Talk:Hans Alfred Nieper

Foundational vs. Pioneering
To me, both phrasing are highly problematic. Nieper certainly viewed his own work as both foundational and pioneering, but the general consensus in the medical community is that his work was unscientific and unfounded. Using either phrasing creates the impression that his work has been accepted by the scientific community as foundational or pioneering, neither of which are true. Therefore why I added the fact tag, to give anyone who things they have a reference or two of such community acceptance to reference to it. I will add the fact tag back in for now and wait to hear back. Pugget (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, the sentence has a reference to a reliable source. I have no opinion on Nieper or his work, having been familiar with neither prior to encountering copyright problems on this article, but the sources that I found on this individual suggest that he was the first to utilize this treatment, which has been subsequently used by others. This seems to be true whether the treatment is widely accepted or not. By the same token, Atkins (who counts Nieper his mentor) is the founder of the Atkin's Diet...whether or not it works (I don't know that, either). The primary source for that sentence is, with sentences such as "One of the first researchers to study...."; "Nieper's work...eventually gained credibility as clinical results followed. Nieper and other physicians have been clinically successful in treating various conditions with low doses of mineral orotates." Likewise Cancer and the search for selective biochemical inhibitors speaks several times of a treatment course it calls "Nieper therapy" or "Nieper anti-cancer therapy." This book, sourced in the article's note that no clinical studies support Nieper's treatment of MS, indicates that it is "one component of an approach to MS referred to as the Nieper regimen." (italics in original.)


 * The point of the lead, obviously, is to briefly summarize the body. The lead notes that he was controversial, makes no claims as to the success of his therapies. It needs to note that he invented this approach...a fact which seems indisputable based at least on the sources available to me. I did not find "pioneering" inherently laudatory, but presuming that you did replaced it with "foundational." Apparently, you also see this as laudatory. What neutral terminology would you suggest to succinctly convey that he was among the first to work with a substance and patented an approach that has subsequently been utilized by others?


 * Do you by any chance have access to the literature establishing the general consensus of the medical community? My reference pool is fairly general, and I tossed everything that seemed reliable that I could find into the pot. I saw plenty of web pages that suggested there might be more, but the ones I found were not in themselves reliable, and I do not have access to more professional publications. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this the same Hans Nieper who wrote about "Conversion of Gravity Field Energy"? A few sentences from an enthusiastic review : "In 1953 he developed a so-called shielding theory of gravitational effects and reintroduced the ether 'abolished' by Einstein. The results of lunar orbiting by NASA satellites confirmed Dr. Nieper's concept in principle. Only a small step remained for dr. Nieper to postulate the generation of unlimited, inexpensive power from the Tachyon-Field in space. Energy crisis, tachyon fields, N-machines for free energy, Nikola Tesla's automobile, gravity energy, earthquakes, cures for many diseases of civilization - all this and more in short reports from many unknown scientific conferences or articles, discovered by authors the world has yet to hear from." -- If so, then I don't care to look twice for a general consensus of any community worth bothering about. :-) Hexmaster (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article
This article replaces another article of the same title, much longer and much more highly referenced, which was deleted last year over the protests of its authors. This current article is woefully inadequate, neglecting to so much as mention the main achievements of Nieper, or to link to any of the various websites promoting his works. I hesitate to add any of this information to the current article, knowing full well that such information would be promptly deleted, just as the entire article was forcibly deleted over the protests of its authors last year, along with numerous another articles on alternative medicine, all at the same time.0XQ (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was a copyright violation as set out at Copyright problems/2009 April 4. Accordingly, the protest of its authors is meaningless. While the earlier version may have been more satisfactory to you, it was not legally ours to use, and as the bottom of every edit screen says, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Feeling that the individual was notable enough to merit an article, I added everything I could find in a reliable source. You are welcome to add more reliably sourced material, so long as it does not infringe copyright. However, links to various websites promoting his works are not likely to be appropriate under WP:EL. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to promote the works of the subject, but to neutrally report on them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Very Biased Article
This article doesn't explain any of Nieper's theories and dismisses him as a quack with no explanation whatsoever. It just says his treatments have been "discredited" as "ineffective" and "unsafe" and supports this with a link to a site called "Quackwatch" that reproduces an FDA statement from the 1986. But all the FDA page says is that the FDA has found "no evidence that the Nieper therapies are soundly or scientifically founded, and no studies that show his therapies are either safe or effective." That is not at all the same thing as a therapy being shown to be ineffective and unsafe. Moreover, the clinical trials required to be considered "safe and effective" to the FDA's satisfaction cost hundreds of millions of dollars. A more neutral article would give a fair presentation of his theories and simply note that his ideas are not accepted by the mainstream medical community or the FDA. I was looking for more description and specific criticism of his theories, not just vague dismissal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.250.64.10 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)