Talk:Hallwang Clinic

Complaints from someone supporting the Hallwang Clinic

It appears that some members of Rationalwiki have the right to protect misleading non-rational information and details about certain subjects I came across and finally corrected. My question here at Rationalwiki is the following: A critical view is based on information and not false information - why articles get protected after one has corrected the false content? ^{— Unsigned, by: Gnotlin / talk / contribs}

@Dysklyver why did you protect Hallwang Clinic? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added a lot of text to the article that was poorly written, poorly formatted and contained no references. The edits appeared to be an attempt to whitewash the article. Given the poor quality of the edits the changes were reverted multiple times by @Dysklyver and other editors, including @GrammarCommie and myself. After several weeks of this drive-by editing, apparently Dy had enough and protected the article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Gnotlin has made the same edits, and the user has retained important information that the other editors failed, yet the user's edits were also reverted. That's my observation so far. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If there was evidence backing up Gnotlin's claims, I would have checked them out. In the absence of references I assumed it was vandalism and/or whitewashing and would have done the same thing Dy did in this case, given the past edit history. Let Gnotlin bring his or her claims to the talk page so we can understand the context. Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please excuse my English as a non-native speaker - nevertheless I like your platform and would be happy to contribute further also about other topics than the Hallwang Clinic. There are indeed many so-called alternative clinics in Germany that deserve a disrespect due to the misleading practice of non-board-certified oncologist pretending to provide cancer patients a proper oncological second-option without themselves fulfilling the minimal criteria of a qualified evaluation as specialist and board-certified oncologists. And I would be happy to continue this topic at a later time point. There are many international patients who have the impression to be treated by an oncologist at these alternative clinics but ultimately these are just general physicians. - a topic for itself and a hugh problem. As I said I like you platform and the aim of it. Thank you for your feedback Dysklyver, and I want to make it easier to understand my position - hopefully this leads not directly to any prejudices - I didn't intend to delete any information that another one has provided- it just aimed at organizing the details - as you can see all the criticism hasn´t been deleted. I just added further valuable information and I would be happy to provide even further information. I want to add that I'm one of the medical team members from the Hallwang Clinic, myself a board-certified oncologist and member of the German and European Society of Hematology and Oncology. After several years in immuno-oncological clinical research at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and a long working period at the comprehensive cancer center Cologne/Bonn in Germany, part of the University Hospital Cologne and the University Hospital Bonn I have been asked to join a team of board-certified oncologist at the Hallwang Clinic. The Hallwang Clinic is a board certified oncology clinic with the idea of a clinic that tries to provide a nearly unlimited spectrum of oncological analysis and therapeutic protocols in close collaboration within a university hospital network. That means that of course the center of dicissions at the Hallwang Clinic are guideline approved therapeutic options - but this should not exlude the strength that we are today able to use personalized oncological therapeutic approaches. Unfortunately, words like "personalized" or "individualized" as as well "immunotherapy" have been misused by alternative clinics to pretend any qualified evaluation for their indeed quackery therapeutic options. The Hallwang Clinic is different to these alternative clinics, not only that we are a governmental board-certified private oncology clinic, we are able to consider and to perform individual modern biomarker or mutational expression pattern analysis for the discussion and evaluation of cancer therapies, including next-generation sequencing data, immune profiling/prediction, tumor mutational burden etc.. Indeed the Clinic is open about supplementary and supportive remedies and this might also come from a certain minimal influence of the history of the building in which we are located, but the main reason is that for a comprehensive therapeutic evaluation and following the idea of an open-minded oncology clinic the knowledge should be also present about these kinds of therapies that surprisingly - even though only partially getting considered being beneficial for cancer patients - as. i.e. one has maybe been quite negative about vitamin substitutions in the past for cancer patients and titled these substitutions as quakery but looking at new (now even quite old) peer-reviewed convincing data about vitamin D substitution in lymphoma patients, we currently see that this is getting a very conventional approach now to consider this. So, this as a simple example of things that sound quackery - primed by our past - but are not anymore. The Hallwang Clinic is indeed facing strong prejudices and false information about therapies that are getting applied at the Hallwang - although this only refers to a clinic that has used the buildings prior to the development of the Hallwang Clinic. The Hallwang Clinic is since 2014 a completely new team of oncologist after the Dr. Ursula Jacob Privatklinik to my knowledge was closed and re-located near to Munich. Besides the fact that one is making a mistake to put the Hallwang Clinic into the same pot as an alternative clinic as wrong it is that we are using RGCC. The new Team at the Hallwang Clinic has re-evaluated Test from RGCC and we came to the conclusion that RGHCC is not fitting our quality-critirias in regard to analyze circulating tumor cells or provide any useful information for the proper evaluation of cancer therapies - as we navigate in a university institute network - we are proving only valid analytic tools provided by university intistutes, as i.-e. the University Institutes in Tübingen and Cologne - lighthouse in pathology, particularly leading the filed of next generation sequencing. My text might be poorly written and poorly formatted - but I'm also not an specialist in the field of writing on websites. - please excuse. Nevertheless - I think the article that you have writing is correct about clinics that operated or still operate like the Privatklinik Dr. Ursula Jacob - but maybe we can find a critical evaluation and debate what would be a more informed and indeed correct article about the Hallwang - without deleting any of the criticism that is present about the Hallwang Clinic. ^{— Unsigned, by: Gnotlin / talk / contribs} Gnotlin (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to inform us about this clinic or sell it to us? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think they want to sell it to us. — Dysk (contribs) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically this diff shows the article had been completely rewritten to effectively remove any idea the clinic is dodgy as hell, while adding a lot of stuff about how great the clinic is and something about board certification. The article has been repeatedly rewritten to this effect by numerous editors (SPA's in Wikispeak) none of which have any interest so far in other articles (as evidenced by the fact they now can't edit the article at the lowest protection setting which anyone with a few edits can bypass).

