Talk:Archie Kalokerinos

Name
I doubt Archie was his Christian name. Was it Archimedes, Archibald?? JFW | T@lk  22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He was named Alcibiades, but in tranlsation it came out Archivides. john 11:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed at the detailed autobiography, posted by Archie Kalokerinos himself, at www.kythera-family.net - ''I was named after the hero Alcibiades. During the process of translation the spelling was mixed a little and officially my name is spelt "Archivides"'' Tearlach 15:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

and the Aboriginal health is going how?
Is ther emore than one adviser? Midgley 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian Medal of Merit
I can find no evidence that the Australian Medal of Merit exists. It is not part of the Australian Honours System. Can someone provide me with some additional verifiable information about it please. Maustrauser 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We've just been discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whaleto. It's an award from the Legion of Frontiersmen Australian Division, a private organisation of ex-military personnel currently mostly involved with documenting and maintaining war graves and memorials: see Australian Medal of Merit. Tearlach 14:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Clearly it is a private medal and not a government sanctioned medal at all.  I wonder if it should remain in this article then as it is the equivalent of me and my mates awarding another mate a medal - The Australian Medal of Wikipedia Guardians.  It is no different to a Barnstar really.  I'm inclined to remove it from this article as it implies some sort of Government endorsement for this man's activities. Maustrauser 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek Australian of the Century
Is there any independent source of the claim that he was named 'Greek Australian of the Century'? I can find no independent and verifiable statements that this is true. All the website references simply quote each other. Maustrauser 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The autobiography at www.kythera-family.net confirms, quoting from an article at the Institute of Kytheraismos . It says the award was by the newspaper Neos Kosmos. Tearlach 14:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for this data. I don't think that Neo Kosmos represents Greek Australians anymore than the Waco Herald Tribune represents Americans.  I suspect the article should be edited to say that he was named this by one very small Greek-Australian paper.Maustrauser 14:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find Archie's name in the list of awardees of The Australian Medal of Merit (but not all are listed). However, this medal is "awarded for rendering valuable assistance to the Legion in Australia. It can also be awarded to people not in the Legion but deemed worthy per the criteria." so the stated basis for the award seems unusual. If it's been mistakenly attributed to him then I would think he'd be embarrassed to see this. I suspect that this might be a garbled piece of publicityGleng 21:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Starting to clean up and add detail - I know this is unbalanced but I'm looking for positive stuff to justify notability. Removed AMA citation pro tem pending verification - any reliable cite known? One dead link lost the other was very far from V RSGleng 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason he has an entry here at all is his cachet on the alternative medical and anti-vaccination circuit. Once you get off the hagiographies and try the Australian Skeptics, you can find a number of articles in their journal reporting on his lectures:


 * "Dr Archie Kalokerinos quoted his own experience, ignored anything that happened after the 1970s, and presented no evidence to back his claims that: a large number of soldiers died from tetanus vaccines during WWII; vaccination schemes in Nigeria were responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS and was a deliberate policy of genocide; large numbers of aborigines given flu vaccines in the 70s died of heart attacks as a result, (with criticisms against a former colleague); and - here comes the conspiracy theory again - that the US government systematically planned to get rid of undesirable types (criminals etc) by encouraging people with known heart problems to be vaccinated. To finish, Dr Kalokerinos’ triumphant advice was that large intravenous doses of vitamin C will ensure our protection against disease". Tearlach 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I deleted this link and reverted the wording here because the link did not specifically address the q of scorvy in aboriginal children, it is not evidence that AK's views were discounted (maybe they were, but this is not a source for this). By all means debunk, but keep the V RS trail watertight.Gleng 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm worried about the content on this page; these are not facts they are reports of someon's report of what was said, in an arguably partisan site. I've read the AS articles, but I know enough examples of people being quoted by eminently respectable newspapers for things they most certainly didn't say to know that while the quotes may or may not be accurate, either get AK's words from a RS, or put the attributed words as quotes, i.e. "he was reported by X as saying Y" etc. We have to keep our house clean, let's be careful. If someone said that I'd said these things and I hadn't, I'd not be sanguineGleng 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, nothing much that he does gets reported at any level higher than small magazines. A Google on Kalokerinos genocide finds many other documents: that both hostile and sympathetic sources report these same claims suggest it reflects his views. Tearlach 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C
The version I replaced was misleading in that it implies he is right. The weight of medical opinion is that he is wrong. That's why I carefully phrased the Pauling comment and provided the link. Mccready 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IV / IM Na ascorbate
Whose simple "belief"?

