This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
This article twice denies the scientific validity of Enderlein's research, but provides no footnotes or supporting evidence for these denials. Enderlein was critical of the scientists of his day, because he felt they followed dogma, rather than presenting scientific evidence. I guess this article supports his contentions that the scientists who attacked him were not scientific. He must be rolling in his grave reading this biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.29.207 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
According to the article, Gunter Enderlein was born in the nineteenth century and lived for 96 years. Perhaps he was taking his own medicine? Surely, the ultimate acid test of his theories is his own longevity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.31.57 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Pleomorphism (in its Bechampian meaning) is synonymous with quacks for the past fifty years. No serious scientist has any doubts about this. All responsible biologists and medicine doctors agree that pleomorphism is a bogus theory. So, this hardly needs any proof. Instead, the references listed for the article are all coming from quacks and their quack institutes. This also requires little proof, a Google search for reliable sources about that would do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
This isn't exactly true, Tgeorgescu. There have been several reputable bacteriologists in the last century who published their findings, such as Dr. Arthur Kendall , who served as Dean, and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology, and professor at Northwestern University Medical School. Dr. Edward Rosenow of the Mayo Foundation and Dr. Ralph Mellon of the University of Rochester are other notable names, at least from the standpoint of the organizations they represented from which they published their studies. These are people from some of the top research facilities in the nation and world. I'm merely saying we're talking about people that were considered worthy enough by people in the field to hold very high positions, and even their opponents would probably chide you for calling them quacks. There certainly are some quacks who want to profit from the controversy, though. I think we'd agree on that.
With that said, the article really is lacking some crucial material that would make the article much more valuable. It's widely accepted that pleomorphism, for example, has been scrapped in favor of monomorphism. It would be beneficial if some studies could be referenced. As the sentences now read, they are based on the authority of Wikipedia, so to speak, which doesn't intend to be an authority on the subject matter. With such a great controversy, there ought to be some substantial articles for people to read when they come to the page.CalebPM (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
