Talk:George Vithoulkas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Note

The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.

[edit] Deleted as Copyvio

The old page was a Copyvio of [1], and had to go. It may be remakable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathic's objections

I've given an actual quote from Vithoulkas where he implies antibiotics cause Alzheimer's. This is someone who supposedly doesn't object to antibiotics? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'll try to explain this as best as i can. Obviously i'm not G.V., but an MD who has studied and practiced Homeopathy for years, and i can more or less explain a few things about his writings. Regarding Antibiotics, he says that they are being abused, and that (in conjuction with the abuse of vaxinations) are leading to serious chronic diseases (including Alzheimer's, Cancer, Autoimmune diseases, you name it). He does NOT claim that Antibiotics should NOT be used, but rather that they should be used carefully. It's a whole theory you're not familiar with and it can not be explained in a few lines here, you need to read his books to understand. Saying that he says NOT to use Antibiotics, NOT to use Vaxines, NOT to use chemotherapy, is not what he supports. You will not find such a thing written anywhere - that is your understanding, by reading one article, and jumping to conclusions. One more thing: he does not say not to use homeopathy along with Chemotherapy, or other evidence-based techniques, but that in this case, the effect of Homeopathic remedies are a lot less effective, or in some cases, not effective at all. This differs from what you wrote, about the "should not be used" part & "makes it more difficult". Hope you understand.Homeopathic 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this article which is a copy of the speech he made when receiving the Right Livehood Award (1996) at the Swedish Parliament. He explains in short a few important key-points of his theory regarding health and disease.Homeopathic 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And also, i'd like to point out the fact that no editor has yet inserted the date (1978) of the critique regarding the "Science of Homeopathy", which is an outdated one, clearly not depicting the current views of the Homeopathic community and the acceptance Vithoulkas and his writings have received, as can be clearly seen by the other 3 references i've provided, from the same specialized bookshop and journal. Homeopathic 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thank you for an excellent reference about his distrust of vaccinations: "Anxiety neurosis, compulsive neurosis, and in general mental disorders of a severe nature from which millions of patients are suffering in the western world, are almost unknown in these groups that have not had the "benefit" of modern medicine and vaccinations."

And, what's more: "The model suggests that all these chronic diseases, including hay fever, asthma, cancer and AIDS, are the result of wrong intervention upon the organisms by conventional medicine. It claims that the immune systems of the western population, through strong chemical drugs and repeated vaccinations, have broken down and finally admitted the diseases deeper and deeper into the human organism, to the central and peripheral nervous system."

Which is definately suitable for the article.

"In short, this model claims that conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race."

Weren't you trying to tell me he wasn't against all conventional medicine?

"Due to this model, I had already, in 1970, predicted the appearance of AIDS, saying to a group of medical doctors in Athens that if conventional medicine continued to use antibiotics the way it did, there would come a time when the immune system would break down and new incurable diseases would emerge. It was an unfortunate but precise and timely prediction of the appearance of AIDS."

HE CLAIMS ANTIBIOTICS CREATED AIDS?!

You're right, that is an excellent introduction. I never would have believed he was that far out there had I not read it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you do not agree with his views, does not give you the right to edit his page and insert what YOU understand from his writings. If you want to quote the man, do so, giving the full picture of his theory. But do not re-write his views as you understand them, and give FALSE interpretations like you did the first time. There is a big difference in the words "using" and "abusing" as far as conventional drugs and medicine are being concerned. Vithoulkas, for his work in the field of Classical Homeopathy and his theories for health and disease, was awarded the RightLivelihoodAward (and many others), and i think those organisations who awarded him know more than you on the subject (it's clear that you are against Homeopathy itself, probably not being able to accept the fact that superdiluted & succused substances have biological effects). Sorry about the spelling errors, vaccines do not have an X indeed!

It is amazing how much you are twisting his views. Regarding AIDS he does NOT claim it is CREATED by antibiotics, but that it is "caused by the HIV virus", which infects someone with a weak immune system, the latter being "the result of drug overuse" (and of vaccinations) article.

You may not agree with him (so do most MDs at the present day), but that does not give you the right to misinform users worldwide about his views.Homeopathic 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, as far as health views expressed on Wikipedia go, that's almost mainstream. Definitely a good source for his views, whenever the article gets unprotected. And just for the benefit of User:Homeopathic, M.D., there's no "x" in vaccine. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Let's try this suggestion:

He claims that "conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race." He blames modern medicine, vaccinations, and antibiotics for mental disorders including various neurosis, hay fever, asthma, cancer and AIDS, claiming that "immune systems of the western population, through strong chemical drugs and repeated vaccinations, have broken down and finally admitted the diseases deeper and deeper into the human organism, to the central and peripheral nervous system."

He does not believe modern medicine extends lives, saying that "In the past, old people were getting illnesses and getting ready to die; but then they were given antibiotics, and they would go into a state of Alzheimer's and after that they would live very long... They are included in the figures for average life expectancy, but they are not alive."

He claims homeopathy can cure some cancers, but should not be used with chemotherapy and other evidence-based medicine treatments, as this supposedly makes homeopathic treatment "more difficult". He says that modern medicine will soon be recognised as a dead end, and that it needs taken apart and restructured according to the guidance of homeopaths.

Is it agreed this is a fair assessment of his views? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Vithoulkas' views (and judging by your conduct with regard to this article neither are you) but I suspect that your quotes have been selected, not because they are in any way representative of his views, but rather because you think that they are the most titillating or controversial. As such, they wouldn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP which warns against people inserting material to further a point of view. From the same interview, what I suspect is a more representative viewpoint is this: "It will need the co-operation of the medical authorities with us in order to find out which methods or treatments should be rejected and replaced by the homeopathic process, and which should be kept and continued. It is not a matter that can be solved by the ordinary people and their understanding of the complicated medical issues that exist today. If the medical authorities do not realise that their way of injecting unwisely chemical drugs into the organism upsets in a very deep way the homeostasis of the organism then there is no hope for a reconsideration of the whole medical system." --Lee Hunter 16:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're typical - both of those articles have lengthy sections along those lines. Have a look. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, when he says repeatedly that his whole theory of medicine is abases around the thought that modern medicine is responsible for more harm than good, it's not POV-pushing to quote him on it. Would it help if I gave the exact quote(s) each of my sentences were based on, so that you could judge if, in context, they're still a fair version of his views? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly the most extreme views of his, anyway. I'd say that'd probably be something like:

Today, I want to make another prediction. If conventional medicine does not take notice of what we say and drastically change its practices and its logic in treating with chemical drugs; if it does not also change the direction of its research, soon diseases will go to the very centre of the organism, which is the nervous system, and most of the population on earth will be mentally ill individuals.

