Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Klenner

The sage editor who wants to delete my article on Dr. Frederick Klenner claims the article “paints Klenner, a figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery, as a true medical visionary.” In fact the article, based mostly on investigative reporting and Dr. Klenner’s clinical reports from over 25 years of medical practice, gives a balanced view of Klenner’s career: It demonstrates Klenner’s success in using vitamin therapy — injected megadoses of vitamin C, as well as B vitamins — to relieve and cure a wide range of acute illnesses, including viral pneumonia, polio, measles, and tetanus. It also shows that Klenner tended to over-diagnose multiple sclerosis and thus exaggerate his cure rate for that disease.

Moreover, the Frederick Klenner article reveals the ugly side of Klenner’s personality: his domineering over his wife and children; his political sympathies for the Nazis, John Birch Society and Ku Klux Klan; his contempt for black people; his apocalyptic Catholic fanaticism; and his obsessive collection of guns and survival supplies, which he hoarded in anticipation of the coming apocalypse. None of this material was included in the earlier Wikipedia article on Fred R. Klenner — which I did not write, but contributed to — and which got deleted. Yet our sage editor insists that “the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one.” The old article, which gave a fragmentary and one-sided view of Klenner’s career, contained 16 footnotes. The current article, which gives a detailed and balanced view of Klenner’s career, contains 87 footnotes.

Our sage editor claims that “content about the subject and his life is all taken form [sic] a book by Jerry Bledsoe, in which Klenner is a minor character.” Wrong on both counts: While I draw heavily on Jerry Bledsoe’s carefully researched book of investigative reporting, Bitter Blood, I draw on other sources as well, such as Ebony magazine, Adelle Davis’s book Let’s Eat Right to Keep Fit, and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. And, far from being a “minor character” in Bledsoe’s book Bitter Blood, Frederick Klenner is mentioned over 50 times in that book, with several multi-page sections devoted to his life and career. Our sage editor goes on to admit that the Bledsoe book is a “reliable source,” all the while complaining I rely on it too heavily. He also complains that I draw on “unreliable sources, often faux-medical sources like Townsend Letter.” In fact, no mention of, or reference to the Townsend Letter appears in the Frederick Klenner article.

Our sage editor — once again demonstrating his equanimity and devotion to the truth — claims that I “wrote this (and virtually nothing else)” on Wikipedia. Wrong again. I am the main author of the articles on

We use third party sources, not a mans own claims to his works efficacy (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current article slavishly and uncritically repeats claims that he cured people. TNT needed. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject is not notable, however skilfully blown up with the appearance of references. Essentially we have here a single source and an attempt to portray the subject as significant with much trivial and unencyclopedic detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s reply to objections to primary sources

In this case, most of the primary sources cited — Dr. Frederick Klenner’s medical papers & case studies from 1948 to 1974 — enable scientific testing and refutation. Klenner provided precise data on his dosing and methods of injecting vitamin C (sodium ascorbate) to treat a wide range of acute diseases.

Medical doctors who view Klenner’s methods as quackery and his clinical reports as fringe science are at full liberty to test his methods and see if they can replicate his results — either on consenting human patients, or lab animals drawn from species — like haplorhine primates and guinea pigs — that, like humans, cannot synthesize their own ascorbic acid. Carefully observing and recording the results, such medical researchers can submit their studies to medical or scientific journals for publication. Once such studies get published, they can be summarized and added to the Klenner article.

What makes more sense: promoting free scientific inquiry via Wikipedia — or summarily suppressing data from an unorthodox medical doctor’s work, so as to bolster the hegemonic medical paradigm? Danslation (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacious rubbish. His claims have already been tested and found to be false. In any case that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards (though your comments do speak to your own biases). Guy (Help!) 07:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really: Klenner’s “claims have already been tested and found to be false”? Where? When? How? Can you cite a single scientific experiment that used Klenner’s dosing of sodium ascorbate and refuted his clinical findings? If so, why haven’t you added it to the Klenner article?

Regarding the question of bias, I appreciate your wry sense of humor: Evidently you, who launched this suppression campaign by denouncing Klenner — with no substantiation — as a “figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery,” have no biases, and no need to soil your hands with the facts of the real world. Nor any need to retract false and absurd claims that “the sourcing in this article is actually worse than the deleted one” or that it relies on Townsend Letter. Nor any need to apologize to the author for your slanderous assertion that he “wrote this (and virtually nothing else)" on Wikipedia. Danslation (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets use those reports by independent Medical doctors that support his findings. His work is not independent of him, it is not third party. As such it cannot be used for factual statements about his work, nor tare they a good way to demonstrate notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Klenner’s work is indeed not independent of him, it enables independent verification or refutation: In his clinical reports, Klenner laid bare his therapeutic methods, so that any other medical doctor or researcher can test them. Danslation (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's not a productive use of research time to painstakingly refute every piece of pseudoscience and every fringe theory someone comes up with. We also already have articles on his theories, and they should be primarily covered at those articles – they're already reasonably detailed, and you can always add to them, so this is hardly suppression.

WP:UNDUE weight to negative aspects of his personal life, the details of which are really not that notable, does not justify doing the same in the opposite direction to his theories. The article should do neither. If you really do want to work on it, I'd suggest keeping the article short and to the point, perhaps like Samuel Hahnemann. There is no need to have comprehensive coverage of the field he founded on the biographical page, and it would likely be better received if improvements were made at the topic article instead, with a WP:Summary style section linking to the main article.

Honestly, I understand if you're really passionate about this stuff, but Wikipedia isn't for "promoting free scientific inquiry", it's for collating, summarising and simplifying what's written in reliable sources. Having those ideals are great and all, but they aren't suitable for a genral encyclopedia: You're better off starting your own blog, YouTube channel, or petitioning your elected representative for research into those areas. Wikipedia is a hammer, and not everything is a nail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Far from fringe theory, this article covers over 25 years of clinical practice by a free-thinking medical doctor.Danslation (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

learn to indent your posts, and stop shouting. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read

wp:fringe might help as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Roxy's reply makes less sense after my edit, but that was an unreadable mess. See

WP:THREAD. --tronvillain (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries. I think the point has been well made. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but even if it weren't a fringe theory (which it is, even if a couple of people have devoted their careers to it) it's still more appropriately covered at the main article. Most of the content in the current article is irrelevant to his notability as a person, and will be deleted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you Wikipedia sages had been around in the 1650s, you would have deleted any biography of

steady state model

.

Note that Guy, who launched the campaign to suppress knowledge of the life and medical career of Frederick Klenner, lapsed into resounding silence when I called his bluff that Klenner’s “claims have already been tested and found to be false” — challenging him to cite a single experiment that used Klenner’s vitamin C dosing and refuted his clinical findings. For a smug religious fraternity, real-world facts have no use or value.

Danslation (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, as that is what policy would dictate, but that is so as to ensure that we do not give N-rays the same status as X-rays or piltdown man the same credibility as Australopithecus. The simple fact is most of us (are you?) are not qualified medical researchers, so we rely on those who are. And we rely on third parties precisely because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of accepting that Lamarckism is a valid scientific theory.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice Galileo gambit you have there, but it does nothing to establish notability here. If, in some unlikely event, Klenner somehow becomes a real Galileo, then he'll certainly merit an article. --tronvillain (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited User:Slatersteven's comment immediately above, for meaning. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct that is what I had intended to say, but it might have been best practice to just ask (rather then edit).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On an article that attracts such attention from true believers, perhaps you should proof read before making such edits. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.