Talk:Herbert M. Shelton/Archive 1

Do not merge with Orthopathy

Why would you even want to do that? -- Bongruntlefarcket (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing versus death

His year of death is stated to be 1985, why are so many of his books published after that date? Seems to be a very large delay. Certain these aren't copyright renewals? Tyciol 15:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations of articles give the date of publication of the compilation as their pub date, and that is the copyright date of that particular publication -- but not of the individual articles if they are unaltered reprints. (In my humble, non-lawyer opinion.)-- Bongruntlefarcket (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography cleanup

I've started converting the bibliography to use of the {{cite book}} template. As I'm also trying to locate a relevant OCLC, and where possible a public domain source, this may take a couple of days. Limn 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A largely negative article about a man with multitudes of positive results

The majority of this article is copied almost verbatim from another site (with the exception of my addendum of Dr. Shelton's cause of death). The article seems to me to be top heavy on Dr. Shelton's personal mistakes rather than accentuating the multitudinous successes which he experienced. Recent scientific discoveries are now demonstrating that Dr, Shelton was WAY ahead of his time. These negative statements made in this Wikipedia article have been distributed in other areas of the Internet which is unfortunate since the art and science of fasting is an invaluable source of healing for many people who have exhausted other medical and alternative therapies for restoration of their health as well as finding relief from PTSD. I feel an overwhelming sense of responsibility in distributing the word that an alternative option exists. I have seen many people who were given the death sentence by the medical profession make a stunning recovery through fasting and these recoveries have been medically documented. If other editors would not object I would like to humbly offer my inadequate services to accentuate the positive health benefits discovered and recorded by Dr. Shelton and then I would request those more able then I would then polish my feeble editing. Thank you very much. CWatchman (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious but I'm also extremely open-minded so I'd love to see the evidence that you have, we can let the facts of these success stories speak for themselves. groovygower (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources have discussed the results, we can use what the sources say. This article includes fringe claims contrary to established medical science. WP:MEDRS applies. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with CWatchman

It's obvious from a quick glance at the article that it has been written in such a way that the intent is to focus on the negative events in Sheldon's life. Mitchgc (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIMELINE OF FAILURES MINUS SHELTON'S GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS

This is not an article. It is a "TIME LINE" which has been practically copied verbatim from another web site. Worse than that, it is a timeline of failures and mishaps (of which we ALL experience when attempting to explore and build new frontiers). This is a horrid, ugly, unfair inaccurate article that has a biased point of view (it is NOT NPOV) ! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CWatchman (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct the article, citing reliable sources. Yes, it should be re-written in prose. No, the legal history is not POV ("point of view") it is a listing of relevant events:

A pacifist jailed for making an anti-draft statement. A health educator arrested, jailed and fined repeatedly for practicing medicine without a license and charged with negligent homicide for starving a patient to death, another patient died, Shelton lost the lawsuit for negligence and was bankrupted by the judgment. The school closed as a result. Any of these would warrent mention in a biography of anyone, even moreso if that person was supposedly a pacifist and a health educator.

As for his "great achievements", be sure to cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject (and his school). - SummerPhD (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many credible physicians have been dragged into court on charges of negligent homicide. Shelton's vulnerability was his defiance of accepted medical opinions of the day and his promotion of innovative fasting remedies. In 1942, Shelton was charged with negligent homicide but the case was never tried and charges were completely dropped. In 1978 one of Dr. Shelton's patients died from a heart attack (NOT from fasting). It took over two years for the court to reach a verdict. He was charged with negligence NOT due to the fasting method but due to the fact that he failed to transport the patient to a medical clinic in a timely manner. Neither Dr. Shelton nor his method of fasting was shown to be the cause of the heart attack. Dr. Shelton supervised THOUSANDS of fasts, many of which were total fasts (water only) lasting more than ninety days. Dr. Shelton's success cases far outnumbered the causality in question -- a record most medical practitioners cannot boast of.CWatchman (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever thousands of cases of patients who were cured by the fasting method are not mentioned and the negative alone is accentuated, it is POV.

Mention is not made of Dr. Shelton's more high profile cases. No mention is made of the reverence Mahatma Gandhi held for Dr. Shelton.

