Talk:Albert Abrams

Untitled
This article seems to be a cut-and-paste dump of some public domain material. It's not NPOV, anda good chuck of the material has little to do with Albert Abrams specifically. This needs some work. --Stephen Gilbert

Author cite to v1.0.2 / 01 jan 02 / gvgoebel@yahoo.com / public domain removed, as per Wikipedia policy.


 * This is almost completely without citation or attribution. WHich bits are true, and which are POV?  Midgley 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

fraud
Given that the most striking thing about him was that he was a quack and fraud, should not this be in the first line of the article, or at least in the very top part - the part which among other things composes the snippet Google shows to people looking at the link? Midgley 12:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pgdurham (talk)Though much of Abram's work was discredited along with most energy medicine in the early 20th century, modern technology and renewed medical interests have determined that every living thing produces and interprets various electromagnetic fields. The scientific basis for energy medicines such as frequency specific microcurrent (FSM) and 'Healing Touch' (Reiki)are just now being understood. Read "Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis" by James L. Oschman to get a better understanding of these phenomena. Like many people ahead of their time, Abrams' practices were ridiculed and debunked. Meanwhile, FSM and other energy based medicines are appearing in more and more hospitals everyday. This wikipedia post seems heavily biased against Abrams and his work. Tesla was once considered to be a quack also.Pgdurham (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with Abrams? His machines were nothing but empty boxes filled with wires and they completely and utterly failed every single scientific test presented to them. Legend Saber (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Degree from Heidelberg"
Heidelberg at the end of the 19th century was both famous and a long way away from the US.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_26/ai_91236244

" an online copy of John L. Wilson's authorized history of "Stanford University School of Medicine and the Predecessor Schools, An Historical Perspective." A significant portion of Chapter 26 is devoted to Dr. Abrams. A very specific quote by Ray Lyman Wibur, M.D., as president of Stanford University in 1922, clarifies that Dr. Abrams was never a member of the Stanford University faculty:

May I call your attention to the enclosed clippings, apparently sent out from your office, indicating that Dr. Albert Abrams is connected with Leland Stanford University. The same error has been corrected several times. Dr. Abrams has never had any association with Stanford University. He is a graduate of Cooper Medical College, which was taken over by Stanford University long after his graduation. It is evident that Dr. Abrams, or someone associated with his publicity work, has tried to keep up the fiction of his association with Stanford. It seems to me bad enough for such a responsible institution as the Associated Press to herald far and wide the scientific rubbish of Dr. Abrams, and worse still to connect the name of the University in any way with such abstsrdities.

In addition, Haines apparently accepts Dr. Abrams's claim of a degree from the University of Heidelberg at face value. However, Dr. Wilson refers to Dr. Abrams supposed credentials as follows:

"Who's Who in America for 1922-1923 contains a lengthy entry on Albert Abrams, physician: 'Born in San Francisco 8 December 1863; M.D. University of Heidelberg, 1882; A.M. Portland University, 1892; and LL.D. (date and institution not specified).' The M.D. degree in 1883 from Cooper Medical College is not mentioned. When the American Medical Association sought to validate Abrams' credentials, it was found that he had previously given his date of birth variously as 1862, 1863 and 1864; that there was no evidence of his having received an M.D. degree from Heidelberg; and that there was no record of the existence of a "University of Portland" at the time. It would apprar that the LL.D. degree was also ephemeral.""

Not too surprisingly then it appears that this fraud was not a doctor. Can anyone dig up actual copies of the documents referred to above? Or a declaration by Heidelberg that a degree was awarded? Finally, why did anyone beleive that a medical degree could be acquired at the age of 18? 20 is pushing it, even then, which makes "as a teenager" look like very poor work for an encyclopaedist.

I am about to do a major edit on this article. Midgley 13:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Archive of the University of Heidelberg (Tgb.-Nr. 592/13; archiv@urz.uni-heidelberg.de), Albert Abrams has passed the examination for the medical doctor's degree at Heidelberg University on 21.11.1882. The overall grade was "cum laude".

