Talk:Klee Irwin

This one needs the closest of BLP attention
He used to go to work on his Wikipedia article (e.g.) when it existed. It's been deleted, but I'll see if I can dredge up the old article text for our use under CC-by-sa - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the good bits of that text - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Text incorporated with cites - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What does this mean
In 2008 the Securities and Exchange Commission revoked the registration of multiple registered securities including Omni Nutraceuticals, Inc. based on repeated failure to file required periodic reports with the SEC. The last report the SEC received reported a net loss of $7,032,000 in a period of nine months.

21:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It means that those companies can no longer issue stock or bonds because they did not fulfill the requirements. Was that your question? The Present King of France (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it just sounded odd b/c Omni wasn't mentioned in-article. Thanks for the clarification attempt, tho. 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that, too. Maybe the connection was lost in an edit. The Present King of France (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles in Google Scholar
Klee Irwin co-authored some papers published in "Classical and Quantum Gravity" which is a legitimate peer-reviewed established physics journal. I'm not saying he doesn't have credibility issues (at least based on his previous business) but publications in a legitimate science journal seems a far way to go if he was nothing but a fraud.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=L8hg7G0AAAAJ&hl=en

http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0264-9381

68.224.78.54 (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Responding to entry: Reinforcing the above with additional publication citation from the National Medical Library (also cited in reference by NIH source) entries from this Doctor of Physics and his peer-reviewed colleagues: Irwin, K., Amaral, M., & Chester, D. (2020). The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 22(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020247

This Wiki page has a primary footnote (1) that is nonexistent (removed for inaccuracy) and also cites fraud based on a single, non-corroborated anecdotal blog post, suggesting, when taken with the inflammatory language used to describe the professional, that the page was posted with personal bias as the intent.

Further, addressing the above comment about Dr. Irwin's previous work in the nutraceutical area (because of the criticism by the masses of CBD being "snake oil" and such, I am quoting here proof posted in the National Medical Library/NIH repositories regarding the confirmed efficacy of CBD against cancer. QUOTE: "mounting evidence from preclinical studies that cannabinoids are effective against cancer cells. An increasing number of in vitro studies have described not only the cytotoxic effects of cannabinoids against numerous cancer cell lines but also putative mechanisms that finally lead to an inhibition of metastasization, angiogenesis, tumour growth, enhancement of autophagy, and, ultimately, to apoptosis of cancer cells." taken from: Nahler G. Cannabidiol and Other Phytocannabinoids as Cancer Therapeutics. Pharmaceut Med. 2022 Apr;36(2):99-129. doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00420-4. Epub 2022 Mar 4. PMID: 35244889; PMCID: PMC9021107. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021107. Certainly, it will take the AMA some time to vet more studies, a preponderance of studies, in fact, no doubt with volume to choke a black hole with, however, before the findings are fully accepted widely among the medical community. Nevertheless, there is enough data as of 2022 to suggest that one of the many products sold by Dr. Irwin's company (CBD) is actually effective against cancer. Not all CBD, this particular study notes, is effective against all forms of cancer, but the fact of recorded success remains and suggests we need to take it seriously as a treatment, and of course, it is already prescribed for cancer patients by many doctors because they themselves in their medical experience have seen it at work and know that the efficacy is real. In the meantime, this bogus "rational" (hah!) wiki article attacks a genuine scientist and researcher with credentials and peer-reviewed publications as "pseudoscience" blanketly using that term to describe all of his work, which considering he is respected by physicists all over the world for his Quantum Gravity Research organization, elevates to the level of libel at the prosecutory level what would otherwise be a ridiculously funny with its attempt at malignment, if only the U.S. population wasn't so uneducated in what constitutes "proof and citation" and wasn't unable to tell the difference between a personal bias and actual scientific information. RoxyRogers (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The article contains several wrong information
The article contains several wrong information by describing Klee Irwin as pseudoscience proponent although he has several published papers in peer-reviewed physics journals. It is unethical to call Klee Irwin as a fraudster without one single evidence in the article such as any court findings. The article should be deleted because it is not rational and it is against the policy of the rational wiki.
 * I think this counts as evidence of selling misbranded products, which if intentional would be fraud (and it seems too consistent to be unintentional). Just because he's a physicist doesn't mean everything he writes about every area of science is automatically valid, and I can't find any peer reviewed papers by Irwin about cold fusion or panpsychism. --Annanoon (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. In February 2020 Dr. Irwin et al published a peer-reviewed paper (in physics) here on the National Medical Library: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33286021/ and is titled "The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" and is also referenced, for example, by other respected scientific information sources, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), specifically. The full citation: Irwin, K., Amaral, M., & Chester, D. (2020). The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 22(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020247 This paper has been up for more than 2 years now, undisputed by peers, and puts forward some of the extrapolated basis upon which emergence theory (quantum gravity/mechanics scientific theory) is based. Also, the article about Dr. Irwin bases the label of "pseudoscience" on a footnote reference (1) that is no longer existing because it was inaccurate. Additionally, another footnote references "scams" plural, but goes to an anecdotal blog, that has posted no receipts, letters, logs of calls with names, dates, times, for example. The anecdotal blog is dated 2009. While I have no doubt the FDA information is correct, let's note here that the FDA has a history of heavily favoring the AMA and pharmaceutical lobbying industries over those selling or researching supplements that allow consumers to support their health themselves, from a place of whole body, holistic approaches to healthcare. This article should be placed into the DRAFT archive until the original author can substantiate evidence and DEBUNK the peer-reviewed paper. REASONING: Quantum Physics is not a pseudoscience. Owning a company that sells supplements which has had issues (mostly anecdotally cited, note) where the company did not meet all FDA guidelines, but met many of the FDA guidelines over the course of its history, does not constitute a label of "pseudoscience" - if that were the case, all companies selling herbal products (food) or CBD, which is prescribed by medical doctors for cancer patients because it works, would be in the news as being fraud or pseudoscience. You cannot convince me or the NIH that all medical doctors prescribing CBD for their patients are quacks. Even medical doctors experience malpractice lawsuits that are not always bonafide and that is why MD's have insurance. RoxyRogers (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is little evidence for CBD as pain relief (although there is some for CBD in combination with other drugs). It's certainly true that many companies selling CBD have been in trouble with authorities for things like inaccurate labeling or containing far less CBD than they claimed, but I fail to see how that makes Irwin any better. Blaming Big Pharma for stifling "the truth" is a common tactic of pseudoscience, but Irwin is not exactly a penniless underdog. --Annanoon (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2022 (UT)

