Talk:Autolysis (biology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Text copied from online textbook

Exactly who wrote this? "The manner in which an abscess "points" on the surface of the body and drains its septic contents on the outside is well known to every one of my readers." Isn't exactly the style one would use in wikipedia. This may be plagiarized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.248.128 (talk • contribs) 00:49, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bizarre article that appears to be based solely on the experience of one doctor, and assumes a level of knowledge in the readership that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I find it particularly annoying that the reference to autolysis in the information death article finds no explanation on this page , as it talks only about the theory that fasting can cure cancer, which seems to me like a rather unsabstantiated claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freya77 (talk • contribs) 15:04, November 7, 2006 (UTC)

There are a handful of sources from supposed experts, physiologists etc. - supplied in various paragraphs of this article that seem to be dead wiki links. Could these references and people be further researched into and branched out a little further within wikipedia? I agree, that this 'stub' needs a little more research/broadening. Maybe this is some form of quasi-physiology, or overlooked science??? Any ideas, anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.155.65 (talk • contribs) 23:31, November 7, 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article increased about 2000% in size in two days, 30-31 Oct 2006, all from one user, and style and content look like they need a serious paring down and working over. The main thrust of the present article seems to be that if you stop eating it will cure your cancer. It's not terribly clear to me the difference between autolysis and programmed cell death / apoptosis; the latter is a well-written and encyclopedic article which may include most of what needs to be said about autolysis. Is there a tag for "needs an overhaul"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.26.85 (talk • contribs) 00:43, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

"This may be plagiarized"--good call. Wholesale verbatim imports from [1]. If no one is up for a major rewrite, maybe the page needs to be reverted all the way back to the stub it was a couple of weeks ago. Starve the tumor away, as it were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.26.85 (talk • contribs) 00:51, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

One thing's for sure, I want to make sure that guy doesn'T get anywhere near me if I ever get cancer! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freya77 (talk • contribs) 10:41, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how you actually mark this page as inaccurate? I think it should be pointed out to be people as extremely unproven theories, because telling people they can cure cancer by not eating is a bit of a big deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freya77 (talk • contribs) 14:05, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

I'll second everything that's been said and say that this article needs a serious reworking. If I knew the slightest thing about physiology, I'd do it, but hopefully someone else 'll come along, lol... Nicolasdz 00:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I have reverted all the text copied from "The HYGIENIC SYSTEM By HERBERT M. SHELTON", it was not a copyright violation, since it was in the public domain. But it was not mainstream science (it might not even be "minor-stream" science).

Most importantly: it was not encyclopedic in tone. It was too long, and simply was not written like an encylopedia article (which makes sense, since it was copied verbatim from a text book).

I left in the external links to Russell Thacher Trall, M.D. and to Shelton's book. I'm not sure they really belong, but I don't see the harm, and maybe someone will be interested.

Ariel. 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)