here. Finally, I agree it's a challenge to address scientific topics well on Wikipedia. Lots of people succeed; I'd encourage you to give it a shot, rather than insinuating that there's tons of evidence but you're being repressed. MastCell 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the place to bring up conspiracy theories or accusations of being suppressed. I've seen that "ton's of evidence" thing myself, and I'm guilty of stopping there myself as well. I have started becoming familiar with the pubmed.com database and I will, as time goes on, edit in solid references. It seems to take ages though, but I suppose getting it right over the long term is better than making a mess of it in the short-term. I wonder if editors should simply put this controversy to one side and study the relevant WP guidelines. They should also consider the SPIRIT that they are meant in and remember aphorisms like "assume good faith", or "editing for the enemy". I suspect actually trying to put in references that are ANTI Rath would turn up "PRO" references.DJ Barney (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Covert Censorship and Distortion by the Ignorant and those with Pharma Allegiances

I was blocked from editing anything just a few moments ago today from some mysterious individual. Just as quickly, the block was removed. On the weekend that BMJ offered the public apology to Dr. Rath, a truck nearly ran me over, the research facility had a major "power outage," and my computer was severely hacked. As you can see, I am still around, and micronutrients/herbal extracts still work positively for your health as they did yesterday, the year before that, and the century before that. So tell me that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have an evil henchmen that they covertly hire to harrass the American public. Having said that, there is much opposition regarding nutritional therapy from business interests. After all, business is business, and good businessmen are cunning, heartless, ruthless, and do not care about your health whatsoever. Pharmaceutical companies in their beginning and end are businesses that are plugged into venture capital and stock market economics.

Nutraceuticals are relatively cheap, effective, and science based regardless of any unpalatable, silly, or political laden baggage attached to the delivery of the science of antioxidants, micronutrients, and phytochemicals in combating disease. It is unfortunate that a shoddy delivery that lacks credibility or is laden with rhetoric or combative language can destroy such a precious commodity to human health. This precious commodity to human health is that the simple and ubiquitous can have complex and powerful beneficial effects in combating disease.

Some mysterio has decided to state that Fawzi's papers were "misused." Dr. Rath has never claimed that "vitamins are better than drugs" in HIV treatment or that they are a cure or that HIV patients. He does point to the many limitations of ARV's which are not a cure, may cause other diseases as documented by independent studies, and certainly can generate resistant strains of HIV in a single generation. I will quote what Fawzi says in his paper, and you can decide whether his paper was misused and who is misleading who:

1) 1: Lancet. 1998 May 16;351(9114):1477-82. "Multivitamins, but not vitamin A, resulted in a significant increase in CD4, CD8, and CD3 counts. INTERPRETATION: Multivitamin supplementation is a low-cost way of substantially decreasing adverse pregnancy outcomes and increasing T-cell counts in HIV-1-infected women. The clinical relevance of our findings for vertical transmission and clinical progression of HIV-1 disease is yet to be ascertained."

2) AIDS. 2002 Sep 27;16(14):1935-44. "CONCLUSION: Vitamin A increased the risk of HIV-1 transmission. Multivitamin (B, C, and E) supplementation of breastfeeding mothers reduced child mortality and HIV-1 transmission through breastfeeding among immunologically and nutritionally compromised women. The provision of these supplements to HIV-infected lactating women should be considered."

3) 1: N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1):23-32. "CONCLUSIONS: Multivitamin supplements delay the progression of HIV disease and provide an effective, low-cost means of delaying the initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected women. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society"

Either he is wrong, or he is correct, or he changes his mind a lot and can't be trusted. Evidence suggests that he is correct, and today he is embarrassed that "vitamins" increase immune function but toxic drugs do not.

In your fight for health... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitedragon1976 (talk • contribs) .

The "mysterios" claiming Rath misused the Fawzi study are actually Fawzi et al themselves... they felt compelled to decry Rath's misuse of their study... hardly mysterious, and fully sourced and relevant. I do not see any blocks on your block log, so I'm not sure why you found yourself unable to edit, nor can I comment on the constellation of events you attributed to "pharmaceutical henchmen". I could go on about how Rath himself is a "businessman" with all of the limitations you described, but I think the bigger point is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the Talk Page Guidelines specifically state that "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." MastCell 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox??

1: N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1):23-32. "CONCLUSIONS: Multivitamin supplements delay the progression of HIV disease and provide an effective, low-cost means of delaying the initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected women. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society" Whitedragon1976

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. You wrote, "Dr. Rath has never claimed that "vitamins are better than drugs" in HIV treatment or that they are a cure or that HIV patients". Maybe you haven't seen Dr Rath's press releases, where he says HIV drugs are poisons, and that "... with micronutrients alone, the AIDS patients could reverse the symptoms of AIDS and lead almost normal lives again." MastCell 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you examined the literature regarding patients who experience the benefit from taking micronutrients (essential vitamins and minerals, or "multivitamin supplement") worldwide and have HIV-AIDS? I am not here to engage in an intellectual hegemony imparted by me nor you, because who wins a pedantic high school debate for their team is not at issue. The issue is that people who are starving and/or malnourished to begin with will never benefit from any treatment, ARV or otherwise. It is akin to giving a man in the desert about to die from thirst the best pill on the planet. As I stated before, and you yourself prove above, Dr. Rath has never claimed that vitamins are better than drugs. The issue is the health of people in a country with limited resources, not who is right or wrong. To ignore underlying issues of poverty, hygiene, lack of food and water while focusing on the purchase of drugs is problematic in that the drugs are not the solution for the root problems. Lastly, it is documented that ARV and HAART certainly have poisonous side effects (cardiotoxicity, vascular toxicity, metabolic disorders, etc.) while lowering viral load and may introduce the possibility of resistant strains of HIV. No one is arguing on the efficacy of ARV or HAART in reducing viral load. Yet, it is also documented by Fawzi and independent groups that micronutrients can prevent the onset of AIDS symptoms, which are not synonymous with HIV infection. Whitedragon1976

But Rath didn't say that, did he? You say micronutrients can "prevent" (in reality, delay) the onset of AIDS. As does the NEJM article. But Rath says micronutrients alone reverse the symptoms of existing AIDS, a claim not in any way supported by the NEJM article, but very convenient as he happens to sell a proprietary blend of micronutrients. Anyhoo, back to Soapbox and the Talk Guidelines. Any comments on the article itself? MastCell 05:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your continual reference to "soapbox" has no relevance whatsoever to the published fact that indeed, sometimes, "micronutrients alone" can reverse symptoms of existing AIDS. (See above reference regarding increases in CD4, CD8, and CD3 count.) And the makers of AIDS drugs happen to be trying to secure sales of their drugs to foreign nations. (?) Free vitamins are evil? Whitedragon1976

I had a comment removed from this page and frankly I'm beginning to understand why. Take this discussion. It belongs in a Health forum and neither side will ever agree on anything. Now a well edited ARTICLE, with good neutrality would be FAR more useful. Whitedragon1976 says that the real issue is suffering people. That's very admirable, but WP is not the place for that. That's why WP is useful in many different arena's, it does'nt engage in the business of saving souls, only providing CLEAR FACTS and well written WORDS. We, and I admit myself, seem to have forgotten a lot of the most basic Wikipedia approaches. WP is not a tool that can be brandished in the face of controversial issues to try and solve them. You have to look with better eye's than that. Society and human beings can be somewhat complex. A lot of the thinking in the discussion here is linear, A leads to B leads to C thinking. I think we should be a lot more humble. Have faith in our fellow man and provide THEM with the clear well researched information that they really do deserve ! ~

DJ Barney (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

BMJ to pay £100,000 damages?