While I understand the point you're making about CBD, there is current research stating that studies show you're wrong, that CBD does show cancer killing properties across the board (link below). And as with all things the AMA will take 20 plus years to sign off on studies that are happening now, however, there is ncbi/nih database proof as I cite below. In your discussion, you are woefully without proof or citation. You're taking one specific issue (handled, btw by FDA filings and other changes by the company itself years ago and arguably now disprovable!) and that does not make the founder of the company, who is currently engaged in quantum physics research with other physicists from all over the world and who has written peer-reviewed material that is referenced by the National Medical Library and the cited by the National Institutes of Health any less viable. So, let me understand your position here... because his company sells CBD, which many M.D.'s prescribe for their cancer patients, you're claiming that his entire biography here on Rational Wiki should be labeled as "pseudoscience?" Really. That's not only illogical that's emotional and psychological bias. That's like saying Abbott Labs, who is the primary maker in the U.S. of baby formula--because they were shut down temporarily for failing to adhere to legal and FDA guidelines (including the contamination issues) is "pseudoscience"--which is ludicrous thinking. Every company in the country that has had to deal with the FDA, including companies that sell retail baby monitoring products, has had to deal with FDA emergencies and shutdowns (professional experience with a client with which I signed an NDA). Calling any of those companies, or Abbott Labs, for that matter "pseudoscientific" and declaring them bunk while they're trying to get the baby formula back on the market before infants starve to death would be irresponsible, wouldn't it? It is also very irresponsible what you are doing. Abbott Labs makes a great deal of money, too. So? Is that a reason to call them pseudoscience? Hardly. Many vascular surgeons make a great deal of money, are they pseudoscientific? Football players and CEOs make millions every year, does this automatically make them "pseudoscientific?" This is illogical thinking. This country is running capitalism not government-instituted socialism, so what is your point? No one should make money and should be responsible for deciding what someone else buys or for prescriptions given by a doctor instead of the doctor and the patient deciding? Really? Please. There are many, many doctors, prescribing CBD as a treatment for cancer patients. Now, as a layperson with no credentials, you may certainly argue that all those doctors are wrong. Perhaps, but have you listed all of them, each one, on here claiming that they are pedaling pseudoscience? Irwin is also a Dr., but that's not listed on his "Bio" here. Huh. Why this particular individual? I call bias. Irwin's company sells many other products to my knowledge other than CBD. That is just one of their products. If you're going to find that the founder of the company, who's day-to-day work is focused on quantum physics research in Los Angeles is "pseudoscientific" then you must list every other nutraceutical company as bunk on here. Every company selling CBD (thousands), every doctor prescribing CBD for cancer patients (thousands), every nonprofit organization that is researching quantum physics (again, thousands). If that is indeed your measurement, you have your work cut out for you and you yourself have fallen prey to nonsensical, heinous bias around one specific ingredient being sold by a company that sells hundreds of products in a sea of retail and pharmaceutical research, and further, the quantum physics research that you, by your own admission, must now add to Rational Wiki and claim is "pseudoscience" - good luck dealing with the backlash of all that from physicists, doctors, and supplement companies at large. You're going to need a lot of help and a lot of time or you're by your own admission, you are a complete hypocrite. If you're going to make false claims, back it up with citations that are not: missing, easily debunked, flat out wrong, libelous, and unprovable. Many of the citations supporting this "pseudoscience" label on Dr. Irwin's Rational Wiki page are all of those. The primary one is missing! It has been taken down for inaccuracy. I notice that you did not address ANY of the errors I cited. I posit that you have extreme bias, are unprofessional, have no credentials or authority on which to base your findings, and are misrepresenting a living person in a way that could