Talk:Alternative medicine/archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Addition of another critique of alt. medicine

Can I add a link to Ben Goldacre's often hilarious and very rigorous weekly column for The Guardian, "Bad Science" under 'critiques of alt.medicine'? It's very well written, but I suppose its serial nature makes it a less good encyclopedic reference... --Si 20:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Please, what's the link? Alteripse 09:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Many branches and practices of alt med meet precisely the definition of pseudoscience. When you removed the category tag were you asserting there is no such thing as pseudoscience, that nearly all alt med meets the definition of science, or what? Did you really think no one would challenge this? Alteripse 19:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Likewise the blanket damnation is false and the addition of the tag a breach of ettiquette. Each part must be considered on its own merit. Granted some branches are pseudoscience. Others may be in advance of science. I know that there are scientific, double blind, and all that, tests ongoing now for apitherapy, the one alternative medicine I know a little about. Pollinator 21:35, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

How about if we exclude apitherapy? Please, please, please simply look at the lead-in definitions for pseudoscience and alt med. They are nearly identical descriptions. When novel treatments are investigated scientifically they are not alternative. The stuff that stays alternative for decades is because it won't or can't be tested or it has failed the tests. This applies to most of the things listed as alt med. It doesn't have to apply to every little piece of it (and you have to admit that apitherapy is not exactly what people think of as mainstream alt med). I looked at your user page and concluded you have to be too intelligent to reject that pseudoscience is a valid concept and that most of the longstanding alt med stuff has been "pseudoscience medicine" for generations and probably will be for eternity or they would have some evidence by now. The stuff that gets supported with evidence is no longer alternative. Please be reasonable here. A large enough portion of the therapies listed in the alt med article match the definition of pseudoscience to justify the link. I promise none of us will think of apitherapy when we think of mainstream pseudo medicine. OK?

Also, did you really not think it was discourteous to remove the tag without a discussion? Please convince me.

I'm not going to engage in a revert war. I am going to rely on your sense and rationality. Alteripse 23:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, here's rationality. The broad brush application of a pejorative label on such a mixed bag is an attempt to impose one POV and stifle dissent. Frankly, it is unscientific; it is making a religion of science. Science is a tool, and a valuable one, but some people make it more. I am familiar with this, because science was one of my gods in my own younger days. It is inadequate as a god. I have since added a number of years, and a healthy skepticism for those who pontificate in the name of science.
Every now and then, someone outside the pale adds a new idea. Closed minds, of course will not allow this, and adding labels is a symptom of closed minds. Let intelligent people read the information and judge POV for themselves. The discourtesy was in adding the label (to do people's thinking for them). Pollinator 17:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Your note appears to be accusing me (or the person who added the label) of:

  • making a god of science (I gather that simply asserting that there is such a thing as pseudoscience is enough to warrant that accusation);
  • attempting to stifle dissent (in fact, no one blocked you or wanted to block or will attempt to block your dissent-- however, it would seem to me that your removal of the link is stifling some one else's dissent-- why couldn't you add your dissent without stifling his?);
  • having a closed mind (this is perilously close to an a simple insult to someone with whom you disagree, unless you think disagreement automatically means a closed mind)
  • pontificating in the name of science (the word pontificate means to speak as a priest, asserting authority rather than evidence, but in fact I offered exactly my evidence in my initial objection, so I hardly think pontificate is an accurate word);
  • attempting to prevent people from thinking by adding a link (the link might have prompted thought; your removal certainly removed any invitation to people to think about that).

Your follow-up assertion is that "adding a label is a symptom of a closed mind". Why didn't you express this opinion when everybody was setting up the category system? Or should I assume that you really meant to say, "adding a label with which I disagree is a symptom of a closed mind"?

Finally, I loved your world-weary, "been there, done that" dismissal of science, or was it just a dismissal of the "science as god" weltanschaung?

