Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Conventional?

Did we define "conventional" medicine anywhere? David.Monniaux 14:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We're still waiting for a definition. David.Monniaux 13:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anybody unable to figure that question out has no business reverting edits in alternative medicine -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 13:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you should stop the ad hominem attacks ("college dropouts" and similar claims). This article on "alternative medicines" starts by defining them as different from "conventional medicine", but there's not a single sentence anywhere defining what "conventional medicine" is. Since you seem unable to discuss matters without going to the level of schoolyard taunts, I'll take it upon myself to make up a definition. David.Monniaux 17:36, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talking about yourself? Have you tried conventional medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conventional medicine is a redirect to medicine. Since, semantically, alternative medicine should be a sub-field of medicine in general, there is surely a definition problem here (if "conventional medicine" = "medicine" but "alternative medicine" is defined as "medicine" [the science of medical treatments, as a dictionary would say] minus "conventional medicine", then we obtain that there is no such thing as alternative medicine).

Of course, you may contend that the so-called "medicine" page is really about "conventional medicine", though most of the first part of this page is really about generalities of treating patients.

You are thus cordially invited to provide another definition if mine does not suit you. David.Monniaux 17:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd also be delighted to know what exactly constituted criticism in the paragraph I wrote. Please answer, without personal attacks. Thanks. David.Monniaux 17:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We have already gone through this route before!!! That is why you are supposed to read through the talk pages. Conventional medicine was originally User:Irismeister/Conventional medicine but was moved because it was classified as an essay.

Personally, I think the word medicine is not even a required part of the definition as I have already proven. Of course, my definition of AM was edited out yet again for maybe the 5th time. I do not see this topic being an issue at all. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 02:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have proved nothing. Your definition talks about "medical treatment". What is "medical treatment"? David.Monniaux 17:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote generally accepted medical methods. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last version of my preferred definition was:

Alternative medicine is a broad term for any diagnostic method, method of treatment or therapy whose theoretical bases and techniques diverge from generally accepted medical methods.

With this definition the emphasis is on methods' where it should be. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 02:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I think this page should be protected. Obviously, edits are a kind of ping-pong game between Mr-Natural-Health and others, with Mr-N-H removing any criticism of "natural medicines" for various alleged reasons. David.Monniaux 16:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Support" section

Mr-Natural-Health, I cut down three of your points in the "support" section to their essence. You might want to read George Orwell's excellent essay Politics and the English Language for help on doing this yourself, so that I don't have to fix your muddle. First, your long-winded statement

Genuine physicians who are holders of the M.D. degree and who as physicians that are subject to the disciplinary actions of the state boards who licensed them to practice medicine; do in fact offer alternative medical services to their patients. Hence, these physicians must see some added value in these alternative forms of treatments for their patients.

became

Some licensed doctors prescribe certain alternative medicines.

Sorry, but I do not need you to tell me the essense of what I had written. Ergo, I do not find that your re-write is an improvement to what I had writte above. The entire point was these physicians must see some added value in these alternative forms of treatments for their patients, -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that is implied in my rewording. They wouldn't prescribe it if they didn't see value in it. Ashibaka ✎ 04:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but the emphasis is on these physicians must see some added value in these alternative forms of treatments for their patients. Your quip is totally worthless as support, in my opinion. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Second, the paragraph

Some of the strongest support for the value of clinical experience in alternative medicine comes from conventional physicians who have voiced their criticisms of evidence-based medicine (Tonelli 2001, Downing 2003). These physicians, while arguing about their need to apply population evidence to the patient standing before them, are in effect supporting the value of eclectic branches of alternative medicine which place great value upon the clinical experience of the practitioner.

became the more clear sentence

The alternative medicine industry claims that its products will become mainstream medicine one day.

Sorry, but I do not need you to tell me the essense of what I had written. First, of all AM practitioners offer services rather than products to their patients. Your assertion that AM is selling products shows me that you do not know anything about the subject of alternative medicine. Population evidence. patient standing before them, eclectic branches, clinical experience are all key phrases which your re-write left out. I am selling the essence of alternative medicine to the public. And those key phrases are all an important part of the sizzle in my opinion. Ergo, I do not find that your re-write is an improvement to what I had written above. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um... yeah, I left those out, that's why it's a total rewrite and not just fiddling about with grammar. I don't see how adding those "key phrases" contributes to the point of what is supposed to be an encylopedic summary. Ashibaka ✎ 04:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, well you see unless the paragraph sells AM there is no point in puting it in the article. So, your re-write is worthless. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I unclouded the mysterious statement

Any positive effects on patients, even if only based on placebo effects, still provides benefits to overall patient health that traditional medicine may not have provided.

and here is the quite more plain result:

The alternative medicine industry claims that the placebo effect is just as helpful as actual medicine.