impact, potentially, their scientific research (peer-reviewed published materials acknowledged in their field of study) and their reputation in an area having nothing to do with a company they founded that sells supplements. You are the worst sort of hypocrite in existence: accusatory, deflecting, unable to support your argument with any current, factual, accurate material. Dr. Irwin is credentialed, published, and peer-reviewed scientist. Are you credentialed in the production, testing, or distribution of pharmaceutical or nutraceutical products? Are your credentialed in the area of physics? And why, again, bring money into it? Is it that you have a personal beef or bias against anyone making money? Shouldn't you be living in a socialist nation like Russia? I hear they need soldiers because Ukraine is beating them into the ground. But right now, I expect you're too busy scrambling to add thousands of doctors, supplement manufacturers, and physicists to the Rational Wiki because if you're not doing so, your claims are completely meaningless. ncbi/nih 2022 citation mentioned regarding cannabinoids (CBD) anti-cancer results/efficacy: QUOTE: "mounting evidence from preclinical studies that cannabinoids are effective against cancer cells. An increasing number of in vitro studies have described not only the cytotoxic effects of cannabinoids against numerous cancer cell lines but also putative mechanisms that finally lead to an inhibition of metastasization, angiogenesis, tumour growth, enhancement of autophagy, and, ultimately, to apoptosis of cancer cells." taken from: Nahler G. Cannabidiol and Other Phytocannabinoids as Cancer Therapeutics. Pharmaceut Med. 2022 Apr;36(2):99-129. doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00420-4. Epub 2022 Mar 4. PMID: 35244889; PMCID: PMC9021107. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021107/ RoxyRogers (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC).
 * I said there's no evidence CBD combats pain and you talk about cannabinoids combatting cancer? Please try and use your brain and respond to the issues raised rather than this Gish gallop approach of multiple irrelevant claims, ad hominem attacks, and conspiracy theories. --Annanoon (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you actually expecting anyone to believe that the pain from a disease does not lessen when that disease is reversed or retarded significantly by a treatment? The study I cited references CBD Oil, which is cannabinoids. You're calling me on 'my' logic?, and offering 'that' as a counter-discussion to the entirety of all the points I made? Yeah, no. You're pushing bad science, and you're certainly reaching to call me out in this way when it's truly obvious, but if you're too addled let me explain. . . I quote again and try reading it this time, if your brain can handle those big words, that is: "...cytotoxic effects against numerous cancer cell lines but also putative mechanisms that finally lead to an 'inhibition of metastasization, angiogenesis, tumour growth, enhancement of autophagy, and, ultimately, to apoptosis' of cancer cells." Do you believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that the inhibition of metastiasization, of tumour growth, enhancing the autophagy of cancer cells or the apoptosis of cancer cells the reduction in tumor growth etc. is not going to reduce PAIN? You can personally choose to believe that if you like, but you may want to check with a physician about what causes PAIN in cancer patients? Hint: it's the growth of cancer cells and with their growth, the stealing of the body's energy from other mechanisms. Now what was it you were saying about there's no evidence that CBD combats pain? Do enlighten me as to where all of the cancer patients on the planet are experiencing the majority of their pain from some other means than cancer cell growth, which is the very definition of the disease itself? Your incredible Mensan intellect as applied to these irrelevant claims and conspiracy theories that you yourself claim I am throwing up, (I would just call you a snowball artist, myself) is truly astonishing. Do enlighten us all with your own personal, anecdotal description of cancer. I'm sure we're all dying to know what it is, science hack. RoxyRogers (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Illegitimate criticism
“ Real research teams don't commission Documentaries on their work, or create fancy websites to publicize it.”. This is both an inaccurate and silly claim to make and does not speak to the legitimacy of the group. To the degree that the criticism in this article is valid, this sort of statement distracts from substance.