I do not expect that this theoretical model will be understood or appreciated soon by the medical authorities, but I think that from now on there is no excuse for ignoring the so-called side effects that conventional therapies have inflicted and are still inflicting on the human race.

-The acceptance speech.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not when you quote his writings, but when you choose the most *dramatic* quotes, insert your own phrases, "summarize" as you'd like the rest, or presenting partially his views. This part, again from his speech at the Swedish Parliament, represents with accuracy his whole view on modern medicine, health and disease: "The model suggests that all these chronic diseases, including hay fever, asthma, cancer and AIDS, are the result of wrong intervention upon the organisms by conventional medicine. It claims that the immune systems of the western population, through strong chemical drugs and repeated vaccinations, have broken down and finally admitted the diseases deeper and deeper into the human organism, to the central and peripheral nervous system. In short, this model claims that conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race. It is also very simple for anyone to think that if conventional medicine were really curing chronic diseases, today we would have a population in the west that was healthy, mentally, emotionally and physically." That is what he says, and that is exactly what he means. By editing his text, you're giving the wrong ideas as his views. Ρresent his whole theory exactly like he describes it, not just the part it suits you. Homeopathic 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered you about this part "He claims homeopathy can cure some cancers, but should not be used with chemotherapy and other evidence-based medicine treatments, as this supposedly makes homeopathic treatment "more difficult". He does NOT say it should NOT be used with chemotherapy and other evidence-based medicine treatments, but rather that in these cases the homeopathic remedies are less effective, or in some cases (depending on the conventional drug used and its dose) no effective at all.Homeopathic 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't use his text unedited. That's a copyvio. Not that it really matters with the AfD. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the medical doctors that have followed Vithoulkas teachings over the years. Cuerden has misunderstood and misinterpreted the interview he is referring to. Vithoulkas always ridiculed the exaggerated statements by some Indian homeopaths claiming that are curing all the cancer cases. He has been very critical on a number of issues -crazy ideas- within the homeopathic profession. No where in his teachings he is claiming of curing cancer . Even the one case he mentions in the interview leaves the doubt that may have been misdiagnosed. Concerning antibiotics and vaccinations is not only Vithoulkas who claims that they have side-effects . There is a whole literature too long to mention it here. Yet he never claimed that they have to be banned but only to be used with caution in order to minimise side-effects. I am requesting him to put up his real opinions on these matters from the video teachings of the Academy from past years for every one to see. Will he do it? I am not sure he is reading what is going on. A.K. MD 62.38.77.145 12:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion

I have the authority from Professor George Vithoulkas to ask you to delete his article from your wikipedia immediately. He considers this discussion unfair and biased. Maria Chorianopoulou, PhD, Assistant to Professor George Vithoulkas, maria@vithoulkas.com213.5.45.122 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee Hunter, please can you tell us what is the official process of deleting the article about George Vithoulkas? We ask wikipedia to delete the page and they do not. Maria Chorianopoulou, PhD, Assistant to Professor George Vithoulkas, maria@vithoulkas.com213.5.45.122 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maria - You can contact Wikipedia to request the article be removed: here. Hope this helps, MidgleyDJ 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination) is currently considering deletion of this article. .. dave souza, talk 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Dave Souza, we consider all this discussion ridiculous and biased. Please, take action so that the article about George Vithoulkas is immediately deleted. I will also inform the central office of wikipedia. Maria Chorianopoulou, PhD, Assistant to Professor George Vithoulkas, maria@vithoulkas.com213.5.45.122 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the subject of an article is generally allowed to insist on its deletion, though he or she can put it up for deletion by any of the tstandard processes WP:DELETE. But, according to WP:BLP, the subject, if the information is in the public gaze already, can't suppress the information just because it's negative. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "negative" article, but a false one. You have forged the truth. It is high time you accepted making mistakes concerning Vithoulkas.62.38.71.248 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there is there anything in particilar that Vithoulakas objects to in the article. Abridged 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather confusing that one person using this IP (213.5.45.122) votes to keep the article [2], but Maria, using the same IP number says to delete it. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's almost like registration should be required to participate in AfD's. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some good guidelines here:

Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.

I have seen AfDs and RfCs where comments by unregistered users were not considered seriously. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maria--I would suggest that you look here for information about what to do next. There is also a section about dealing with edits by the subect of the article. Wikipedia guidelines ask us to take the wishes of the subject of a biography seriously:

"While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel. Jimmy Wales warns other editors to think twice when encountering such attempts: "...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."

. Given Maria's notes above, I think she may find the way the subject is presented in this article to be "unfair and biased," but it is unclear if she is referring to the article or the talk page. Abridged 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, specifics about which parts are objectionable would be helpful. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, we can't do much without something to go on. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

I just participated in the discussion about deletion of this article and did some rewrites on the text itself.

I created a top section summarizing biographical details. I created a "views" section to catch all of the quotes that the previous version had contained. I also created a section on praise and criticism and moved appropriate stuff into that section.

The views section contains some very extreme stuff. I am not an expert on this author and do not know if these few quotes are really the essense of his various positions. I think this section needs some additional work by another editor who knows more about the subject. Abridged 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The summary of bibliographic details had real POV problems - it collected together slightly POV bits from throughout the rest of the article, and... well, read like an advert. Just don't think that be a good idea. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my changes without any good reason or explanation. Do you think that putting the bio details in one section, the views in another, and criticism and praise in another is a bad idea? If so, could you defend your position? Abridged 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Here's what you said, "I'm sorry, I just think dividing it up like that makes it seem a little POV. Or maybe it's juse that that paragraph moved to the second position is written in an advertising-like tone" I'm not sure how creating categories in this article that many other biographies on Wikipedia have creates POV. If there is any way the langauge could be made more neutral, then that should be done, there was no reason to revert the structure away. This just makes for a less well organized and more poorly written article. Abridged 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more that all the biographical details are taken straight from his website, or the CV he gave to the Right Livelihood Award. Both are puff pieces, so when the bits of them used are collected all together, we have a puff piece again. Not sure what to do... I suppose we could just cut big chunks of it, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is about details but you blew away the structure I created. That doesn't make any sense.
Regarding content: The first section of a biography article should contain information about career: training, experience, publications, other career pursuits. This guy was trained as a homeopath, published many books on the subject (along with some texts that are actually considered standard in schools of homeopathy), has been very active as an educator, and has developed a software program. Along the way he won an award or two. That is all fair game for the first section of a bio article. If the language is neutral, then let's work to make it so. Abridged 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think it can be done, we could, but... well, I'm not sure how much we can do, and the AfD is a bit stifling. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my comments. If I put back the structure, are you going to just revert me again? The afd is off-topic for this particular discussion. Abridged 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! No, I won't, but I may tear the biographical section to pieces for NPOV reasons. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to statements that he was given the Right Livlihood award? I had never heard of that award, but it certainly looks like a notable one. Abridged 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? No, not really, though it might be best to leave the awards to a later part. He claims several, that's the best documented. There's a few others that may or may not be notable, given to him by governments at the time of Homeopathic conferences, but how important they are, I cannot say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well the RL award certainly belongs in the top bio section. Abridged 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of his articles. I'm a little hesitant to link, though.