Just flagging up http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/future-london-march07.pdf which claims:

"9 January 2007 In an open letter to the BMJ’s Editor-inchief, Fiona Godlee, Dr Rath expressed his determination to have this important case decided in a British court. Perhaps fearing that the scientifically established facts about the health benefits of vitamins would be heard in court and thereby widely publicized, the BMJ changed its strategy. BMJ Editor Godlee filed an application asking the court to rule that Dr Rath should accept the BMJ’s offer of damages to the amount of £100,000.

15 February 2007 In return for the BMJ paying these staggering damages to Dr Rath the British court allows it to avoid the full case being heard in front of a judge. Dr Rath had the option to appeal this decision and ensure that the scientific facts on natural therapies would be heard in court. However, he decided to accept the BMJ’s “offer“ and use the entire award to fund further research and public health education – beginning with the natural health “Victory Lecture“ in London."

AvB ÷ talk 11:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice to have it from an independent source. So far all I've found is "news" items from the usual suspects. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. For an example of what such a link should look like, here's a link to a High Court judgement in 2000, refusing Rath's application to take two decisions made by the Advertising Standards Authority to judicial review. Motmot 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be clarified in this Friday's BMJ Jon m

That will be helpful. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen nothing related to Rath in either this week's or last week's BMJ. Can Jon m supply any further information? Trezatium 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here it is, from the 31 March issue, "News in Brief" (BMJ 2007;334:656 (31 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39167.437083.4E): [3]. Basically, it says Rath asked for ₤100,000 and BMJ accepted the offer to settle. I'm sure the money will be put to good use. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for not getting back to you. Glad that mastcell found this, anyway. Jon m 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a rather small item in the printed magazine so quite easy to miss. Still hard to believe it's true. Trezatium 11:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to evaluate, because the BMJ has removed its original story (so I have no idea what it actually said), and I can't find any English-language summaries of the Hamburg court case (other than those on Rath's website), so it's hard to know exactly what the court decision was and in what way the BMJ misrepresented it. I guess we'll have to stick with the bare-bones unless some other reliable English-language source turns up. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the printed edition of the 22 July BMJ. The news article is about the same length as the apology printed in the 23 September edition, which accurately summarises the nature of the retracted comments. In particular, the orginal article said that Rath had "convinced the boy's parents to use a 'miracle cure' rich in vitamins and to reject conventional medical treatments" and that "the parents of Dominik Feld ended the boy's course of chemotherapy and refused to allow doctors to amputate his infected leg in an effort to save him, switching to Dr Rath's vitamin treatment instead." Trezatium 09:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One slight concern - the BMJ removed the story from their website on legal advice. I'd be cautious about adding the details of the story to wikipedia - the last thing we want is to give Rath the chance to seek damages. Is there someone who can advise on the legality of including the story on wikipedia? Jon m 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a very bad idea to introduce into Wikipedia article space something which has been the subject of a successful libel suit. I think Trezatium was just responding to questions about what was originally in the article. I don't think anyone would propose to include that information in the article, as it was withdrawn by the BMJ and Rath subsequently won a libel suit contesting its accuracy. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The BMJ apology repeated the allegations made in the orginal news article in order to explain what was being apologised for. I have no expertise in this area, but I would guess there is no harm in saying what the allegations were, as long as one also explains that they were retracted. But I agree we shouldn't alter the article without expert advice. Trezatium 08:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Attribution in lead

I've restored attributed criticism to the lead. The lead is supposed to briefly summarize all relevant aspects of the subject, per WP:LEAD. For a person who has been criticized as widely and by as many reliable sources as Rath has, that means including some mention of that criticism in the lead. I am open to other examples but not to an all-out whitewash or to segregating any potentially critical sources to a "criticism ghetto" at the end of the article. They should be integrated into a single narrative. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The criticism is well-referenced and a major part of the article. It belongs in the lead as you've done. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Independent Studies of efficacy section

An independent study of efficacy would examine Dr. Rath's claims experimentally, as the Swiss study seems to have done. The two Iranian authors have written an opinion article, essentially a review of Rath's (and others') work and recommendations for future study. They present no independent experimental confirmation of Rath's claims, as placement in this section of the article would imply.

Options:

• leave the Iranian opinion article out
• put it back in and change the "Independent Studies..." language
• put it back but in its own or another section

The text I removed:

Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences "In 2007, a team working at the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in Iran published a paper on the inhibition of corneal neovascularization in the Archives of Medical Research. Extensively referencing the work of Rath and his team, and their use of the Lysine, Proline, Ascorbic Acid and Green Tea Extract nutrient mix (NM), the researchers stated that their data “strongly suggest” that this nutrient mix “can treat corneal neovascularization by inhibiting critical steps in angiogenesis such as VEGF and MMP secretion.” Their paper also stated that Rath’s studies “obviously showed that NM is effective in cancer treatment because of its ability to reduce secretion of major stimulatory factors involved in cell proliferation and angiogenesis, especially VEGF and gelatinase A and B.” The paper concludes by stating that "[b]efore clinical application, the NM should be tested in an animal model of corneal neovascularization" " Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pamphlets