Actually, it is science that claims this. I will post citations around midnight EST. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Waiting on this. Ashibaka ✎ 04:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also removed some bullet points that I was unable to fix at all. If you can manage to remove your POV from them and fix their terrible English, feel free to put them back in. Ashibaka ✎ 12:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Being that you are not God as far as I know and being that you have demonstrated that you do not know of what you speak, I am really not interested in the opinions of a confused minor. And, thanks for reminiding me. I am not going to waste time posting citations to somebody who does not know the basics. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since, you have opened the door. I am seriously thinking about re-writing the entire criticism section. You know, ... clean it up real good. I will make it real clear and concise to the public. You know: white-wash all its main points so that it becomes totally worthless as criticism, just like you have done for the support section. So, that it will be great fodder for sixth graders. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't get this bit to make sense

The criticism voiced about homeopathic remedies applies equally well to conventional medicine as it does to any alternative treatment method. Specific alternative treatment methods are never used as universal cures for all that ails you. Specific medicines and treatment methods are designed to only treat a specific health condition just like in conventional medicine.

If you read the orogon of the medical art you will find that homeopathy does claim to be able to cure everything. Also I fail to see how the rest is relivant.Geni 16:52, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MNH's continuing vandalism of this talk page

If MNH keeps removing my comments from this page, others should feel free to restore them - David Gerard 13:23, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly establishing the fact that you have persisted in your personal attacks of me on this talk page, after I have consistedly informed you of the error of your ways. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should not edit out personal attacks. It may seem helpful, but this is a controversial topic and deleting user comments will only inflame the discussion. Ashibaka ✎ 17:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More swings at NPOV, in support section

I tried to address some complaints about support arguments being stripped of nuance and meaning, and remove multiple, duplicate, references to the same works, as well as removing some misleading rants (not all AM practitioners believe they operate in the physical medicine realm) Ronabop 08:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interestly, I wrote much of the last two paragraphs in the criticism section. I will review your above re-writes tonight around midnight. I may take 2 weeks before I remove all of the vandalism done to the support section. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Psychosocial Treatments as Alternative Medicine

This conversation was copied from the former Talk:Conventional medicine.

My area of interest in alternative medicine is psychosocial treatments. Psychosocial treatments is the Alternative Medicine of the New Millennium. I find it an exciting field. There is a lot of overlap between psychosocial treatments and some other forms of alternative medicine. In many respects it is a method of organizing the different forms of treatments. While a few forms of psychosocial treatments require the professional services of psychologists most can be self-taught with the aid of books or instructional videos, or can be learned from an experienced practitioner. Although some initial training is needed, once these techniques are learned, most people will need no additional outside assistance. I think that these psychosocial treatments will leave TCM behind in the dust.

I am going to first update my web site with this information. I am currently writing editorials on it. I will eventually get around to writing another 100% original article on it, here. I am not going here first, of course. These people are too hostile and narrow minded. I am kind of tire of wasting my valueble time with these @#$*^% over this NPOV nonsense. Most of these critics, are about 30 years out of date. I am not going to throw my pearls in front of swine, as they say. Most of these editors rank the importance of alternative medicine at the same level as the their article on tampons. It is said really, but it is their problem. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, I heartily commend you for your psychosocial treatment interest - a perfect future. Really ESSENTIAL. By all means, margaritas ante porcos ! - Who, indeed, is written in the Vulgate, who would feed pigs with pearls ? I for one, will currently retire from Wiki, having made a few points and having ended my assignment here with some fascinating finding of facts about the anti-information cabal. Wiki is not a meritocracy. The fact that you managed to write a perfect AM article shows that only serious people like you can invest so much time and energy into not being bitter, and saying what they have to. I am also serious, not bitter either, and also say what I have to. Looks we are in the same boat, really :O) I wish you good luck in your career. For the time being I have more important things to do than demonstrating the values of editing at face value :O) Nice meeting you, John, and keep up the good work ! - irismeister 08:37, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Kindly remove weaselspeak from the Criticism section and Attribute its assertions!