Current medical opinion has yet to *show* or demonstrate anything about intravenous vitamin C and very little above (anything?) 8-10 g/day even orally for serious illness (vs mere cold & flu protocols that may run 8-24 g/hr orally, initially). AK, based on his clinical observations and trials, actually has experimental and clinical observations, although not a dbRCT. As far as I can tell, medical opinion has *nothing* but flimsy excuses. Moertel? Pauling nailed him correctly although it took over 5 yrs to surface some of the hidden bits. Whether AK is "correct" or not is wholly supposition, there are apparently no comparably high dose tests (30g-300g IV vitC/day, adults, 350-1000+mg/kg/day children) reported in the "accepted" literature (some wait with bated breath, almost 60 yrs and counting). 1g/day IM sodium ascorbate is the highest modern "accepted" value that I have noticed for even a secondary use. Whither 10 g, 30g, 100g, 200g /day IV vitamin C test data per Klenner's protocols or more recent vintages?

It is a simple fact that AK agrees with a number of "alternative" or orthomolecular doctors that have actually used IM / IV vit C clinically or run experiments of various types on various diseases. They agree, conventional medicine, with apparently ZERO experimental basis, doesn't. An apparent ex cathedra pronouncement. Klenner, *the* original vitamin C guy, pretty much said 30g IV vitC/day minimum for adults, regardless of size. Obviously no large scale, peer reviewed dbRCT - after Pauling's shabby treatment, including some older near dbRCT, who would waste serious personal money and breath on such firmly convinced medical opinion anyway? Interestingly, IV vitamin C would probably be the easiest to do a dbRCT with a multipoint design to boot, say factor of 3 to 4 fold multiples or with adjuvants.

The textual issue would be the observational & experimental agreement basis for *some* or which diseases for AK vs possible generalization to *many* diseases (I haven't picked through that much of AK).--69.178.41.55 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The general principle here is to summarise the collective best assessment of a situation. "Agreed" implies general agreement, and it's misrepresentation to use it for "agreed with the handful of researchers who believe(d) it". Tearlach 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "belief" where there is legitimate experimental or clinical data (whatever the degree of uncertainty) in the face of *no apparent data* seems unnecessarily POV. There is a disagreement between the professionally qualified (MD, science b/g) - those who have run it and those who haven't. Replicated, low priority, good faith data still has standing against *no data*, especially for those with the resources and decades of time. In high stakes competitive commercial  situations, such a refusal to test at all, is tantamount to admitting some or all of the other competitor's product/position is situationally superior (testing would just dig the hole deeper). I am not pushing "proof", I am noting and describing interpretation of data by those who actually have limited observational data.  Scientifically, in the broad sense of actual, less than picture perfect data, "belief" more properly describes current medical opinion, studiously without the data,  about a contended area.  A more detailed description to more emphatically narrow the meaning of agreement, say, "agreement...with other orthomolecular physicians" might be appropriate rather simple dismissal as a putative superstition.--69.178.41.55 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (was 66.58...)


 * We're none of us in a position to assess in detail the evidence/credibility of every medical claim and counter-claim. This is almost certain to founder because proponents and opponents are not going to agree about the basic assumptions of such an analysis.


 * Proponents say it's evidence vs. no evidence, and mainstream conspiracy to suppress that evidence by non-investigation. Opponents may question the protocols and selectivity of such evidence, and consider there's strong credibility to a broad medical consensus that something isn't even worth investigating.