The Aegis news report is erroneous. The pamphlets distributed in the South African townships can be found online at [4]; [5] and [6]. They do not urge people to take Rath’s vitamins.Adrian CZ (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. Rath Foundation is a relatively unreliable source if you intend to establish the "erroneous" nature of a Reuters story. I have reverted the edit. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon: Have you actually read the three pamphlets? Can you specify in which one, and where, this claim was made? If you read them you will find that they did not urge people to choose Rath’s vitamins. Nor, for that matter, did they even state that ARVs cause deformities in babies. The Reuters report confused the Rath pamphlets with a Treatment Information Group (TIG) pamphlet[7] and is clearly and demonstrably erroneous. The error probably occurred due to the fact that the TIG worked with the Rath Foundation at that time. --84.62.4.100 (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth contacting Reuters to request a correction. Until then, Wikipedia generally favors a reliable secondary source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (i.e. Reuters), rather than original research by its anonymous contributors. See verifiability, not truth, for example. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Until such time as Reuters corrects this clearly highly erroneous statement, I have referenced the recent German District Court ruling explicitly interdicting a German newspaper to allege/state that Rath is selling any vitamins against AIDS in Africa. A court ruling is a reliable source, yes? Adrian CZ (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source corroborating your description of the court ruling would establish that the German newspaper is not permitted to make the claim of Rath selling vitamins against AIDS in Africa. Until such time as Reuters changes its statement on the pamphlets, however, its story stands and is accorded more influence than the self-published statements of an interested party, the Rath Foundation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course the publication of an german court is an reliable source. --88.76.82.208 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have to go with what reliable, independent sources have to say rather than rely on primary sources. Nature Medicine has reported that Rath marketed his vitamins as a superior treatment for HIV/AIDS ([8], [9], [10]). Reuters reported the same. So did the New Yorker ([11]). Those are all reputable sources with an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking as well as dedicated corrections departments which fix errors of fact that are brought to their attention. Wikipedia policy favors the use of such sources over editorial interpretations ("clearly highly erroneous"?) based on primary sources which are not even accessible to the rest of the editors of the article. If this continues to be a problem, please feel free to seek outside input, but policy is what it is. Your time might be better spent asking Reuters, Nature Medicine, the New Yorker, and so forth for a correction if you feel their reports are "clearly highly erroneous" - that argument doesn't work very well in the setting of Wikipedia's policies. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The ruling of the German court is a primary source, as mentioned, and it is also a German-language document. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and WP:RSUE asks that English translations (preferably not by the editor), be provided when using non-English sources is unavoidable. In this case, it does not appear that use of the source is necessary at all, since the judgment of a Hamburg court regarding a specific claim made by a specific German newspaper is not particularly relevant to the question of Rath's marketing of vitamins as reported in the highly-respected sources mentioned above. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I’ve removed the statement purporting to come from Reuters on the grounds that the source used, the AEGIS website, does not meet the WP:V requirements. The AEGiS homepage states that its website “is made possible through unrestricted funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgestone/Firestone Charitable Trust, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Elton John AIDS Foundation, Gill Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Quest Diagnostics, Roche and Trimeris.” I’ve also checked the Reuters website and this news story is nowhere to be found there.Adrian CZ (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick google turned up other sources for the same info:

• http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/264105/safrican_university_slams_aids_vitamins_doctor/
• http://hanoi.vnn.vn/yduoc/detail.asp?id=BT1150657389
• http://www.thebody.com/content/art25831.html
• http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:_Q5txkc4dBoJ:www.microbicide.org/galleries/news-digest/news_digest_vol6no18.pdf+%22matthias+rath%22+%22Gordon+Bell%22+pamphlets&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a

--Ronz (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aegis.com is a reasonably reliable source, and nothing that AdrianCZ brings up with regard to its funding indicates otherwise. More importantly, there's no indication that they've fabricated a Reuters story out of whole cloth, which is a fairly serious charge and one that should be pursued in other venues. Finally, as Ronz points out, there are multiple other sources saying essentially the same thing. BTW, more on the Rath Foundation's record with pamphlets. This may be a better source; I'll substitute it. MastCell ^Talk 01:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I’ve removed the statement that claims to come from Reuters. There are serious issues at stake here which are either not being addressed properly or are deliberately avoided. Firstly, it is abundantly clear that the AEGIS website, does not meet the WP:V requirements. As AdrianCZ quite correctly pointed out, the AEGiS homepage states that its website “is made possible through unrestricted funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgestone/Firestone Charitable Trust, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Elton John AIDS Foundation, Gill Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Quest Diagnostics, Roche and Trimeris.” In addition, and as AdrianCZ also pointed out, this story is very noticeably absent from the Reuters website itself, thus suggesting that it has been withdrawn.

As for Ronz’s claim that other sources are carrying “the same info”, it is particularly notable that the only link of the four he lists above that carries the statement in question – that the pamphlets urged “HIV-positive people to choose Rath's vitamins instead” - is thebody.com website, the sponsors of which are Abbott Laboratories, BioForm Medical, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Virology, Bio-Technology General Corp., Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche Inc., Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Monogram Biosciences, Inc., Ortho Biotech Products, L.P., Pfizer Inc., Tibotec Therapeutics and Virco.

In short therefore, when the issue at stake is whether or not Rath urged people to choose his vitamins, and the only two sources saying that he said this are funded by multi-billion dollar multinational pharmaceutical companies who manufacture HIV drugs, it is very clear that these websites – by virtue of the fact that Rath has described their medications as “poison” - are interested parties and can in no way be said to meet the WP:V requirements. The requirements in the WP:LIVING policy are also highly relevant here and are very specific, particularly so the following:

“We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.” 134.99.136.7 (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to think that Reuters-via-Aegis is a suitable source for this, and that it is corroborated by other reliable sources. Proof by assertion of conspiracy is a losing argument here; parroting pharmanoia tends to lessen credibility. I will substitute other reliable sources I've listed above, but continued removal of this well-sourced information by a variety of IP's isn't really a tenable situation. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If we can't come to consensus on this source, we can certainly change the wording slightly to be verifiable by the sources that no one is arguing against. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to accept the conclusion that because the story is "noticeably absent" from the Reuters website, it has likely been "withdrawn". The Reuters website archive includes stories from 2007 and 2008 only, so any story published before 2007 would surely be "noticeably absent". Certainly, this is a more likely explanation than the idea that several otherwise reputable websites collaborated to fake a Reuters story on behalf of their pharmaceutical industry sponsors, or that the article was withdrawn. Alternately, we could use this source to indicate that Rath has drawn fire for ads and pamphlets claiming that ARV's are toxic and that multivitamins are an effective alternative treatment for HIV/AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, did anyone actually look at the pamphlets? The second one clearly hypes up vitamins. II | (t - c) 00:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that confusion over the issue of selling the vitamins seems to be at the root of some problems, I've gone ahead and changed the text to simply say "vitamins" instead of "Rath's vitamins". However, in doing so, I note that the pamphlets, one of them containing the heading "Micronutrients alone can promote the defense against AIDS", describe the results of a trial of a "controlled nutritional program" administered by the Rath Foundation. The details of this specific nutritional program are clearly important to the claims made. Thus, I understand that the pamphlets urge people to use the Rath Foundation's controlled nutritional program as a primary or sole means of fighting AIDS. I'm not aware that the Rath Foundation has ever sold vitamins in South Africa, but that is not the implication of the sentence. "Rath's vitamins" simply means the vitamin program described and promoted as effective by Rath, regardless of where the vitamins are physically purchased.