After reading the enormously detailed monologue above, I understand it is actually the new staff of the clinic trying to remove embarrassing mentions of their clinics quackery and improve their image, and then when that failed, trying a similar image improvement by leaving the mentions but blaming everything on a former staff member who makes a handy scapegoat. The end result of whitewashing the article into a half-baked advert is much as would be expected from someone trying to do public relations image work.

Anyway, the evidence so far put forward suggests that the clinic still offers (or did very recently) the same dodgy treatment as it always has and this criticism is likely to be valid, this article for example is only a few months old and suggests the majority of the content changes are bollocks. If these changes are infact legit, then lets see some actual evidence (web-links, or if not on the web, my email is on my userpage and you can send me stuff) and then we can go from there on deciding if Hallwang Clinic is indeed the reformed institution Gnotlin suggests, or still the centre of quackery it seems to have been in the past. — Dysk (contribs) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

this is a fair offer to start at least somewhere. I will email you - maybe there is also a chance that you call me or I call you - anytime to provide you a full picture. We can also go through your citations- most of them referring to Ursula Jacob and then connected with the Hallwang Clinic. Then your blog entries of a former patient who lived long-term with stage IV colorectal Cancer citing him as being " at the beginning positive" and later XXXX - here you can see that you have overseen that the patient is referring to completely different clinic and physician namend in his blog Dr. Kilarski (?)- he was obviously at the Hallwang Clinic but then decided to use somewhere a GcMAF dodgy treatment. To comment on your citation on respectful insolence would indeed take more time, ...so lets discuss- I think it is a good platform to discuss a critical but also true article - and not just false connections and misleading information - and the end it will have more valuable information. ^{— Unsigned, by: Gnotlin / talk / contribs} Gnotlin (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

just since its still quite early in Germany: Oh by the way, you should read and follow the following website providing you an idea why it is so important to look at the details of complicated cases- very talented author : tryingtobeatcancer.org.uk

Let´s look at your introduction of the Hallwang Clinic article:

"Hallwang Clinic is a private medical facility in Dornstetten, Germany, specializing in integrative cancer treatments." Gnotlin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) The Hallwang Clinic is a board-certified oncology clinic. Board certified means that the clinic is run by the government certified, so-called board-certified, oncologist. - with simple words: specialized oncologists. This is indeed a major difference which needs to be mentioned - a major difference to all the alternative clinics in Germany since they are run by mainly or even exclusively naturopath or general practitioners, maybe internal medicine specialist- so an important difference. Since if you have no board-certification you are lacking the qualification as an oncology clinic. Is the Hallwang Clinic "specialized in integrative therapies" - for sure not. But I leave you here with the criticism abut alternative therapies, since the clinic is indeed open-minded to listen to patients who unfortunately got mislead by "alternative clinics". A real example: Just imagine a young adult having the chance of a long-term remission even a curative approach by guideline approved therapies... contacting the Hallwang Clinic, feeling not taken seriously by his "purely conventional guide-line approved thinking oncologist" who gave him some minutes of time to think about HighDose Chemo with Stemcelltransplant- now searching for advice and telling us in first telephone conversation that an alternative clinic has offered him a pure alternative therapy to chemo and he is now planning to go there. The reason why this patient is now, years later, still alive is because he saw that we are open-minded about, let's call them, supplementary therapies, which the patient demanded to have - but on the other hand we were able to convince him in a more than 2 hours long initial phone conversation to perform with us the Chemo and the Stemcelltransplant in the UK. This is a success. The Hallwang Clinic offers supplementary/supportive therapies but only as supplementary/supportive therapies - meaning every patient knows that there is, if, only a supportive aspect given and that supportive therapies are of course not cancer therapies. The Hallwang Clinic is not using supportive therapies as cancer therapies.

"Up until 2014 “Hallwang Clinic” was called “Privatklinik Dr. Ursula Jacob” [1] : the name of the medical-director of that “oncology clinic”. If Hallwang's Dr. Ursula Jacob has formal qualifications as an oncologist she has omitted to include them on her résumé.[2]"

Gnotlin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Dr Ursula Jacob was the director of Privatklinik Dr Ursula Jacob. She was not the medical director of the Hallwang Clinic. She was not an oncologist.

'One of Dr. Jacob's famous cancer patients was the American actress Farrah FawcettWikipedia's W.svg[3].'

Gnotlin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)correct A more recent famous customer at Hallwang Clinic is the English actress Leah Bracknell.Wikipedia's W.svg (Suspension-of-disbelief is required by actors in their workplace, apparently some have that mindset permanently). Gnotlin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)The problem is that due to data protection no feedback to patients at the Hallwang Clinic can be given. So leave it.

"Hallwang Clinic GmbH" has been in existence since 2007, and they state that they have had "over 7,000 patients"[4], but you'll have a hard-job finding internet-posts by any of those 7000 claiming they've been cured by visiting Hallwang.[5]

Gnotlin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) this refers to Dr. Ursula Jacob. The Hallwang Clinic would never and has never claimed this. Gnotlin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Your citation- as you can see in the slide cited by yourself is referring to Dr Ursula Jacob Privatklinik and not to Hallwang Clinic

"The clinic is not limited to treating people with cancer: patients with a wide-variety of disorders, including multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, meningitis, irritable bowel syndrome, etc., have received live cell therapyWikipedia's W.svg at Hallwang Clinic. Specifically, they are injected with "fresh" live sheep-fetus cells.[7]"

Gnotlin (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)ALSO here you are citing Slides from the Privatklinik Dr Ursula Jacob, and then you are saying that these are slides from the Hallwang Clinic - ?!

"However transplanting sheep cells is a baaa…d idea, as they would be rejected by the human immune system, and would never survive in a person, so could not be "regenerative". So such xenotransplants are doomed to failure, and have some risk attached via the immune-response to the foreign material injected, and possibly via transmission of zoonotic disease.