Practitioners exist in our twenty first century that use many of the methods Dr. Shelton used and they are not being "jailed and fined repeatedly for practicing medicine without a license." Alternative medicine is more accepted today than it was in Dr. Shelton's day. Many of the methods he pioneered are now being proven valid in the laboratory.

Perhaps in the future I can add to this article but at present I simply do not have the time to do it justice. CWatchman (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stopped reading at the assertion that "many credible physicians have been dragged into court on charges of negligent homicide." Something about the vehemence of that assertion combined with its apparent inaccuracy put me off. Could you please take a look at our talk page guidelines? MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well versed in the Talk Page guidelines. If you had bothered to read beyond the first sentence (which you freely acknowleged that you failed to do) you would have realized I was on topic. Please do not accuse me of "vehemence" when I am simply stating a fact. A recent study published in The Journal of The American Medical Association (2000:284:94) by Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, showed that in the U.S. there are:

· 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery

· 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals

· 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals

· 80,000 deaths/year from nosocomial infections in hospitals

· 106,000 deaths/year from adverse effects of medications

This totals up to 225,000 deaths annually from iatrogenic causes, making iatrogeny the third leading cause of death in the United States, second only to heart disease and cancer. The frightening reality of the situation is that this does not include disabilities and disorders; just deaths in hospitalized patients. More than four times as many people die in one year from doctors' mistakes than died in the entire war in Vietnam.

Many credible physicians are routinely dragged into court on frivilous charges, others are charged justly. A lawsuit does not necessarily a criminal make. CWatchman (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be clear on the distinction between medical malpractice, a tort, and negligent homicide, a criminal charge. Doctors are regularly sued for malpractice. On the other hand, it is virtually unheard of for a physician to be charged with negligent homicide for the death of a patient (if you have actual sources stating otherwise, please enlighten me). Such cases are rare and attract intense media attention; the only one I can think of offhand was the death of Libby Zion, which resulted in consideration of criminal charges against her treating physicians.

I don't see much point in responding to off-topic rambling. Iatrogenic deaths are a major problem. The bearing of those statistics on the subject of this article, Herbert Shelton, is non-existent except in the form of rather loony original research. If you'd like to discuss specific changes to this article based on reliable sources, please proceed. Otherwise, take it elsewhere. That's the essence of the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that "it is virtually unheard of for a physician to be charged with negligent homicide" and that there was "only one I can think of " is hilarious. A simple Google search of Doctors charged with negligent homicide" brought up so many instances that are too numerous to mention. One high profile case about to be presented is that in the case of Michael Jackson. Seriously . . . do a simple Google search. CWatchman (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, have made a mountain out of a molehill. You attacked the first sentence of my above post (00:11, 13 August 2009) without bothering to even read the post itself. As a matter of fact the REST of that particular post had nothing at all to do with the leading sentence, which was just a passing comment. The point I attempted to make in my misunderstood and misconstrued post was that the fact that Dr. Shelton's patient DID NOT DIE FROM FASTING. He died from a pre-existing heart condition. Dr. Shelton was not charged with homicide via the fasting cure, he was shown to be negligent in transporting his patient to a medical facility in a timely manner. Period.

I am very sorry if I have offended you but you have been very rude and unnecessarily so. Your raving attacks cause one to defend themselves and thereby go off topic. Once again the point I attempted to make was the fact that Dr. Shelton was charged with negligence NOT due to the fasting method but from transporting his patient in a timely manner. Dr. Shelton's success cases far outnumbered the causality in question.

Which brings me back to the ORIGINAL topic which your ranting attacks caused me to deviate from: This is not an article. It is a "TIME LINE" which has been practically copied verbatim from another web site. It does not even appear to be a credible source. Worse than that, it is a timeline of negative information with practically no mention of Dr. Shelton's positive contributions. This is a horrid, ugly, unfair inaccurate article that has a biased point of view (it is NOT NPOV). CWatchman (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that you can blame me for making a mountain out of a molehill; the vast majority of this thread, and in fact this talk page, consists of rather emotive commentary from you. Let's try this: you post something that evinces you respect, or at least have read, Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (that is, civil and focused suggestions for the article text based on reliable sources). I will respond. For example: if this article really has been copied verbatim from an external site, and thus represents a likely copyright violation, please calmly inform us of the actual site being plagiarized so that the problem can be verified and fixed. On the other hand, if you'd like to continue along the vein you've already explored, feel free, but I'm not interested in participating further in such discussion; it's depressing me. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry about your depression. Please attempt to weigh your words with more kindness and I too will do the same. Please accept my apologies.