 * All that can be done is report what different views exist, with some kind of indication of who and how many (like the approach at Orthomolecular medicine).


 * "Agreement with other orthomolecular physicians" sounds OK. Tearlach 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to be precise on AK and vitamin C though am unsure in this as I don't have access to the original sources.

=
============

Huh? Then what on earth are you doing writing on this topic??

I just finished reading "Every Second Child" and its footnotes. It is easily available online.

I am shocked that your denunciation of this brilliant, sensitive, common-sense, life-saving physician, is the article standing on Wikipedia.

To point out just one of many areas where YOU ARE WRONG: he gave ordinary amounts of Vitamin C, eg 100 mg or less, NOT megadoses, to his indigenous patients (sometimes orally and sometimes by injection). Also, he DID conduct trials, and they all stunningly showed that those infants who were supplemented with these modest amounts, survived, and those who weren't, didn't. Tina Kimmel (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

=
================

Please correct my edits if anyone knows better from sources. I think it is the case that he was impressed by Pauling's theory, that he suspected that scurvy was widespread in the aboriginal children, that this led him to treat a large number of different conditions with vitamin C i.v., and that this seemed (to him) often to be very effective. Others apparently disagreed - but actually I haven't seen any specific critiques of his conduct or of his observations - obviously many have come to different conclusions based on other evidence, but is there anywhere a direct rebuttal of his particular evidence? i.e. - is there any refutation of the incidence of scurvy in the aboriginal population, or any denial of the benefits of his treatment of those patients? I'd rather avoid the word "claim" if possible, the difference between claiming something and stating something says more about the reporter's views than about what is said. Belief is also something to be careful about - is a conclusion based on direct experience a belief? I guess it is, but maybe it is simply neutral to state that these were conclusions that he drew, rather than beliefs that he held. I know next to nothing about this, as far as I can see he seems a humane, passionate and honest man who was probably (in my opinion) very mistaken in his conclusions, but let's be very careful to do him the decency of meticulously assuming his sincerity and rationality.Gleng 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Right here seems to be one of the major scientific breakdown points or points of divergence, vax vs modern anti-vax, where the shouting traces to.  Old 19th century anti-vax essentially seems to say that their methods were really dangerous, too dangerous (little, no or negative net benefit).  Modern anti-vax certainly has this element.  I think the reason why Kalokerinos becomes notable to (Whaleto) John is that Kalokerinos extends FR Klenner's *scientificly uncontested* (no test, no science, just medicine) vitamin C claims as a general bactericide, virucide, immune system - white cell fuel, antitoxin and/or free radical quench.  John noted that AK says vaccine injuries go down with better biochemistry (vitamins esp larger vit C), avoiding vaccinating ill or incubating children, and selectively administering vaccines, eg. Td vs dTP.  The current Kalokerinos article doesn't read his position as a reasoned one, rather he still looks more like a caricature and comes across as ideologically shrill, rather than problem solving in terms of mainstream goals in extraordinary circumstances (v high pediatric mortality coincident with or following vaccinations of infants with perceived risk factors).


 * During the RfC, I noticed in John's writing that he is counting on the IV vitamin C protocols also as a backup - kid (anybody) gets really sick, pump them up with IV/IM sodium ascorbate (Klenner would say 30g+g/d for adults, divided dosing, every ~2 to ~12 hr) with oral C supplements; oral vit C alone is far, far more variable in absorption, less reliable, never achieves comparable blood levels even in the best cases, and is slower. One major anti-C pivot point for conventional medicine appears to be the hag ridden Mayo-Moertel cancer trials (1979-1985) - really poor work compounded by Pauling's overcaution (at the lower bound and he knew it! Pauling knew of the Klenner and other results, not sure when, but actually seems to have been bent on publicly introducing lower, less shocking amounts of vitamin C; he had originally requested up to ~50 g/d vit C but surgeon Ewan Cameron (Scotland) had hospital admin problems). The other pivotal test point appears to be in the 1930s (see Chapter 13 Poliomyelitis) polio monkey trials. Jungeblut's 1937 partial polio success and IV vitamin C paper with monkeys was putatively repeated (and failed) in Sabin's trials with more severe innoculation and lots less vit C (100 mg/d vs 400 mg/d) - apparently "the" vitamin C-doesn't-work paper for 2 generations (hmmmm - Sabin would mumble about mistakes near his death).  Klenner went in the other dosage direction, with more, lots more IM/IV vitamin C and claimed absolute success, publishing his hospital data including temperature charts on serious polio cases.


