Talk:Gary Null/Archives/2008/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Misspellings and POV

The number of misspellings and errors of fact on this discussion page make me wonder about the integrity of this article, currently and in the future, if chronic misspellers are the ones making editing decisions.

Further, there are at least three overly-assiduous editors monitoring this discussion page, as can be seen from the history. It may even be one overly-assiduous catlike state of readiness editor who thinks that the DISCUSSION PAGE must be kept under his/her obsessive control. Going forward, I will now say "haberdasher" or "haberdashery" on occasions when I would previously have said "douchebag" or "douchebaggery".

The repeated actions of the agenda-driven editor(s) make this article de facto POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

Since Gary Null is a person a date of birth would be a requirement, as well as revealing what colleges he attended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilrose (talkcontribs) 10:41, 14 March 2006

I dispute the neutrality of this article. It reads like promotional literature, not like a biography. There is legitimate dispute as to how Null got his PhD, etc. on None of this is in here. I would recommend this article be heavily edited or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:55, 15 March 2006

This is not a real article but a promotional blurb. Gary Null has some good things to say, but he is not the even handed promoter of health he clames to be. I think he is well meaning, but some of what he says is patently untrue. For example, his AIDS denial work is right up there with holocaust denying. Basically, Gary is a rival to the healthcare industry. He doesn't want you to buy pharmaceuticals but to buy Gary Null products from his website. His academic credentials are laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:39, 11 April 2006

Reverted to earlier version due to possible copyvio

Hi, I reverted this page to an earlier version as the material introduced at this point appears to violate the copyright at Please see WP:copyvio. I've tagged the article as requiring cleanup, wikification and referencing. - Politepunk 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is now more balanced. It is worth noting that it is easy to verify that Gary Null is now 61 years old by checking the internet.

This article is very poor. We have to find out more facts about GN and list them here in the comments section before working them into the text. I am very interested in his biography, but there is no information about it. If you listen to the show on the radio he frequently mentions his key role in virtually every facet of the "health movement". He also mentions doing extensive scientific research and knew people like Linus Pauling intimately. I find him to be less than credible, but I have no idea. His athletic achievments are seemingly trumped up. He is a respectible masters level race walker, but he is no "record holder" that I can verify. He does compete in sanctioned events, but holds no records from recognized governing bodies that I can find. GN is a very interesting person, but we need more facts and less promo. As it stands the article is at about the level of a 7th grade book report. TD

Isn't there someone out there, including Gary himself, who will provide some detailed information about Gary's backround? Where did he grow up? How did he come to New York? What is his actual role in the history of the natural foods movement? He is a tireless self-promoter, but he is very short on facts. He is simply overwhelming as a speaker. He can generate more phonemes per minute than almost anyone I've ever heard, but at times sounds like he is rambling.

He's discussed this on his WBAI radio show, but it was a long time ago. I used to have it on tape. I posted some of it to Compuserve's health forum, probably about 10 years ago. On the show where he described his education, he said he'd never do it again, which is why I recorded it. I remember him saying that the people grading his term paper were at odds over whether it was passable, despitse Gary having interviewed several "experts." He's also said that he and some other guy were the strongest in their state (or maybe it was city). This was at a time when he didn't eat right, by his definition, so maybe he has some freaky super-strong body by nature. -Barry- 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, this is terrible. this whole article may as well be deleted. I would happily rewrite it myself, but I don't have any facts. People who know facts about Mr. Null should write them here int he comments section so that they can be researched and added to the main page.

Article Problems

This article is slowly reverting back to a "puff piece". What is the reference on the short order cook info. Have you ever read a Gary Null book? There is no way that he "wrote" 70 books. These books are like cut and paste jobs of other people's opinions. Where are the facts!

I have added actual sections to the article and removed some of the more outlandish statements, but this is still hardly NPOV. We need to find some unbiased sources on Mr. Null and rewrite this article. --Danaman5 01:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has once again reverted to an ad written by someone within the Null organization. I have deleted all of the obvious material that is of questionable independent value.

Quackwatch has something to say about Gary Null It should also be noted that he thought it an honour to accept this award from the CCHR. As noted by Wipedia, "The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR; also sometimes known as the Citizens Committee on Human Rights) is an advocacy group established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Thomas Szasz".

Photograph here ->

As quoted on the website; "

Is it OK for the lead to say that he is a nutritionist? Doesn't use of this word require an acceptable level of qualification? Itsmejudith 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Following this I have seen the link that confirms him as a dietician and nutritionist. Itsmejudith 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the most interesting thing about Mr. Null is the dirth of verifiable information about him. It would make a good New York Times Sunday article to really look at the evidence about this quite powerful and controversial figure. He is really a new-age radio/televangelist for his own religion. He is frequently hilarious on the radio, especially when he gets angry, which is often. But one must admire or at least wonder at, his level of commitment. But, no one really knows anything about him. He drops names right and left. He has said he is responsible for billions of dollars of revenue in the health industry. But what is the real deal?

Quackwatch paraphrasing removed

Breveity, people!

I cut the opening section down to what it should be.

All the B.S. (he said-she said) I removed belongs on the site (which is already linked) or the discussion page here. I'm putting it here.

called a [[nutritionist]] and advocate of [[complementary and alternative medicine]] practising in the [[United States of America]]. One of the most interesting thing about Mr. Null is that there is a dirth of verifiable information about him. Many of the facts of his basic [[biography]] are unavailable. Interestingly, this is reflected in the [[poverty]] of [[information]] in this [[Wikipedia]] article. Over many months this entry has morphed from one inadequare form to another. At one point the article will be a copy of his "[[official]]" [[biography]] [], at another it will degenerate into a [[pastiche]] of poor [[writing]] and [[criticism]]. A general impression of Mr. Null can be gleaned from listening to his daily [[radio]] show. Like Mr. Null himself- we cannot refer to him as "Dr. Null" because that would be misleading- the show is difficult to categorize. The show frequently consists of Mr. Null holding forth on a variety of topics, from [[health]] and [[fitness]] to [[politics]] to [[world history]]. Much of what Mr.Null says is very interesting, but it is difficult for the unknowing reader to know what is [[wheat]] and what is [[chaff]]. Mr. Null is on record as a [[critic]] of the "[[HIV]] [[doctrine]]", the idea that [[AIDS]] is caused by [[HIV]]. For this Mr. Null has been ridiculed by [[gay community]], as well as [[medical]] [[professionals]]. The [[criticism]] by the [[gay]]/[[AIDS]] activism [[community]] is more telling perhaps than the [[criticism]] by the [[medical]] [[profession]]. One could argue that as a politically [[liberal]] [[critic]] of the medical [[profession]] Mr. Null would be an obvious target for politically and financially biased [[criticism]] by [[mainstream]] [[medicine]]. But the [[gay community]] would be considered [[prima facie]] to be natural [[allies]] of Mr. Null and so their rejection of him should be given a great deal of weight. Afterall, these are people who have everything to gain by finding treatments that work and are politically on roughly the same side as Mr. Null. Mr. Null's rejection of the [[HIV]]/[[AIDS]] connection would be laughable if not so harmful. Yes, he will quote "[[peer reviewed]] studies" that back up his claims, but Mr. Null generally displays a deep [[ignorance]] of the [[methodology]] of real [[science]] where the acid test of [[research]] is a [[rigorous]] attempt to falsify [[hypotheses]], not to confirm them. It is relatively easy to find [[research]] results confirming any number of results that can be refuted by one simple counter-example.

If someone feels so attached to any part of the above, please expand it enough so that it can stand as its own sub-section (look at the other sections as well as other bio's for examples) and submit it to the discussion page (here) first. If there's no objection/or after needed changes, then add the material as a separate subsection.

This article should be able to at least pass minimum standard now.

There is a major problem with your editing and your claim: not one fact that is stated can be verified. Gary Null does not have a PhD in the same sense as say Richard Feynman or Daniel Dennett. It is totally misleading to credit this BS alternative degree from a non-accredited school. --Mccabem 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC) I wrote the rather poor section, which you cut, because it stands in for the fact that no one has any real information about Gary Null. I therefore place it back as it was.

It is misleading to call Gary Null a PhD without qualification. The fact that he uses this non-standard degree in the way he does shows that he has disrespect for the people in his audience. Gary Null does not have a PhD from a regionally accredited school.

His qualifications

Could someone who knows how these things work in the US please explain Null's qualifications clearly in the article? I am confused because I thought in the US there was little or no accrediting of schools and therefore more or less anyone could buy a doctorate and call themselves "Dr". In the UK there are sometimes issues with people who have acquired doctorates in the US then being entitled to use the title in the UK. The cases of Ian Paisley and (with many parallels to Null) Gillian McKeith spring to mind. Itsmejudith 12:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no national accreditation in the US. Rather it is done by a small group of "regional" agencies, which are recognized by the states. All of the major US schools, such as Harvard are accredited by one of thses agencies. Thus, if you are on the east coast of the US the same agency would accredit Harvard as would accredit a smaller school in say, Connecticut. A PhD from one of these schools would be basically the same as a PhD from Oxford. Gary Null has a PhD from a non-traditional school and what he needed to do for that degree is radically different from what someone would have to do at Harvard, or at the University of Vermont, or at MIT. In fact, the difference is so profound that it is a kind of fraud for Gary Null to claim to have a PhD. I'm sure that Mr. Null(and I call him that because he does not really have a PhD)would claim to not care to accomodate himself to the "mainstream" but if that is the case why use this traditional title while not actually doing the work required to get it. I personally would be ashamed of myself to go around parading a PhD that is from a program one tiny step above that of a diplomma mill. The difference between Gary's "PhD" and one from an accredited school is that it is possible to get such a degree without taking any math, physics or chemistry.