I am wondering if you always conduct both sides of an argument, where you get to pick our attitudes and arguments and then knock them down? When you combine that with idiosyncratic word use (not a pontification, your use of the term "scientific" in your first paragraph is certainly not recognizable to most people, and most people would think that your removal without comment of someone else's opinion a clearer example of stifling dissent than anything I've said), I bet you win every discussion! Where do we go with this? Any embarrassment yet? Alteripse 21:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope. You demanded an extensive response, and now you are offended. I am not trying to offend. I didn't pick your attitude; it shows clearly and I responded to it. People who do not travel are usually not capable of looking at their own country with much objectivity. You are so deeply embedded in your own thought system, that you seem unable to comprehend the arrogance of putting on such a POV tag. But others who are not embedded can see it, just as those who've been abroad can better see their own country.
Within this field there are no doubt some items of pseudoscience. There are some items that are mixed bag or gray areas. And there are some that may well become mainstream "science" some day. My understanding of the meaning of Wikipedia is that the facts are presented as clearly and neutrally as possible, and people are "allowed" to think for themselves. Shall we leave it at that?
I went to see what else you had classified as pseudoscience. I notice that you have perpetual motion listed. I have a machinist kinsman who has pursued the idea for all his working life, and he's invented a number of useful things. All the relatives think he's daft but a genius anyway. I appreciate the fact that he has contributed to society instead of figuring out new ways to kill people. Do you wanna squelch that too? Pollinator 13:52, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
I can't make sense of your example as supporting your argument. His intentions are irrelevant to whether the quest for perpetual motion is pseudoscience - it clearly is and belongs in that category.
The dispute as I see it is that while much of alternative medicine clearly is pseudoscience (e.g. homeopathy), much of it is protoscience instead - rather than being clearly pseudo- or not. I suggest this be solved by adding Category:Protoscience as well (doesn't exist yet) - that both can be applied to the same article should indicate clearly enough to the reader that material in the article fits into both - David Gerard 14:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's an improvement I can live with. The blanket classification was just over the edge. Thanks, Dave. Pollinator 15:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Basis of conventional medicine

I don't think it's correct to say or imply that conventional medicine is always based on a known biochemical mechanism. For example, I think there are several areas of nutrition where suitable double-blind studies have established, to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that a particular nutrient is protective against a particular disorder, but nobody really knows how. I softened the statement to say only that conventional medicine is usually based on known mechanism. JamesMLane 03:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We don't know the biochemical mechanism for lots of things, but scientific medicine is characterized by two things: (1) proposed explanations cannot violate our current scientific understanding of chemistry, physics, and biology (all admittedly incomplete), and (2) everything is alway subject to testing and revision or rejection by scientific procedures, not doctrinal criteria. Conventional medicine is a flawed term, but so are most of the approximate synonyms: rational medicine (the 19th century term for what became scientific medicine) isn't bad, but few people know it. Orthodox medicine is recognizable but connotes that it is chosen and changed only like church doctrine. The term allopathic medicine is simultaneously stupid and offensive, akin to classifying all vertebrates as either "bigfoot", "unicorns", "Nessie", or "other critters". Most of us use scientific medicine with no illusion that we know the biochemical mechanism for all diseases and treatments, but with the expectation that as we understand them they will not violate or be incompatible with our scientific understanding of the material universe.Alteripse 03:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Least common denominator - "official" - vs all other medicines

There is a very pertinent denomination, which settles the issue: GREED MEDICINE. We aren't allowed to practice medicine OUTSIDE the rules fixed by the BIG PHARMA sharks, now busy in fixing medical curricula as well. Of course these are only greedy fascists who would kill just about any medical system, medical research data, medical views or only effective new drugs - if it isn't theirs to sell ! Not recommended. The history of editing iridology and Alternative Medicine articles, plus the habits of Theresa, Rosie, David Gerard and Co in SUPRESSING reliable alternative medical information in Wikipedia did a LOT OF HARM to the cause of health in the general public and the cause of truth in general. Their habits of servile parrots repeating corporate media mantras and consummate mafiots patting the shoulders of corporate criminals, is exposed FOR AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE to be puppets of corporate press and corporate policies. Recommended reading (besides previous articles on conventional medicine and stuff censored here in Wiki but safely guarded for the next legal breakthrough by a trusted third party, include:

• "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It," by Dr. Marcia Angell.

• "On The Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health," by Dr. Jerome Kassirer.

• "Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs," by Dr. Jerry Avorn.

• "Overdo$ed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine," by Dr. John Abramson.

• "Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business - and Bad Medicine," by investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele.

• "The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs," by Merrill Goozner.

Happy AM editing - Sincerely, back here to stay - so better trigger those red alarms and hang on somewhere near the panick button, he he - irismeister :O°)

Not Proto-science?

Tim Starling- Your view of alt. medicine as "not new, not speculative, not scientificince" and thus not protoscience is debatable and thus is not NPOV. Since their is no agreement as to whether it is pseudoscience, protoscience, or a mix of both, it was previously agreed that both catagories be applied (see discussion above). Thus I reverted your change. Cab88


(for the record I wold rathe rniether catogry was there but no matter) It was suggested above that much of alt med was protoscience. How many forms of alt med cane you name where this is the case? In the cases I've seen it is very much the exceptionGeni 22:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blatant Bias, Hidden Agendas and Wikipedic Censorship of Alternative Medical Information

  • Criticism of Iridology is Biased, Paternalist and Suppressive
  • Just like "Democracy" of Brand New, and Growing NeoCon American Stuff
  • Back to the Killing Business as Usual :O)

FALSE CLAIM

The majority of medical doctors reject all the claims of all branches of iridology en bloc and label them as pseudoscience or even quackery. Iridologists are rarely medical doctors; many training centers exist, but iridology is neither taught in mainstream medical schools, nor acknowledged by official medical organizations as a valid medical technique.

