Talk:Holistic veterinary medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine.

This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

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

[edit] Lead problems

I need help moving the lead (which needs work) above the index!

Italic textThis article needs a pinch more skepticism, not to mention references!--—CynRN (Talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks QG, for restoring the refs! After sleeping on it, I kind of figured out what I did to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talkcontribs) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It annoys me when alternative practitioners claim that they are holistic in absolute contrast to conventional, AKA 'allopathic', practitioners. Mainstream veterinary medicine certainly takes the whole picture into account: the animal's diet, lifestyle, emotional factors. A substantial percentage of veterinarians are using CAM therapies in addition to conventional drugs and surgery, for a variety of reasons. One reason is that there is increasing interest in CAM for humans[1], and pet owners want these options as well. Another reason may be that since many animal (and human) diseases are difficult to treat and have no sure cure, alternative methods give the practitioner something to offer...a little morsel of hope. The cynical view is that CAM is a revenue booster for a practitioner. Unfortunately, much of the American population is unscientific and superstitious. Fifty one percent of Americans believe antibiotics kill viruses, 54% believe in ESP and 25% believe that the sun orbits the earth![2] Pet owners gladly pay for a homeopathic remedy for, say, allergies, because the authority, the veterinarian, recommends it. A fringe element of veterinarians seem to be going the 'naturopathic' route, espousing Magnet therapy, Applied kinesiology, Bach flower remedies and other unscientific treatments. --—CynRN (Talk) 19:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
VCRA is an Applied Kinesiology method that reliably allows the practitioner to use electrical / electromagnetic interactions of the body to determine the root cause of disease imbalance. VCRA is based on Dr. Versendal’s correlation of energetic (electrical) imbalances between specific (reflex) points on the body surface corresponding to internal organs. It has been determined that it takes 44 pounds of pressure to push down the average person’s arm. When a VCRA reflex point with an imbalance is tested, it only requires 18 pounds of pressure to push the arm down. In using VCRA on animals, a surrogate person touches the animal and they act as a jumper cable to transfer the animal’s electrical energy so their arm muscle may be used to detect the animal’s imbalance. Surrogate AK...and this person is a licensed veterinarian![3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talkcontribs) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead does not have a section heading above it, and should summarize the content below. Which reads a bit coat-rack and fork-ish to me. Also, the page needs to be diberried. WLU (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

These aren't good choices for further reading. FR should be general, not specific, and these are quite specific. They should be integrated as inline citations instead. Though the final appears to be a blog, which is not a reliable source (see self-published sources). WLU (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)