Talk:Sclerology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the WikiProject Ophthalmology, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to ophthalmology on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page. |
 |
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. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] "Research" by Grand Medicine
Regarding: "Modern research conducted in the U.S.A. by Grand Medicine is currently furthering the 'science'." Grand Medicine claims to do research on their websites, [[1]] or [[2]], but they cite no specific studies or findings. I'm going to remove the comment, but I will be happy to replace it if anyone can provide specific information of their research. Edwardian 07:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Research" by Josef Angerer
Regarding: "Certain Iridologists, including Dr. Josef Angerer, have delved into its study with some success." A google search of "Josef Angerer" and "sclerology" gets two hits; "Angerer" and "sclerology" gets nine. None mention anything about Angerer studying sclerology. I'm going to remove the comment, but I will be happy to replace it if anyone can provide specific information about the assertion. Edwardian 08:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Section entitled "History"
Regarding: Advocates claim that sclerology has been used perennially by indigenous cultures for at least a millennia. They claim ancient Chinese medical texts show that the method was used in China over 1000 years ago, and that American Indians practiced it but kept no written records. I found no impartial reference (only pro-sclerology websites reitterating what one another have claimed) that has shown this to be true, therefore, I added the "advocates claim" to present a NPOV. Edwardian 08:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy dispute
The header currently states: "The dispute is about Sclerology is notable quackery, but the article isn't sufficiently skeptical about its claims." What content is specifically inaccurate and what would make the article "sufficiently skeptical"? Edwardian 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Not only that, but to say Sclerology is "notable quackery" is simply a POV; IMHO a very misguided, very misinformed or simply uninformed. I am removing it altogether. GranMed 13:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