Gary Null has a phenomenal memmory. But he never studied statistics or chemistry or had his work reviewed by a real PhD supervisor. His "disertation" wouldn't pass muster as a senior honors thesis at a decent school. Gary Null is not a real PhD. And yes, there really is such a thing in the United States.

Thank you very much for this clear explanation. It would be a good idea if the accreditation status were added to all the articles about universities and colleges, with links to articles about the relevant agencies. From your explanation it seems clear to me that Mr Null should not be described as PhD in this article. Itsmejudith 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[from a November 26, 2003 book review by "A Reader" on] The Union Institute is also accredited, but its degree requirements and standards for health-related doctoral degrees differ greatly from those of traditional universities. Students design their own program, form and chair their own doctoral committee, and are required to attend only an introductory colloquium and a few interdisciplinary seminars. Null's PhD committee was composed of a "core faculty member," three "adjunct professors," two "peers," and a "second core reader." The "core faculty member" is a well-credentialed academician whose expertise (in geologic sciences) is unrelated to Null's topic. One of the three "adjunct professors" was Martin Feldman, MD, a "complementary" physician (and "clinical ecologist") who has pinch-hit for Null as a radio host and helped develop some of Null's books and supplement formulations. When I asked a school official about the background or location of the other two "adjunct professors," he replied that information was in storage and was too difficult to obtain. Traditional universities require that research for a doctoral degree in a scientific discipline make a genuine contribution to the scientific literature. Larry R. Holmgren 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(Gary) Null's (PhD) thesis, entitled "A Study of Psychological and Physiological Effects of Caffeine on Human Health," contributes nothing. The stated purpose of his project was to evaluate (1) caffeine's effects on "adrenal function determined by a medical examination," (2) "its perceived psychological effects as recorded in a questionnaire and daily diary, and (3) "the anabolic effect of caffeine according to a theory proposed by Dr. E. Revici." [The two paragraphs above are from a November 26, 2003 book review by "A Reader" on] Larry R. Holmgren 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(Emanuel Revici, MD, was a physician in New York City whose methods were disparaged by the American Cancer Society. State licensing authorities placed Revici on probation in 1988 and revoked his license in 1993 after concluding that he had violated the terms of his probation.) Larry R. Holmgren 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"So what do they do? They start writing articles in the New York Daily News. Boy, that's a paper that loves to write crap on people, isn't it? Wanna talk about a paper that supports fascism! Man, I've seen more doctors hatcheted in there. The butchery they did on Emmanuel Revici, the butchery they did on Lawrence Burton, calling him nothing more --- what was the quote the guy said?. . . "Burton is nothing more than a horse doctor." Denigrating him, tearing down his character."— Fascism in Medicine by Gary Null, Ph.D Larry R. Holmgren 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Above anonymous editor is uttering rubbish when saying that there are "regional" authorities supervising the issueing of degreees. Rather, there are state departments of education. Dogru144 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
In the United States, "state departments of education" do not regulate issueing of degrees. There are accrediting organizations, including some recognized by the United States Department of Education, which determine whether a degree is accredited. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

Please place proper signatures after your comments! Simply use four tildes (~~~~). Now go back and do it for each comment on this page. For previous comments use three tildes (leaves only your user name), unless you would be so kind as to use the edit history and also write the correct time for each comment. -- Fyslee 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is helpful to have signatures but when they are missing perhaps we could assume that it is a new user who doesn't know the ropes. Any more experienced user will be pleased to help. Itsmejudith 14:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

When can we take disputed tag off?

We aren't edit warring about this article, so can we reach a consensus and take the tag off? One less thing to worry about! Itsmejudith 14:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole other side to Gary Null that isn't readily apparent on his website or his Wiki article to date. He appears to be part of the Anti-psychiatry movement and also have ties to Scientology. He has written several articles with a clear anti psych slant. [1] [2] He has also interviewed other notable anti-psychs like Breggin and Baughman and accepted awards from the CCHR. Freedom magazine quotes him as stating that:"“After reading this book, no longer will we feel that many completely normal patterns of behavior will arbitrarily be labeled as madness. If anything, the economic self-serving interest of an unscientific group will be shown for what they are — a group of emperors with no clothes.” That quote is in reference to the book entitled Psychiatry the Ultimate Betrayal. [3]

The article in Wiki is still biased and does not give a true picture of the public face of this man. --Scuro 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone would write and insert into the article about his significant anti-psychiatry writings and his possible involvement with Scientology, then the tag could be taken off.

--Scuro 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the links suggested above but neither of them seemed to be to be explicit enough to be able to say much about him and the anti-psychiatry movement. I'm not sure that accepting awards from the CCHR is enough to link someone to Scientology, either. Could you suggest a form of words here and then we can discuss whether it is supported by the sources. Thanks.Itsmejudith 11:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an anti-psychiatry club with a membership list. I'd guess that he is not a scientologist but has a strong anti-psychiatry bias that would have attracted scientology to his message. I'll try to come up with edit in the next few days.

Here are some links for further reading about Null.,9171,990975,00.html A January 17, 2006 letter to WBAI from ACT UP/NY, Eric Sawyer at 917-951-5758, urging that Gary Null not return to WBAI because he denies that HIV causes AIDS, denies that there is an AIDS epidemic, et. al. The Null Hypothesis: Comments on Gary Null's "Death by Medicine" by James R. Laidler, MD The Death by Medicine article by Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD. James Randi's commentary on Florsheim Shoes. In the booklet, under the title, "About magnets and magnetic therapy," Florsheim makes a series of astonishing statements that can certainly get your attention.... These "scientific" statements are taken from a book "Healing with Magnets," by Gary Null, Ph.D. Dr. Null is armed with lawyers and is fond of brandishing them. He endorses the use of magnets and laetrile for curing cancer, he opposes vaccination, recommends coffee enemas, and declares that "misaligned" bony plates of the skull cause a raft of medical problems - all notions that have been shown quite erroneous. The "Consumer's Guide to 'Alternative Medicine'" comments, "Gary Null is wrong so often that the average person who listens to him might be better off believing the opposite of what he says." [He quotes from Gary Null's book. Gary seems to equivocate about electrically charged ions, magnetic fields, and gravity!] Null is fired from WBAI 12-1-04 and sues. Where Null is suspended from WBAI for 5 weeks for commenting on WBAI station election candidates. An Alternative View for Treating Mental Disorders: The Food-Mood-Body Connection. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, April 2001. A book review by Jule Klotter.

I'm a little busy, someone else care to edit? --Scuro 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation of Union Institute

So maybe we are still edit warring. I personally have no very strong pro or anti Null views but just want to see the article NPOV. It seems that the school he attended is an unorthodox one but is currently accredited. The crucial factor though is: was it accredited when Null got his PhD? Anybody know? Itsmejudith 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While this school is accredited- it was an error on my part not to make this clearer- it's PhD program is only accredited for either "interdisicplinary studies" or the "PsyD". The accreditation board is explicit that: "The Ph.D. program in Interdisciplinary Studies is limited to the social sciences and humanities research areas." One would have assumed that Mr. Null's PhD is in some sort of science. What credibility would it give him to have a PhD in a humanities interdisiplinary degree? Anyone with any academic backround knows that this is a pure fluff degree. I don't see how anyone can question that Null is trying to pump up his resume with this degree. What does Null claim his PhD is in? For example, Dr. Laura Shlesinger has a PhD in physiology from, I believe, Columbia University. While that doesn't give her much credibility as a therapist for some, in my mind it gives her tremendous credibility as an intellect. Null's PhD stands as an embarrassment. Thomas

Thank you again. Reworded slightly and hopefully this text can now stand.Itsmejudith 13:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I think this now stands as an accurate depiction of all that is known about Null.Thomas

Thanks. Let's leave it a week and then remove the POV tag. Itsmejudith 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote "great job" above the article had no bs and was basically just a bare sketch, but it had no flagrant promo stuff in it. Now it is begining to creep back to where it was. Please, 70 books?! How many books did Linus Pauling write? One thing: Gary did know lots of celbrities. He was on the Tonight Show interviewed by Johny himself. How many other scientists can say the same. thomas 2/6/07


I am new to Wikipedia. I added four paragraphs to Gary's biography.

I have listened to many hours of his radio show. He has never "gotten mad," rather he is a model teacher. I also have never heard him speak of scientology on his radio show. He is encyclopedic in his knowledge. He references peer-reviewed journal articles often.