The topic: This article needs to be rewritten in prose style mentioning Dr. Sheltons positive acheivements. CWatchman (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Which reliable, independent sources would you propose citing to describe those achievements? MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same source from which the negative information was culled also contained much positive info which was neglected in the article. However, I am not thrilled with that source of information. I could dig into some better source material but can only do this when time permits. My original plea was for someone with better editing skills than myself to undertake the task. If there are no takers I will attempt to do this at some point in the future. CWatchman (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of Dr. Herbert Shelton's death

I have discovered some interesting information concerning Dr. Shelton's death. I will share this in this discusson forum as a point of interest. Perhaps someone may wish to further look into this information. CWatchman (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Herbert Shelton is considered to be the father of the modern day Natural Hygiene Movement. Dr. Shelton is also considered to be one of the world’s foremost authorities on fasting. His teachings were highly regarded by Mahatma Gandhi, formerly the pre-eminent leader of all India, and assisted the leader in achieving the historical lengthy fasts that were central to the Indian Independence Movement. Gandhi’s doctors stated that his fasts revitalized his health and added years to his life. Scientists today are beginning to recognize Dr. Shelton’s great contributions to science.

Dr. Herbert Shelton, a strict vegetarian, lived a full and accomplished life and was almost ninety years old when he passed away. Although this is a ripe old age for most people, it is believed he would have lived much longer had he rested more from the exhausting work which ultimately made him vulnerable to the effects of prior injuries.

Dr. Shelton had been a boxer earlier in his life and Parkinson's is a common disease that boxers suffer from. He also suffered from a severe neck injury. However, his most debilitating injury occurred from a horrific blow to the head when he was kicked by his stallion. His teeth were so badly jarred that he began to loose them one at a time over the years. His health suffered much from this incident. Multiple dazing blows to the head can cause traumatic brain injury which commonly results in the declining mental and physical abilities characteristic of Parkinsonism. Add to this the fact that Dr. Shelton's family had a very strong genetic tendency to Parkinson's disease which several close family members, including his own father, had suffered with (This inherited weakness may have been compounded by his overly strict vegetarianism. Although strict vegetarians have been shown to be low risk for cancer, heart disease, and other degenerative diseases,without DHA supplementation they seem to suffer from DHA deficiencies which further predispose them to neurological problems such as Parkinson’s). Complicating his health matters even further he was reportedly a workaholic that drove himself relentlessly and slept very little.

Because of decades of overworking and sleep loss Dr. Shelton never completely overcame the effects of his head and spinal injury and he, in his final years of life, developed a spastic nerve disorder believed to have been Parkinson's. The workaholism of his lifetime had finally taken its toll. His drive to help people and his consistent dedication to the work of Hygiene is believed to have been the central factor that so adversely affected his health and made him vulnerable to this disease. It never affected his mind, however, which remained incredibly sharp to the very end. Neither was his drive affected which was demonstrated from the fact that he continued his work until the end all the while maintaining a positive attitude. CWatchman (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson’s due to lack of DHA?

"Herbert Shelton (1895 – 1985), a naturopath and chiropractor and the influential founder of the American Natural Hygiene Society and Nature Cure movement in America and prolific health writer advocated a natural food vegetarian diet of mostly raw fruits, vegetables and nuts . . . He lived in Texas, was physically fit, grew lots of his own food and ate carefully and fasted periodically. Of course he did not get cancer, he did not get heart disease, but he died of Parkinson’s disease . . .

[Another very] prominent Vegetarian and Health Advocate, [a] leader in the natural health movement and a personal friend to me also suffered from and eventually died from a fall related to his Parkinson’s disease. During his young adult life he embarked on the path of healthy living and vegetarianism . . . he operated a large health food store, one of the first to sell organic fruits and vegetables in America; he became a leader in the health food industry. Of course he was not at risk of cancer or heart disease with his excellent diet, but he developed Parkinson’s which limited the quality of his later years.

When he was developing his Parkinsonian tremors, I ordered blood tests and was shocked to see his blood results showing almost a zero DHA level on his fatty acid test, in spite of adequate ALA consumption from nuts and seeds eaten daily. I had never seen a DHA level that low before. Since that time I have drawn DHA blood levels on other patients with Parkinson’s and also found very low DHA levels.