Adam Cuerden please stop removing material from the bio without discussion. Abridged 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look just below this, one minute before you posted =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict--that wasn't there the last time I looked, but I'm sorry if I jumped the gun. could you consider not taking out material before discussing, though? Abridged 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Materia medica, V.E.S

I've removed these for two simple reasons:

1. I can't think of any simple way to describe a materia medica that wouldn't be so wordy as to be useless for a short biography. Maybe you can?

2. I don't think the V.E.S. is notable. I mean "has sold over 1,000 copies"? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I wikilinked "materia medica" after I added this sentence. I thought that would serve the purpose of the explanation.

There are three homeopathic software programs: ISIS, RADAR and MacRep. This thing he developed is a module in RADAR. I think it is pretty notable in terms of his career that he participated in the development of an expert system. It is worth a mention, I think, to give a sense of the breadth of his career in homeopathy. He also has developed a series of teaching videotapes, but that doesn't seem like something unusual that we need to mention. Abridged 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point, but a review or two by any organisation not selling the product would be nice: I mean, it's not particularly notable if noone's buying it. As for materia medica, well, wiki-linking's fine when it's just to offer more information, but when the term is completely meaningless (as opposed to merely vaguely familiar) to 99% of readers, it probably needs glossed, as otherwise we're asking them to read a second article before they can understand this one. Prefer them a bit more self-contained.

We could always sidestep the issue and just say "His current project is Materia Medica Viva, a reference work in 16 volumes, of which six have been completed." Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that probably works, and shouldn't be controversial, so I have been bold. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What you've done looks fine to me. Abridged 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Materia Medica is the basis of all Homeopathy, and is a standard term in Homeopathy. It needs not be explained. Vithoulkas' Materia Medica Viva is probably the best materia medica ever written (11 volumes have been completed up to now), and has received excellent reviews from the homeopathic community. 1 2 3 4 5 These links are just a few, from the "specialized bookshop" as Dave Souza called it, including reviews from the same journal like the critique being currently used (and STILL not showing the 1978 date).

As far as VES and RADAR are concerned, i can assure you it has sold a lot more than 1,000 copies. RADAR is protected by HASP hardware, having a unique number, +1 for each user/buyer. Now their counter is something like 26,000 or so, but the exact sales can only be found by contacting Arcibel.

You are ignoring all the sources and links provided regarding the recognition he has received from the Homeopathic community. You can not ignore all, some can not be questioned, like the RLA (1996), and the Indian 'Golden Medal' (the full video will be provided in a day or two).Homeopathic 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the current version and see what you think. Initially Adam Cuerden removedthe entire discussion of the materia medica and the software program, but has now conceeded that they can stay in the article. I think the current discussion is ok, altho I'd like to wikilink to the article on homeopathic materia medica and might make a change that allows that. What do you think? Abridged 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many books??

In this edit Adam Cuerden inserted the specificier "several" before the number of books authored by the subject. It looks GV has authored at least five books, with one being a multi-volume major materia medica. The word "several" in this context seems quite biased; I would say "many" would be more accurate, but I would expect others to consider that to be biased. We could also just have "books" without any numerical indication of how many books he has written. Alternately, we coudl have the number of books he has written. What do people think? Abridged 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Materia Medica Viva, he has completed already 11 volumes (not 6).link.Homeopathic 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the text from "several" to "a number of". Abridged 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The objection seems odd, but I don't mind changing it. I'd have thought an unqualified "wrote books" sounds like he wrote fewer than "wrote several books". Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the guy has written 5 books + 11 volumes of a materia medica. That is pretty prolific by any standard. "several" in my mind means something like three, a few, a very small number, not prolific. I think it is biased because it minimizes his contribution. does this really seem odd? Abridged 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I always imagine it as around seven or so. I don't think it's meant to be very specific. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I imagine it to be fewer adn that's why I thought the use of "several" infused bias. You might note that your characterization of my comment as "odd" comes off as a value judgement and a vague attack, although I know you didn't mean it that way. Abridged 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. As you said, I didn't mean anything by it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm just mentioning it to you so you can avoid creating stress for others in future. Abridged 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About V.E.S.

It is wrongly described as "an expert dignostic system for homeopaths[4]". It is NOT a diagnostic system. It is a tool that analyses symptoms and suggests the best possible remedy selection(s) for a case, according to a complex set of rules that take into consideration what Vithoulkas believes is important (Vithoulkas is a supporter of Hahnemannan's Classical Homeopathy, as described in Hahneman's Organon). That's the essence of it. Will try to find a phrase that describes that in a more formal way.Homeopathic 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is what an expert system is. In homeopathy the "diagnosis" = the remedy the patient needs, no? Abridged 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "Diagnostic system" is utterly wrong. In medicine, diagnosis refers to Diseases, and not to the prescribed remedies. VES analyzes the symptoms the doctor thinks are important in a patient, then VES tries to find the best matching homeopathic remedy, according to Vithoulkas' rules (based on Hahnemann's Classical Homeopathy theory).Homeopathic 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am using the term too loosely. In a conventional medical sense, yeah, diagosis = the disease. In a homeopathic sense diagnosis = the remedy a patient needs. That being said, it is fine to change the text. I was trying to come up with something that would make everyone happy and I clearly haven't done that so you should change it. Abridged 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In a way what you say is correct, but it is not possible/acceptable to name VES as a "Diagnostic System". There is a phrase, something like "prescription-aid analysis tool"... *something* like this (just cant remember the right word/phrase right now)Homeopathic 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is really an Expert system isn't it? Abridged 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an Expert System. But lacks the "identifier". Expert System about what ? It is a Homeopathic Expert System, regarding symptom analysis and remedy selection, based on a complex set of parameters, defined by Vithoulkas, according to Hahnemann's teachings on Classical Homeopathy.Homeopathic 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think "homeopathic Expert system" with a wikilink to "expert system" would be enough? I feel like the whole description you have would unbalance the article and might be more than the reader needs to know. Abridged 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be enough. I was merely trying to explain exactly what it is.Homeopathic 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views section

