Talk:Hijama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is not at all NPOV. The writer is obviously a firm believer in a treatment that is not considered effective by Western medicine. The article should therefore show that modern medical science does not advocate this treatment. Makerowner 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the link is dead, so this article does not cite any sources. This page should probably be deleted or completely rewritten.Makerowner 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about modern machines, Modern Madince has been proven wrong many time. I beleivne the objecter is an islamophobe facist and he has some personal issue, this is encyclopedia and only list information on the subject not an advocacy board of FDA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.203.86 (talk • contribs).

I am neither an islamophobe nor a fascist, and I have no "personal issue". I do not accept Western medicine as the final authority on medical treatment, and I believe it is seriously deficient in several respects (prevention for one). I am interested in alternative medicine, yet the fact still stands that modern Western medicine has had greater success in treating disease and injury than any other system invented. It is accepted as the standard by which other systems must be judged. Western medicine does not approve of this method and I think the article should reflect that. This is not necessarily a default of the treatment: it may be effective, for all I know. I'm just saying that the article should mention that modern doctors do not use this technique. Also, please sign your comments and refrain from personal attacks in the future. Makerowner 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with article

I took a look at the article, and have the following non-exclusive concerns:

  • Hijama is stated to be fundamentally different to blood letting or cupping. In what manner is it fundamentally different? The only major difference shown is the quantity done - which is not a fundamental difference.
  • The benefits section needs a citation, and also uses weasel words. If Hijama is believed to have all those benefits, then there should be at least one study confirming or denying this. The only reference that indicates some health benefits does not directly refer to Hijama, and states that the process is of use for a limited set of diseases or issues (and that diet plans can have the same effect.)
  • The "Other Treatments" section says that it shouldn't be confused with bloodletting, and becomes a mini-segment stating that bloodletting doesn't have benefits. Does the same apply to Hijama?
  • And finally, I have a concern with the reliability of the blogspot link - it performs a search on a blog, which is not guarenteed to be consistant due to natures of searches on these sites.

As far as I know, there's plenty of unanswered questions when I take a look at the page. There is content, but it leaves a few unanswered questions and isn't supported by references. --Sigma 7 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm not against this article existing, or even presenting the possibility that this treatment is effective, I just want to see some evidence from reputable medical sources.Makerowner 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/j/Talk%7EHijama_d2d0.html"