Yes, he is guarded about his background. He said he has a daughter, Shelly Null. Since he promotes an "anti-aging" diet he does not brag about his advanced age. He has pride in his marathon race-walking. When he asserts a human might live to be 130, yes, this is an ideal and open to criticism, just like the life insurance actuarial tables that mathematically give the average 120-year old just 6 more months to live.

I have sent requests for info on his education and best-selling books to his website, although I have had no response within a week.

I surmise that the writer above did not read Gary Null's PhD dissertation. He mentioned it on the radio a couple years ago. I think he said physiology. A week or two ago (a rebroadcast ~January 3, 2007 KPFK-90.7 FM) he discussed getting his PhD in the context of the scientific method. In the process of completing his PhD thesis he learned that one must address the criticism, to attempt to show how the hypothesis could be false, thus to not merely be an advocate, but an objective scientist.

 What has never been doubted, has never been proven.
 ---Denis Diderot 1713-1784, French radical Enlightenment 
 philosopher and Chief Editor of the Encyclopédie, 
 in 'Pensées Philosophique'(1746). Larry R. Holmgren 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

When an iconoclast or dissenter or advocate takes on a political issue of public policy or the pharmaceutical cartel or the medical establishment or the psychiatric industry one can expect to attract political attacks, personal criticism, even ad hominum attacks. If one is attacking scientific dogma is it fair to characterize this as an "anti- bias"?

Is it fair to analogize historical facts (the Nazi Holocaust---work camps and concentration camps) and a scientific, biological controversy (AIDS, the HIV virus, and ARC)? 1-14-07. It is not. Larry R. Holmgren 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Larry R. Holmgren 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Larry. Thanks for your contributions. I am trying to keep this page strictly neutral about Gary Null. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy, available at WP:NPOV. Also, we should ensure that everything that goes in this article is referred to a very good source, for example an article in a mainstream newspaper. The encyclopedia article is not the place to go into any detail about whether Null is right or wrong about anything, just to provide facts and links so that the reader can make up his or her own mind. By the way, the accepted way to sign your contributions is by typing four tildes, ~~~~, which will add your username and the date/time automagically. Itsmejudith 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the James Randi Foundation or the Wikipedia contributor of the CRITICISM section could specifically and comprehensively explain for the layman what are the "other medieval tools" prescribed by Gary Null. I am sure the salubrious effect (or nonexistant benefit) of wrist magnets can be addressed separately. Larry R. Holmgren 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps James Randi was referring to this as a medieval tool,..."Ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) is a synthetic amino acid that was developed during World War II as an antidote for poison gas contamination. After the war, chelation therapy became the treatment of choice for victims of lead poisoning, and it still remains unsurpassed for that purpose. But chelation therapy has additional advantages. Especially noteworthy is its ability to improve cardiovascular function and other degenerative conditions involving impaired blood flow.
Chelation therapy binds toxic metals and minerals from the body’s tissues, transporting them to the bloodstream and eliminating them through the kidneys. It also removes calcium deposits from parts of the body in which it is not needed (but never from parts of the body where it is needed). This ability to draw out harmful plaque and increase blood flow makes it an excellent treatment for many age-related disorders, including memory loss, Alzheimer’s disease, impotency, heart disease, and arthritis".
There are a lot of unproven methods at his was hard to identify the one Dr. Randi was referring to.
--Scuro 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Any suggestions for specific alterations to the article? Views are bound to differ about alternative medical treatments - are we reflecting those different views accurately and with due respect to the requirements of a biography of a living person?Itsmejudith 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, I think simply we should try document the types of treatments he recommened and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I'll try to add a bit tonight. --Scuro 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is getting worse and worse, rather than better. NPOV is not what you see here. This makes me start to doubt the validity of Wikipedia for this type of person. If you read the wikipedia article about say "taurine" it has a completely different character from this article. Why is this? It is because it is based on facts. The number of facts about Gary Null are few and far bewteen. The article about Gary's "critique" of psychiatry is particularly bad. There are many, many problems with the way medicine is done. Conversely, some of what Null says is true. This doesn't make medicine bad and Null good.

Please- find us some facts! And I think the most significant one is Null's silence. Come on Gary, I'm sure you read this from time to time. Where are the facts! What are you afraid of? Thomas

getting to a point where the POV can be removed

With reference to the recent edits, I'm going to remove the sentence about his questioning the existence of cancer, ADHD and AIDS. Firstly I don't know if he really does question the existence of cancer. On ADHD I believe there are many people who question its use as a diagnosis - I heard a fully qualified practising educational psychologist take that view at a seminar I attended recently. On AIDS, I believe Null may be an AIDS sceptic. These are three quite different issues in terms of how they relate to mainstream thinking. His views on these issues are noteworthy and the way to include them is by finding specific references in his books, or possibly in on-line texts that we can be sure he has authored. Not in his radio shows, though, because they can't be verified. And his statements should be cited or summarised without comment. It may also be necessary for the sake of balance to say something about his advice on less controversial topics.Itsmejudith 11:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream science does not question the existence of AIDS, ADHD, or Cancer. He has taken on highly noteworthy positions on these topics and they should be mentioned. He is considered to also be part of the anti-psychiatry movement and this should be mentioned also. References will be included in the next edit.

--Scuro 12:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already agreed that his positions on these issues are noteworthy. Just bear in mind the need for references before attributing positions to him. Itsmejudith 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The expansion is good. I'm not sure if his critism of the "cancer industry" was limited to a single article. From what I remember in researching him, this was a long held position of Nulls. The AIDS/HIV sentence is also far too brief for the sensational position he took on the issue. His positions on mental disorders which are also sensational need a "beefing up". Would you like to work on that, or should I?

--Scuro 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be really happy if you worked it up. I'm going to check that his bibliography contains all his published books with ISBNs. I guess that there will be pages for the AIDS controversy and a link to them could be provided. If you can keep the tone entirely neutral per WP:BLP it will be appreciated.Itsmejudith 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about some very sensational viewpoints here and I will do my best to document these viewpoints in a brief, neutral, and concise manner. This information should be neutral but I can't control how it will be interpreted by others. With the additions, it will be more of a balanced article and at that point I'd have no problems removing the POV tag...especially if unilateral editors can stop deleting information (without discussion first) that casts Null in any sort of negative light. Really, the main issue I have have with the article is the significant public parts of his life that are missing from the profile.

--Scuro 21:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I added many books with dates, pages, and ISBN # this weekend. Several long articles that were on his website,, are now gone. The Nursing Home Protocol was in the lower right corner of the home page. A couple years ago an anti-psychiatry report was available there too. I downloaded it. It had many typos. No reply in four weeks to my E-mailed biographical questions via his website! It's me, Larry. Larry R. Holmgren 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's looking like a better article and getting closer to the time when the tag should be removed. It still needs a section titled, Critic of Psychiatry, and a section on his major interests such as anti-aging and nutrition. These sections should go into a little detail. The aids/hiv thing also needs to be beefed up a little. It seems like he ruffled a fair number of feathers with his stance and is notable for that. I don't know a lot about it.

--scuro 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All fine stuff except for one thing, that we are sourcing too much to websites that are likely to change. It seems per Larry's points that Null takes articles on and off his website. This creates a problem in regard to WP:V.Itsmejudith 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to tackle this one problem at a time. The first problem is taking the POV tag off. Can anyone help with this? (It still needs a section titled, Critic of Psychiatry, and a section on his major interests such as anti-aging and nutrition. These sections should go into a little detail.)
--scuro 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the tag off. And also, as you'll have seen I removed the material sourced to the website, as I don't think we can be sure that this non-notable website is quoting Null accurately. Because he is a controversial writer, and because of WP's very strict policies about bio's of living people, we just have to be careful. The Time article could be quoted at greater length, and anything Null has said in his books must surely be a good reflection of his viewpoints. I'm happy to see summaries included of what he has said about anti-aging, nutrition, conventional medicine etc., but sourced mainly to published, written material, failing that, to respected web sources. Hope all editors will understand. Oh, and last point, I would think that criticism of psychiatry could be included in the same section as criticism of conventional medicine because psychiatry is part of medicine.Itsmejudith 21:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it was quite a chunk and I know that effort had gone into finding it. I shouldn't have let it stay in so long. If you refer again to WP:BLP it does say that it is the duty of editors to remove poorly sourced material immediately and the three-revert rule does not apply. Not that we're in the reverting game here. I don't think that the article as it stands is POV. It is not as comprehensive as it could be in covering all the subject's voluminous views and interests but a reader coming to it new would find useful information and a basis to make up his or her own mind, researching further if they so wished.Itsmejudith 09:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not that similar information can't be found. It probably can be. What makes that chunk of information useful was that much of it quoted him or sourced his work. Do you believe that this information is bogus? Can you tell me anything about that website that makes it inappropriate? I will try to add a bit more to the article this weekend so it is more complete and informative.--scuro 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just need to refer you to WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." The website isn't a reliable, third-party published source. And your proposal is to use it for some rather ... let's say ... unusual views. (It's not just for Null's date of birth, for example.) Having said that, WP:V allows that a subject's blog could be used to supply information about the subject's views, in certain circumstances, which I'm going to look up and quote. I know for sure those circumstances aren't met. We know absolutely nothing about this website. I don't even know which country the .to suffix relates to, if it is a country. The issue Larry refers to below, about material coming on and off Null's website may be notable in itself, if we are able perhaps to use a Google cache or suchlike to verify it.Itsmejudith 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The article can be improved upon but I believe it is at a point where the POV tag could be taken off. --scuro 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional Protocol

