Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:59, 16 May 2006

I doubt Archie was his Christian name. Was it Archimedes, Archibald?? JFW | T@lk 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He was named Alcibiades, but in tranlsation it came out Archivides. john 11:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed at the detailed autobiography, posted by Archie Kalokerinos himself, at www.kythera-family.net - I was named after the hero Alcibiades. During the process of translation the spelling was mixed a little and officially my name is spelt "Archivides" Tearlach 15:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

and the Aboriginal health is going how?

Is ther emore than one adviser? Midgley 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian Medal of Merit

I can find no evidence that the Australian Medal of Merit exists. It is not part of the Australian Honours System. Can someone provide me with some additional verifiable information about it please. Maustrauser 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We've just been discussing this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Whaleto. It's an award from the Legion of Frontiersmen Australian Division, a private organisation of ex-military personnel currently mostly involved with documenting and maintaining war graves and memorials: see Australian Medal of Merit. Tearlach 14:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Clearly it is a private medal and not a government sanctioned medal at all. I wonder if it should remain in this article then as it is the equivalent of me and my mates awarding another mate a medal - The Australian Medal of Misplaced Pages Guardians. It is no different to a Barnstar really. I'm inclined to remove it from this article as it implies some sort of Government endorsement for this man's activities. Maustrauser 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek Australian of the Century

Is there any independent source of the claim that he was named 'Greek Australian of the Century'? I can find no independent and verifiable statements that this is true. All the website references simply quote each other. Maustrauser 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The autobiography at www.kythera-family.net confirms, quoting from an article at the Institute of Kytheraismos . It says the award was by the newspaper Neos Kosmos. Tearlach 14:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for this data. I don't think that Neo Kosmos represents Greek Australians anymore than the Waco Herald Tribune represents Americans. I suspect the article should be edited to say that he was named this by one very small Greek-Australian paper.Maustrauser 14:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find Archie's name in the list of awardees of The Australian Medal of Merit (but not all are listed). However, this medal is "awarded for rendering valuable assistance to the Legion in Australia. It can also be awarded to people not in the Legion but deemed worthy per the criteria." so the stated basis for the award seems unusual. If it's been mistakenly attributed to him then I would think he'd be embarrassed to see this. I suspect that this might be a garbled piece of publicityGleng 21:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Starting to clean up and add detail - I know this is unbalanced but I'm looking for positive stuff to justify notability. Removed AMA citation pro tem pending verification - any reliable cite known? One dead link lost the other was very far from V RSGleng 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason he has an entry here at all is his cachet on the alternative medical and anti-vaccination circuit. Once you get off the hagiographies and try the Australian Skeptics, you can find a number of articles in their journal reporting on his lectures:

"Dr Archie Kalokerinos quoted his own experience, ignored anything that happened after the 1970s, and presented no evidence to back his claims that: a large number of soldiers died from tetanus vaccines during WWII; vaccination schemes in Nigeria were responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS and was a deliberate policy of genocide; large numbers of aborigines given flu vaccines in the 70s died of heart attacks as a result, (with criticisms against a former colleague); and - here comes the conspiracy theory again - that the US government systematically planned to get rid of undesirable types (criminals etc) by encouraging people with known heart problems to be vaccinated. To finish, Dr Kalokerinos’ triumphant advice was that large intravenous doses of vitamin C will ensure our protection against disease". Tearlach 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I deleted this link and reverted the wording here because the link did not specifically address the q of scorvy in aboriginal children, it is not evidence that AK's views were discounted (maybe they were, but this is not a source for this). By all means debunk, but keep the V RS trail watertight.Gleng 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm worried about the content on this page; these are not facts they are reports of someon's report of what was said, in an arguably partisan site. I've read the AS articles, but I know enough examples of people being quoted by eminently respectable newspapers for things they most certainly didn't say to know that while the quotes may or may not be accurate, either get AK's words from a RS, or put the attributed words as quotes, i.e. "he was reported by X as saying Y" etc. We have to keep our house clean, let's be careful. If someone said that I'd said these things and I hadn't, I'd not be sanguineGleng 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, nothing much that he does gets reported at any level higher than small magazines. A Google on Kalokerinos genocide finds many other documents: that both hostile and sympathetic sources report these same claims suggest it reflects his views. Tearlach 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C

The version I replaced was misleading in that it implies he is right. The weight of medical opinion is that he is wrong. That's why I carefully phrased the Pauling comment and provided the link. Mccready 08:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IV / IM Na ascorbate

Whose simple "belief"?

Current medical opinion has yet to *show* or demonstrate anything about intravenous vitamin C and very little above (anything?) 8-10 g/day even orally for serious illness (vs mere cold & flu protocols that may run 8-24 g/hr orally, initially). AK, based on his clinical observations and trials, actually has experimental and clinical observations, although not a dbRCT. As far as I can tell, medical opinion has *nothing* but flimsy excuses. Moertel? Pauling nailed him correctly although it took over 5 yrs to surface some of the hidden bits. Whether AK is "correct" or not is wholly supposition, there are apparently no comparably high dose tests (30g-300g IV vitC/day, adults, 350-1000+mg/kg/day children) reported in the "accepted" literature (some wait with bated breath, almost 60 yrs and counting). 1g/day IM sodium ascorbate is the highest modern "accepted" value that I have noticed for even a secondary use. Whither 10 g, 30g, 100g, 200g /day IV vitamin C test data per Klenner's protocols or more recent vintages?

It is a simple fact that AK agrees with a number of "alternative" or orthomolecular doctors that have actually used IM / IV vit C clinically or run experiments of various types on various diseases. They agree, conventional medicine, with apparently ZERO experimental basis, doesn't. An apparent ex cathedra pronouncement. Klenner, *the* original vitamin C guy, pretty much said 30g IV vitC/day minimum for adults, regardless of size. Obviously no large scale, peer reviewed dbRCT - after Pauling's shabby treatment, including some older near dbRCT, who would waste serious personal money and breath on such firmly convinced medical opinion anyway? Interestingly, IV vitamin C would probably be the easiest to do a dbRCT with a multipoint design to boot, say factor of 3 to 4 fold multiples or with adjuvants.

The textual issue would be the observational & experimental agreement basis for *some* or which diseases for AK vs possible generalization to *many* diseases (I haven't picked through that much of AK).--69.178.41.55 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The general principle here is to summarise the collective best assessment of a situation. "Agreed" implies general agreement, and it's misrepresentation to use it for "agreed with the handful of researchers who believe(d) it". Tearlach 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"belief" where there is legitimate experimental or clinical data (whatever the degree of uncertainty) in the face of *no apparent data* seems unnecessarily POV. There is a disagreement between the professionally qualified (MD, science b/g) - those who have run it and those who haven't. Replicated, low priority, good faith data still has standing against *no data*, especially for those with the resources and decades of time. In high stakes competitive commercial situations, such a refusal to test at all, is tantamount to admitting some or all of the other competitor's product/position is situationally superior (testing would just dig the hole deeper). I am not pushing "proof", I am noting and describing interpretation of data by those who actually have limited observational data. Scientifically, in the broad sense of actual, less than picture perfect data, "belief" more properly describes current medical opinion, studiously without the data, about a contended area. A more detailed description to more emphatically narrow the meaning of agreement, say, "agreement...with other orthomolecular physicians" might be appropriate rather simple dismissal as a putative superstition.--69.178.41.55 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (was 66.58...)

We're none of us in a position to assess in detail the evidence/credibility of every medical claim and counter-claim. All that can be done is report what different views exist, with some kind of indication of who and how many. "Agreement with other orthomolecular physicians" sounds OK. Tearlach 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)