Was it a coincidence, that these leaders in the natural food, vegetarian movement, who ate a very healthy vegan diet and no junk food would both develop Parkinson’s? I thought to myself–could it be that deficiencies in DHA predispose one to Parkinson’s? Do men have worse ability to convert short chain omega-3 into long chain DHA? Is that why Parkinson’s affects more men than women? Is there evidence to suggest that DHA deficiencies lead to later life neurologic problems? Are there primate studies to show DHA deficiencies in monkeys leads to Parkinson’s? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding, yes.

More than 1 million Americans suffer from Parkinson’s Disease (PD), a neurodegenerative disease that is clinically characterized by resting tremor, muscular rigidity, gait problems and impaired ability to initiate movements. Recent scientific findings show diets rich in omega-3 fatty acids, in particular DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), have a protective effect on this type of neurodegenerative disease. Studies in animals clearly show that supplementation of DHA can alter brain DHA concentrations and thereby modify brain functions leading to reduced risk of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

A recent study examined mice which were exposed to two diets; one group was fed a diet with DHA and other omega-3 fatty acids; while the other group was given ordinary food, lacking DHA. After a period of time they were given a dose of a chemical that causes the same damage to the brain as Parkinson’s disease. The mice on the DHA diet seemed to be immune to the effects of the chemical, whereas the mice that ate ordinary food developed symptoms of the disease.

According to the researchers, among the mice that had been given omega-3 supplementation – in particular DHA – omega-3 fatty acids replaced the omega-6 fatty acids in their brains. Due to the fact that concentrations of other omega-3s (LNA and EPA) had maintained levels in both groups of mice, the researchers suggested that the protective effect against Parkinson’s indeed came from DHA.

Another conclusion drawn from this finding is that a brain containing a lot of omega-6 fatty acids may create a fertile ground for developing Parkinson’s disease. These fatty acids, are abundant in foods rich in either vegetable oil or animal fat, which we already know contribute negatively to our health.

Another study observed the effect of DHA on monkeys treated with MPTP, a drug that induces Parkinson’s like symptoms, and the results suggested that DHA can reduce the severity of, or delay the development of these drug-induced symptoms and therefore can offer therapeutic benefits in the treatment of Parkinson’s.

Overall, this research provides evidence that DHA deficiencies can leave us vulnerable to developing diseases like Parkinson’s and Alheizmer’s. If you are a nutritarian, flexitarain, vegan, or vegetarian and you are not taking DHA or confirming your levels are adequate with blood work you are being negligent, and potentially increasing your risk of such a disease in later life. All the good efforts on proper nutrition can be undone with one deficiency such as Vitamin D, B12, or DHA. I see this every week in my practice.

History repeats itself: Some authors, doctors and leaders of the vegan movement today are heavily biased towards the idea of not needing these supplements. They simply give inadequate nutritional advice and in spite of all the science they still [ridicule] taking long-chain omega-3 DHA. They are risking the quality of their own lives and that of their followers. Likewise, I have seen so many vegan-promoting doctors and authors negate the need for taking B12, as well as dismiss the need to take vitamin D, stating minimal sunshine is enough. They also deny the need for omega-3 supplementation. There is so much scientific literature available today pointing to the contrary, however, this irresponsible information keeps radiating from the podium of lecture halls. . . .

Don’t be fooled into thinking that by merely eating right you are doing all you can do to protect your health. People must be made aware that by neglecting to take the supplements that are essential to assuring nutritional excellence, they are putting themselves in harm’s way. Specifically, not taking DHA, B12 and vitamin D can be potentially dangerous and even life threatening."

(Excerpt from: http://stanford.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/leaders-of-the-vegan-movement-develop-parkinson-s-case-studies/648469) CWatchman (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the talk page guidelines, and our guidelines on appropriate encyclopedic sources. MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MastCell, it is good to see you are still on top of things!

Just for easy reference I will duplicate my post describing why I made the information above available on this Talk page: “I have discovered some interesting information concerning Dr. Shelton's death. I will share this in this discussion forum as a point of interest. Perhaps someone may wish to further look into this information. CWatchman (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)”

I would also like to quote from the Talk Page Guidelines some references which seem to justify the information I have provided and the request I made above:

“There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation”

“make the extra effort so that other people understand you . . . It is always a good idea to explain your views.”

