Talk:Gayelord Hauser

Citations...
I'm fairly new to this, but I thought it should be stated that this article is missing several citations and at least one of the ones provided did not seem to deal with the subjects it was used for in the article (#4 at this time) - I would put a banner, but I don't know how and don't have time to look it up Brettpeirce (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The original article was primarily based upon the articles in "Annual Obituary" and “American National Biography." I only footnoted the actual quote and then listed these these sources as important. Contrary to what "24.160.8.112" says, this article is NOT "    * loosely based on this web page. The 'credits' and sources are questionable. Hauser was never able to produce any medical proof that he ever had Tuberculosis. His company does make some interesting products." Dutchman Schultz (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sentence removed
On the article was the claim "By the 1970s, however, the tide began to change as scientific researches validated many of his progressive notions on nutrition and health", there seems to be no solid evidence for this claim. Hauser is said to have some decent writings, but also promoted a lot of crackpottery.

Louis Lasagna (1963) gave a balanced opinion of Hauser's writings noting that they sold well to the public and some of it was based on common sense, but there is no evidence most of his ideas were validated by the scientific community. He held some far out ideas that as far as I can see have never been validated.

More critically in the book The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America edited by Stephen Barrett (page 79, p. 349 specifically), Hauser is basically dismissed as a quack for endorsing things like the Bates method. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)