Additionally, last year his website was soliciting people for a hair clinic to turn grey hair dark again by following an extensive nutritional protocol, eg., 6.5 gr of 12 nutrients + 6 oz. sea vegetables + 48 oz. dark green vegetable juice each day. It's also gone from his home page. [see documents] A critic (The Amazing James Randi) asserted that he knows a dye job when he sees it (referring to Gary Null's dark hair). Three replys to my e-mails to James Randi's Educational Foundation were sarcastic, glib, and dismissive. To a request for specificity on "other medieval tools" I received no clarity and no information. Perhaps he could modify its name. Larry R. Holmgren 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Other critics (book reviewers on and Jeffery Kluger with Alice Park in their Time Magazine article, Sunday, May 09, 1999) say the book on anti-aging was filled with ~300 testimonials, and that his nutritional protocols have not been tested in a double-blind study. The health support group in Los Angeles also disappeared from the website. Perhaps they will return in the spring 2007. The nutritional supplements, et. al. protocol for people in his health support group was "non-disease specific" yet people who suffered from various chronic conditions and followed the protocol made astounding recoveries.

A few months later, circa early 2006, he said he would stop trying to convince arthritis sufferers to change their diet because they were too stubborn to make the radical changes in their dietary habits. And this is what Gary is asking people to do. Larry R. Holmgren 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

About 18 months ago on a rebroadcast of his show Gary calmly related this story with no animosity in his voice. His father came to Gary for help with a cancerous tumor. The doctors had sent Gary's father home to die of cancer. Gary fed him green vegetable juice and many nutrients. post hoc ergo propter hoc the tumor shrank. The doctor called Gary a few months later to ask, When did your father pass away? The doctor was surprised that the man was alive and that the tumor was reduced. The doctor asked to see him. So the father left town and went to see his doctor, but was made to wait more than a week while off the protocol. The tumor grew. He died. (The father had faith in the doctor but not in the good nutrition his son had offered.) Larry R. Holmgren 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, about two years ago Gary Null told about a man he went to help with his good nutrition protocol. The man weighed 800 pounds, had an enlarged heart (?), et. al., and a black, gangrenous leg! The doctors wanted to cut off the leg! Gary offered to help him. He agreed to follow Gary's protocol. His condition improved. The leg returned to normal. He lost weight. Now, the man is training for the New York Marathon! Larry R. Holmgren 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nursing Home Protocol (pages 113-116) consists of (1) diet, (2) supplementation, and (3) exercise. Copyright © Gary Null and Associates, Inc. 2005. Larry R. Holmgren 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DIET: 1) Intake of animal protein should be reduced (1x week) and the consumption of cold-water fish should be increased (3x week). 2) Additional protein should be obtained from whole grains, legumes and seeds. If needed a protein powder supplement may be used. 3) The diet should provide 40-50 grams of fiber a day. 4) At least one (preferably 3) serving of cruciferous vegetable should be provided daily, for example, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower. 5) 1-2 glasses of dark green leafy vegetable juices/day. The juices should include a 1-inch length of ginger, aloe concentrate and protein powder. 6) ½ to 1 gallon of water ingested/day. 7) Caffeine, soda [pop], white sugar, and refined white flour products should be reduced to a minimum. For optimal results, they should eliminated completely. 8) Olive oil should be used for cooking purposes. 9) Supplements should be taken with meals in divided doses where noted.

Following the description of the supplement protocol there are hundreds of pages of detailed peer review journal articles of human studies and trials demonstrating the efficacy and suggested dosages of single amino acids, vitamins, nutrients, minerals, and herbs. Larry R. Holmgren 02:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Mister Natural. Time Magazine, Sunday, May 09, 1999, by Jeffery Kluger with Alice Park. Two page article disparaging Gary Null's message and 1999 book, Get Healthy Now. "Staying healthy can be a difficult business, requiring people to rip out the very foundation of their beliefs about health care. The problem is, some of what he's replacing it with feels a little wobbly too." Larry R. Holmgren 02:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Larry R. Holmgren 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Larry R. Holmgren 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC),9171,24466,00.html Larry R. Holmgren 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the ingredients list of Gary's Anti-aging powder ($26.95 for 21 servings for protein, anti-oxidants, phytonutrients, vitamins, herbs, and minerals)---Vitamin C and E, Beta Carotene, Selenium, Green stuff (dried wheat grass, Spirulina plankton,, Red Stuff (19 dried fruits mixture, pectin, & lecithin), Aloe Vera, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, Phosphatidyl serine, Lycopene, Ginko biloba, Royal Jelly, Lactobacillus Acidophilus, Lactobacillus Bifidus, Bee pollen, herbal blend, soy protein and fruit sugar. Larry R. Holmgren 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is the Quack?

I removed the reference that Stephen Barrett is critical of Gary Null because, after reviewing much discussion on the talk pages of SB article, it seems that Stephen Barrett failed his psychiatric boards, yet held himself up as an expert in his field in legal arenas as an expert witness. This seems to fall under the definition of quackery per the article on quackery: "A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan."Quackery So apparently, he has no 'qualifications' to judge who is and who is not, anything. Gary Null seems at least to have passed all of his educational requirements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steth (talkcontribs) 10:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

We are not endorsing any criticisms of Gary Null, simply reporting that they have been made. I will look at the Barrett page though to consider what it implies.Itsmejudith 11:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Judith, but I respectfully disagree. IMO, Barrett information/sites are not reliable sources. He has a reputation of volleying biased attacks lacking fact-checking and accuracy (all while asking for donations). For example, a criticism of nurtrition should come from someone/something coming from a nutritionally based background, don't you think? I hope you would agree and leave it removed. Thanks Steth 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't sign up to either Barrett's way of seeing the world or Null's. I'm not sure now whether the fact that Barrett has criticised Null is encyclopedic and will wait for others to comment. Itsmejudith 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head, Judith. Barrett's criticism of Null is not encyclopedic. Null's interests fall way outside of Barrett's limitied psychiatric background. Further, when the reasons I detailed above are weighed in, it certainly fails as worthy of inclusion. So, how about it? Let's remove it. Thanks Steth 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I second the removal whole-heartedly. Null has plenty more critics, many who are actually well-qualified enough to have their opinions posted in this article. Kaemera 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm undecided at this time. Barrett's opinion is noteworthy because he's the recognized expert on quacks, even by some (US) government agencies (and some quacks, except with respect to their specific field of quackery). However, his articles are frequently inappropriate to include as references. In other words, Barrett's criticism may be removed if this specific article is considered an "attack page" or if the same criticisms are may be experts in the particular field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's views are notable, relevant, and do not represent a minority view. He points out serious concerns with Null. Why would those qualities not be encyclopedic? --scuro 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of Barrett's credentials and neutrality are dealt with on the Barrett page. I am not going to debate your assumptions with you on the Null talk page. You can do so on the Barrett talk page and if your ideas are unique and important they should be included on the Barrett article.

Barrett's opinion on Null is noteworthy and the reader's can make up their own mind about him by using the internal link to the Barrett's Wiki page. --scuro 17:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Barrett's opinion is noteworthy because you say it is noteworthy. Got anything else? Perhaps we should clarify that Barrett's credentials are only in psychiatry, not health or nutrition or diet or research like Gary Null's. And while Barrett has a problem with Null's credentials, Barrett's viewpoint on this may be questionable as one to criticize, since he failed his psychiatry boards and didn't reveal this when being paid to testify as an expert witness in psychiatry in legal arenas. See definition of Quackery "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." What do you think? Should we clarify that in order to make it more NPOV and cover all the bases? How shall we work it into the article Steth 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Null has credentials? They're not mentioned in the article.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not the forum to debate Barrett, do that on Barrett's discussion page. If they have conclusively decided that his opinion is notable or not notable, please inform us.

Back on topic -> How would you measure if website or someone's opinion is notable? --scuro 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary just announced that he has completed a 4,000 page letter to sue the quack busters (on health and nutrition). 2-14-07 4AM PST on KPFK-90.7 FM. Also see his prior lawyer letter on his website on sugar and being excluded from the PBS station in Washington, DC. Larry R. Holmgren 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Letter to the Sugar Industry, March 14, 2003.

"Written by Gary Null: Yes Article Body:

March 14, 2003

Mr. Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP 1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005-3917

Re: The Effect of Sugar on the American Diet

Dear Mr. Tenenbaum:

As you may recall, I am General Counsel to Gary Null’s Anti-Aging Center, Inc. and a personal attorney for Gary Null, Ph.D. On June 21, 2002, you wrote Mr. Null a letter calling into question some of the statements that he made in his PBS public health documentary, “Seven Steps to Perfect Health.” In large part your letter challenged Mr. Null’s opinion that sugar, as it is currently consumed, is an unhealthy component of the modern American diet. On June 26, 2002, we responded by writing you a brief letter saying that we would take your letter under advisement, review the research that you presented, and undertake our own independent investigation.