 * Anyway the problem with this article is that AK is still presented as somewhat a kook (his opinions alone, without additional support and b/g in the article, about vaccination pgms sound harsh and unreasoned ) because the article doen't state at length or link this point well (ahem - possible source issue with W :-).  I know that this will not be resolved today but the issue actually appears to me why John seems so irrationally trenchant to the conventional medicial editors.  This is the tectonic fault line - does 30g - 100g/d IV C radically affect disease course?  An apparently untouched experiment in conventional medicine, massive IV vitamin C for antiviral/antitoxin/antibacterial/antiscorbutal duty. Something to consider when we discuss "opinion" amd publications in alt med, the logic of divergence, and apparent counterintuitive statements.  Note: I am prefacing my edits.--69.178.41.55 12:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (was 66.58...)

My problem is not with the principle of trying to explain how AK came to his conclusions, I'm all in favour of this. However I can't access any of his relevant papers - they're in PubMed by title only, the only things I've found of his that he's actually written aren't really germane. I have trawled the web - including john's sites, and there are a number of accounts of his views generally apparently repeated from each other, but none really describe his evidence. I'd be happy to help, but can't make bricks without straw. This isn't an issue of access to john's material - in this case I haven't found anything that really helps. I know what people say he said, but what he actually said and more importantly exactly why are hard to find. There's another problem with the article on Glenn Dettman - a potential embarrassment. He is credited with a BA and PhD from an apparently dubious institution, and with an AMA. I can't verify that he claimed these himself, so it is possible that these are just overenthusiastic misattributions by a third party, or simply that the institution is wrongly named, or that they are accurate and I just can't find verification. Again I've looked - just can't find anything to establish facts here. To be honest, I can't see that GD is notable independently of AK, and without any decent verifiable sources I'd favour deleting that article rather than leave it with potentially embarrassing bio mistakes. I'm not going to propose this, rather wait to see if some material accrues to it to clean it up- pace john, I'm not trying to suppress dissenting views, but looking for the means to represent their deeds and views accurately.Gleng 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, trying to work toward this end, that is why I asked. MPOV - AK is definitely out of luck and fashion. SPOV is more interesting, still not definitive (multiple peer accepted dbRCT by today's "rules") but by traditional reckoning (clinically observed and quantitated as possible, multiple independent, qualified observers, plausible chemical & biological mechanisms, time of unchallenged test results ), science, however weakly and uncertainly, kind of favors the underdogs here (I get harsh about lack of data/effort/goofball "replication" for "rich folks").  I am not trying to "prove" ascorbate here, I am going to try to make the man comprehensible and place his statements in a more rational context given what we can see on the internet.  I am relatively unfamiliar with Dettman also (died preWWW, takes more straw and matches to get a signal). A *partial* answer may be to write AK with SASE and copy costs and ask for a fairly complete package of papers on himself and Dettman (I know, WP:RS issues).  Let's get it while we can?--69.178.41.55 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (was 66.58...)