I note also that the Reuters article specifically identifies the subject of the ad as "Rath vitamins", and I again urge anyone who feels that this is an erroneous statement to contact Reuters and request a correction. Wikipedia doesn't do investigative journalism; we rely on outside sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reuters is such a source. If they correct their article, then we will certainly follow suit. MastCell ^Talk 07:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this source writes that "...the series [by Health-e] revealed that agents of the Rath Foundation were encouraging people living with HIV to stop taking their antiretroviral medication in favour of the Rath vitamins (emphasis mine)" Again, the language used in our article here closely mirrors the language used by reliable news sources. I don't think we're going beyond what they say in any way - certainly that's not the intent here. Presumably, by "Rath vitamins", the source means the vitamin program studied and promoted, but not necessarily sold in South Africa, by Rath. MastCell ^Talk 07:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Text moved from orthomed

This text from "fans", editing at QW, etc, seems to be of a more biographical nature with a number of references that might not be duplicates.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cited in a cardiovascular disease textbook"

I've removed the passage indicating that Rath's work was "cited in a textbook on atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease". The reference is to the 1st edition of Atherosclerosis and Coronary Artery Disease. In looking at the referenced page, I see 2 citations to Rath's work in a single chapter of the book. That chapter contains 107 citations, of which 2 are to Rath's work. The chapter is one of 101 in the book; each of these 101 chapters has 100 to as many at 250 references. Conservatively, if we use this definition, the textbook cites at least 10,000 papers, of which 2 are Rath's according to the reference supplied. This seems like a relatively minor issue blown out of proportion - probably tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of researchers could make a similar claim - and as phrased seems like an appeal to authority. Additionally, the 1st edition is from 1996, and Rath's cited work is from 1989. There is apparently a 2nd edition of this textbook, published in 2004: if we're going to mention being cited in this textbook, then we should at least confirm that Rath is cited in the current edition rather than a 12-year-old edition, and update the reference accordingly. Unfortunately, my library does not have the new edition; if someone can access it and determine whether Rath is still cited in the chapter on lipoprotein(a), then we could consider restoring the passage. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)\

My library has neither edition. However, at least one of Rath's references, Rath M. Niendorf A, Reblin T, et al. "1989 Detection and quantification of lipoprotein (a) in the arterial wall of 107 coronary bypass patients," Arteriosclerosis, Vol 9, 579-592, 1989 (American Heart Association) is cited by dozens of conventional CVD papers as well as is cited in Atherothrombosis and Coronary Artery Disease, page 163: 2nd ed, 2004/5.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I believe that your Google Books reference is actually the newer edition of the textbook I was talking about. The name appears to have changed from Atherosclerosis and Coronary Artery Disease to Atherothrombosis and Coronary Artery Disease, but I think the editors are the same. I think we're talking about the same textbook - I'm looking at the 1st edition and you're looking at the newer 2nd edition. That said, Rath's paper remains 1 reference of 117 in 1 of ~100 chapters in the book, and I'm not sure how notable this is - it would preferable to have an independent source specifically stating what, if any, contribution he made to the field. That said, with the newer edition at least one of my concerns has been satisfied. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...And the original language was "quoted in standard textbooks". Interesting. For me, WP:OR governs, and citation of a Rath co-authored paper in a textbook is hardly notable unless a reliable source comments on it. If we know Rath is cited only after performing original research, then there's no reason to include the information in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"quoted in standard textbooks"^{[12][13][[14][15]} is *source based research* that that actually is the case, not WP:OR or especially some "novel" la-la-land idea. Perhaps the "standard" part could be WP:OR, but that is pretty chicken and may just be another (time consuming) search item, particularly with Rath's various (here V,RS) self discussions, where the references would directly back up his statements.

Some other conventional reference & textbooks books citing Rath on Lp(a) & CVD,

Handbook of Lipoprotein Testing (2000) at least 4 hits: p375

Lipid Metabolism and Health (2006) at least one hit on Rath: p

Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine (2006) Topol et al has at least one hit on Rath: p.11--TheNautilus (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But he's not "quoted", at least not in the textbooks I saw. One of his papers is cited, among >100 other citations, in a chapter of the book. I've been "quoted" in plenty of textbooks if you want to apply those criteria. This seems like WP:PEACOCKing to me. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rath's Lp(a) papers are legitimate pioneers on the Lp(a)-CVD link. Considering the animus the guy has raised in other (medical) politics, it seems amazing that those papers get quoted all, much less so frequently since his most major apostasy.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES states that “the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses.” The citations concerned are all peer-reviewed and/or published by university presses. As such, they are entirely appropriate for the article.Adrian CZ (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the different viewpoints on this, but I'm still not convinced that doing a search in GoogleBooks is anything other than OR.

There is certainly no question about the reliability of these sources. However, they are about lipids and cardiovascular health, etc., not about Matthias Rath.

• Are any of the papers in question actually quoted (as opposed to cited) in any textbooks?
• Why would a quote (or a citation) be of Rath alone when Rath had numerous co-authors? Just because it's common practice to refer to a first author or senior author doesn't mean it's not sloppy; implying these are "his" papers alone denies proper credit to his co-workers.

I would suggest that if there is strong sentiment on this (and there seems to be) a sentence in the body of the article could note that "several papers on which Rath is a co-author have been cited in textbooks on lipids and cardiovascular disease" or something to that effect. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rath is the primary author on the 1989 paper most frequently cited, above. He is also primary author in two PNAS papers on Lp(a) with Pauling Hypothesis and Evidence in 1990 (I am not sure of the review process for PNAS papers in 1990, but I found one frequent PNAS author critically commenting in 1993 about the previous impacts & bias on scientific nutrition papers not appearing in PNAS because of an additional medical reviewer stage for PNAS nutrition papers in addition to three NAS reviewers, after taking an obligatory shot at Pauling).--TheNautilus (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PNAS Track I allows NAS members (such as Pauling) to submit up to four papers per year directly. But I fail to see what PNAS rules and Linus Pauling have to do with this discussion. No matter who they were/are, Rath had co-authors, and to represent co-authored papers as "his" alone is incorrect, as is mentioning "quotes" if only citations exist, or "textbooks" if only one is cited. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested any text, just digging out refs and facts. Was kind of hoping someone would take the "writing for the enemy" job.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that we not think in terms of enemies, but rather of editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia? In this discussion, I am interpreting WP:OR. My interpretation may be wrong. In my interpretation, using a search engine to count (or counting by hand/eye) how many times a source mentions or cites a particular article is OR, whereas reporting what a source verifiably says is not OR. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy is a common reference to a WP essay where Rath's bio here has been in great need of improved NPOV. Careful summarization Rath's notable papers' citations is source based research, not OR. It is a critical point that Rath has recognition in the conventional medical research texts/journals in the area of current science & medical controversies, where this bio has tended to make him appear to be a combination of Vlad and Jethro.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

re: OR

We disagree about WP:OR being applied[16] to Rath's paper:

• suggests that a composition of micronutrients significantly delayed onset of rales several days.[17] reflects the reported conclusions of the paper, restored.
• but they do not measure viral replication directly[18] appears to be an original WP observation and comment, deleted.
• They speculate that their studies of avian flu-infected chickens show that a composition of micronutrients can significantly reduce viral infectivity, is similar but I do believe that this is more accurate and better reflects the original text of the article: .a study of chicks infected with avian flu suggests that a composition of micronutrients significantly delayed onset of rales several days.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Toward a real article

The old LEAD launched into polemics of a narrow scope, giving no complete, comprehensible (brief) overview. Further, giving some idea of the structure and intercontinental breadth of Rath's activities would seem encyclopedic from a readers point of view. I've added a few more details on his organizational scope and added a {(POV}} sign.

The current article goes beyond objective criticism, it is credulous "skeptic" POV, e.g. heavily reliant on highly politicized TAC statements which are not a medical authority (instead of govt ministry or recognized expertise) and TAC's "(excess) deaths" allegations seem without comparative or scientific basis (deaths confirmed/autopsied/reported by whom, by local TAC trainees??), ie we expect poor countries to have AIDS related deaths no matter what therapy, did TAC have more than a small, poorly reported +-50% raw body guesstimate w/o controls or comparison group. Many statements here seem more in the vein of character assassination & innuendo than dispassionate, encyclopedic writing.

Finally since Rath has been bandied for AIDS denial, is there any more sourcing or detail about his positions? (e.g. Does he believe the virus to exist? Does he consider it pathogenic? etc.) One of the associated points is that Rath's approach to AIDS is totally, uncompromisingly *alternative* (replacement therapy only) - his nutrients alone, where I have now seen him blow off an herbologist/naturopath ally for not being sufficiently zealous on whatever Rath's AIDS dissidence position is, whatever degree that may be. Also Rath is not on speaking terms with Orthomed about AIDS, - their use acknowledges the virus, never acknowledges Rath, OMM is complementary to HAART and has favored treatments with much more complete nutrition related schedules than I see with Rath's nutrients, including much heavier dosing of certain classes of supplements not in Rath's.

If WP editors are going to crucify the guy, I think attention to NPOV, BLP, V, RS is a good idea if normal factuality, scientific fairness and objectivity are asking too much. Rath et al do seem to file numerous (and win some) suits, I have found several more suits missing from the article.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"If WP editors are going to crucify the guy" Can you stop it with your conspiracy bs? Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory needed, individual POVs & reflex reaction at the knees I am sure can account for it.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I second RONZ's request and encourage TheNautilus to refrain from veiled lawsuit threats. Also, I agree that the article should not engage in "objective criticism" but rather report on Rath's notability. So let's ask ourselves: what is Matthias Rath notable for? Is he famous for being an author of several papers that are cited in several textbooks? Did he ever make the news for that? No. He is known, i.e. he has been covered by reliable sources, for being a controversial vitamin seller who has been involved in numerous legal cases; who has (verifiably) been accused of contributing to the deaths of numerous people, whether it be a cancer patient in Europe or AIDS patients in Africa; who has spoken out against what the medical community considers effective and tested drugs, offering vitamins in their place and incurring the rebuke of the UN and many other agencies (not just TAC). Look up "Matthias Rath" in reliable news sources, and you will find that most (non-advertisement) mentions of Rath refer to the controversies surrounding the man. A "real article" will not rely exclusively on the Rath Foundation's website; it will also incorporate a few reliable sources.

As for TAC and deaths in SA, Wikipedia should report the controversy, including the accusation that Rath contributed to the deaths of numerous people. Wikipedia is not responsible for ascertaining the truth of this charge, only reporting that it has been made, notably and verifiably. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

MastCell worked on the NPOV wording and improved accuracy. So have I.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize relevant aspects of the topic, per WP:LEAD. The revision by TheNautilus dramatically downplays what Rath is most widely known for in reliable sources, namely his claims about vitamins and HIV/AIDS and his activities in South Africa. It is not "crucifying" someone to accurately and proportionately represent what reliable sources have said about him. I'm not interested in this becoming another front in the orthomolecular medicine wars, so let's nip that in the bud. The TAC's allegations received widespread coverage; ultimately, the High Court found the clinical trials unlawful. We report this as notable and verifiable information. I am of course sensitive to WP:BLP issues, though rather allergic to veiled legal threats, so if you identify specific portions of the article which you feel either violate WP:BLP or are potentially libelous, please describe them specifically here and I will be happy to address them. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight on a few things. (1) to my two long time acquaintances, I would think by now that it is obvious that I have no standing or capacity (or interest) for "legal threats" about Rath, rather my comments should be construed as "the highnesses (previous editors) may wish to check some of the clothing accessories before the kids show up" on some of the less factual or one sided assertions by sources like TAC; (2) I am not especially interested to be here either; (3) there are false light linkage & OR issues at Wikipedia about Rath and orthomolecular medicine that seem in part to associated with the one sided biography & poor factual details, aiding misunderstandings elsewhere.

The BLP description of the rulings seem one sided where there were issues of legal authority and legal evolution, such as the Health ministry's jurisdiction (e.g. legal interpretations and definition foodstuffs vs drugs) vs redundantly implying in the LEAD (2-3x), that Rath & associates were knowingly running a pirate operation in outright legal defiance of well established law at the time of Rath et al's nutrient trials. Acknowledging TAC's activist status is progress. I tried to trim redundancies and misleading constructions, may still need work.

Likewise given the general pervasiveness of the he is just a "vitamin salesman" here, I had the impression that a substantial amount of free food and supplements were involved that may need work.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the linkage to orthomolecular medicine? Is that article even wikilinked from here? The TAC's claims have been reported in the mainstream press and are notable. They are simply claims made by a specific organization. The factual basis of those claims was at least somewhat convincing to the High Court in Cape Town, which is also notable and covered in the press.

I do not see, nor do I intend, an implication that Rath was "knowingly running a pirate operation in outright legal defiance of well-established law." I thought the text was reasonably clear and dispassionately reported the fact that serious allegations were made about the trials, and the fact that a High Court found the trials unlawful. Those facts appear to me to be backed by reputable sources with a reputation for accuracy, such as Reuters.