Your letter was particularly important to us because we believe that we were removed from certain public television stations, such as WETA in Washington, D.C., because of the negative statements in your letter concerning our Seven Steps program. We understand that you sent copies of your letter to Pat Mitchell, the President of PBS, as well as to Sharon Rockefeller, the President of WETA. In your letter you attempted to convey that our program contained certain improper opinions and inaccurate statements regarding the consumption of sugar and its effects on human health. Despite the show’s proven success as both a fundraiser for PBS stations and as an educational primer on good health and nutrition, we were surprised to discover that WETA was influenced by your letter to remove our program from their schedule. Specifically, we were advised that Ms. Rockefeller, as a recipient of your letter, prevailed upon the program director of WETA to censor Seven Steps and remove it from the station’s schedule." ...

Very truly yours, David M. Slater General Counsel

© 1996-2006 Gary Null & Associates, Inc. (GNA). All Rights Reserved. Larry R. Holmgren 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Larry R. Holmgren 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Critic of Psychiatry and Null's connection to the CCHR

Gary Null had a white paper titled The Hidden Side of Psychiatry posted on his website, which I printed on 1/1/2002. It had many typos. It should be available from the internet archives. It is 38 pages with 49 endnotes. The 1993 book, Bedlam, by Joe Sharkey, the anti-psychiatry crusade by the CCHR, Thomas Szasz's book, The Manufacture of Madness and his articles, Peter Breggin's 1991 book Toxic Psychiatry and his 1994 book, Talking Back to Prozac, several other expose books, and 21 actual patient interviews coalesced into this expose. Many patient interviews are dated February 1995. Several 1996 references and one from 1997 indicate 1997 as the final year of composition. In notes 20, 23, 37 and pages 11 and 12, he references four publications from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), 1995. Page one references another CCHR publication from 1993. The CCHR is also known as The Church of Scientology. Page 8 references a sixth CCHR publication from 1997.

Introduction "Millions of individuals are being grievously harmed by the mental health profession, and it's time that we as a society faced this." Page 1. "As you will see, people seeking help from the mental health industry are often misdiagnosed, wrongfully treated, and abused. Others are deceptively lured to psychiatric facilities, or even kidnapped. No matter how they arrive, though, once they are there, inmates lose all freedoms and are forced to undergo dangerous but sanctioned procedures, such as electro convulsive therapy and treatment with powerful drugs, that can leave them emotionally, mentally, and physically marked for life. Some psychiatric patents (sic) are physically and sexually abused. Millions more are told that they need harmful medications, such as Prozac and Ritalin, but are not told of the seriously damaging side effects of these. Add to this a mammoth insurance fraud-which we all pay for-and what we have, in sum, is the dark side of psychiatry." Page 1.

Fraudlent Practices in Mental Health Fraud conducted by National Medical Enterprises (NME) which owned several chains of psychiatric hospitals was exposed by Joe Sharkey in his 1993 book, Bedlam: Greed, Profiteering, and Fraud in a Mental Health System Gone Crazy. Page 1.

Massive Increase in Government Spending New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller supported a 1962 "master plan for dealing with mental illness" that would provide "more modern care, research and community care." In 1963 President Kennedy called for a national mental health policy that "relies primarily upon new knowledge and new drugs...which make it possible for most of the mentally ill to be successfully and quickly treated in their own communities." Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs) were implemented by law and led to more fraud. Pages 2-3.

Insurance Scams Patient brokering, bogus and nonexistant treatments and other health care fraud led to government prosecutions, massive fines and penalties in 1993. Pages 3-5. Elderly people being transferred to for-profit private mental hospitals is done for their Medicare money. Page 16.

Pointless Research by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Gary concludes that the NIHM wastes hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Pages 5-6.

Inhumane Treatment The involuntary commitment of about 1.5 million people each year is sanctioned by law. Page 6.

Electro convulsive Therapy (ECT) ECT was first used in 1938 by psychiatrist Ugo Cerletti. "Evidently, to Cerletti, anything less than fatal was 'harmless'." Since patients have a real terror of ECT, the treatment is effective because it shocks the patient back into reality. There is permanent memory loss. The mortality rate may be 1 in 200. "ECT is the psychiatrist's most lucrative treatment." Pages 7-9. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larry R. Holmgren (talkcontribs) 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC). Larry R. Holmgren 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse of Female Patients in Violation of the Hippocratic Oath "A 1987 survey (of over 1400 psychiatrists) found that 65 percent of the psychiatrists reported treating patients who had been sexually involved with previous therapists...." Page 10.

Exploitation of Minorities "Psychiatry is built on a foundation of prejudice against minorities, particularly African-Americans." " [Benjamin] Rush would become known as the "Father of American Psychiatry" with his face immortalized on the seal of the American Psychiatric Association, perhaps as a reminder of how psychiatry sees illness where none exists." Page 11. "Psychiatric "treatment" of African Americans has included some of the most barbaric experiments ever carried out in the name of 'scientific' research---and not very long ago." Page 12.

Nazi Influences on American Psychiatry in Eugenics, a Pseudo-science Gary Null traces the influence of (1) Ernst Rudin (1874-1952), 1932 world leader of the eugenics movement, as President of the IFEU and advisor to Hitler, (2) Franz J. Kallmann (1897-1965), scion of Rudin, who emigrated from Germany to America and in 1936 became head of the psychiatric genetics program at the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) at Columbia University. Kallmann was funded by NIMH for 25 years. He advocated sterilization of schizophrenics and their apparently healthy relatives, and (3) medical genetist Linda Erlenmeyer-Kimling (Kallmann's collegue). Pages 13-15.

Prozac Gary Null summarizes Dr. Peter Breggin's assertions against Prozac: that Prozac should never have been approved, its clinical trials were worthless, and the side effects are horrendous (overstimulation, akathasia, psychosis, depression, tartive dystonia, tartive dyskinesia, sexual disfunction, skin rashes, and tumor growth). Pages 17-20.

Chemical Imbalance Theory Larry R. Holmgren 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) "Psychiatrist David Kaiser...points out that 'modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness." Page 20. "Psychiatrists never look beyond 'symptoms', they merely classify symptoms as the 'disease'. Page 21. "In psychology and psychiatry there is a phenomena called 'theory begging' which can explain the notion of 'chemical imbalances'. Theory begging is the reporting of a scientific theory as 'fact' so often that it becomes accepted as fact within the profession despite never having been proven. Page 21. "As David Kaiser had noted, psychiatrists cannot measure levels of neurotransmitters in the brain in the way doctors can measure sugar levels in a diabetic patient. The question must be asked then, how can you balance or adjust something which cannot be measured? More importantly, does an actual chemical imbalance exist? Parents are told routinely that children given an ADD diagnosis have a chemical imbalance and that amphetaminelike drugs will balance the child's brain chemistry." Page 21. Larry R. Holmgren 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Larry R. Holmgren 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that Null uses the CCHR as a source and also has accepted an award from the organization which he allows the CCHR to use on their website. This relationship should be included into the article because it shows an affiliation with this controversial organization.
I still believe that there should be separate section for anti-psychiatry. Unlike other antipsychs like Breggin, he has gone out of his way to criticize conventional medicine. He is unique in that regard. --scuro 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Here is a research article from Null's website where Null acknowledges the contributions of the CCHR, the copyright is dated 1996-2006. "This could not have been possible without The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International and The Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Florida's participation. I'm deeply indebted to them for their scholarship". --scuro 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your link above has a problem: Larry R. Holmgren 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a01f4' Variable is undefined: 'langCategory' /scripts/_INCappFunctions_.asp, line 751

Gary Null covers the financial aspect in insurance fraud and wasted government grants, the unscientific basis of psychiatric treatment, and the personal tragedies from psychiatric practices. He relies on landmark books by Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin and several minor books, as well as documentation of actual patient cases by the scientologists. They gathered the information and cases to fight psychiatric abuse and abuse of governmental power because they were targeted by the government for their "N" machine(?), for federal taxes, and by psychiatrists. When you say Gary has a relationship with the CCHR I think you overstate the meaning of his use of their information and their appreciation of his well-researched attack on psychiatric practices. Larry R. Holmgren 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole quote ,"Hi. I'm Gary Null, and I'd like to offer you a special presentation on Pathologizing of African Americans by Psychiatry Part Three. This information is drawn from an enormous amount of research of dozens of individuals, scholars, historians, psychologists and psychiatrists working for a period of years-- to collect this information. This could not have been possible without The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International and The Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Florida's participation. I'm deeply indebted to them for their scholarship". When he states what sources were useful, he mentions no one by name except the CCHR. The fact that mentions the branch of Florida's "participation" also makes one believe that this goes beyond Null simply sourcing info from the CCHR. And if he was just sourcing info from the CCHR why would they give him one of their top honours? --scuro 05:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Null's 1994 speech entitled "Fascism in Medicine"

This speech and quotes from the speech can be sourced to numerous websites, including the Wiki-quote page. The Whale webpage which was used for the original citation is associtated with the Whale Mediacal Institute. Dr Jon Whale is the director of Whale Medical Institute and oversees the webpages. The interview of Gary Null entitlled Fascism of Medicene is a primary source of information and his quotes which enlighten us about his highly controversial and significant viewpoints should be reinserted back into the article. --scuro 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if by "primary source" you intend the same as Wikipedia does. In any case, it is worth remembering that we should be writing the article up from reliable secondary sources as far as possible. The article should summarise all of Gary Null's views that we have good sources for but it is not a forum for investigative journalism or debunking. We mustn't give undue weight to some of his concerns at the expense of others, and we must also remember that he like others may have changed his views over the years. I have put a notice on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for some further help on this. Itsmejudith 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have gotten the term confused. By primary source I intended to mean that the quoted words came directly from of Gary Null.