Alternative medicine is a controversial topic as the appropriate noticed has been posted above it for some time now. This notice actually means something. So, kindly remove the weaselspeak from the criticism section. I have identified the following weasel terms below.

"...are rejected by..."
"...often dismiss the entire field..."
"...this would only prove..."
"...be willing..."
"...many if not most scientists ..."
"...chafes at the restrictions..."

There may be more weaselspeak. Since literally none of the nonsense spouted in the criticism section has documented its sources as required by Wikipedia policy (documented by following the links in the controversial topic notice) I will also shortly start removing all the POV nonsense contained in the criticism section with non-attributed assertions. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 09:25, 8 Apr 2004

The current The neutrality of this article is disputed noticed that I recently placed in alternative medicine,is a temporary notice. It is specificially in reference to the the Criticism section.

What I have found is that the medical scientism people have consistently violated the rules of controversial topic discussions. They make non-attributed assertions that are laced full of weaselspeak.
Remove the non-attributed assertions that are laced full of weaselspeak from the criticism section and I will remove the NPOV notice.

-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:41, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will be proceeding to clean up the garbage dump called the Criticism section within in a few days. Then I will take a second look at the support section. Talk about an edit war? Boy wont that be fun? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just made my day, by removing one more piece of garbage from the criticism section which had been violating a number of clearly established Wikipedia guidelines (See the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine Standards of Quality Guidelines for details) for quite a while. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 13:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alternative medicine should be modeled after the medicine article.

In medicine, after the definition paragaraph there is the following notice which is enclosed by horizontal lines.

A note to contributors: This article is about medicine in general. Please consider adding your contributions about medical topics to individual articles rather than this page (many are linked below, and there are more on the List of medical topics), and please think twice before adding more links here - otherwise this article could easily degenerate into an unreadable list of links.

What is good enough for medicine, should likewise be good enough for alternative medicine.

I propose that the Controversial topic notice:

be a permanent part of the alternative medicine article,
that it should follow the definition paragraphs, and
that it should be enclosed by horizontal lines.

User:Pakaran Revision as of 22:26, 14 Dec 2003 added the following to Wikipedia:List of controversial issues.

Alternative medicine and closely related issues

Permanent notices, like in the medicine article, should be placed so as not to distract from the definition of the article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:30, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RK's Vandalism in Alternative Medicine

RK is currently vandalizing Alternative medicine. RK has not made one edit. RK is reverting. I have been slowing editing this article, one change at a time. I am not reverting it! I am reverting RK's persistent tactic of vandalism by blanket reversions. There is a major difference between the way I properly have edited alternative medicine and RK's well known method of destroying the work of other editors. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why am I am saying vandalism instead of a simply disagreement over positions? Because virtually every edit User:RK made in Alternative medicine in the year 2004 was a revert. RK did not add a single thing to this article the entire year. The only possible exception seems to be on Jan 5, 2004 where RK seems to have reverted the article in two separate operations instead of one. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am familiar with User:RK's attitudes and actions. I am sorry to see you are being subjected to his aggressive tactics. Fred Bauder 19:46, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Libel by My Natural Health

I am removing the false vandalism claim. The non-stop libel by "Mr Natural Health" is again out of control. Recall that he tried to scare me away from Wikipedia by claiming to be a Nazi and knowing where I live, and that he has a long history of sending threats to those on Usenet newsgroups whom he disagrees with. Many members of the Wiki-En list have chastised him, and he is on the verge of being banned. Please do not encourage him. RK 15:04, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Coming from someone who reverted an article 9 times in one day, your accusations seem specious. Fred Bauder 19:48, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr_Natural_Health Ashibaka ✎ 16:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievences of your own. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

I protected this page to stop the edit war, in hopes that RK and MNH can come to some sort of come to some sort of compromise. I hope you can both agree on the following points:

There should be a section in support of alternative medicine as well as a section of criticism of it (and preferably summaries of several other positions). This is simple NPOV policy.
Both the "support" and the "criticism" sections should be written in an NPOV way, using language that presents the arguments instead of making the arguments themselves.
It's pointless and childish to revert simple, constructive changes such as the format of Craniosacral therapy and various other links.

