Talk:Pfeiffer Treatment Center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Intention of article
The Pfeiffer Treatment Center is a clinic in the Chicago area that provides medical care according to the therapies developed by Carl Pfeiffer MD PhD, and also conducts medical research.
Pfeiffer was a professor of pharmacology at Emory, who has a respectable bibliography at pubmed. He devised some alternative treatments for brain disorders, which while they have never been universally adopted, have never been completely abandoned either. Best of all, there are people who swear that Pfeiffer's treatment changed their life from a life with a serious disability to being completely well.
I am not, by the way, affiliated with the Pfeiffer Treatment Center. I agree with most, but not all, of their findings.
There are further articles, such as an article in the Chicago Sun-Times by MARK SKERTIC.
As some editors may know, the Institute of Medicine has ruled that it is "biologically plausible" that autism may be partially caused by preservatives in vaccines. With academic medicine and industry becoming increasingly close, it appears increasingly unlikely that institutional academic medicine is going to get to the bottom of this. Bobby Kennedy Jr. has written on this in Rolling Stone.
I believe that research such as that done at Pfeiffer that documents that autistic children do exhibit anomalies in their ability to cope with heavy metals (mercury is the preservative in question) are the best hope we have of getting to the bottom of this. Some children have been significantly helped by the treatment devised at the PTC-HRI to treat autism.
I had hoped that others would flesh the article out further, but this hasn't happened.
The idea was also to provide a link to a clinic that keeps the findings of Carl Pfeiffer alive, so as provide evidence to support the debates about orthomolecular medicine and orthomolecular psychiatry where the main debates is whether the ideas really work. Obviously, if advocates of the two can point to a clinic that is in business and helps people, it makes separating facts from opinion so much easier.--Alterrabe 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protest speedy delete tag
I do not believe that this is a vanity posting, because they provide medical services that are only available in very few places in the United States.
Nor do I understand why the newspaper stub I linked to is "deceptive." My point is that they work with metal toxicities, copper toxicities, as identified by Pfeiffer, lead toxicities, and mercury toxicities, as they themselves have identified. Doctors are often known by famous patients, why does it matter if the patient in question is a dead composer. The point is that when the collector wanted an answer to his question about Beethoven's health, he went to Pfeiffer.--Alterrabe 22:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my addition of the tag came as a shock to you. I have seen new articles grow at amazing speed with content that violates many of Wikipedia's policies, and it looked like this one might be heading that way. Take the tag as an indication to slow down and be very careful. If we can get this worked out, I will remove it. The tag only allows a short description, so I should explain here. Here is what you have written:
-
- The Pfeiffer Treatment Center in Warrenville, Illinois is a clinic devoted to orthomolecular psychiatry and medical research particularly pertaining to autism and behavioral disorders. It recently made headlines by proving that Ludwig van Beethoven died of lead poisoning. It is named in honor of Carl Pfeiffer. William J. Walsh PhD, the Human Research Institute - Pfeiffer Treatment Center has conducted ground-breaking research into the neurobiology of delinquent and criminal behavior.
- The article appears to be an advertisement for a commercial enterprise, so be very careful. This may not be allowed, unless done very carefully. The part about the newspaper article being used deceptively relates to this sentence:
-
- It [referring to Pfeiffer Treatment Center] recently made headlines by proving that Ludwig van Beethoven died of lead poisoning.
- There isn't provided any embedded reference, but I assume that this external link is the right one:
- That link doesn't say what is claimed above. Maybe you know more about what actually happened, but I can't see that reference as a support for the claim. Here is the wording:
-
- The work, done at the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory outside of Chicago,...."There's no doubt in my mind . . . he was a victim of lead poisoning," said Bill Walsh, an expert in forensic analysis and chief scientist at Pfeiffer Treatment Center in Warrenville, Ill., who led the study with energy department researcher Ken Kemner.
- It appears that Bill Walsh, who works at Pfeiffer, carried on the research at the Argonne National Laboratory, not at Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer should not get the credit, but Walsh certainly can. The two institutions are very different. Have I misunderstood something here? Please explain. Maybe a simple revision will solve the problem. -- Fyslee 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep- an active center of development deriving from founder's previous government research programs in a field too hot for many dr/scientists to stomach. Very notable.--TheNautilus 15:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the working could have been better. I should have written the chief scientist at the PTC made the news. But I am not sure that it was deceptive, and I am sure I had not intent to obfuscate in equating the work of the PTC to that of its chief scientist.--Alterrabe 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PTC helps children
Here's a link to an article that documents that the PTC has helped some children lead productive lives where "conventional medicine" couldn't. Why should practitioners and developers of therapies that help America's children be excluded from wikipedia?
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20020421/ai_n12463171
--Alterrabe 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for the purpose of promoting an idea or institution, but for presenting all significant POV from "verifiable" and "reliable sources" on "notable" subjects. Those words have different meanings here than in the real world, and you might need to read those guidelines and policies. Once you create an article here, it must include all significant POV, which also means that criticism must be allowed. That can mean you end up with an article that becomes a great liablity for Pfeiffer, because criticism against some of their practices will be placed here and found by search engines. The only way to prevent this (it may be too late), is to let it get deleted now. Really think this through very carefully. Many companies have regretted that articles about them are here. They will not get deleted on request. -- Fyslee 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hair problems
The editor Fyslee, is a Quackwatch partisan that has carried the banner for condemnation of hair analysis (see the forked article Hair analysis (alternative medicine). Previously when the chemistry and methods were being evolved, IMHO he prematurely split the article into a POV fork. IMHO, a more natural evolution would have grown "Hair analysis" to ca 40kb and then made the choice of articles, more rationally perhaps by technique or specific type of anaylses.
This PTC is a notable group oriented very differently than QW preferences, with personnel doing associated research into both lab technique, diagnostic application & evaluations. Speedy delete is ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE doesn't meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Moving Speedy Delete here, and I don't recommend wasting everybody's time on a an AfD either. Hair related articles are in a very early stage of descriptive development, this could be interpreted as a pre-emptive QW move against them. One might also classify this as byting and discouraging a new editor. Please stop it.--TheNautilus 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