(refactoring from above for clarity) My strong objection is about the Views section. They do not represent Vithoulkas' views on the subject, they are incomplete, giving the wrong idea. I have already provided the part from the acceptance speech that depicts his views, in a proper way. You argued about the copyright status of the speech, that will change like his CV info and photo did, tomorrow, so it will be possible to use it to show his full & true view on the subject.Homeopathic 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes seem extreme, cherry picked, and the presentation does not seem neutral and probably violates WP:NPOV. We need better summary statements with cites that are more representative of GV's views. I dont' know his work well enough to contribute them. Homeopathic is there a way to do this in a concise way? Abridged 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm reposting the part of the speech that clearly & fully depicts his theory (as BEST as it can be described in a few lines): "The model suggests that all these chronic diseases, including hay fever, asthma, cancer and AIDS, are the result of wrong intervention upon the organisms by conventional medicine. It claims that the immune systems of the western population, through strong chemical drugs and repeated vaccinations, have broken down and finally admitted the diseases deeper and deeper into the human organism, to the central and peripheral nervous system. In short, this model claims that conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race. It is also very simple for anyone to think that if conventional medicine were really curing chronic diseases, today we would have a population in the west that was healthy, mentally, emotionally and physically." The copyright status of the speech has already been changed, and it can be used freely without any copyright problems. Homeopathic 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have snipped that quote for brevity when trying to shorten the section. Apologies if you feel strongly about keeping it. Abridged 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain a few things, why the current text in the Views section is wrong.

"He blames modern medicine, vaccinations...". WRONG: he blames the ABUSE of drugs, vaccinations, etc (and not the use).

"He does not believe modern medicine extends lives...": WRONG. The fact that modern medicine extends life, can not be disputed by anyone, be it Vithoulkas or whoever. Vithoulkas ofcourse has not made any such statements. There is a difference, between extending someone's life, and keeping the quality of life at a high level. No such statements have been made, should be deleted.

He believes standard care will make homeopathic treatment "more difficult": this is a complex issue. I've described again and again what is happening in reality. Homeopathic remedies work under allopathic treatment, but are less effective. This "more difficult" part is unclear & undefined, we can make it exact.

These are complex and important health issues, and to save us all from the trouble, i assure you the part i've quoted, is the shortest and most precise you can find, that contains his views about conventional medicine.Homeopathic 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that Homeopathic is objecting to a section where, on the subject of extending lives, an exact quote is given, explaining his views in detail, and yet homeopathic still claims that Vithoulkas' own words are not an expression of Vithoulkas' views? And may I also point out that Vithoulkas himself does not actually ever use the phrases "abuse of", or, at least, not very often? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In the way his words have been used, phrases here and there, they do not represent his theory. Noone has any objection about including his views about conventional medicine, health & disease in general, but it has to be made sure it is 100% correct. Homeopathic 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Dave has found a nice secondary-source summary, and used it. Why don't we expand that synthesis with quotes from Vithoulkas, combining the two paragraphs into one? Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (fixed typo dave souza, talk)

In my opinion it reads ok now, with V's own words following on from a summary by Alice Greene. Disclaimer: the source was put forward by Homeopathic as a review which should be used to balance Campbell's criticism, and as requested I've simply summarised that review. .. dave souza, talk

[edit] Why Cuerden is biased

You write that out of his Materia Medica Viva of 16 Vo. he has completed six!!! when at this moment Minimum price books are selling 11V of his MMViva! You have found a critic on a paragraph of his book the "Science of homeopathy" where he mentions the theory of the miasms of Hahnemann. In this context he writes that syphilis it can still be passing in the deeper organs and systems- nervous system and circulatory system- even after penicillin. And when attacked by dr.Cambell -a hard core medical man- you omit to give his answer which is in the same Journal British Medical Journal- where he gives all the medical literature that proves his point.

You choose to hide the fact that this bad critic was the only one ever of this book, that it was written in 1978 when GV brought the ideas of Hahnemann back to the forefront. You omit to say that has made several editions till today and is on the market for the last 29 years.Do you know a lot of books that are selling from a respectable publisher like Grove Press-Random house group - for so long? You do not like the fact that the most prestigious encyclopedia of Greece, Papyros Larousse Brittanica (61 Volumes)has devoted a three column article on his name. You make it sound that he is a little homeopath who by chance got all these awards.

I personally understand you very much that unwittingly became biased because you are not an expert in the field. Only experts on each subject should be allowed to interfere with biographies of others in the field if we do not want to be creating more confusion than clarification. We should try and make this excellent Wikipedia-tool more sharp rather than destroy it with bias and ignorance. Vithoulkas has himself asked that his biography be deleted from Wikipedia. I have been proposed to be one of the editors of Wikipedia. The version I am proposing- and you keep deleting- may be more acceptable to him as well.

George Vithoulkas Homeopath and Teacher of Homeopathy
Was born in Athens 25-7-1932.
According to the Greek encyclopedia “Papyros-Larousse-Britannica (Greek edition, volume 15, page 396)”He is the main reformer of homeopathy in the twentieth century. He added new dynamics in the therapeutics of homeopathy on scientific basis”.
In 1996, he was awarded with the Right Livelihood Award (also known as Alternative Nobel Prize, www.rightlivelihood.org) “…for his outstanding contribution to the revival of homeopathic knowledge and the training of homeopaths to the highest standards”.
In 2000, was honored with the Gold Medal of the Hungarian Republic, from the country’s President, Arpad Goncz, for his efforts to spread homeopathy in the world.
He received other honors as well.
He is the director of the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy in Alonissos, Greece.

Some of his books are the following:
“The Science of Homeopathy” (Published by Grove Press, 1980, USA, several editions).
“Homeopathy-Medicine of the New Man” (1st Edition 1973 by Arco USA, 21 editions after this).
“Homeopathy-Medicine for the New Millennium” (Published by International Academy of Classical Homeopathy -2003).
“Materia Medica Viva” (11 volumes–Homeopathic Pharmacology–Published by International Academy of Classical Homeopathy-not completed).
“A New Model for Health and Disease” (Published by North Atlantic Books, USA).
“Classical Homeopathy for Anxiety and Jealousy” (Published by Urs Maurer, Switzerland, 2001).