“The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references.”

I believe I am within proper bounds and if not please forgive me. It is my opinion that if this article maintains it's existence on Wikipedia that it should be re-written in prose form, information should be gleaned from more credible sources, and it should attempt to cite the individuals positive accomplishments instead of being top heavy on the negative.

Also more detail should be provided concerning his death. The article provides a list of negative things about Dr. Shelton and then tops it off with details of a grisly, unhealthy death. It is no secret that Dr. Shelton's life long work was to promote optimum health. Is it necessaryto end the article with “he was completely bedridden from a degenerative neuro-muscular disease...unable to improve his own health despite many attempts” or that “his contemporaries were shocked” or that he was “unable to walk, speak normally, or write” (which are obvious symptoms of declining Parkinson's disease that do not need dramatized) ?

What sources say he was completely bedridden? What sources say he was “unable to improve his own health despite many attempts” ? What sources say his “ his contemporaries were shocked” ? If you quote the source from which 99 per cent of this article is copied verbatim ( “Timeline for the Life & Hard Times of Dr. Shelton” by Victoria Bidwell at GetWell StayWell America) then you will also have to consider her other quotes to be reliable such as “a goodly portion of this proliferation glorifies lesser gods, The New Age, Eastern Philosophies. Some of it is leading The People straight to hell!” This article is found on an advertizement site.

Please give me some feedback on the suggestions I have made. Thank you very much. CWatchman (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in this article is extremely poor across the board. It would be useful to start by finding reliable sources (as defined here) - books from large, reputable publishing houses, coverage in respectable media, etc. I don't think any of the currently cited sources are anywhere near the appropriate bar for encyclopedic sourcing, including the soilandhealth.com links. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

combining with orthopathy

It would not be appropriate to combine the articles. There is already a Natural hygiene (NH) disambiguation that states it (Orthopathy) is a school of medical thought, so it is best to have it listed in that disambiguation. If anything the article should be moved to 'Natural Hygiene ()' with something in the parentheses since there is now one other scientific theory in the disambiguation and there should be a National Health Association (former American Natural Hygiene Society) article.

There are also other NH articles, such as Fit For Life, Joel Fuhrman, and ones tied to the topic such as The China Study, John Harvey Kellog, Sylvester Graham, vegetarianism, veganism, rawism, fasting, and possibly Paul Bragg, Patricia Bragg. Nature Cure is also redirected to it, because the Nature Cure movement became named Natural Hygiene. Later people (probably just a Wikipedia phenomenon) said Naturopathy had to do with any of that.

Combining the articles would be no better than combining Plato and Platonism or Isaac Newton and Newtonian physics, etc.. It would make the article too long and there are many aspects that belong in each separately. I think the notability of NH has been established in the article's citations and the suggestion is just an attempt to have it deleted yet again just because people do not know about it and do not think it is very significant. However it is to the extent that it should be the basis of some of the medicine article, though most people do not know that.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Orthopathy

I suggest, following a suggestion on WP:FTN, that these two articles be merged due to lack of references and a large overlap of ideas and content. Shelton was the founder and prime mover of Orthopathy, and there seem to be a lack of reliable sources that speak of one without the other. "Fit for life" material could be merged elsewhere. Discuss.

Support merge as nominator. Verbal chat 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as having suggested it on the fringe theories noticeboard. If this were a currently an important kind of complementary medicine, there would be independent references available. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Outside Wikipedia, "orthopathy" is used more as a religious term than as a medical one: it means right-heartedness (as opposed to "orthodoxy", right-mindedness). This page should be turned into the religious meaning, or perhaps a disambiguation page. Eubulides (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shelton may have founded Orthopathy/Natural hygiene movement, but the movement is certainly bigger than Shelton. (Other editors on this page also registered their opposition.) Dyuku (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we'd merge this article there, rather than the other way around. Verbal chat 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merger is not warranted; Shelton deserves his own article. --Dyuku (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as I stated above)--Dchmelik (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Most of the content of this article belongs on the Natural Hygiene page. Orthopathy was Shelton's pet word for his systematization of Natural Hygiene. This was no mean feat, but Orthopathy was strictly derivative of the works of Graham, Trall, and Jennings. Shelton constantly acknowledges this in his books. For example, see The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene, in which he repeatedly acknowledges his forbears in the school. To say Shelton founded orthopathy, which Shelton equated with Natural Hygiene, would be like saying Abraham Lincoln founded the United States. Just who are the people suggesting this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.245.235 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton's graduation