Research groups often produce websites (heck who doesn’t these days?) and establish a media presence. Heck, NASA, JPL, Fermi Lab, CERN, do some pretty professional productions. Legitimate research institutes even do ads and sponsor the content of others.

I am not defending the Erwin or his organization. He and it raise all sorts of red flags for me and I came here looking for more information. But this sort of thing doesn’t illuminate, it just is petty and Wrong and puts the rest of the content in question.

This is the least of the many problems on this page. The primary footnote that supports this label of "pseudoscience" is nonexistent (taken down because it was inaccurate). Further, this Dr. of physics has published peer-reviewed material, which is found in the National Medical Library and is also cited by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sources. Full citation: Irwin, K., Amaral, M., & Chester, D. (2020). The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 22(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020247

Also, a footnote which claims "scams" (plural) goes to a single anecdotal blog post by a consumer with no credentials, who provides no receipts, no copies of letters nor logs of phone calls (date, times, names, amounts discussed) and not a single piece of reliable corroborating evidence is provided on the blog entry for the claim made. This leaves the anecdotal report unsubstantiated in use for the purposes of Rational Wiki.

Based on the inflammatory language used on Rational wiki in this entry, I believe this physics researcher is being purposely targeted for whatever reason with emotional and biased intent. RoxyRogers (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ADDING CITATION to debunk the primary claim on this wiki page that Dr. Irwin's company, which sells, among many other products, a CBD product prescribed by doctors for cancer patients is an unprovable claim against the individual, whose primary area of current research is quantum physics, an area in which the doctor is published/peer-reviewed. Citation is from the National Medical Library and is also cited by National Institutes of Health linked materials: This citation is regarding cannabinoids (CBD) anti-cancer results/efficacy: QUOTE: "mounting evidence from preclinical studies that cannabinoids are effective against cancer cells. An increasing number of in vitro studies have described not only the cytotoxic effects of cannabinoids against numerous cancer cell lines but also putative mechanisms that finally lead to an inhibition of metastasization, angiogenesis, tumour growth, enhancement of autophagy, and, ultimately, to apoptosis of cancer cells." taken from: Nahler G. Cannabidiol and Other Phytocannabinoids as Cancer Therapeutics. Pharmaceut Med. 2022 Apr;36(2):99-129. doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00420-4. Epub 2022 Mar 4. PMID: 35244889; PMCID: PMC9021107. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021107. It is irresponsible and arguably libelous at the prosecutory level to label this living individual's Rational Wiki "bio" as "pseudoscience." If that were actually born out by logical data, thousands of supplement companies, thousands of medical doctors in the U.S., UK and elsewhere, not to mention thousands of quantum physicists would need to have pages on Rational Wiki using that basis of measurement. I posit that the original poster of Irwin's "bio" and the label of pseudoscientific was based on extreme bias by an individual with no credentials in any of these areas, since many of the citations are missing, wrong, libelous, and unprovable. RoxyRogers (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Fraud claim
We have a legal request about this page, the biggest concern I have is the use of the term fraud which is a very specific allegation. Do we have any sources that support the use of the term fraud? I will remove it for now. tmtoulouse 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the least of the many problems on this page. The primary footnote that supports the label of "pseudoscience" is nonexistent (taken down because it was inaccurate). Further, this Doctor of Physics has published peer-reviewed material (FEB 2020), which is found in the National Medical Library and is also cited by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sources. Full citation: Irwin, K., Amaral, M., & Chester, D. (2020). The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 22(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020247