There is no printed thesis available. The imprimatur was refused by Dr. Czerny because of Albert Abrams' bad German writing and spelling. The topic of his thesis was 'Hand-Gelenk-Resection'.

According to his own Curriculum Vitae, with which he applied for admission to the examination, he was born in San Francisco in 1860. He inscribed at Medical College of the Pacific on 08.10.1878 and got his medical doctor's degree on 30.10.1881. He worked there as an assistant of Prof. Douglass and Prof. Hirschfelder. After his doctor's degree he went to Heidelberg in 1881. Gekruemmel (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ripped to park
He became chief pathologist at the Cooper Medical Institute, later subsumed into the Stanford Medical School, and in 1893 was president of the San Francisco Medical-Surgical Society. He was regarded as a guru by other doctors in the city, and had published many articles in prominent medical journals.

Needs verifying. Latter part is hearsay and likely lies.

There remain various strictly unverified elements, including the refernce to Sci Am - anyone help on that? Midgley 13:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of this article...
It is worth looking at the history to see how this article evolved.

The original was a dump of a page from elsewhere, the atribution of which was then removed, and documented high on this talk page.

Elements were stripped out to what is now electrical quackery which I suppose deserves a visit, but from its title is promising. WHat was left was about a con-artist called Abrams.

User:Redcountess, very early on in an attributable editing career, cleaned up what was then a mess, but crucially removed the identification of the man's nature, and accepted him as a doctor, making this the top piece. I reviewed Redcountess' contribution history and that looks like an isolated mistake, albeit I know little of several of the topics involved, in a lot of useful work and tidying.

User:David_Gerard made " a further attempt at NPOV". Unfortuantely, if you accept that a fraud is a doctor, then all the removal of the assertions he is a fraud do not improve the article, and indeed, don't produce a neutral POV, but a counter-factual one. In particular a change of "was a fraud" to "apepared he was a fraud" was simply wrong - the demonstration _was_ made. Att he same time he was tackling Xenu and OT3 and doing so credibly, so again this looks like a mistake early in what is from a review of contributions an eclectic, useful, and balanced career.

User:John Gohde whose name seems familiar moved the article from Category:Alternative medicine into People in alternative medicine, whcih if it is considered as a biographical article is fair enough, whereas if it is considered as an outstanding example of a health fraud, and typical of a type of health fraud, rather tends to cover it up.

User:71.162.33.62 made a visit as part of a general (and reverted) set of changes of Category:Quackery to Category:Alternative medicine. A long run of sophisticated change for an IP address. He also substituted a patient survey for http://www.ncahf.org/ National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) as a reference and added dowsing tothe first paragraph, whch seems both inaccurate and irrelevant to me, but might merit discussion.

The result of this sequence was an article that was frankly not encyclopaedic, had no attribution or verification, and offered support to the fraudsters who continue to sell redionics devices ascribed to Royal Raymond Rife etc.

I'm afraid this is a systematic weakness in WP.

Comments? Midgley 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The hallmark of a fraud rather than an "alternative practitioner"
Since there is another burst of rehabilitation, and reduction of the usefulness of WP as a reference work, going on at present, let me point this out:- "Alternative practitioners" not uncommonly claim that conventional medicine and conventional doctors are all wrong, or know nothing of higher things. What they don't do is claim to be qualified conventional doctors from Heidelberg. That takes him firmly over the boundary from someone who might be thought to be a quackish practitioner with some "ideas" that are not accepted conventionally for trivial reasons such as having been demonstrated to be wholly unfounded, wrong and empirically ineffective ... into the territory of the fraudster which he inhabited. Fraud is common, and health fraud is a common variety of it, and WP:IS not a tool to confuse people abut whether demonstrated fraudsters might actually be as careful and sensible as any proper doctor from Heidelberg, whether mit scars or sans Francisco. Got that? 82.152.46.201 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Mois je croix is making edits which seem to me unhelpful. I have suggested he pays attention to this talk page, but he has not done so, as yet.  Midgley 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph in its present state is a disgrace
''It is clear, none the less, that Abrams was able to diagnose ailments and diseases with considerable success. This in itself is not really surprising since he himself was a trained medical practitioner...'' (D.H. Rawcliffe, p.364, op. cit.)