The claim is Shelton graduated from the American School Of Naturopathy. Where is the reliable citation? Is this a reliable source: Vegetarian Times - Apr 1985 - Google Books Result, 64 pages - Magazine. If not, what is? Zanze123 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton and Naturopathy

If Shelton graduated from the American School Of Naturopathy, where is the reliable citation to prove his participation in the Naturopathy movement, so that he can be added to Naturopathy ? Zanze123 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I've moved the following here as it is incomplete, poorly sorted, and far to long. Why does it include all editions separately? If we are to have a bibliography, it should be of selected works with a good reason for inclusion. And are these books by him or about him? I have no idea. Verbal chat 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List:

An Introduction to Natural Hygiene. (Sep. 1996).
Colds (Acute Coryza) and Related Subjects. (Sep. 1996).
Facts About Fasting (1977)
Fasting Can Save Your Life (1964)(195 pages)
Fasting Can Save Your Life (Sep. 1964).
Fasting For Renewal of Life (314 pages)
Food and Feeding. Kessinger Publishing Company ISBN 0-7661-4590-5 (Jan. 2003).
Food Combining Made Easy (1968)
Food Combining Made Easy. Willow Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-9606948-0-3 (1982).
Getting Well (1968)
Getting Well (Jan. 1996).
Getting Well Health Research. UPC/ ISBN 0-7873-0778-5 (June 1993).
Health for All (Jan. 1996).
Health for All. Health Research (July 1993).
Health For the Millions (1968) (314 pages)
Health for the Millions (1996).
History of Natural Hygiene and Principles of Natural Hygiene - Teachings of Doctors Jennings, Graham, Trall and Tilden. (Jan. 1996).
History of Natural Hygiene: The (Plus) Principles of Natural Hygiene' (Sep. 1996).
Human Beauty: Its Culture and Hygiene (1039 pages)
Human Life Its Philosophy and Laws: An Exposition of the Principles and Practices of Orthopathy (Jan 1996). ISBN 1-56459-714-8
Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws (1928)
Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws (Sep. 1996).
Hygienic Care of Children, 1931 [1]
Hygienic Review (Sep 1996).
La Voie Hygieniste. Editions du Roseau. UPC ISBN 2-920083-12-0 (Nov. 1985).
Living Life to Live it Longer (1926)
Living Life to Live It Longer (Sep. 1996).
Living Life to Live it Longer: A Study in Orthobionomics, Orthopathy and Healthful Living, 1926, Kessinger Publishing, Oklahoma City, ISBN 0766185680, oclc 7487100
Natural Hygiene: Man's Pristine Way of Life. Library of New Atlantis, Incorporated. UPC ISBN 1-57179-408-5. (Feb 2002).
Natural Hygiene: Man's Pristine Way of Life. Library of New Atlantis, Incorporated UPC/ ISBN 1-57179-407-7 (Feb. 2003).
Natural Hygiene: Man's Pristine Way Of Life, 1968 [2]
Natural Hygiene: The Pristine Way of Life (638 pages)
Natural Hygiene: The Pristine Way of Life (1994).
Orthobionomics: Hygienic System (Sep. 1996).
Rubies in the Sand
Science and Fine Art of Food and Nutrition (1996).
Superior Nutrition (197 pages)
Syphilis: Werewolf of Medicine. (Sep. 1996).
The Hygenic System, Vol. III actually appears to be a different series from The Hygenic Review, for which isbn is 0-7873-1038-7 is correct.
The Hygienic System, Vol. II: Food and Diet. Library of New Atlantis, Incorporated. UPC/ ISBN 1-57179-415-8 (Feb 2003).
The Hygienic System, Vol. II: Food and Diet, 1935, Library of new Atlantis, San Antonio, Texas, ISBN 1-57179-415-8, oclc 32372334 [3]
The Hygienic System: Fasting and Sun Bathing, Vol. III: Fasting and Sun Bathing for Healing Disease, 1934, Self Published, San Antonio, Texas, oclc=8413951 [4]
The Hygienic System: Vol VI Orthopathy, 1939, Dr. Shelton's Health Schoo, San Antonio, Texas.[5]
The Liver and Its Complaints. (Sep. 1996).
The Science and Fine Art of Fasting (384 pages)
The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene (420 pages)
The Science and Fine Art of Natural Hygiene (1994).
Vaccine and Serum Evils. (Sep. 1996).
Virgin Birth. Life Science Institute UPC/ ISBN 0-88697-234-5 (1991).
Virgin Birth: The Famous Debate Between Herbert M. Shelton and George R. Clements. Health Research. UPC/ ISBN 0-7873-1173-1 (Jan. 1998).
Shelton, Herbert M./ Oswald, Jean A.. Fasting for the Health of It (l983) Foreword by Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. Nationwide Press, LTD.; Pueblo, Colorado ISBN 0-917188-21-7
Shelton, Herbert M. / Willard, Jo / Oswald, Jean A.. The Original Natural Hygiene Weight Loss Diet Book (1986) Keats Publishing, Inc. New Canaan, Connecticut ISBN 0-87983-376-9

