Talk:IMOD (herbal extract)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

this is an unbelievable step, and I am almost positive that in America, it will not be affordable for those who have HIV. It will be a high priced, over the counter, prescription drug, and will remain this way until our conflict in the midle east is resolved.

This article needs skepticism of this, Nothing that isn't State Run has approved it.Bkkeim2000 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

guess what? you will probably be able to make this yourself.... its not rocket science, its feeding the body what it needs to heal itself, a radical concept in the west.

The West is responsible for most major medical achievements over the past few hundred years. Penicillin, cure for polio, aspirin as a pill, new transplants, etc. Thomasmallen 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for Great achievement. Especially from a nation who have not AIDS/HIV problem at all. This could be the following line of Farabi, Ibne Sina, Abu Reyhan Birooni, Omer Khayam and Zakariya Razi. Sun rises from the east. Ramin Rezanejad , 17 February 2007

Very funny. Actually Iran has about 100,000 HIV cases, according to the World Health Organization.[1] And even if one believes the ludicrosities regularly emitted by Ahmadinejad, this "breakthrough" falls far short of a cure. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In Tehran, intravenous drug abuse is rampant, and with it HIV. The Washington Post highlighted this a little over a year ago [2] Thomasmallen 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The articles tone is not objective and highly sceptical. maybe there is a justification for this scepticism but i think that as an encyclopedia article, it should merely state the facts, wihtout any 'tone' as is shown by use of the words 'alleged' and the like... A statement at the end saying that the drug remains unverified by western agencies should be enough.

Reporting uncritically the scientifically improbable, entirely unverified and (by their own declarations) factually inaccurate reports of a totalitarian regime (first it was a "cure", then it was a way to enhance immune response...) with a dedicated propaganda outlet would hardly be NPOV. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

We need to look at the npov issue from a macro scale. every source we have uses the quotes from the same few members of the Iranian Government known for propaganda and misinformation. Not smalltime misinformation, they deny the holocaust.

A Neutral Point Of View, in this case, would be to delete the entire article.

...or maybe merge some parts of it into the Disinformation page 72.196.254.224 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Persian article translation

There was a request for this in the AfD; I gave it a quick hack. I am not a native speaker, so please forgive translation errors; I did my best (for a 30 minute translation).

Announced discovery of a drug to control the effects of Aids in Iran.
- Iranian Health Minister announced the discovery by Iranian scientists of an herbal drug to control the AIDS virus. He explained that this drug would not end the Aids epidemic, but will prevent the symptoms due to AIDS.
This herbal drug, which is named "Imod", has not yet been registered on an international level.
The production of this drug in Iran, which will enter the market soon according to Iranian officials, was announced in a ceremony in Tehran.
The way the Iranian officials said it, in order to create an herbal drug to control AIDS, young scientists studied at fifteen research centers for about six years, and tested this drug on 200 volunteer patients, of which 65% had no symptoms 21 months after being off the drug.
According to Iranian officials, the treatment cours of the Imod drug is 90 days, but its effects last 2 years.
In addition to the Iranian scholars and research centers, a Russian scholar also had a role in the research of this drug, and a European center also participated in the effectiveness tests.
Discoveries of other Aids drugs in Iran have also been announced, and later refuted.
Some time ago, the health minister had announced that he would give good news to the people, and following that, mohammed farhadi , one of the previous health ministers in Iran who was supervisor of the research related to Aids drugs, announced that Iranian researchers had discovered an Aids drug.
But, sources in the health minister recognized that this news was premature, and explained that the discovery of the drug hadn't happened yet.
According to the official statistics, the number of Aids sufferers in Iran is 14 thousand people, and the number of those who have lost their lives to this illness is more than 1700 people.
The majority of Aids sufferers in Iran are drug addicts that were exposed to this illness because of the common use of dirty needles.