Some sources have described Rath as a "vitamin salesman". I don't think that is an appropriately encyclopedic description, though I think "entrepreneur" or "vitamin entrepreneur" are reasonable descriptions of one of his major and notable activities. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The linkage is the other way, with TV over at OMM insisting that Rath's brief 3 year stint at LPI and his OMM notability on Lp(a)-CVD makes Rath worth more "ink" that say Pauling or Hoffer, focused on Rath's later AIDS activism, when OMM & LPI never connected to Rath's AIDS trials at all, although Rath likes to link his CVD articles with the earlier Pauling and JOM papers.

Because of structural legal differences between various countries with many more court levels, this being a trial of the first instance, the Health Ministry's position (which would be more compatible with the US), and Cape Town's former status as legislative capital of the Union of So Africa and later the Republic of South Africa might be confused as a more authoritative court level, I felt my construction with "High Court in Capetown", "later" instead of 2008, and summarizing of "unauthorized" and "unlawful" provided a more unambiguously accurate context.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the dispute at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, but I don't see its relevance here. I don't think this article draws any connection between Rath and orthomolecular medicine. If the text of the orthomolecular medicine article is unsatisfactory, then please continue addressing it on that article's talk page.

Re: the Court, we do wikilink it so anyone can see at a glance what the legal system in South Africa looks like. The source uses the term "Cape High Court"; would you prefer this? I would like to stick as closely to our reliable sources as possible here. Similarly, both "unauthorised" and "unlawful" are used in the Reuters source; as they have different shades of meaning, I included them both. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re orthomed, an error anchored by 4-6 more errors or biases can be quite difficult to fix if they are outside the technical range of most people. Fixing the errors and biases in Rath's bio here makes certain points easier to get across or to deal with.

Alright, let's go with Cape High Court for now. I noticed that one British news article did speak of the "Supreme Court" so I may suggest "provincial court" in the background and / or the linked references. What seems to have happened is that TAC's press release following the Friday the 13^th rulings is the apparent basis of fragmented parts in various news media and TAC's release is biased but more accurate, the actual court's discussion & rulings are involved but diverge on significant points from the TAC script.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Rath's credentials

Matthias Rath is said to have earned an MD and to be a physician. Last year, though, at least five or six newspaper articles covered the Democratic Alliance's charges against Rath that he was falsely representing himself as a doctor. In the July 28, 2007 Cape Argus (archived at IOL), Rath's lawyers responded by saying "that Rath called himself Dr Rath on the basis of his PhD doctorate." Perhaps someone who knows Rath better than I can tell us if Rath does indeed have an MD (and from where), a PhD (ditto), or both. There hasn't been anything in the article about a PhD; if he has one, we should note it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the M.D. from the opening sentence, not because I dispute that he has one but because it contradicts WP:MOSBIO. Any verifiable information about his qualifications should be worked into the main text. Lfh (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Potentially useable new source, though I don't think it directly addresses the credential question. MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be misreading WP:MOSBIO, Lfh. It is meant to say that you shouldn't refer to someone as "Dr. So-and-so" in the text. The lead is exactly where you should mention credentials in a biography article. II | (t - c) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Matthias Rath, M.D." is bad style, as indeed you pointed out. "M.D." should not be affixed to his name, but his award of it should be described. My preference is for these details to go into the main body, but WP:MOSBIO doesn't back me up on that point so I'll leave it in the lead. As to which university Rath claims his M.D. from, the source is ambiguous although it implies Hamburg since it mentions it second - do you know which it's meant to be? Lfh (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Rath's nationality

What about Rath's nationality? It's currently given as German, but recent sources express confusion about German vs. Dutch. Should the discrepancies be mentioned? Does Rath's nationality matter? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe he was born in Germany, but now is a resident or citizen of the Netherlands.? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and that's certainly a possibility; it could also be that a document was translated hastily and incorrectly by a news source, with the word for "German" looking like "Dutch" in some languages. It doesn't seem important, though. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I’ve reverted Verbal’s removal of the POV tag. There was no consensus on the removal of this tag and the dispute has not yet been resolved. There is still way too much selective detail and POV in this article. Far from being objective, the content is still overly selective and partisan. --88.77.57.97 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to do better. There has been no discussion for quite some time now, so it is reasonable to conclude that the issues leading to the tag were resolved. If you wish to raise further issues, then please do so here. Please raise specific objectionable content with reference to WP:NPOV, rather than blanket statements, as the latter cannot be effectively addressed. Also, please make a good-faith effort to resolve your concerns before tagging the article. The tag is not a substitute for discussion and consensus, and is not to be used simply to signal that one or a small handful of editors don't particularly like an article. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The various accusations of POV have usually involved disputing what is contained in the sources: from questioning the Reuters statement about pamphlets to asserting that TAC is the only fount of Rath criticism, when Doctors without Borders, SAMA, and many others around the globe have contributed. Personal opinion and conjecture are poor reasons for adding a POV tag. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All discussion had concluded and there are no POV problems that I could see. The page is stable and I consulted with an admin before removing the tag. The tag is not justified. Verbal chat 06:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I re-reverted once too, and agree with all of the above reasons for removing the POV tag. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the tag has been removed prematurely. As is stated above, there was (and still is) no consensus over this and there is still way too much selective detail and POV in the article. Adrian CZ (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, why doesn't the need for "a good-faith effort" to resolve "concerns" also apply before the tag is removed? Based upon the wording of the NPOV tag, Verbal was way out of order here and should have taken soundings on this page first instead of acting unilaterally. I can only conclude therefore that Mastcell and Keepcalmandcarryon now appear to be trying to appoint themselves as POV-Warriors-in-Chief for this article. Ironic, really, given that it is their edits that made the tag necessary in the first place. --88.77.55.61 (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The concerns have been discussed above. If you have any new concerns please feel free to start a new discussion below, under a new header. Please be specific in your concerns. Please assume good faith and do not make personal attacks. See also WP:CIVIL - accusations of POV pushing are considered uncivil. Verbal chat 12:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - we have had no shortage of rhetoric and vague bluster, but what we're missing is specific, policy-based content issues for discussion. As Keepcalmandcarryon mentioned, most of the "NPOV issues" have in fact involved claims that Reuters is an unreliable source, or have invoked various conspiracy theories - that is, they are not based in Wikipedia policy. The tag thus seems to be a declaration that a handful of single-purpose accounts dislike the article, rather than signaling an actual NPOV issue. The way forward would be, as described above, to focus on specific concerns based in Wikipedia policy. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid

The WP:AVOID guidelines are very specific and are a generally accepted standard that all Wikipedia editors should attempt to follow. Whilst I would obviously agree that they are best treated with common sense and the occasional exception, I frankly fail to see how common sense can be cited to justify making an exception of an entire WP:BLP. To do so clearly contravenes WP:NPOV. Moreover, my WP:AVOID edits on 25 March were made singly and separately, one by one. I did this in good faith so that any disputes over individual uses of the words “claim”, “claims”, “claimed” and “claiming” could be examined by other editors on a case-by-case basis. To repeatedly revert them in their entirety is completely unjustified. Moreover, I note that Verbal reverted three times within a period of eight and a half hours, which is a clear case of edit-warring and breaking WP:3RR. Adrian CZ (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:AVOID: "The word "claim" may be used accurately and appropriately". In the instances I looked at it was used accurately and appropriately. You'd do better to avoid the incivility in your comment, there was no violation of WP:3RR (feel free to make a report if you like, but you should check what a violation is first) and the page was protected at my request. Please discuss (civilly) any wording you wish to have changed on the talk page, per WP:BRD, as you have seen your bulk change has not got support. Verbal chat 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I replied above within 20 minutes, Adrian had already reported me for 3RR. The discussion and results (no violation) are here. Can we now discuss any wording changes that need to be made please. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[undenting and moving back on topic] WP:AVOID is a style guideline; it doesn't trump WP:NPOV, which is one of our core content policies. WP:AVOID doesn't mean we should confer a bogus respectability on insane or deceptive claims. If a statement is regarded as nonsense by most experts in the field, we shouldn't be afraid to use the word "claim".

Adrian, I think the best thing for you to do now would be to cite specific instances where you think the word "claim" is being used incorrectly in this article, and explain in each case why you think the sentence in question is misleading or violates either WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In all, I made 19 separate edits to the article per WP:AVOID. I’m quite happy to explain each one separately (which, of course, is what Verbal and Keepcalmandcarryon should have done with their reverts, rather than reverting them all in the entirety). To begin with, let’s look at a simple one. The section heading ‘Claimed discoveries’ is both non-encyclopaedic and a clear example of bias. Replacing it with the heading ‘Scientific and political research’ would be far more neutral and in line with both WP:AVOID and WP:NPOV. Neutral headings of this type are commonly used in other WP articles that deal with similar issues, (EG [19]) so why not here? Adrian CZ (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Rath's claims are widely disputed or rejected, it may be appropriate to characterize them as such. It might be misleading to characterize claims from a self-published book as "scientific research". On the other hand, the title could be better. Any other suggestions? MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Claimed discoveries" ain't a great section heading. How about "Medical claims"? (To be honest though, having just read Goldacre's new chapter, I'm beginning to think "claims" may actually be too mild a word. Some of Rath's statements are absolutely shocking. I'd be inclined to go with a heading that reflects the fact that his claims are, erm, highly controversial.)

"Scientific research" is not appropriate as a section heading. We need to expand the section to include Rath's more outlandish claims (like "90 per cent of patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer die within months of starting treatment" and "multivitamins cut the risk of developing AIDS in half"). No way can any of this stuff be included under a "research" heading. Polemarchus (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that the ‘Why animals...’ book is self-published, we should not lose sight of the fact that Rath and his researchers have now published around 50 scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As such, Mastcell is being somewhat disingenuous here by trying to pretend that the only venue in which Rath’s research is presented is his book. Given these papers, and the fact that Rath and his researchers conduct both lab research [20] and clinical studies [21], "Scientific and political research" is easily the most appropriate WP:NPOV section heading here. Caseoccur (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are generally not acceptable - see WP:SPS. Both the book in question and the website you mention come under that heading. Furthermore it doesn't address the outlandish claims mentioned by Polemarchus. Autarch (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rath has indeed published some stuff in peer-reviewed journals, but the claims being outlined in the "Claimed discoveries" section, and the ones I think we need to add to the section (i.e. his notable claims), aren't published in any peer-reviewed journals. Take a look at the section as it currently stands.[22] It includes claims like "animals with the ability to synthesise vitamin C do not suffer heart attacks" and "arrhythmias are primarily caused by nutritional deficiencies and can be prevented by optimizing the intake of such nutrients as vitamin C, coenzyme Q10, magnesium and vitamin B complex". These claims may well be true but, unless someone can cite reliable sources, it's not really "scientific research" — it's just stuff some guy says to sell his pills.

For what it's worth, I think we should split his 9/11 claims into a separate section from the medical stuff. And no, I don't think the term "political research" is accurate either. Polemarchus (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to divide the science and political material into separate sections. For the political aspects, the "International politics" title is suitably neutral and should continue to be used. Re. the "Claimed discoveries" section, we should bear in mind that the subject of the article, along with his co-researchers [23] and collaborators [24], has demonstrably had around 50 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals. As such, as well as clearly supporting the re-inclusion of the word "scientist" in the opening sentence of the lead, this fact alone is more than sufficient to characterise his work as "research". At the very least, therefore, the "Claimed discoveries" section should indeed be re-titled and should include the word "research". EG "Medical research".79.235.116.167 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for continuously repeating the same point here, but Rath's outlandish claims about chemotherapy, AIDS, etc, are not "research", and including them under a "Research" heading is at best incredibly stupid, and at worst downright dishonest.

Can I suggest a compromise? How about we create a section called "Research" that outlines whatever notable peer-reviewed research Rath has published (if there is any notable stuff) and a separate section that deals with his more ridiculous claims (which appear in his promotional materials, but not in any peer-reviewed papers)? The first section would focus only on the peer-reviewed stuff (ideally based on sources independent of Rath and his businesses) and would likely be pretty short. The second section — maybe called "Controversies" or something — would probably be quite long since this is what makes Rath so notable. Polemarchus (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea to divide the science and political material into separate sections and, in addition, concur that for the political aspects, the "International politics" title is suitably neutral and should continue to be used. Furthermore, regarding the "Claimed discoveries" section, I similarly agree with Polemarchus’ idea to separate this into two separate sections. However, given that the number of scientific papers bearing Rath's name that have been published in peer-reviewed journals clearly and demonstrably totals around fifty, I strongly disagree with Polemarchus’ proposed section headings and propose instead that the headings for these sections should be "Peer-reviewed scientific research" and "Other publications." Also, within these new headings, the ‘Cardiovascular disease’, ‘Cancer’ and ‘Immune deficiencies’ subheadings should be retained. Adrian CZ (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell's comment from the 9th, I don't think this kind of splitting is appropriate. Verbal chat 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

MD or PhD?

I got a bit confused when reading this article. In the opening paragraph it says that he earned his medical degree in Germany. Yet further down the page, it says that the "Dr" title is due to a PhD, with a reference to his lawyer.

"A lawyer representing Rath responded to the complaints by stating that the title 'Dr.' referred in Rath's case to "a PHD doctorate he had obtained and his position as a researcher, not a medical doctor."

