User talk:Robert2957
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- An introduction to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Be bold
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Take the time to edit your User page and let us know a little about yourself.
We are always looking for quality images for our articles. If you have any images which you can release freely, please upload them to Wiki Commons.
By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (but you don't need to sign articles; the software makes sure you get the credit you deserve).
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! User:Zeimusu
|
|
[edit] Re Patrick Holford
Yep he looks like a piece of work. When it comes to "health treatments" I am very much a skeptic. I am a skeptic about most things, I suppose. I am trained in engineering and math, and come from a family of scientists. Probably as a result, I have generally equated "new age" and "alternative" with "bullshit". However, as I have grown older, I am less inclined to think of "science" as "pure" and "unbiased" as I once did. Peer review stops some but not all of the "Murphy's corollary" (draw the graph, then plot the points).
My reading and editing of WIkipedia articles has been entertaining, at the least. I think Hulda Clark takes the 'cake' - zappers to cure everything including cancer? yikes. I suppose there have been snake oil salesmen since the beginning of time. And some MDs fit into that category too, sadly (I have run into some *licensed* quacks, too). But at least with licensed professionals, there is some showing of knowledge and skill. It would be interesting to see how many people have died from "alternative" quackery v. "licensed" or "traditional" quackery (I use that word loosely here, to include preventable error and just lousy practioners, and lousy mediicne). I wonder if any such study has ever been done.Jance 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