TRUTH OF THE MATTER

Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for the iridological claims. However, more and more medical institutes, health centers, reaserch organizations and universities staffed by ophthalmologists and certified medical doctors openly profess alternative iridologic opinions against "consensual medicine". For instance, scientific associations composed exclusively of medical doctors using iridology in their day to day patient care now exist in Germany, Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Ukraine. They certainly would not like to see the information about their daily work being suppressed because of hidden agendas paid for by the Big Pharma Villains.
NOTE : please make sure you will again ban me soon, for your usual ridiculous and spurious reasons. Only at this time I have taken all the necessary precautions... We've got what it takes in LEGAL files to take what you've got in censorship habits. We'll show you (you know who you are) that you are only CENSORING information. You censors (Theresa, Rosie, David Gerard and Co are now showing the losers looming inside your flattened egos :O) he he) - Happy SINCERE editing ~:O°)irismeister 13:48, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gb2AOL and stop spamming this website with propaganda.
Facts which are supressed by Wikipolice are not propaganda. Requests formulated anonymously, in an unsubstantiated, unattributed manner are propaganda. Please apply to yourself what you seem to profess for others! - irismeister 20:55, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)


JamesMLane

Thank you for your nice fit cutting of my careful sentence. Now please:
01. read the sentence you want to cut;
02. read it again;
03. think
04. read what you wrote when you reverted, as a "reason"
05. think again!
See? It's so simple to add information instead of CENSORING it on spurios reasons like "duplication". No one is dull or dumb here! There are PROVEN, CRIMINAL hidden agendas from big pharma sharks. Wiki does not help the people, Wiki serves its corporate masters. But this is wrong! This is greed and censorship, and all this becomes a shame! You know, JamesMLane, FASCIM is characterized and uniquely determined to be what it is, fascism that is, when the following happen in sequence or all of a sudden:
01. people listen ONLY to what SOMEBODY wants us to listen;
02. people SUPRESS whatever they don't want to listen, just like that,
03. people believe in their own lies, and their own fiction. Ah, dude!
Wake up, pal! Let people live! Medical doctors are licensed to practice big pharma intoxications and big pharma sales plans, and look what happens: More and more, they freely choose to specialize in alternative medicine. Because they KNOW, and they THINK - for they are in the FRONT LINE - which you aren't. They took an oath, the Hippocratic stuff. And they want to keep it, no matter how much dole they get under the table from Big Pharma sales reps. Let MEDICAL DOCTORS do what they think is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE PATIENT! Alternative medicine is medicine WHICH HELPS, this is REAL medicine! This is compassionate, passionate ART and SCIENCE which addresses individual needs, which treats people as HUMAN beings, and not as social security numbers and insurance/bank account numbers! Especially since its practiced by LICENSED MDs who have seen it ALL. Alternative medicine STARTS with NOT POISONING people!!! By the Big Pharma Villain's own admissions, 250,000 PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR IN THE US ONLY, as a consequence of their BRAND NEW INDUSTRIAL drugs that KILL from Phase II onwards! To help their sales agenda is to be willing to assist consummate murderers! Did you know, incidentally, what the oath of that guy, Hippocrates, says ? It says PRIMUM NON NOCERE, fella! If you can't help them, don't poison them!. Capischi ? Now please don't CENSOR the thing I put there cauz' it's a fact, pal, and encyclopedias are all about facts, not fiction! Not factions either! My sentence duplicates nothing, except whatever you don't want to listen because you've been CONDITIONED to RELY on those SHARKS! It simply isn't music for your ears! And it's informational content MADE SIMPLE FOR YOU TO GET IT! Care to interprete without putting your opinion FIRST ? Extract TRUTH of the MATTER! We'll all live longer, sleep better and intoxicate less fish by dumping our toxic urine in the toilets and the planetary ocean as a consequence! did you know that tadpoles and frogs change sex in the US because of this? A great Pharmacovigilante said that if we threw all our industrial drugs we'll be benefactors for mankind but criminal for the kingdom of animals who can't protect from us ? If you don't want to think about one million americans during dying each presidential mandate, from side effects, at least think of all those fish ! - irismeister 18:30, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/t/Talk%7EAlternative_medicine_archive_10_ed4b.html"