Am I missing something? Or is this a contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.171.101 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The system in Germany is different; neither MD nor PhD exist there, and any confusion is likely a result of different ways of translating from the German system. Technically it is possible in Germany to become a physician without obtaining the right to be called "doctor"; I know several such cases including my last German GP. Almost all physicians obtain a doctorate (Dr. med.), though. (Otherwise the patients are confused.) To do so, they must do a certain amount of nominal research. You can either translate this system as physician = MD, Dr. med. = PhD, or as physician = nothing, Dr. med. = MD. Neither translation is completely correct. Since de call him "Dr. Rath" he almost certainly has the degree of Dr. med., which I guess is slightly more than MD and considerably less than a PhD, although it plays a superficially similar role in the German system. Alternatively he could be a physician who obtained a proper research degree (Dr. rer. nat.), but a Google search suggests that that isn't the case.

Short answer, he is neither MD or PhD, but Dr. med., which is the normal degree for a German physician. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hans. Now it would be great if we could find a source that specifies that he has a Dr. med degree. Polemarchus (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Rath foundation he is a Dr. med. [25] Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Any third party sources? Verbal chat 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are needed in this case: § 132 a Strafgesetzbuch. If he didn't actually have the degree he would probably get the maximum, which is 1 year prison. And he is sufficiently controversial that somebody will have verified this already. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Hans, nice to see you :) I don't think they're probably needed either, but it would still be nice. Was the question of his training and nationality resolved, and would that have an impact? I should reread the article. Verbal chat 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure his academic publications include his title on the front page. Get one from an academic source, and we can rely on that to have been verified by the publisher. Rd232 ^talk 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think publishers verify this kind of thing so long as it is plausible. But it's simply not reasonable to suspect that a German physician who calls himself "Dr. med." doesn't have this degree. Anyway: He uses this degree on a website in German, directed to the German market (although hosted in the Netherlands) [26], making him clearly subject to German criminal law if he wasn't entitled. And here is a reliable third-party website calling him "Dr. med. Matthias Rath". [27] This article on the Europäische Verbraucherzentrale ("European Consumer Advice Centre") site explains that it is illegal for Rath's Dutch company to send their unregistered medical products to German consumers. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Malaysian National News edits and puffery

Ronz reverted a recent edit as failing WP:RSWP:BLP. It was again added without discussion, and I reverted due to WP:RS concerns, WP:PEACOCK concerns, and WP:NPOV concerns regarding the text added and the section rename. They have been again added by an IP without discussion; but with an edit summary about copyright - which is irrelevant. The place to justify edits and address concerns is on the talk page, and the WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to make contested edits. Until the three concerns raised have been addressed at least the edits should not be made. Verbal chat 10:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The source provided is a seminar announcement, which is only slightly better than a press release. My concern is not WP:RS, but WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to the list of problems. Apologies. Verbal chat 15:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevant 3RR report about my edits here, filed by Adrian, and again no vio. Please engage on the talk page Adrian, and don't abuse process, if you want to improve the page. Verbal chat 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent POV pushing

116.44.168.189 made substantial changes to the content of the page and was reverted at least twice today.Autarch (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think all the responses have been appropriate. His contributions have been removed and he's been warned on his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Falsely claims?"

Regarding the recent dispute with wording in the lede: [28]

Rath falsely[7][8] claims that a program of nutritional supplements (which he calls "cellular medicine"), including formulations that he sells, can treat or cure diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.

vs

Rath claims that a program of nutritional supplements (which he calls "cellular medicine"), including formulations that he sells, can treat or cure diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.[7][8] These claims have been disputed.[9][10]

"Falsely claims" does seem a bit too strong, but "These claims have been disputed" seems a gross understatement. --Ronz (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Something along the lines of These claims are not supported by medical research., perhaps? Certainly anything that implies actual efficacy would be misleading in the extreme, but I do not recall these formulations ever actually being subjected to rigorous tests. Maybe something about biological implausibility would work, if the sources support it (I passed my copy of Goldacre into the friendly reading pool months ago, but I should be able to track down another copy if we pursue this route). - 2/0 (cont.) 08:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of Goldacre on the shelf; happy to check any specific wording... bobrayner (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, in the absence of formal tests by independent third parties, surely the "falsely" claim should be specifically attributed to Goldacre in the wording used, and/or to whoever else is cited in the reference(s)? Or is Goldacre going to be cited as speaking for the entire medical profession? IMHO, this would be a gross overreach given his profession as a psychiatrist.[29] Vitaminman (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me flip that around - does any reputable segment of the medical community believe that proprietary multivitamin combinations can cure cancer, heart disease, or HIV/AIDS? MastCell ^Talk 05:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Rath claims without any credible evidence that [...]." Ideally followed by a sentence that explains why the claims are highly unlikely.

Unfortunately Goldacre doesn't seem to be very useful in this context. His chapter on Rath builds on the previous, more general, chapters, so that he doesn't have to say explicitly that (or why) Rath's claims are nonsense. Hans Adler 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, Rath published a rat study of his micronutrient concoction: "Micronutrient synergy--a new tool in effective control of metastasis and other key mechanisms of cancer". II | (t - c) 20:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Thanks - that was a very interesting read. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word "falsely" is highly convoluted and does not prove the assertion that he "claims that a program of nutritional supplements (which he calls "cellular medicine"), including formulations that he sells, can treat or cure diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS." The use of this word is particularly inappropriate and misleading given the fact that PubMed shows he has had over 60 studies published. Vitaminman (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I recall hearing something about "exceptional claims". I'm not sure that falsely is the best word here, but there does need to be a strong statement on the lack of (independent) medical evidence to support Rath's claims. It's easy to get a study published, but not as easy to get an expert to review one's work favorably. Where are the high-quality reviews supporting Rath's claims on HIV/AIDS, etc.? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, nobody here is defending "falsely" as being the best word. It should therefore be removed whilst we work on a more appropriate statement. Same approach as you invariably insist on if someone places something in the article in support of his claims, in other words... ;-) Vitaminman (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like everyone agrees it could be better. That doesn't mean it should be removed until it is improved. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Past experience shows that demands for changes to be justified on talk first are by no means uncommon here. E.G.[30] So what makes this instance a special case? Vitaminman (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd hope editors can focus instead on improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And the use of the word "falsely" improves the article? More than would, say, a sentence summarizing why the orthodox medical profession doesn't support the claims in question? By your own definition, if "falsely" doesn't improve the article, it shouldn't be there. Vitaminman (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving back towards the topic at hand, I edited the sentence to remove falsely, replacing it with a new sentence stating that his claims are not supported by medical research. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Matthias Rath/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

According to an artical in the Mail & Guardian Online and News24 today (13 July 2007), titled "Rath 'not claiming to be a dr' ": "Gajana [Rath's lawyer] said that when Matthias Rath called himself 'Dr Rath', this was a reference to a PHD doctorate he had obtained and his position as a researcher, not a medical doctor." The Wikipedia artical claims he is a medical doctor. Which is it? BJelly 09:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)