It's no use arguing with people who wipe the words of Rawcliffe (a man who has done more than anyone else to debunk absurdities like Abrams' boxes, reflexophones, oscilloclasts, etc etc) off the page and replace them with their own distinctive brand of primitive, unreasonable and counterproductive POV pushing. The following remarks are strictly for the record:

1) In a reputable encyclopedia, a man who has not been convicted in a court of law cannot be called a "fraud".

2) In a reputable encyclopedia, a man, even if convicted, cannot be defined by a crime. (A musician who shot a man is not a killer who made music.)

3) In a reputable encyclopedia, people cannot be accused of "gullibility" without proof. (As a rule, people turn to unorthodox healers or outright quacks not because they believe in their methods, but because they cannot get any help elsewhere. Any exception to this rule would need documentation.)

4) In a reputable encyclopedia, theories, especially abstruse ones, are never presented without taking into account their historical context. ("Animal magnetism", "Electronic reactions", etc cannot be properly evaluated without a look at the sorry state of medical "science" in their times.)

MOI JE CROIS 10:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
"A quack and a fraud" he may have been, but this is hardly the way to write an encyclopedic article. Hopefully somebody who actually cares about the topic will attempt to clean it up. Pairadox 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

intro to the article: "fraud" vs. "posing as a doctor"
Although Abrams fraudulently claimed to have qualified in medicine from the University of Heidelberg, the first footnote (http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/26f.html) states that he was awarded an M. D. by Cooper Medical College in 1883. He therefore was not "posing as a doctor" but was a doctor. In order to maintain NPOV, I propose changing the introduction to the article to something along these lines: "Albert Abrams (1863-1924) was an American doctor, well known during his life for inventing machines which he claimed could diagnose and cure almost any disease. These claims were challenged from the outset.  Towards the end of his life, and again shortly after his death, these claims were conclusively demonstrated to be both false and intentionally deceptive." Lamaybe 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Main source of this article found
This article at Buzzle.com seems to be the main source of the Wiki article. Some of it is paraphrased and some is cut and paste. There may be enough cut and past to make this article eligible to be nominated for deletion on the grounds of copyright infringement. I am relatively new to Wiki and have never nominated an article for deletion, so I am hesitant to do so. (I DID read the article on nominating pirated material for deletion and I'm still hesitant.) Buzzle does not require an NPOV, so the NPOV problems in this article mostly originate in the over-rleiance on this one source.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-12-2004-51600.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRWoodwardMSW (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This quack was supported by Watchtower cult
This quack was supported by the watchtower cult, but this article has nothing about this fact.At these times, medicine was mainly useless, against deseases.The hate against this quack, was more because of money, than anything else.The biggest foes of this quack were also eugenicists and racists.In fact, American Medical Association never was against eugenic sterilization.This quack was a charlatan and a bad man, but he wasn't a devil, compared to many doctors of his time.Agre22 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

The site http://www.freeminds.com/history/quackery.htm has some information about the link between this quack and watchtower.This same cult gave support to other quacks: George Starr White, Andrew Still , Daniel Palmer , Charles Betts ,etc. Agre22 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Albert Abrams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110051905/http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap26/chap26-sect6.html to http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap26/chap26-sect6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214023220/http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/ to http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110051905/http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap26/chap26-sect6.html to http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/html/chap26/chap26-sect6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716084138/http://www.seanet.com/~raines/abrams.html to http://www.seanet.com/~raines/abrams.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708041044/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/felfield/SURVEY.pdf to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/felfield/SURVEY.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)