Also, a footnote that claims "scams" (plural) goes to a single anecdotal blog post by a consumer with no credentials, who provides no receipts, no copies of any letters nor any logs of phone calls (date, times, names, amounts discussed) with reasonable accuracy, and not a single piece of reliable corroborating evidence is provided on the blog entry for the claim made. This leaves the anecdotal report unsubstantiated in the credible use for the purposes of Rational Wiki.

Based on the inflammatory language used on Rational wiki in this entry, I believe this physics researcher is being purposely targeted for whatever reason with emotional and biased intent. I would suggest moving this to DRAFT an archive or removing until such time as the originator can debunk the peer-reviewed information provided that is cited by the NIH on the National Medical Library.

BASIS 1. The label of "pseudoscience" is not born out in the individual professional's physics credentials, nor is it born out by the FDA material presented in the individual's ownership of a nutraceutical/supplement distributor. I f it were, every company who had ever failed to meet a few of the FDA guidelines, while meeting most of the FDA guidelines, during its years of operation in the supplement industry would need to be labeled as pseudoscientific and posted here on the Wiki. Many companies, including retail devices for baby monitoring products purveyors, as one example I have direct knowledge of as a professional, would be popping up in the news as "pseudoscientific." The process of going through FDA approval and meeting guidelines can be quite robust, especially if the testing labs you are using for your products have issues you are unaware of until the FDA flags those issues. It is not unusual for supplement companies to change testing labs for this reason. Not all testing labs are robust and this can lead to FDA flagging and intense scrutiny requiring a company to reconfigure its testing, production, and distribution. Typically, this does not happen overnight but is corrected by companies who are serious about their mission and realign their procedures and processes to meet guidelines. Recently, Abbott Labs has undergone a similar experience in producing baby formula. This does not mean that Abbott labs is a purveyor of pseudoscience. 2. Anecdotal evidence (providing no supporting data in a written or verbal description of anecdotal occurrence) is not sufficient to claim fraud, as you've noted. 3. Inflammatory language. 4. Missing and improper citation. RoxyRogers (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ADDING CITATION to debunk the primary claim on this wiki page that Dr. Irwin's company, which sells, among many other products, a CBD product prescribed by doctors for cancer patients is an unprovable claim against the individual, whose primary area of current research is quantum physics, an area in which the doctor is published/peer-reviewed. Additional citation proves the claim that CBD is "pseudoscience" is not accurate. This citation is from research compiled and published in the National Medical Library and is also cited by National Institutes of Health linked materials: This citation is regarding cannabinoids (CBD) anti-cancer results/efficacy. QUOTE: "mounting evidence from preclinical studies that cannabinoids are effective against cancer cells. An increasing number of in vitro studies have described not only the cytotoxic effects of cannabinoids against numerous cancer cell lines but also putative mechanisms that finally lead to an inhibition of metastasization, angiogenesis, tumour growth, enhancement of autophagy, and, ultimately, to apoptosis of cancer cells." Full Citation: "Nahler G. Cannabidiol and Other Phytocannabinoids as Cancer Therapeutics. Pharmaceut Med. 2022 Apr;36(2):99-129. doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00420-4. Epub 2022 Mar 4. PMID: 35244889; PMCID: PMC9021107." URL to publication (2022) is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021107. It is irresponsible and arguably libelous at the prosecutory level to label this living individual's Rational Wiki "bio" as "pseudoscience." If that were actually born out by logical data, thousands of supplement companies, thousands of medical doctors in the U.S., UK and elsewhere, not to mention thousands of quantum physicists would need to have pages on Rational Wiki using the basis of measurements used to label an entire "bio" of an individual with "pseudoscience." It's illogical and not born out by the material on the page. I posit that the original poster of Irwin's "bio" and the label of "pseudoscientific" was based on the extreme bias by one individual with no credentials in any of these areas, since many of the citations are missing, wrong, libelous, and currently, as of 2022, unprovable according to emerging medical research.RoxyRogers (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)