I agree that the article should summarize all of Gary Null's viewpoints. Highly controversial and noteworthy viewpoints held over a significant period of time must be part of the summary of the man. For instance, Null's highly contentious belief that ADHD is fake would shed light for readers on Null's other controversial viewpoints on cancer and aids. To exclude these controversial viewpoints would create a white washing of of the article and of reality, which would inadvertently create bias to the article. It doesn't matter if Null may currently no longer believe these ideas. What matters is that they were beliefs held for a significant amount of time and that by publicly communicating these ideas, Null has shaped public opinion and impacted peoples lives.

Finally, care should be taken in making personal judgments about my purpose or intentions. --scuro 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scuro, I'm sorry if I cast any doubt on your intentions. Please be assured that I do accept your edits as being entirely with good faith. I do hope you will refer back frequently to the policy of WP:BLP, which is basically my only concern in this article. "Whitewashing" or not whitewashing should not come into it. The article has to stick to verifiable facts and avoid as far as humanly possible attaching interpretations to those facts. The default position is that we end up with a very short article that merely reports why he has become well known. But I don't think that will be necessary. Anything from Null's books is verifiable (as a source for what GN thinks, obviously not as authority on medicine). So are articles in the mainstream press either by him or commenting on him. Websites are more problematic for various reasons. WP:V is another important policy reference point. Itsmejudith 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Judith, yes I also believe that you are working in good faith also and yes I agree, that the best citations are his published books. Yet, Null is a media personality as his Wiki article attests too. If we only stuck to public material that Null has written in his books, we would miss the majority of his public output. Really, a public speech would give us an excellent source to his thoughts and ideas. It's not about the "interpretation" of ideas rather this is about the basic documentation of his words, and in doing so the readers has insight into his core belief system. Null is a man of ideas, we wouldn't want only to see the nutritional side of him. That wouldn't be an accurate interpretation of Null. When you see that he believes that much in medicine and Psychiatry is bogus and often harmful, his whole nutritional health empire makes a lot more sense, he offers the alternative.
So lets go and look at Wiki guidelines.
"Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

The only real questionable area appears to be is the document "Fascism in Medicine" bogus? If they are his thoughts and words then they are notable, it would also directly relate to the subject and author. The thoughts of Null's would be neither self serving or contentious of the editor. That's because it wouldn't matter if the ideas quoted are self serving and contentious because the ideas would be Nulls.
Are we agreed so far?
--scuro 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
All of this is a mute point, since the speech is already documented on the main page. I will reinsert the missing chunk and look at it one more time before I do so.

--scuro 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


For scientists or physicians or writers in general, when they have a number of major publications, it isn't usual to include a list of minor publications as well. As they apparently add nothing to his major work, they serve only to disproportionately lengthen the article and would seem best omitted. (The interviews are different, and usually get included).DGG 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Null's articles are important, well-researched "white papers" of investigations of major importance to an alternative paradigm in health and well-being. Read his 16-part paper on fluoridation with 233 endnote references. Larry R. Holmgren 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, in interview with Gary Null, 3/10/95.

He led the effort to end the use of DES, he was instrumental in the banning of DDT, the removal of MSG in baby foods, and was the main voice on the radio working with Dr. Michael Jacobson at the Center for Public Science and public interest in the banning of sulfites. He led the media effort on radio to challenge the Dalkon shield plus the copper coil. Since the beginning of synthetic hormone replacement therapy he led the challenge against using them. His radio work started in 1968 (long before starting on the New York City Pacifica station WBAI). He alone debated the meat industry, the sugar industry, the dairy industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the agricultural industry. By 1972 he had already prepared over 30 major original investigative reports. Larry R. Holmgren 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He, along with some major media, worked with Paul Rudishan of the Agent Orange coalition and recorded over 100 hours of broadcasting to get 3.6 million Viet Nam vets a $2 billion award for damage done to them from Agent Orange.

He's done more than 700 programs on the environment. And he was voted environmentalist of the decade by Margaret Meade's Earth First foundation.

He did over 400 programs on the abuses of the mental health system.

He led the nation’s media challenge against fluoridation, and thousands of cities stopped fluoridation because of that.

He led the national campaign to remove the use of silver amalgam fillings, as well as the national movement to promote orthomolecular psychiatry. He saved the entire industry of chiropractic, via a series on the politics of the AMA vs. Chiropractic medicine.

He did a series of over 100 programs on the plight of Native Americans, including a 10 part series on the All American Genocide Machine.

Gary's shows on vegetarianism have helped hundreds of thousands of people to change their lifestyles and diet and this is just a tiny sampling of the major issues he has taken on. Larry R. Holmgren 09:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes to public policy that he had a hand in, should be specifically mentioned in the article. They are noteworthy. Perhaps this activism needs a specific section.
--scuro 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate to do this but people need to post in discussion instead of doing multiple unilateral deletes of material in the article

I tried to do an undo but that didn't seem to work. My apologies to those who may have lost added material. --scuro 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Giving hints as to what section the delete was made in would held other editors :) OK ? I put a couple links back in and added two more references. Larry R. Holmgren 07:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What scuro means is I deleted stuff. And I really, really hate undoing things that editors have spent time on in good faith to improve the 'pedia, but I'm guided by the exhortations of WP:BLP to remove any potentially contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. I left a message on the BLP noticeboard about this article but there is no response yet. I hope we won't all fall out about this, because what we need is more guidance. Can we perhaps set a goal together, to work this article up to Good Article status. Even though we may disagree on the principles of alternative medicine, if we're committed to the WP policy of NPOV we should be able to collaborate on achieving an article that gives all the necessary information to readers, whatever those readers own interests and viewpoints are. Itsmejudith 08:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about those deletes Larry. It didn't revert back to the original text anyways so I had to cut and paste....a waste of time on my part and an unnecessary waste of time on your part. Thing is, a good chunk of material was deleted unilaterally again without discussion. I can understand caution and I can understand that someone believes that they are right but I'm on here nearly everyday so there is no reason why this can not be talked about first. Much of my material is sourced directly from Null. Why his words need to be deleted immediately makes no sense to me.

And yes we can work collaboratively together, that would be ideal. Show me a good reason to change something and you would be surprised at how flexible I am. I do though, believe that certain ideas that Null believes should not be suppressed. So lets communicate on the discussion page and not by token messages with our edits. --scuro 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a habit of mass deleting material and I really do appreciate the constructive, collaborative approach here. All that I'm thinking about is that BLP says that editors should immediately revert any potentially negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. It leaves us with a problem with both Null and his critics, since so much is on websites that can come and go. What if a website put up an article that appeared to be by Null but had been selectively edited? How do we cope with the fact that Null frequently moves material on and off his own website? What do we do about Barrett's criticisms, published online rather than in peer-reviewed journals? I don't have clear-cut answers to any of that. I don't even know what a "white paper" is in an US context (in the UK it means an official government policy document). Itsmejudith 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re Steth's comments on the Barrett question. We've heard both sides of the question stated now. Whether Barrett is hypocritical is neither here nor there. What matters is only this: is his criticism of Null a notable fact; do we have a reliable source for it. I don't know why we don't have a response from the BLP noticeboard yet and will chase them up. Failing anything helpful emerging from that quarter, what about a Request for Comment? I wouldn't see it as a sign of failure to reach consensus, merely as a recognition that many heads are better than a few and that policies need interpretation in some tricky cases. Itsmejudith 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's me, Larry. I found several of Gary Null's old articles on Larry R. Holmgren 02:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry, if I didn't know better I'd think there was a little troll at Null's website who is very particular about who gets what information...because as soon as we find an interesting tidbit, it malfunctions the moment it hits the discussion page. I am flexible on Barrett and I can wait until others look in. It would be a sign of good faith if all further edits of other's work comes to halt during this time and that includes you Steth.

I do enjoy the exchange of ideas with others even though I'm guessing we are all very different people. It is a positive experience.