International Academy of Preventative Medicine
This article says that Kalokerinos is a Fellow of this organization. What is it? What does it do? When I went to its website today which is linked from the article, I found it was 'empty'. A google search picks up a mere 372 references to it, and the first reference is a Quackwatch one stating that it is rather questionable. What does it mean to be a Fellow of this organization? Do you pay to be a Fellow or is it an honour to be a member? Maustrauser 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Life Fellow of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
This article says that Kalokerinos is a Life Fellow of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. According to their website http:/www/rsph.org there is no such thing. Apparently anyone with a Bachelor's degree that they have had for more than five years and can pay the membership fee can become a fellow. So what is a Life Fellow? Maustrauser 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fellow of the Australasian College of Biomedical Scientists
This article says that Kalokerinos is a Fellow of the Australasian College of Biomedical Scientists. A Google search picks up 50 references to this organization. Once references to Kalokerinos is removed from the search results there are fewer than 40 references. This organization has no website. So what is a Fellow? What does it mean? What does this organization do? Is it important? It doesn't meet the notability criteria for WP, so why is it included as a qualification for Kalokerinos? Maustrauser 04:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Member of the New York Academy of Sciences
Why is this included as a qualification for Kalokerinos? It's like saying he is a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation, or the Balmain Beach Tennis Club. Anybody can be a member of the New York Academy of Sciences. All you have to do is pay the membership fee. How do we know his subscription hasn't expired? This is not a qualification. Maustrauser 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fellow of the Hong Kong Medical Technology Association
This article says that Kalokerinos is a Fellow of The Hong Kong Medical Technology Association. This Association ceased existing in 2003 and became the Hong Kong Institute of Medical Laboratory Sciences Limited. According to its website it exists "to promote and advance the status and the common interests of medical laboratory technologists in Hong Kong." Further it only achieves 104 hits. What is the purpose of Kalokerinos' Fellowship? This seems like gilding the lily. Why is this a qualification? Maustrauser 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PubMed
This article makes much of Kalokerinos having material cited in PubMed. PubMed is a search engine for medical citations. It is not an endorsement. Why is it written as though being in PubMed is important? Maustrauser 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Australasian Nurses Journal
This journal is widely cited in the article. It ceased publication in 1982. It has never been a peer-reviewed journal and thus is not evidence of the claims being made in article published in the journal being generally accepted by the medical profession. To be published in the Australasian Nurses Journal the editor needed to think that what was said was interesting, not that what was said was rigorous or correct. That's why peer review exists, to give some credibility to articles. I therefore have to question why every article that Kalokerinos ever wrote for this journal is listed? What is the list trying to prove? Give the man credibility? Maustrauser 05:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Useless inclusion.Benvenuto (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Human experimentation
By his own admission Kalokerinos experimented on aboriginal prisoners in the town lockup, injecting near fatal doses of ascorbic acid. I think this would be a notable inclusion for the article. Suggest a section called "controversy" to get a bit of balance back into this article. Benvenuto (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources do you have? Gillyweed (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "I had, however, noticed that many sick and irritable infants rapidly became calm after I administered injections of Vitamin C. Adult patients too became drowsy and wanted to sleep. Maybe, I thought, this may happen after the administration of intravenous vitamin C to inebriated Aborigines. I mixed up 240 grams of sodium ascorbate powder in 500 mls [grams] of water and began to quickly inject it intravenously. I had used doses like this many times in patients suffering from a variety of conditions, without observable side effects. Almost immediately, the patient became unconscious, resembling exactly an overdose of morphine. I stopped the infusion and within a few seconds the patient woke up. I quickly learned to administer the infusion at a moderate rate. This  resulted in rapid detoxification without the excessive response. The mechanisms involved are not fully understood so I will not attempt to explain them. "-Kalokerinos, "every second child" Benvenuto (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What is meant by a near fatal dose of ascorbic acid? Is loss of consciousness to be interpreted as impending death? Why? Through what evidence? Perhaps analagous to a general anesthetic agent? Ascorbate has zero properties of such an agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmclean (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This has already been answered, please see the comment above yours. --Daffydavid (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have just finished reading this book and I wasn't able to find this reference. I also did not see anything like doses of 240 grams being used. All references I see are to 100 or 200 _mg_ doses. (See chapters 10 and 19.) I notice there is no edition or page number associated with this quote. Until that is provided, I believe this quote should be removed. Feel free to return it, with a proper reference. DiagonalArg (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Archie Kalokerinos. 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/20130505005039/http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/1999/4.pdf to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/1999/4.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)