|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Is it just me, or does this page spend an awful lot of time going over Rath's claims, without really noting they are unsubstantiated, poorly-researched and far from mainstream? Seems a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not just you. None of Rath's claims are published in any relible sources nor are they the subject of any serious scientific debate. Looks like he is only notable for making stuff up and trying to sell it from the non-fiction aisle. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Rath's claims are published in reliable sources, there are almost 100 publications on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=niedzwiecki+rath
- Regarding his claims about heart disease:
- The hypothesis of Matthias Rath and Linus Pauling that Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a surrogate for vitamin C and acts as repair molecule of the extracellular matrix (Hypothesis: Lipoprotein(a) is a surrogate for ascorbate) has recently been confirmed by a relevant new study with transgenic mice.
- According to the hypothesis, mammals who cannot produce ascorbate in their body (primates, guinea pigs) suffer from structural damage to their blood vessel walls when ingesting too little ascorbate (early, subclinical form of scurvy). Lp(a) is almost exclusively found in the blood of those mammals that have lost the ability to produce ascorbate. Rath and Pauling supposed Lp(a) acts as a repair molecule by attaching to blood vessel walls during phases of ascorbate deficiency. This would be very useful for stabilizing the blood vessel walls but in the long run leads to formation of vascular plaques and atherosclerosis. The other way round, a continuously high supply of vitamin C should prevent blood vessel wall damage and heart disease.
- The new study on transgenic mice considerably substantiates this hypothesis: Hypoascorbemia induces atherosclerosis and vascular deposition of lipoprotein(a) in transgenic mice. These mice have the human property of not being able to synthesize ascorbate in their body but do produce Lp(a) like humans. Solely by administering too little ascorbate with the feed the blood level of Lp(a) increased and atherosclerosis evolved. With vitamin C quantities in the feed that resulted in physiological ascorbate blood levels this did not happen.
- This confirms the hypothesis of Rath and Pauling that subclinical ascorbate deficiency is the cause for atherosclerosis, not cholesterol, and makes it appear probable that this is also true for human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Related press release: Revolutionary New Concept Of Heart Disease Threatens End Of Global Statin Market
The redundant designation of Rath as "controversial doctor, businessman and vitamin salesman" in the first sentence on the Article page makes it very obvious what's going on here: defamation instead of information. I changed that twice to "controversial doctor, scientist, and vitamin salesman" what is objectively much more appropriate. It was changed back twice …
Rath definitely is a scientist as can be seen from the abundance of his scientific publications and especially from his ingenious latest one with transgenic mice (see above). His business activities which earn the money for that research are sufficiently covered by the term "vitamin salesman". Well, why does Wikipedia behave like that? The answer may be found here: Accuracy of articles on Wikipedia: Serious questions continue to be raised22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Troubling NPOV problems
I've rarely encountered a biography of a living person on Wikipedia as badly written as this one. Why the obsession with larding the lead section with every possible unsubstantiated or questionable criticism? The article as it now stands comes dangerously close to character assassination. It most certainly does not adhere to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. The article should be tagged for failing to adhere to NPOV and the editors who put it into its current sad shape need to be warned with a notice of violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. — QuicksilverT @ 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Rarely seen a biography written so badly? There are many. Look at Cheryl Cole's,for instance.126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Quicksilver, Rath seems to be a serious menace to the community, spreading misinformation on questions of life and death. People who defend him, like yourself, should identify themselves, not hide behind pseudonyms. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- @David Lloyd-Jones: You write as if you were unaware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) guidelines in biographies of living people. Perhaps you should study them before casting aspersions against other editors. — QuicksilverT @ 23:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- The accusation that such-and-such is not neutral is a frequently used piece of venom around Wikipedia, I have long ago learned.
- I bow to no one in respect for the value of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity. In this case, the "aspersion" that I was "casting," was the vile accusation that you do not sign your own name to your defense of this rascal. This is clearly true: you don't. Here you continue to pester me anonymously.
- In any event, NPOV can only apply to the text of any 'pedia, not to discussions of editing policy which are always and everywhere, including here, as I have noted, venomous.
- David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @David Lloyd-Jones:
"... Here you continue to pester me anonymously ..."
I have no idea what you're talking about. To the best of my knowledge, our paths crossed on this Talk page, and nowhere else, with the last event 17 months ago. How does that constitute "pestering"? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @David Lloyd-Jones:
The article says "after a series of lawsuits and countersuits, Rath was ordered in 1994 to pay the Institute $75,000 and was assigned several patents." Click-through  tells us about patents, but not about Rath's patents. Other words portentously underlined in blue will click-through to tell us what a Nobel Prize is, though not anything about the one relevant here, and the fact that California is an American state -- twice.
Wikipedia is liberally littered with html anchors to the information that the New York Times is a newspaper, though rarely are we connected to NYT articles relevant to the subject at hand.
When discussing a scientist's medical research, we include a summary of that research that has been discussed by secondary sources. In biographies of scientists, we do not include a paragraph about every single study they have ever published. Please establish the notability of any particular study or research program through secondary sources. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Articles, video, and news reports on Matthias Rath's activities from The Guardian
- Skeptic's Dictionary: Matthias Rath
- Treatment Action Campaign site on Rath Foundation, critical of Rath's activities
- Matthias Rath's Cancer Treatment Criticized by Stephen Barrett, a 2005 article on Quackwatch
- The Doctor Will Sue You Now by Ben Goldacre, a chapter on Matthias Rath from the book, Bad Science.
- Vitacor, article on Rath's products from Cancer Research UK