Some of his articles in peer-review journals are:
1. True but strange? Nature. 1996 Oct 3;383(6599):383, G Vithoulkas
2. Homeopathic treatment of chronic headache: a critique, Homeopathy, Volume 91, Issue 1, January 2002, Pages 32-34, G Vithoulkas
3. The need for the correct sequence of remedies, Homeopathy, Volume 91, Issue 1, January 2002, Pages 40-42, G Vithoulkas
4. The question of the “constitutional remedy”, British Homoeopathic Journal, Volume 87, Issue 3, July 1998, Pages 145-147, G Vithoulkas
5. Obstacles to homoeopathic treatment, British Homoeopathic Journal, Volume 85, Issue 1, January 1996, Page 42, G Vithoulkas
6. Health and disease in homoeopathic philosophy, British Homoeopathic Journal, Volume 84, Issue 3, July 1995, Pages 179-180, G Vithoulkas
7. The colour of the homeopathic improvement: The multidimensional nature of the response to homeopathic therapy, Homeopathy, Volume 94, Issue 3, July 2005, Pages 196-199, M. Oberbaum, SR Singer, G Vithoulkas
8. Effects of homeopathic treatment in women with premenstrual syndrome: a pilot study, British Homoeopathic Journal, Volume 90, Issue 3, July 2001, Pages 148-153, M Yakir, S Kreitler, A Bzrezinski, G Vithoulkas, M Oberbaum, Z Bentwich
9. Homoeopathic treatment of premenstrual syndrome: a pilot study, British Homoeopathic Journal, Volume 84, Issue 3, July 1995, Pages 182-183, M Yakir, S Kreitler, M Oberbaum, A Bzizinsky, G Vithoulkas, Z Bentwich
10. A working hypothesis for homoeopathic microdiluted remedies, British Homoeopathic Journal, Volume 81, Issue 1, January 1992, Page 67, GS Anagnostatos, G Vithoulkas, P Garzonis, C Tavouxoglou
11. Clinical trials of classical homeopathy: reflections on appropriate research designs, J Altern Complement Med 2003 Feb;9(1):105-11. Review, M Oberbaum, G Vithoulkas, R van Haselen.Miri Rozenberg 11:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)An Objective Homeopath-Miri Rozenberg

I put 6 books because that's what this site said. Sorry if it was out of date. Mind ye, Vithoulkas' own site says 8.

I'm quite happy to believe it's up to volume 11 now, but would prefer to double-check. You sure?

As for the rest - I'm sorry, but that's a rather POV-pushing stub. We need some details. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A world of difference

The edit summary here says one thing, but the included quote says another. There's a world of difference between being widely considered to be "the greatest" and "widely considered to be one ..." of(?) "the greatest". So what's the original quote actually say? Please provide the URL and include it in the reference. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the hasty edit summary, I was rather annoyed after the previous editor had removed the quote based on nothing but a vague buzzing sensation between his ears. The exact quote is "According to George Vithoulkas, widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist". You can verify the quote by searching within the book on Amazon [3] --Lee Hunter 11:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed criticism

I removed the following chunk

In 1978 Anthony Campbell, then a consultant physician at The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital,^[1]^[2] reviewed The Science of Homoeopathy. He criticised Vithoulkas for substituting assertion for hard evidence and constructing what Campbell felt was an almost meaningless argument on the basis of a dubious theory of disease. He described rhetoric put forward by Vithoulkas (in presenting the argument that "allopathic drugging" is harmful and must be avoided) as including a thoroughly irresponsible statement which could mislead an unfortunate layman into refusing orthodox treatment. However, he felt the book also provided a good, if dogmatic, description of the principles and practice of "classical" homoeopathy.^[3] ^[1]

My reasoning is first of all that the review is thirty years old and so hardly representative of how his ideas are regarded today either inside or outside of the homeopathic world. Secondly, as per WP:BLP the lengthy treatment of a single, ancient book review gives undue weight to criticism. --Lee Hunter 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you don't want so include a well sourced criticism, effectively restricting the section to praise. Hagiography is inappriopriate, the date of the review is shown at the outset. .. dave souza, talk 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is notable, and one of the few times the wider medical community responsed to Vithoulkas himself. Leave it in. If anything, by showing non-homeopaths responded to him, it's an argument for his notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Campbell is actually a homeopath, but would be considered a heretic by other homeopaths, because he has allowed scientific facts to get in the way of his beliefs. [4] [5] -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, I wonder whether he's notable... Might be worth an article on him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 12:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've thrown together a stub. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've nominated it for deletion. I can't believe you've nominated Vithoulkas for deletion in the face of overwhelming evidence of his notability, demand unusual amounts of proof, and then turn around and create a new article about someone who apparently is not known for anything more notable than a 30 year old review of one of Vithoulkas' books. Curious indeed. --Lee Hunter 15:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a WP:POINT violation. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. The article was started 4 hours ago, f'rcrissakes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The guy is an almost complete nobody as you, of all people, should be well aware. A couple of unknown minor publications, some of them not much more than pamphlets. No stature in his field. A few thousand hits on Google. Quite shocking really. --64.26.148.76 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability...The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. --Lee Hunter 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points. The assertion by 64.26.148.76 that Campbell "is an almost complete nobody" seems odd, not least since 64 has made only two articlespace edits, the first of which was to remove the point hat Campbell is a Fellow of the Faculty of Homeopathy. No stature in his field? The BMAS evidently think he has stature.

As for criticism representing the views of a tiny majority, it's worth reading BHA FAQs:

Why have I heard that some homeopaths tell their patients to stop their other drugs?

It is very unusual for a qualified health care professional to give such an instruction. Some non-medically qualified homeopaths have been known to give such advice and it stems from their distrust of mainstream medicine. The reason they will give is that some drugs can inhibit the effects of the homeopathic remedies. It is true that some drugs can produce such an inhibitory effect, particularly steroids and other drugs which suppress the immune system. However, experienced homeopathic practitioners will tell you that it is still possible to see the remedies produce good effects in the face of these drugs. Drugs should only be stopped when it is deemed they are no longer clinically necessary

dave souza, talk 11:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, he's one of the 1,500 members of the Faculty of Homeopathy! That was my edit to remove that information, by the way, I just wasn't logged in. As I pointed out, this isn't an article about Campbell and being a "Fellow" sounds impressive but doesn't really mean much, if anything. --Lee Hunter 22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

Vithoulkas is not suggesting a patient under allopathic treatment (for a chronic disease) should stop taking his allopathic drugs, especially without the guidance of an MD, if that's your point. Instead he says that Homeopathy can also cure diseases, efffectively, without the side-effects and long-term effects of the chemical drugs, and therefore is should be preferred. Homeopathy can also help someone even if he can not stop taking his allopathic drugs, by allowing him *possibly* to need a smaller dose per day of the allopathic drug. And even if that is not possible, it helps by boosting the immune system, energy and mental & emotional state of the patient.