Deltopia 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable medicine, even though (or even because) it is likely an Iranian government hoax. Sandstein 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMOD

IMOD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is an obvious example of disinformation regarding a non-existent product that was itself created for the purposes of disinformation. The references to the "AIDS cure" are part of Iranian-controlled media, with the exception of the BBC Persia link which I can't read--I couldn't find any reference to the term on the English BBC site. The talk page alone provides enough evidence per the discussion of the page's creators to warrant deletion. It was listed under the list of antiviral drugs, which was incorrect since there is no evidence it does anything but misinform. The "manufacturer's" website talks about how successful the "cure" is and how happy AIDS patients are to be cured, but the discussion forums are empty. The news coverage is limited at best, manufactured at worst and the topic is therefore not notable. It's announcement might be notable were it something that affected foreign relations or the scientific or HIV-positive communities, but the simple fact it was announced doesn't make it worthy of Wikipedia. If that were the case, there would be a lot of bizarre and misleading articles from many questionable governments. Please delete. TeamZissou 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The 'drug' itself is obviously nonsense - one of a long string of ridiculous announcements from the Iranian regime, but it might make an article if it concentrated on the propaganda hoax, rather than the probably non existent medicine. Nick mallory 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I translated the BBC Persian article and threw it on the talk page. BBC article even notes that disinformation has come from the Iranian health minister before... I think it's notable, but my brain kinda burns out from translating, and I'm not very good at it, so I don't know anything; you guys decide :) Deltopia 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Comment That's what makes Wikipedia so cool--smart, wonderful people who will translate Persian for a fact check--thank you, Deltopia! I hope your brain cools down. :) TeamZissou 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, TZ :) My brain has been immersed in rum for hours, which has fixed it right up. I am calling Keep - The story of IMOD is notable, based on press coverage, I think. If we think it's disinformation (which we do, because we have a grain of common sense), we need to source that somehow. If it is sourceably a hoax, it's probably notable just because of that - the article would have to be changed, but it's still kind of a big thing. In Iranian news, this is probably huge, and the fact that our systemic perspective gives us a different vision of it doesn't mean it's insignificant. (Plus which, let's imagine how much fun it will be to revisit this page in six months if they announce, woops, nevermind, it's not REALLY an AIDS cure.) Deltopia 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. BBC Persia news coverage (kindly translated by Deltopia) seems sufficient independent sourcing. Even if the therapy is 100% bogus (and immune modulation is a mainstream part of HIV/AIDS therapy), if it's being pushed by a government that seems strong reason to include a balanced coverage here. Espresso Addict 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Comment. Espresso Addict, did you read the comment left on the talk page by the original authors?

    this is an unbelievable step, and I am almost positive that in America, it will not be affordable for those who have HIV. It will be a high priced, over the counter, prescription drug, and will remain this way until our conflict in the midle east is resolved.

    BBC Persia has one small article on their website concerning this, likely because of the coverage of it in Iranian state media. If we were to validate the encyclopedic value of an article based on whether or not that article appeared in a footnote news story, imagine all the junk that would be on Wikipedia on top of all the junk we already have. If anything, this article should be folded into the Disinformation article, or perhaps placed in a new article like Propaganda in Iran (surprisingly, this doesn't exist). One short mention from one reputable news organization just isn't enough for something specifically designed as a PR tool. Will we be the ones to give it more importance than it has, thus achieving the goal of further misinforming the Iranian people? TeamZissou 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did read the talk page. No-one here is competent to judge whether or not the drug does what the Iranian goverment says it does, all we can judge is whether there is significant reliable independent coverage of its existence. The BBC Persia coverage seems important here, and it's also mentioned in HIV-specific forums eg [3] and news sites eg [4][5]. Espresso Addict 10:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure anyone capable of reading this discussion possesses ample competence to answer whether-or-not an:
  • "herbal drug"...
  • "made with nanotechnology"...
  • created by the intellectual and innovation powerhouse that is the remanents of Iran's scientific community...
  • a community that is necessarily subservient to an authoritarian theocracy...
  • a government that can't even get its en.wikipedia.org propaganda officers to disinform in coherent English...
has produced a "proven" treatment for HIV/AIDS. The first external link you provide is from a Q&A forum--one question (sum:Iran says it has an aids cure. huh?) and one answer (sum:I've heard of it. Be skeptical.). The second link is an article based on an article based on an article from Iranian media--the story, by the way, offers a different description of IMOD's development from including "one Russian scientist" to no Russians and replacing them with "Cuban scientists". I'm sure the legit Cuban medical community is more than annoyed with that. The third link is to the shortest FOX News article I've seen, and it sources the same bunk Iranian news agency on which every other piece of information on IMOD is based. If a mention of IMOD belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it should be placed in an expanded Fars News Agency article as a notable example of what that news agency does. Are we seriously having this debate? TeamZissou 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, notice that "Fars News" bears a striking cognitive (and functional) resemblance to "Fox News"? ,:o
  • Keep multiple independent sources establishes that subject passes WP:NOTE. Content of article is now NPOV, pointing out that there is no independent research to support the claims of the Iranian Health Ministry. Items of disinformation, or even outright hoaxes (see Category:Hoaxes in science, are valid topics for encyclopaedia articles. Gandalf61 10:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was looking over the links provided by Espresso Addict and adding to my reply as you were writing yours. I inserted the additional text above following the edit conflict. TeamZissou 10:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:

  • "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."
  • "Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works."
  • ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." -- which suggests the article should not be about the "drug," rather it should concern the act of the announcement if anything. The announcement and no data, no examples, no outside opinion is all the articles provide. All articles essentially say "Iran said this" and "Fars News said that." If the article focuses on the "drug" (background, effects, outcome) instead of the announcement of the "drug", then IMOD fails the "mere replications of a single source" and the "reliability" restriction. If there are a handful of small footnote articles simply repeating what the Fars News announcements claimed, if fails to achieve "more than tivial" coverage. Again, at some point the Fars News Agency article will become larger and more informative, and the IMOD announcement could then be included under a section called "Extraordinary claims" or something of the like.

Additionally, hoaxes are meant as jokes, or for personal fame, etc. IMOD is not a hoax--it's piece of propaganda that's part of a larger propaganda effort to keep people controlled and the government of Iran in power. This isn't a "hoax in science"--it's political tool. How can this not be obvious to anyone who reads the information on it--especially from the sources' only source: Fars. TeamZissou 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment TeamZissou, you don't do yourself any favours by making belittling remarks like "How can this not be obvious" and "Are we seriously having this debate?". Yes, the claims made for IMOD are, almost certainly, a political tool, propoganda and exaggerated disinformation. By itself, this does not rule out a balanced NPOV Wikipedia article on IMOD. The point at issue is whether IMOD is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedai article. I believe it is; you believe it is not. Please do me the courtesy of assuming that I have put just as much thought into this issue as you have, even though my conclusion differs from yours. Gandalf61 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Very well, but according to the requirements of the WP:NOTE the topic still fails to meet notability standards. TeamZissou 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have added the IMOD deletion discussion to show that the focus was on the disinformation and quackery elements of IMOD's notability, not that this "herbal drug made with nanotechnology" remotely resembled real science or medicine. Reading through the comments, you will see that those discussing the value of IMOD as an article intended the kept article to provide an example of propaganda--they did not support the idea that IMOD was a cure for HIV or relieved HIV-related problems. I have posted it here because the "See also" section had the terms disinformation and quackery removed by an editor identified only by an IP (89.165.42.109). I posted a vandal warning on the remover's anonymous IP for cutting the "See also" section--following that, this message was left on my talk page by the user who removed the links, 89.165.42.109:

Sorry sir! but vandalization is actually what YOU are doing to Imod apparently due to denial of your deletion proposal. (to which I replied:)

There is no evidence (nor even common sense) that suggests IMOD is anything but disinformation or quackery. Rather, it is a contemporary and obvious example thereof, and therefore the external links stay. TeamZissou 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see this turning into an edit war. The internal links to disinformation and quackery were placed on the page prior to the deletion discussion. Maybe the anonymous user thinks that there really, really is an AIDS cure made from herbs using nanotechnology--perhaps developed by the same scientists who developed Iran's "stealth flying boat" (which, interestingly, had much more news coverage than IMOD, was just as ludicrous, and which doesn't have an article) and who have 'discovered' that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Not one. Who knew?! As many seasoned Wikipedia editors and administrators who have worked on Iran-related articles know, there are many pro-Iranian nationalists that push hard for articles to reflect 'official' viewpoints regardless of how absurd the Iranian state's declarations may be. The "See also" section has been returned, but since I will be the first to violate the "Three-revert rule" in the event of an edit war I wanted to demonstrate that those internal links were seen as acceptable by those who reviewed this article. For the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, they are also necessary. TeamZissou 19:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP user 128.95.171.85 removed the same internal links today. I placed a vandal tag on this IP user's talk page. I expect more such vandalism to follow. TeamZissou 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)