--scuro 06:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Me? I do hope you aren't referring to me as a troll. I love being included in things! Sure, I can wait. I just think that an attack article by an ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards has no place at WP under the guise of "notable". Especially when it leads to questionable sites that exploit Wikipedia in order to collect donations to fund frivilous, failed lawsuits and continue its pejorative, yellow journalism. That's all. Steth 12:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Barrett's credentials as a psychiatrist are irrelevant to whether his opinion is notable as a quack-watcher. Your disputed actions in removing links to Barrett's sites througout Wikipedia, even in those instances where he's clearly the best source, may be notable. (And, I have been assuming good faith, mistaken though that assumption has been proven from time to time.) And I don't think you're a troll, just misguided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well notable is viewed from different perspectives. I am sure I am not the only one that removes links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises when they are believed to be gratuitous links to attack-sites that solicit donations. This thought, Artie: perhaps a Barrett apologist shouldn't be wearing an Admin's hat. Steth 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the troll reference was made in reference to what seems to be an active ( Null website administrator? )watcher of the Wikipedia Null article. It seems as soon we make a reference to a Null site, the link fails.

As a positive we have most of the active editors using signed names on their posts and also communicating on the discussion page. We should try to be civil and try not to judge. Nor should we make repeated accusations of Barrett or whomever as a way of dangling flamebait before other editors.

Can we reach compromise on the reference to Barrett? I think that it is notable that Barrett has written an article on Null yet we need only to mention this and then post the link for interested readers. Thus the reader can learn about Barrett, Quackwatch, and also access Barrett's article to form their own opinion.

It could look like this, An article on Null was written by Dr. Stephen Barrett who hosts the website Quackwatch. available online</ref>

--scuro 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds exactly like the kind of neutral language the article needs. I also got a comment back from an admin who I really respect, who suggested that having a "criticisms" section in a biography can imply that the rest of the article is devoted to "praise". Since that is not what the article is about, I suggest changing the "criticism" heading to "responses". Any positive responses received can go in there too. Itsmejudith 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the sentence style above. We could even add the word "critical" to it - "A critical article on... " In line with what Itsmejudith's comment, it's interesting (and ironic) that we just tried this method (getting rid of the criticism section) on the Quackwatch article page and it seems to be working well. IOWs, the concept of having a criticism section just polarizes the issues and the editors. I think you will find that if you just drop the heading all together, the text justseems to flow into a NPOV discussion anyway - no need to seperate it. Also, according to WP:EL we need to minimize external links and if the information is important enough it should rather be discussed in the article. Otherwise, we are supposed to keep the links to a minimum anyway. That's 2 cents from a passer by. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Two sections, critic of conventional medicine and critic of psychiatry, need expansion and re-writes by a better writer than I. 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The section title "criticism" must be changed. The two references are not academicly based. The (four?) criticisms by the Amazing James Randi's "Educational Foundation" are snide, vague, and glib. If Gary Null's face looks so old to the 75-year-old(?) James Randi that Gary consequently dyes his hair black to look younger, that is a fact that can be checked. (I will try to ask Gary next Wednesday at 4:30 AM, when he is expected to be live on the air on KPFK-90.7 FM, Los Angeles, CA.) James Randi gives an avuncular, educated opinion that he "knows a dye job when he sees it." Mr. Randi scoffs at the theraputic use of magnets and vaguely claims Gary prescribes "other medieval tools" to prevent aging. Mr. Randi dismissed the peer-reviewed journal articles (supporting the therapeutic benefits of "pulsed bioelectric magnetic therapy and fixed magnetic therapy")in an E-mail to me (Larry R. Holmgren). 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Had to put the POV tag on again. Sorry but within a day good chunks of the article are simply deleted once more. This is very disappointing.
I have no problem getting rid of the criticism section. The best articles simply integrate any "criticism" into the article. I'd do that but frankly I am too disappointed in this whole process to do any work on the article. Seems like anyone or their dog can simply destroy work by hitting the delete buttom. This is work that editors have done in good faith.
I appreciate your frustration, but the situation may not be so dire as you think. I know you said before that you tried to undo a delete and it didn't work, but usually undo's do work. And the history tab at the top of the page will take you to the text of all previous versions of the page, right back to when it was first created. So no-one's work is ever completely lost. I'm going to make a suggestion for progress under a new heading below. Itsmejudith 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies

Randi is also noteworthy and there is no body of evidence from scientific studies that supports the contention that magnets do anything. If you believe that these studies exist, please post the name of the studies, the date, the authors, and the peer reviewed journals they were published in. As it stands I see no reason to change that section.

--scuro 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not read Gary Null's 2006 book Healing with Magnets. I read about it on Healing with Magnets, by Gary Null PhD. Carroll & Graf, August 2, 2006. Softcover. 240 pages. "Research into magnet therapy is divided into two distinct areas: pulsed bioelectric magnetic therapy and fixed magnetic therapy..." Author is a talk show host. Guide, for consumers, answering questions about magnets and healing: Where do you get magnets? How much do they cost? What are the different types? Which doctors specialize in magnet therapy? Second half of book is [19] peer-reviewed scientific studies. 1. on Page 101: "... PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES Following are descriptions of recent studies, ..." 2. on Page 107: "... unsuccessfully treated with PEMF alone and had bone grafting and were retreated with pulsing electromagnetic fields. ..." 3. on Page 111: "... O. Wahlstrom, "Stimulation of Fracture Healing with Electromagnetic Fields of Extremely Low Frequency ( ..." 4. on Page 123: "... This study examined the effects of constant MKM2-1 magnets on essential hypertension patients. ..." 5. on Page 133: "... A. Breunig & T. Rakosi, "The Treatment of Open Bite Using Magnets," Fortschr Kieferorthop, 53(3), June 1992, pp. ..." 6. on Page 143: "... Low-frequency, external artificial magnetic field treatment was shown to significantly reduce seizures in four adult epileptic cases. ..." 7. on Page 145: "... sinusitis, enuresis, and ischemic disorders of the lower extremities . Positive findings have also been shown with ..." 8. on Page 149: "...specifically identified by the author include cell growth promotion , pain reduction, improved blood circulation, ..." 9. on Page 151: "... N.M. Suvorova, "Treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Diseases of the Female Genitals Permanent Magnetic Field, ..." 10. on Page 155: "... 15 minutes per day over a period of 30 days. Results showed a mean improvement level of 66 percent ..." 11. on Page 157: "... HERNIATED DISK K. Perjes, et al., "Effect of Magnetotherapy on Recovery After Herniated Disk Surgery, ..." 12. on Page 163: "... Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies including fatigue, sleep, vision, bladder function, movement and speech problems, and mood. R. ..." 13. on Page 171: "... This article reports on the case of a 64-year-old female patient with a 22-year history of chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. ..." 14. on Page 181: "... T.W. Bilotta, et al., "Influence of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Post-Menopausal Osteoporosis, ..." 15. on Page 183: "... O.G. Savina, et al., "A Low-Frequency Pulsed Current and a Low-Intensity Laser Radiation in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis, ..." 16. on Page 185: "... Ferromagnetism in Biology and Medicine, 8-13 June 1997, Bologna, Italy. Results of this study showed that the ..." 17. on Page 187: "... Electromagnetic fields in the picotesla range and of 5-8 Hz frequency. R. Sandyk, ..." 18. on Page 189: "... R. Sandyk & K. Derpapas, "The Effects of External picoTesla Range Magnetic Fields on the EEG in Parkinson 's Disease, ..." 19. on Page 205: "... properties, subsequently improving the effectiveness of more conventional gastric and duodenal ulcer treatment. ..." 20. on Page 215: "... Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, 1995, pp. 277-285. Noting that pulsed electromagnetic fields ..."

As a layman the promotion of bone tissue repair by a magnetic field seems possible and is supported by scientific research. The other applications and effects are less clear to me but that is what scientific studies are designed to find out. Are the experiments well-controlled? Are the results independently reproducible? Larry R. Holmgren 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary told this story on the radio of his debate before a live audience where his debate opponent, some man, challenged Gary's conclusion, saying there are no scientific studies to support him in that conclusion. (It may have been on nutrition.) After some bantering Gary was challenged to produce just five peer-reviewed studies as support. Gary had "sand-bagged" him. Gary produced 5,000 peer-reviewed journal articles as support. The man walked off the stage! Larry R. Holmgren 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ready? After discussing north and south pole effects and the need for more studies, Gary writes: A Complementary Therapy Of course nobody is saying that magnets are a be-all and cure-all. They should not be used by themselves for any major disease or medical condition, but rather, they should be looked upon as an adjunctive therapy. My own personal experience is that magnets work best in combination with other healing modalities. Ever since seventh grade, I have been a competitive athlete, winning dozens of USA track and field national championships, regional championships, and over 300 local races. And I have set numerous American records. Therefore, I know my body well. When I sustained a severe hamstring injury, I used magnets--small, medium, and large, from 500 gauss to 5000 gauss--wearing them for 15 minutes at a time and sleeping with them taped to my leg. The magnets hastened my recovery.

A year and a half later, I reinjured the same hamstring. This time, I used magnets in addition to intravenous vitamin C drips, glutathione, calcium, magnesium, quercetin, and other nutrients at very high dosages. The first hamstring injury required almost three months to heal using magnets alone; the reinjury required two weeks to heal. I have seen the same results throughout my career when multiple therapies were used instead of an individual one. Hence, I believe that magnets should be used in combination with other healing modalities, which may include therapeutic touch, acupuncture, acupressure, deep or soft tissue massage, and compresses, to name just some of the approaches available.