Shelton is not a nutritionist?

User:Verbal removed "Category:Nutritionists". So now Shelton is categorised as an "American nutritionist", which apparently does not qualify him to be a "Nutritionist"? Is this some sort of anti-Americanism on the part of Verbal? :) --Dyuku (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant. We do not include "parent" categories. All American nutritionists are nutritionists. So, Category:Nutritionists is the "parent" category of Category:American nutritionists and the latter is, in fact, in the former. Otherwise, an actor from Los Angeles would be in Category:American actors, Category:Actors from California, Category:Actors from Los Angeles, Category:People from California and Catgegory:People from Los Angeles. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove "quack doctor"

I see no evidence for use of the term "quack doctor" in the first sentence. As it clearly state below as I type this "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Request to removal of the term "quack doctor" --Jdmumma (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While he certainly promoted a lot of flim-flam, it was unsourced. He was, however, clearly an unlicensed doctor. Along with that, I've yanked "cures" from the raw food/fasting bit as neither one cures anything. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical facts about a person are not endorsements - merely abiding by - and accurately representing - the historical facts. MaynardClark (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Practicing medicine without license|unlicensed doctor

A changing IP address in Baku, Azerbaijan has been removing the statement that Shelton was an unlicensed doctorexample. Several explanations have been offered in edit summaries:

"Herbert Shelton was not "unlicensed", his methods are still used today successfully, unlicensed doctors are scam." (Whether or not you or anyone else considers his treatments a scam is irrelevant to whether or not he practiced medicine while not having a a medical license.)
"At this time in 1927, Dr. Shelton is already being harassed in his Hygienic practice by advocates of The Medical Mentality and by the police. In 1927, Dr. Shelton is jailed for the first time for "practicing medicine without a license" and is fined $" (This actually supports the claim that he was an unlicensed doctor. That you feel he was being "harassed" is irrelevant to whether or not he practiced medicine while not having a a medical license.)
"(http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/shelton.bio.bidwell.htm Read what happened in 1927, You'll see why I removed the "unlicensed" doctor part" (This source states it is "...from Jean Oswald's biography of Dr. Shelton, Yours For Health" The source states, in part, " At this time in 1927, Dr. Shelton is already being harassed in his Hygienic practice by advocates of The Medical Mentality and by the police. In 1927, Dr. Shelton is jailed for the first time for "practicing medicine without a license" and is fined $100.oo. This same year of 1927, a second arrest takes place, under similar circumstances and with charges of $300.oo. His money is so tight this second time, he has to borrow to be released. Also, in 1927, the New York Evening Graphic lets Dr. Shelton go because he will not co-operate with their advertisement policies and insists on running an anti-smoking article. Still, during this time, Dr. Shelton's Hygienic practice grows; he is respected and admired for his efforts. The third arrest also occurs, all in New York, for "practicing medicine without a licence." The great irony is that Dr. Shelton would never "practice medicine"! Still, that is what the authorities call it when someone tells people how to live, how to sleep, how to eat, and how not to take medicines!" That's him being arrested repeatedly for "practicing medicine without a license", paying a fine, lather, rinse, repeat. Yes, an advocate of Shelton's is claiming that he was not practicing medicine. By that standard, NO ONE on Wikipedia has ever commited any crime.)

Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]