Talk:Matthias Rath

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Start to February, 2011

Claims[edit]

Is it just me, or does this page spend an awful lot of time going over Rath's claims, without really noting they are unsubstantiated, poorly-researched and far from mainstream? Seems a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just you. None of Rath's claims are published in any relible sources nor are they the subject of any serious scientific debate. Looks like he is only notable for making stuff up and trying to sell it from the non-fiction aisle. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the removal of any information not discussed in independent sourcing, as required by WP:FRINGE. Yobol (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rath's claims are published in reliable sources, there are almost 100 publications on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=niedzwiecki+rath

Regarding his claims about heart disease:

The hypothesis of Matthias Rath and Linus Pauling that Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a surrogate for vitamin C and acts as repair molecule of the extracellular matrix (Hypothesis: Lipoprotein(a) is a surrogate for ascorbate) has recently been confirmed by a relevant new study with transgenic mice.

According to the hypothesis, mammals who cannot produce ascorbate in their body (primates, guinea pigs) suffer from structural damage to their blood vessel walls when ingesting too little ascorbate (early, subclinical form of scurvy). Lp(a) is almost exclusively found in the blood of those mammals that have lost the ability to produce ascorbate. Rath and Pauling supposed Lp(a) acts as a repair molecule by attaching to blood vessel walls during phases of ascorbate deficiency. This would be very useful for stabilizing the blood vessel walls but in the long run leads to formation of vascular plaques and atherosclerosis. The other way round, a continuously high supply of vitamin C should prevent blood vessel wall damage and heart disease.

The new study on transgenic mice considerably substantiates this hypothesis: Hypoascorbemia induces atherosclerosis and vascular deposition of lipoprotein(a) in transgenic mice. These mice have the human property of not being able to synthesize ascorbate in their body but do produce Lp(a) like humans. Solely by administering too little ascorbate with the feed the blood level of Lp(a) increased and atherosclerosis evolved. With vitamin C quantities in the feed that resulted in physiological ascorbate blood levels this did not happen.

This confirms the hypothesis of Rath and Pauling that subclinical ascorbate deficiency is the cause for atherosclerosis, not cholesterol, and makes it appear probable that this is also true for human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.132.81 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know when something that meets WP:MEDRS is published. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant designation of Rath as "controversial doctor, businessman and vitamin salesman" in the first sentence on the Article page makes it very obvious what's going on here: defamation instead of information. I changed that twice to "controversial doctor, scientist, and vitamin salesman" what is objectively much more appropriate. It was changed back twice …

Rath definitely is a scientist as can be seen from the abundance of his scientific publications and especially from his ingenious latest one with transgenic mice (see above). His business activities which earn the money for that research are sufficiently covered by the term "vitamin salesman". Well, why does Wikipedia behave like that? The answer may be found here: Accuracy of articles on Wikipedia: Serious questions continue to be raised 91.17.159.174 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from significant bias. A scientist who worked with the most important chemist of the 20th century, Linus Pauling, should not be characterized as a vitamin salesman. This article needs to be re-worked, but I don't see the point of working on it. Someone attempted to remove the "vitamin salesman" description, and it is being changed back. Tbbarnard (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being an important chemist is not contagious.
Linus Pauling was an ignorant medical layman and had no idea how to check if a substance helps against something.
We follow reliable sources. We do not delete text just because some random person on the internet disagrees with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling NPOV problems[edit]

I've rarely encountered a biography of a living person on Wikipedia as badly written as this one. Why the obsession with larding the lead section with every possible unsubstantiated or questionable criticism? The article as it now stands comes dangerously close to character assassination. It most certainly does not adhere to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. The article should be tagged for failing to adhere to NPOV and the editors who put it into its current sad shape need to be warned with a notice of violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. — Quicksilver^{T @} 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can point out specific content problems? --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely seen a biography written so badly? There are many. Look at Cheryl Cole's,for instance.92.31.89.208 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)92.31.89.208 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)92.31.89.208 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver, Rath seems to be a serious menace to the community, spreading misinformation on questions of life and death. People who defend him, like yourself, should identify themselves, not hide behind pseudonyms. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Lloyd-Jones: You write as if you were unaware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines in biographies of living people. Perhaps you should study them before casting aspersions against other editors. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrargyrum and Quicksilver:

The accusation that such-and-such is not neutral is a frequently used piece of venom around Wikipedia, I have long ago learned.

I bow to no one in respect for the value of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity. In this case, the "aspersion" that I was "casting," was the vile accusation that you do not sign your own name to your defense of this rascal. This is clearly true: you don't. Here you continue to pester me anonymously.

In any event, NPOV can only apply to the text of any 'pedia, not to discussions of editing policy which are always and everywhere, including here, as I have noted, venomous.

Cheers,

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Lloyd-Jones:

"... Here you continue to pester me anonymously ..."