Please read the long article with 331 endnotes of scientific studies on Larry R. Holmgren 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry, I'm not sure what point you're making about improving the article. Surely the article should just say that Gary Null wrote a book advocating the use of magnets for healing in conjunction with other therapies. It is not up to us to take a position on whether he is right or wrong. We could conceivably add that he had quoted many studies, but it wouldn't be appropriate to for us comment on whether those studies were of scholarly standard ot not. Itsmejudith 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it could; yes, we surely can. But in the criticism section, James Randi's website mentions that Gary prescribes magnets and other medieval tools for anti-aging. He won't clarify, won't modify his criticism, nor respect the result of the scientific process of reviewing, then publishing studies. Larry R. Holmgren 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're responding to scuro's challenge but please, everyone, remember that this talk page is not a place to discuss the substantive issues that Gary Null writes about. It is only here for discussing wording of the article. Why not pursue the discussion on each other's talk pages or perhaps by email. Itsmejudith 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We can examine the evidence or we can choose not to. If the point of all of this is to remove the entire Randi sentence in the article because it inaccurate and libelous, then we should take a closer look at the studies. It's your call. I have no desire to "challenge" anyone or discuss any issues related to Null. I simply want to the article to keep it's integrity. --scuro 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to be picky again, and I hope this is going to facilitate compromise and not continue with stalemate. Whether Randi is right or Null right or neither or both are right is no concern of ours. Our considerations are notability and verifiability. To get it down to its bare bones: 1) can we verify that the James Randi Foundation commented on Gary Null's views 2) if it did, then is this fact important enough for the encyclopedia. WP:V and WP:NPOV apply. I would say Yes to 1 and Probably to 2. We can have a straw poll and/or a Request for Comment but at some point we will have to compromise. Itsmejudith 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me when all the edits are over

Tell me when all the editing are over. It is at that point in time when all the editors have completed their work, that we can go back to the last prePOV version and determine what good edits have happened and what needs to be restored. The edits are happening so quickly that it is pointless to currently look for general agreement amongst editors. The POV tag should stay on until all editors are ready to work together. --scuro 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Every section needs editing or proofreading. I am working on a Public Policy section with Gulf War Syndrome, Agent Orange, HIV and AIDS, and Chiropractic. We need a place and date of birth for Gary Null. Can someone research that data? Larry R. Holmgren 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article gets worse and worse. Once again it is slowly creeping back to being a promotional blurb. As a writing exercise for HS seniors I would give it a D. Facts are few and far between. Gary's AIDS stance is a disgrace. No real scientist takes what he says seriously. I work with people with HIV and mirabile dictu if they take their meds they don't get AIDS, while those who don't take them do. I work with heroin addicts and I have seen first hand what happens when people don't take their medicine. Sure, we try to get them to eat healthily, but this doesn't affect their viral load. Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thomas, I think you're misunderstanding what a biography article like this is for. It's just to tell readers who Gary Null is. It mustn't take sides on the issues involved, even when the scientific evidence is clear. Every statement made should have a reliable source, so if you think there are statements that aren't sourced, you can go right ahead and delete them. Itsmejudith 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I too think biographies should portray some accurately. We need to know more then just who they are or that would just be plain superficial. There was good information in the article but for some time now there has been a fair bit of "bleach" editing going on. When it's all done Null will give Mr. Clean a run for his money. That is why I stuck the POV tag on. Let me know when the bleaching is finished and then maybe this article can get some balance again. --scuro 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
What biographies are for. Above all, they have to do their basic job properly. Some readers' responses to the page might be:

1. "I knew I heard his name on the radio but, he's an alternative health guru, I thought he was a news anchor, must have mixed him up, thanks Wikipedia". 2. "oh good, some more info about that nice alternative health guy, must get his book about juicing, thanks Wikipedia". 3. "huh, does he really argue all that rubbish about doctors, I'll know to steer well clear of him in future, thanks Wikipedia". In other words, it's unlikely that WP will overturn anyone's existing prejudices, all it can do is make those prejudiced views slightly less ill-informed. If you think that's "bleaching", or "white-washing", as I was accused of in relation to a totally different controversy, have a look again at WP:NPOV and at articles like Adolf Hitler that scrupulously let the facts speak for themselves. I'm going to be really away on wikibreak again now, and wish everyone here all the best in working together to get this article neutral and good like it needs to be. Itsmejudith 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I get all that....facts and all. But Wikipedia is not just a virtual factoid it is an Encyclopedia which also deals with ideas. Ideas explain things. Using your example, Neo-nazis would write the Hitler article with a different explanation of history and give different ideas more weight. They may introduce ideas and facts that are not in the article. Yet we don't see many of these ideas and if we do they are near the end of the article and don't take up much space. Similarly, another Antipsych Peter Breggin believes therapeutic stimulants shrinks brains and he has a study to prove it. This "fact" doesn't make it into the Ritalin article. It is not a minority opinion, it is in fact a controversial opinion.
In the Null article majority viewpoints are being consistently deleted and "bleached". You can't bleach a fact but you can bleach an idea or even a whole article. That is the complaint. --scuro 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
March 7, 2007 show. Gary Null said that he is a secular humanist. He then mentioned Ann Coulter's "Godless" attack on liberal, secular humanists by quoting Bible verses from Genesis and the Old Testament to illustrate the cruelty that he does not want to be part of. Larry R. Holmgren 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost every reference to a "fact" about Gary in this article comes from his own promotional literature. For example,Google around and see if you can find any reference to him winning anything as a race walker. It may be there but all I can find are references to him coming in 3rd of 4th in his age group. He is not even close to the best race walker in his age group nationally. He is respectable, but not at all what he represents in his own promotional material. I have maintained that this article needs facts. Standards of evidence normally used in articles such as those in traditional encyclopedias would not include "facts" gleaned from promotional literature written by the person in question. Wikipedia articles about many topics are written at a high level of responsibility to professional evidenciary standards. This one remains very poor. One fact- which I am responsible for(with a link to the school website)- is that Gary's "PhD" is from a school that does not have accreditation to grant degrees in the sciences. This fact has enormous significance in helping an independent person assess Null's credibility. Would you have your child treated in an ER staffed with doctors whose MDs were really humanities degrees? Show us the facts! Thomas

Thomas. Please appreciate the distinction between (1) "facts" about Gary Null, which are hard to come by due to his reluctance to reveal them, and (2) his compilation of the work of others within Gary's published work. Please re-read his articles on the AIDS-HIV virus controversy. You may find Gary's viewpoint within the transitional sentences but the scientific work is not his. Larry R. Holmgren 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, when personal information is revealed the harpies, jackals, and hyenas move in to attack. Larry R. Holmgren 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Larry- I appreciate your loyalty to Null, but I believe his HIV/AIDS work is nearly worthless. Have I read it all? No. Why not? Because it falls into the same category as that of holocaust deniers and flat earth preachers. Null might be right that AIDS is not caused by HIV. But I think I am on very safe ground.

I like Null. I find his radio show entertaining at times. I think he has valuable things to offer. But I also think he is a crack-pot about certain issues. And I think that the fact that he does not have a legitimate scientific background- ie a PhD in a scientific field from a regionally accredited university in that field- means that we have to be very careful in evaluating what he says. That's all. Thomas

Thomas, can you research two facts, recently revealed by Gary Null, 6-20-07 as his introduction when he helped raise funds for KPFK-90.7 FM Los Angeles, CA, USA. Gary said two things, (1) that he was a research fellow at Dickenson? College (New Jersey) and (2)(?). Larry R. Holmgren 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

HIV equals AIDS hypothesis

Gary Null's scepticism is called a "stance"? I scanned Gary's article on AIDS, reference #16. He put in the questions, e.g.,"If HIV does not cause AIDS, what does?" The information is from about three dozen interviews! He compiled their research. This is what he does, gleaning and compiling both published, peer-reviewed scientific research and unabashedly gathering information directly from the researchers to support an alternative viewpoint. Larry R. Holmgren 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New Biography of Gary Null

[[4]] This long, copywrited biography, dated 9-2-06, includes education, awards, etc. I found it using a deep web search engine, IncyWincy. Larry R. Holmgren 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Larry. Unfortunately this website does not count as a reliable source. I would suggest it could however be used, very selectively, for a few biographical points. We should not, for example, lift out the list of awards for documentaries. When I researched some previous claims for awards I found that the film festivals cited came under the category of "vanity publishing". Itsmejudith 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Primate Trainer

I just heard on his April 2nd show (rebroadcast, 4-16-08, 3AM KPFK 90.7FM) that Gary said he trained the chimpanzee, Kokomo Jr., that appeared on the Today show with Dave Garroway. Gary also said he wrote a paper, "From Instinct to Intellect: A Study of Primates." I was unable to find it on a google search, nor on IncyWincy.Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

no RS yet then. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I shall contact Nick Carrado Enterprises, Inc. in Matthews, North Carolina where Kokomo Jr. now lives.Larry R. Holmgren (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
OK but don't forget that it can't go in the article unless it's been mentioned in a mainstream news media outlet - print or internet, not radio unless a transcript is published. A local newspaper in North Carolina would do, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)