Gnotlin (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC) I totally agree that this is non-sense, the Hallwang Clinic is not doing it. And your are citing again the slides from the so-called Dr. Ursula Jacob Privatklinik

In conclusion, it is a really superficial and false research that became obvious in the present article about the Hallwang Clinic - since you are mainly citing slides from a former alternative clinic that has used indeed the same buildings in the past . To an extensive degree articles like respectful insolence or sciencebasedmedicine belonging to the same author are doing to same mistake - they are just copying wrong information amplifying fake news until the one site is referring to the other site as a valid source of information. This is about the quality of your reference to "respectful insolence".

If life would be so simple to follow this "superficial rational logarithm" than one might just rent a former office of microsoft and you would think I would be suddenly the CEO of microsoft =)))))

BUT the good thing is - we have the chance to correct this. The question is only whether you are open to unblock your article so that we can work on it, discuss changes and develop a correct article - respecting your criticism about supportive therapies, which I even share. If you thought it might be good idea to combine a story about the previous clinics that have used the buildings at the Silberwaldstr. in Dornstetten then one should mention the Waldeck Klinik, a rehabilitation center, that was prior to the alternative "Privatklinik Dr. Ursula Jacob" in these buildings. Lateron, in 2014 the Hallwang Clinic rented the buildings as a board-certified oncology clinic. But then please make the difference between before 2014 and after 2014. Thank you Gnotlin (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because: 1) Your edit was not well-written. 2) We do not take seriously unscientific appeal to celebrity or anecdotal evidence here as you seem to do. If you want us to take you seriously, you need to cite peer-reviewed clinical studies that support the protocols used at the clinic. Bongolian (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Bongolian: the Article is using false citations - the article is invalid in itself. As you can simply check it by clicking on the links (see above) - you will see the author has used sources, slides, links from another clinic - Dr Ursula Jacob Privatklinik and claims that these links would present any Information about the Hallwang Clinic. ^{— Unsigned, by: Gnotlin / talk / contribs}

In conclusion, I would now suggest in order to get one step forward, that I adjust the Hallwang Clinic page in a moderate and critical way, trying to find a compromise between obvious false information and false citations, like i.e. : "Hallwang Clinic GmbH" has been in existence since 2007, and they state that they have had "over 7,000 patients"[4] -but as you can open the citation 4 - there is nothing mentioned about the Hallwang Clinic at all. Means that the obvious false citations that have been used, to create on purpose false information will be corrected BUT not deleted to respect the content. Therefore the page will be divided into 2 sections, one related to all the links that the author has been used for Ursula Jacob and one section for the Hallwang Clinic. This means no information ist getting deleted. Gnotlin (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can do "moderate" approaches to clinics selling "cures" with no scientific substantiation behind them. This is a very dangerous practice and from the editorial perspective of this wiki, directly antithetical to good care. Especially for serious illnesses like cancer. Mincing words could risk the lives of people who read this page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That, by the way is not to say we're always right about everything. If there's evidence substantiating what they're doing or documentation that they're not doing the bad things that we have ignored or glossed over, of course we can incorporate that information and update our article. But "the tone too harsh" isn't going to move the article much. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking your argument - "clinics selling "cures" with no scientific substantiation behind them"- the citation for that is No 4 and No5 in the article- as you can see, when you press on the link - there is nothing mentioned about the Hallwang Clinic- means, that the author has already mislead you to think that the Hallwang Clinic is doing it - is this rational? Gnotlin (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"Up until 2014 “Hallwang Clinic” was called “Privatklinik Dr. Ursula Jacob”" I mean honestly what do you expect us to do? — Dysk (contribs) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please check the Hallwang article Gnotlin (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please have a critical look at the page history and my minor edits - the page has now far more detailed information, and correct links and is still not lacking a critical evaluation- the content has not been deleted. - the aim should be to criticism the Hallwang Clinic but with the correct links.Gnotlin (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically, other than a few minor corrections, all you are proposing is to blame everything on Ursula. — Dysk (contribs) 19:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw some of the sources being used and I'd really rather we don't use Faily Mail as a source, unless that's the absolute only piece of reporting we can find. I also don't want to go too much into celebrity shenanigans. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)