The part you quoted defines exactly what Vithoulkas means with the "more difficult" part, which i have repeatedly explained above.Homeopathic 14:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It feels like this is changing from a disc of the subject of the article to a discussion of homeopathy. Unless either continuing or stopping conventional medications is a core principle of the Vithoulkas school of homeopaty, documentable with a quote from a RS, then it shouldn't be in the article. Abridged 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is about Vithoulkas views on Homeopathy, Medicine, Health and Disease. And i've taken the time to explain what he says and what he means. I'm pointing out the misinterpretations, because most people here do not know the Homeopathic theory, or Vithoulkas' theory. Homeopathic 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"continuing or stopping conventional medications" can not be really considered "a core principle of Vithoulkas' School". That's something that has generally to do with Homeopathy and the effectiveness of homeopathic drugs underallopathic treatment. I can assure you, Vithoulkas is very conservative & carefull regarding this issue.Homeopathic 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, it will be good to have citations clearing up misunderstandings by showing how the approach of Vithoulkas as presented in Sweden:[6]

"It claims that the immune systems of the western population, through strong chemical drugs and repeated vaccinations, have broken down and finally admitted the diseases deeper and deeper into the human organism, to the central and peripheral nervous system.

In short, this model claims that conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race."

is reconciled with the following statements:

"Homeopathy integrates well with conventional medicine."[7]

"Despite the differences in approach, homeopathic and conventional treatments can work very well alongside each other."[8]

Presumably this may be no more than a difference in presentation of what in practice is the same approach. Can you find citations that make clear the attitude of Vithoulkas to such statements? .. dave souza, talk 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worth citing?

I found this, which says

Most other contemporary ‘modern’ approaches, on the other hand, developed out of the Kent school. That many depart from and thereby dilute the original ‘Kentian’ homoeopathy may only be pointed out as an aside. It is enough to mention Rajan Sankaran and his ‘central delusion’, or the ‘Athens School’, initiated by George Vithoulkas. They all have in common that they stress the importance of the mental symptoms, without clearly distinguishing between symptoms and ‘non-symptoms’. There are even schools who believe that physical symptoms are irrelevant, at times even misleading and that only mind and personality matter. When a potentised remedy is then given, all changes, also those in the mood of the patient, are ascribed to the effect of the remedy. What is totally overlooked is that such, to a great extent, marginal changes can equally be the effect of the placebo effect or of the consultation. Such an intensive and intimate talk is often sufficient to markedly influence the mind of the patient. Not everything which happens is due to the influence of the remedy.

Is this worth citing? I stumbled upon it while looking for any responses to something Vithoulkas had said.

Much better, however, is this, with, among other things, a lengthy history of the criticisms of Vithoulkas (though the author himself is in favour of him). This would add a lot to the article, I think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the top quote is a little too technical for the Wikipedia bio on GV. I didn't read the other, sorry, but will Abridged 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit to not really understanding the top quote, but it sounded like it might be interesting. The second cite I gave is far better - an independant source on Vithoulkas and controversy (shown to me by Dave Souza). Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I find the quote difficult as well. It is taken out of context; the first sentence refers to a comparison that is not in the quote so we don't know what to make of it at all, but in general he's talking about schools of homeopathy. I think that in this article we would have to outline what really defines the Vithoulkas school before including a critique of it. The rest is criticizing some practitioners (maybe the GV school--unclear) for basing the remedy choice on an incomplete history (ie not getting all of the necessary information, not asking about physical stuff and focusing on mental stuff). Finally, the author is critical of those who chaulk up all improvements after the remedy is given to the remedy while ignoring the fact that being listended to in a sympathetic and compassionate way during the interview can be a healing experience in itself. The last two critiques seem larger than critiques on GV. Abridged 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "It is enough to mention Rajan Sankaran and his ‘central delusion’, or the ‘Athens School’, initiated by George Vithoulkas. " part: this is UTTERLY WRONG. George Vithoulkas has strongly critisized Sankaran and his Doctrine of Signatures theory. There is NO way someone can connect them. google video article.

Most WP editors are not familiar either with Homeopathy, (and ofourse) nor Vithoulkas' ideas, and by trying to find here and there articles and phrases that critisize him, are including FALSE information about his teachings and theories. It is not jut enough to quote something, unless you dont know the theory behind it.Homeopathic 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, homeopathic, are you talking to me? I was trying to explain the quote to Adam a bit since he said he didn't understand it. There is no reason to attack me and and my knowledge base. I find your remarks a bit harsh, overly personal, and judgemental. Your tone is unnecessary. Please refer to WP:NPA and WP:AGF, OK? Abridged 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking to the person who quoted the above, whoever it is (looks unsigned to me, but it makes no difference anyway). I only wanted to point out that even critiques contain mistakes (which ofcourse no editor can recognize unless he knows both Homeopathy and Vithoulkas' views on the subject). And NO, ofcourse i was not attacking anyone, and especially you (in fact i appreciate your efforts here). If i gave the wrong impression, i apologize, no offence was meant.Homeopathic 15:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was me who quoted the bit above, but, as I said, it sounded interesting, but not really easy to understand - it seemed to be Hanneman vs. Kent, with a side of how much emotions affect treatment, which I think needs far more understanding of history of homeopathy than I have. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now i've read the full article from the source provided above. This is a complex issue, and is not easy to explain unless you know very well the homeopathic theory, and you've studied the Kent's Materia Medica and Theory as well. Stefan in general expresses correct ideas, but has made some mistakes (like relating Shankaran to Vithoulkas), and some exaggerations. He makes Kent sound like he said different things from Hahneman, which is not true. Surely he emphasized the mental state of the patient, but not ignoring the rest of the symptom of the patient. It's pointless trying to explain this, this requires very deep knownledge of homeopathy... Anyway, the only reference to Vithoulkas in that source is regarding Sankaran, and that is wrong (i've provided the proof above). The rest of the text is about Homeopathy in general, does not belong to Vithoulkas' WP page, forget it...Homeopathic 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Right-o. So, ignore the first article. What about this one, which I'm highly inclined to use fairly freely in expanding out Vithoulkas' history. It adds a lot more about the man, as opposed to dry lists of events. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The author says that Vithoulkas, Sankaran, Scholten, are in favor of the same type of ideas, where Vithoulkas has strongly critisized the other two for their theories. There's has been a great misconception between homeopaths as far as Vithoulkas' theories are concerned. In this article (and in the one we discussed above), the authors worry about paying attention ONLY to mental symptoms, exaggerating their importance, and prescribing almost in all cases, based on the mental symptoms. And they are right in that respect. But it has to be explained that Vithoulkas does not support that kind of prescription. Yes, the mental symptoms are without question VERY important, but have to be supported by/agree with the rest of the physical symptoms (this refers to the "totality of the picture").