I have no idea what you're talking about. To the best of my knowledge, our paths crossed on this Talk page, and nowhere else, with the last event 17 months ago. How does that constitute "pestering"? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you continue to pester me anonymously.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Footnotes[edit]

The article says "after a series of lawsuits and countersuits, Rath was ordered in 1994 to pay the Institute $75,000 and was assigned several patents.[6]" Click-through [6] tells us about patents, but not about Rath's patents. Other words portentously underlined in blue will click-through to tell us what a Nobel Prize is, though not anything about the one relevant here, and the fact that California is an American state -- twice.

Wikipedia is liberally littered with html anchors to the information that the New York Times is a newspaper, though rarely are we connected to NYT articles relevant to the subject at hand.

Aren't there any editors around this joint? David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research paragraph[edit]

When discussing a scientist's medical research, we include a summary of that research that has been discussed by secondary sources. In biographies of scientists, we do not include a paragraph about every single study they have ever published. Please establish the notability of any particular study or research program through secondary sources. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links moved to talk[edit]

In case there are potential references here: --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles, video, and news reports on Matthias Rath's activities from The Guardian
Skeptic's Dictionary: Matthias Rath
Treatment Action Campaign site on Rath Foundation, critical of Rath's activities
Matthias Rath's Cancer Treatment Criticized by Stephen Barrett, a 2005 article on Quackwatch
The Doctor Will Sue You Now by Ben Goldacre, a chapter on Matthias Rath from the book, Bad Science.
Vitacor, article on Rath's products from Cancer Research UK

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Matthias Rath. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthias Rath. 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/20160311235527/http://www.drrathresearch.org/drrath/biography.html to http://www.drrathresearch.org/drrath/biography.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthias Rath. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial doctor[edit]

Added August 2012. I'd say that's fairly stable

Maybe a more specific description would be better? --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor material added a long time ago is still poor. The manual of style explicitly lists "controversial" as one of the contentious labels that should be avoided. Saying "Person X is a controversial Y" conveys absolutely nothing useful to the reader. You simply need to explain why there is a controversy. This is pretty basic stuff in encyclopedia writing, and indeed it's already done perfectly well, in the second and third sentences of the article (I emphasise the part that explains the controversy):

Rath claims that a program of nutritional supplements (which he calls "cellular medicine"), including formulations that he sells, can treat or cure diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. These claims are not supported by any reliable medical research

So why are you so keen to violate the manual of style and add a simply unnecessary term of judgement to the article? 46.208.236.142 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ledes summarize bodies. "Controversial" is a fair (perhaps too mild) word. WP:NPOV is policy so the reaction to this guy's views needs to be clear. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it is clear. The word "controversial" does not do that. Have you read WP:WTW? Can you see that this word is explicitly listed there? Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. What do you not get about that? 46.208.236.142 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you so keen to violate Please observe WP:CIVIL, WP:FOC, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This word is being used watchfully. In this case it's a good one. All is well. If you want to add details about why there is controversy, that might be helpful; just deleting all the time isn't. Also WP:EW is policy too. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style is unambiguous: Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. The necessary information about relevant controversies is present. 82.132.222.58 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

46.208.236.142 has been blocked as WP:BKFIP. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blocked by Favonian - but looks like some IP hopping is going on ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request for semi-protection due to the IP hopping. It's such an odd (yet typically BKFIP) thing to fixate on — yes, "controversial" is often vague and should be used advisedly, but bothering to read the next sentences would amply supply the details. And the bolded words in the guideline saying that it should not be applied rigidly is a nuance completely neglected. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Oh that's too funny. You come so close to getting it! You have to be trying extremely hard not to understand the guideline - it's really clearly written. But then, you're not here to build an encyclopaedia, are you? You're here to pester and annoy the people who are. Have a think about yourself. Are you an adult? If so, why are you wasting your day falsely accusing me of all sorts of nonsensical things for following an extremely clear, unambiguous and common sense guideline? It's really pathetic, you know. 82.132.222.58 (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

82.132.222.58 is blocked as well. Yes, definitely WP:LTA/BKFIP; usual MO and one of their habitual IP ranges. The person is community-banned. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly improvement to be done here. I've been looking for new sources, but coming up empty. A emphasis on "vitamin sales and promotion" over doctor seems an obvious step in the right direction though. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Germany?[edit]

The Guardian says he was born in Holland although he claims to be Germany. Rustygecko (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section[edit]

This is the first time that I've looked at this page, so forgive me if I'm raising issues that have been dealt with earlier, but the "Controversies" section seriously needs looked at. There is no actual information here, and as far as I can see, no actual controversy either. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 15:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like remnants of cleanup from long ago:

@Valjean: [1]

@MastCell: [2][3]

It seems like a good introduction to some of the controversies around him, but I'm not sure where to place it. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]