The misconception is about the word "essence". Most homeopaths think that Vithoulkas by saying "essence" refers ALONE to the mental symptoms of the patient. That is WRONG. Vithoulkas when using the word "essence" refers to the mental symptoms that characterize an homeopathic remedy ALONG with it's physical characteristics/modalities. I'd say that this happened after the publication of the "Essences" book (actually those were student notes from seminars that were publiced "as is", by Bill Gray MD, without Vithoulkas' actually correcting the information in it).

The main problem is (as i understand it) with the use of the word "essence" itself. Whereas Vithoulkas refered to the WHOLE mental/emotional/physical picture of a patient, homeopaths misunderstood this and considered as "essence" only the mental symptoms, and from then on, many problems appeared, in the form of various ideas and schools (like Sankaran's ideas - strongly critisized in the video above).

Someone may say i'm trying to justify/excuse Vithoulkas, but luckily enough, there are videos online from his lectures that show clearly how much attention he pays to the whole picture of a patient. That can be seen in the homeopathic remedies described on Video (google video, eg Phosphorus), and if further proof is needed, again more videos from his teachings can be uploaded that prove what i'm saying (he says the above things himself).

So, again, the critique is correct as far as prescribing all the time on mental symptoms alone is concerned, but that is wrongly attributed to Vithoulkas. Homeopathic 16:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, two sources saying their theories are similar might be notable, even if we should make it very clear that Vithoulkas (and others) deny it. However, I'm mainly interested in the second source for the history: There's a lot about Vithoulkas' involvement in homeopathic controversies in there, and it's a fairly balanced, even generally pro-Vithoulkas treatment, and, as we don't have that many reliable sources in English, this'd be a useful cite to get this article beyone the somewhat tepid thing it be. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Moscowitz is a homeopathic MD with an excellent reputation and the piece looks well written. I think it is a really good source. I would argue for letting the top section neutrally outline the subjects career accomplishments rather than injecting a lot of commentary up there (ie--let it say he wrote this and that book, not what various folks thought about this and that book), even if it seems a little "tepid". I think we should use the "views" section and the "praise and criticism" sections hold the information you are referring to. The challenge is that most readers won't know much about homeopathy to begin with, so presenting essential aspects of the GV school, then getting into technical differences between schools and the pro and con criticisms will be difficult and might even be beyond the scope of a biographical article. Abridged 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Abridged 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vithoulkas is one of the most important figures in the history of Homeopathy. Ofcourse he has received critisism, but the international awards and recognition he has received, prove who he is. No other homeopath during this century has played such an important role. This fact can not be ignored, and has to be depicted in the WP page. My final two cents.Homeopathic 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, James Tyler Kent is this century. People never pay much attention to the things more than 30 years ago when talking about centuries. Ah, well. Could be worse - Homeopath of the Millenium gets Hahnemann in as well. People are so short-sighted when taking about long times. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic, please read Wikipedia:Attribution carefully. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Vithoulkas can be the best thing since fried bread, and may well have played the most important role in homeopathy during the last seven years, but without a reliable secondary source this can't be depicted in the WP page. .. dave souza, talk 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're beating a dead horse here; they guy seems to be gone. Abridged 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Vithoulkas --- opinions on the role of conventional medicine in patient care (moved from AFD talk page)

As far as I know George Vithoulkas does not recommend to stop allopathic medications. An Objective HomeopathMiri Rozenberg 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Miri Rozenberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Citation please. His speech he's put up on his website certainly gives the impression that he wants what you call "allopathic medications" to be stopped – please add sourced info to the article or article talk page. .. dave souza, talk 09:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Vithoulkas' website and I found a citation in which you can see that Vithoulkas doesn't recommend allopatic medications to be stopped. You can see at his interview in Securvital, the biggest german journal of insurance companies [[9]] Also, I give you the question and the answer of the interview that we are interested in:

P. Which are the possibilities of homeopathic treatment in very advanced pathological cases?
In this group we have end-stages of diseases, like cancer, liver cirrhosis, juvenile diabetes, long standing diabetes that need insulin, long standing Parkinson, neuromuscular diseases, amyatrophic lateral sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, myopathy, myasthenia, brain strokes, spastic and autistic children, long standing epilepsy, long standing asthma with emphysema, serious heart conditions, serious mental disorders like schizophrenia, homeopathy can offer very little help in very few of such cases. There are few successes in such cases that made some over-enthusiastic homeopaths to believe or to claim that homeopathy can intervene and cure everything. The truth of the matter is that for such cases we have success only in a few cases. For these groups of diseases the practitioner will need the chemical drugs of conventional medicine in order to control the situation. An Objective Homeopath Miri Rozenberg 12:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Abridged, thanks for moving the discussion here. My concern is that in his speech accepting the Right Livelihood Award in Sweden:[10], George Vithoulkas made a series of comments which he summarised as "conventional medicine, instead of curing diseases, is actually the cause of the degeneration of the human race." This seemed to contradict the overview presented by the British Homeopathic Association which states that "Homeopathy integrates well with conventional medicine." The link Miri Rozenberg gives above provides a much more balanced view, closer to the BHA position:

"P. Are both approaches the conventional and the homeopathic necessary for a better system of health or do you think that only homeopathy should be practised.

There is no question that both therapeutic approaches are necessary.

Each of them in different situations.

In this matter there is a great misunderstanding. Many homeopaths claim that homeopathy could cure everything while others believe that can cure nothing.

The truth of the matter is in between. Homeopathy is indicated and is effective in the first stages of chronic diseases, where the problem is still mostly functional, but if the pathology has progressed after many years so far as to cause structural changes then the use of conventional medicine will be necessary."

He then indicates diseases in which homeopathy is most likely to be successful, and a group where "the success will not be over 50%. In these cases after they have established structural changes conventional medicine starts playing an important role." – the list starts with multiple sclerosis, though in his speech he gave this as an example of "cases that were not only given up on by conventional medicine but had often been a result of it" since "it is entirely unknown to Africans, Asians or South Americans, who have not had the "benefit" of the excellency of western medicine." It certainly seems that his interview for the German Medical Journal SECURVITAL gives a useful clarification, which should be summarised in the article. .. dave souza, talk 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With all respect...

Why are we quoting the people in this section?

He has been described as "the maestro of classical homeopathy" by Robin Shohet;^[4] Lyle Morgan says he is "widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist";^[5] and Scott Shannon calls him a "contemporary master of homeopathy" ^[6]. Paul Ekins credited Vithoulkas with the revival of the credibility of homeopathy. ^[7]

I'm sure we can find equivalent quotes from people of actual note. These people are just minor homeopaths that wrote a single (maybe?) popular book. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all at least as notable as Anthony Campbell, if not more and we've given him an entire paragraph. --Lee Hunter 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they notable, though? Beyond writing at least one book? Maybe we could work that information in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Anthony Campbell was reviewing Vithoulkas' book in a prestigeous - perhaps the most prestigeous - homeopathic journal. These are just one-sentence mentions in the middle of a long book. It's not at all the same thing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lyle Morgan has written three books on homeopathy. Scott Shannon was president elect of the American Holistic Medical Association at the time this book was published. I think they are notable enough to be quoted. Abridged ^talk 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Although, one more thing. I think it would be more interesting to have quotes from expert folks saying something more substantive about GV and how his contributions to homeopathy are really remarkable than what we have here. But I do think that the quoted folks I mentioned are notable enough to give an opinon. Abridged ^talk 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but it's always good to say why. My point was that Campbell's piece has weight by being published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, so Anthony Campbell's own notability isn't important. However, these are lines Lee Hunter found by using Amazon's search inside feature for random books (he was showing this on the AfD), and the only mention of Vithoulkas in the books quoted, as far as I can tell. Thus, it's a trivial mention, and the author's relevance is the only thing that makes it notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what degree does he have?

How about putting GV's actual degree in the article rather than inserting and removing the phrase stating that he doesn't have an MD? That would make it perfectly clear that is degree is not an MD, and might dispell anon's concerns. I don't know what degree he has, but will look and change the article to reflect. Abridged ^talk 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After this disagreement, I tried to find out exactly what degrees the Indian Institute of Homeopathy confers. I can't seem to find any information about this institute. In fact, the only results in google[11] for "Indian Institute of Homeopathy" are from Vithoulkas's bio! Can someone confirm the existence of IIH, and, if so, what type of degrees it offers? Vithoulkas's bio only states that he received a diploma from IIH, and does not indicate the type of degree he received. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and two other things. First, your compromise edit is quite acceptable to me. I get a little uncomfortable when articles about medical practitioners equivocate over whether or not they have an MD. Referring to him as "Mr. Vithoulkas" satisfies my concern there. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I googled it too and couldn't find anything. I'm not suspecting it doesn't exist because we can't google it however since not all of the places in INdia have Web sites. I don't doubt GV has solid homeopathic education, but agree it would be nice to have details of the degree for the bio. Abridged ^talk 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just reworded it, since we don't know that he has a degree of any kind at all, at least not one that is considered legitimate. A diploma can be anything on a piece of paper, recognizing participation in anything from a weekend seminar in a neighbor's garage to a university degree from Harvard. A diploma could also be from a non-accredited institution. This needs to be checked, since it is a serious problem with more and more people in positions of trust who are being exposed as having non-standard "degrees". Until we get some outside confirmation, we only have his word for it. Even if it turns out to be a recognized institution no longer in existence, it's still about so much diluted water..... -- Fyslee/talk 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This site has something pretty close: "Indian Institute of Homoeopathic, Bahola, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore." Could this have been the "Indian Institute of Homeopathy in 1966"? Is the location the same? From the site:

"The Central Council of Homoeopathy vide its Memo No.136/83-CCH Dated; 5th May 1985 and V26025/12/83-AE 12th September 1983 has clarified for the information of General Public that Institutions advertising any postal course or arranging registration in Homoeopathy are neither recognized by State/Central Government nor affiliated to the Universities/ Statutory Boards/ Councils of Homoeopathy. The purpose of these Institutions is only to make money by attracting innocent persons who are anxious to get themselves registered as medical practitioners. The Central council of Homoeopathy cautions the public that such institutions as for example given below, have no recognition at all to grant registration as homoeopathic practitioners and the qualifications awarded by these institutions do not confer any right whatsoever on the holders of such certificates to practice homoeopathy in any part of India."

-- Fyslee/talk 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with 192.150.5.150 that Mr. is inappropriate – after all, that might imply that he's a surgeon, and we know that's not true. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested "MR" because it seemed more neutral than saying he is a "non-physician" and since this is what he is referred to on the homeopathic sites, I didn't think that anyone would think it didn't seem respectful enough. I also don't think anyone will confuse this guy for a surgeon (altho maybe DS's remark was tongue in cheek? But anyway, the suggestion is not going over well because it has been reverted a few times. About potential for misrepresentation, I understand the concerns, but is casting aspersions really necessary? The suggestion that GV got his diploma from a diploma mill probably violates WP:BLP. It is also not necessary to tell everyone what an editor's IP is since he might want to keep that private despite having perhaps slipped up (refactored talkpage to remove that). On the matter of the institution and degree, I've written to the Webmaster here to ask about GV and the institution he went to although it feels a little original researchy. Abridged ^talk 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's the British usage. Good point. What would function to indicate he's not a medically educated physician? BTW, no one has suggested he got his diploma from a degree mill. It's only one possibility that only came to mind since an institution with nearly the same name was listed as such on that site. There is no indication that George was educated there. -- Fyslee/talk 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This site (which is a weird keyword search site) contains this interesting phrase:

"...one of the founding members of the Indian Institute of Homeopathy."

Otherwise the only sites that mention the Indian Institute of Homeopathy are quoting the same source, and all are quoting his biography. No other uses of the phrase are found. If he was "one of the founding members", this might be a plausible explanation, but lacking a better source this is OR and can't be included. -- Fyslee/talk 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I recall correctly, all honorifics are to be avoided according to the WP:MOS. So just call him "Vithoulkas". No Mr., Dr., or whatever. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried under the spelling popular in India, Homoeopathy. Oddly enough, this comes up with someone from the same graduation year: [12] In any case, Vithoulkas' site often prefers translations not in use anywhere else, so it might just be a translated into Greek and back problem. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that guy seems to have more medals than Vithoulkas and "He is recognized as the world's leading authority in the field of Homoeopathy by the receiving of various honours and distinctions internationally. Some that have been awarded, include Gold Medals from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as best Homoeopath of the world." ... dave souza, talk 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee and Mast Cell are absolutely right about honorifics---I had not seen the style guide or would not have suggested. Adam---Sounds like 1966 was a REALLY good year for the minting of new homeopaths! :=) Abridged ^talk 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/o/Talk%7EGeorge_Vithoulkas_4714.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | Biography articles of living people who have requested removal | Biography articles needing attention | Start-Class biography articles