Could you two agree on that? Αλεξ Σ 16:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

During my 30 day ban (Feb 11 - Mar 12, 2004), the "support" and the "criticism" sections were removed by somebody else. I learned to live with the AM article without a "support" and the "criticism" section. I did not make any reverts! Then User:Ashibaka showed up and started dicussing writing style. From the edit summary comments of User:David Gerard I added back the the "support" and the "criticism" sections to AM while maintaining all of the then current text. This naturally took more than several days to acommpolish. Never once did I revert simple, constructive changes made by User:RK because RK never made any constructive edits whatsover to Alternative medicine per the above vandalism comments of mine. Everything RK did in alternative medicine today, and for the last several months was a revert. The last edit summary made by me today before RK's reverts was (=Branches of alternative medicine= Kinesiology is a science studied by physical therapists rather than a form of alternative medicine. Ergo, Applied kinesiology is AM, but kinesiology certainly is not). Therefore, I have been making 100% constructive additions and changes to this article on Alternative medicine over the last month, with the except of reverting RK's reverts. I have prevented nobody from editing and making changes in this article or from discussing it in talk. I have and will continue to be willing to discuss in talk any specific edit made by me on the alternative medicine article. So, obviously: YES, I agree on what you have stated above. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I feel that This however also works the other way around. For instance, if some homeopathic remedy seems to be working, homeopaths will claim this is proof that homeopathy works. But, if ever some homeopathic remedy would ever be shown to work with a certain condition, this would only prove that particular remedy works with that particular condition, and not anything more. is unneccesarily long-winded and doesn't hold together with the rest of the paragraph. How's about - Proponents of Alternative Medicine often take coincidental observations of improvements in health as implication that their methods work. However, this does not strictly imply scientific verification. Or something like that?Chicago 05:50, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see the page editable again. As a physician I need to be able to see what alternative practioners are up to. I think it is all right for proponenets of alternative medicine to write up this topic, but critics of the article need to put in comments that are rational. A few short comments are really all that critics of alternative medicine need to make. Stephen Holland, M.D., Kd4ttc 01:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

YES, a few well chosen rational criticisms is all that is needed. Please, try to improve the criticism section. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the page. I was hoping that RK would be around to work out his problem with MNH. Since this doesn't seem to be the case, I guess there's no point in keeping it protected. However, revert wars are seriously damaging to a page and I hope that next time we will see edits instead of reversions. Talk it out before you start reverting. Αλεξ Σ 01:57, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really wonder exactly who you are addressing, as RK does not seem to me here nor care about doing anything other than revert my constructive additions to this article? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Straw man. Ashibaka ✎ 18:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Structural suggestion

Right now, the article is a block of prose (criticisms) and a string of bullet points (support). Each part is in fact a bit of its own turf, with the two factions defending "their" parts against intruders from the other side. This is of course not what NPOV is about.

I suggest that we structure the article by topic, rather than by POV. That would mean that we get sections like

Science or pseudoscience?
Legal framework
Placebo effect
International use

..and so forth, with each section having opinions of both critics and supporters. This would help in turning a collection of opinions into an encyclopedia article.

Citations would also be useful. The matter is complicated by the fact that both factions usually focus on a discipline of AM, rather than on the field as a whole. However, that may simply mean that an article about the field as a whole should primarily consist of brief summaries and links to the different fields.--Eloquence * 22:25, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think so! RK doesn't have to follow the rules. And, I am not going to destroy stuff, that I will only have to add back at a later date. Outside of a simple list of the branches of AM, and the definitional paragraphs; this article is 100% PRO vs CON AM, no matter what the section headings state.

Until I see the above MD working on this article to clean it up permenantly some editor will attempt to destroy it the first opportunity that they they get.

I am thinking about starting a Wiki Project for Alternative Medicine. But, that will take a lot of work, and there is currently little support for it. So, please don't tell us what should be until RK and his ilk have to follow the rules.-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 02:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JREF prize

I noted that the JREF prize information has been removed yet again. Perhaps It can be included within the context of questioning some specific areas that have been targeted for naturally unexplainable (and thus, supernatural) AM fields, including:

Homeopathy
Faith Healing
Healing/Therapeutic touch
Orgonomy

All of which are highly questionable in terms of cause and effect models of science and the natural world. Ronabop 03:27, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe that I have it now. One of the many possible classification systems useful in CAM would be classification by standard of knowledge: Supernatural, Pseudoscience, Protoscience, or "Real" science. Having studied the medical research of real science for the last couple of years, I can honestly report that the way of real medical science, otherwise known as medical scientism is just plain stupid and inefficient. Even with classification by standard of knowledge, CAM cannot be all lumped into just one pejorative category as most of the science people seem to be insisting upon. In short, your position is really not very rational. Homeopathy, for one thing, would be classified as a Pseudoscience and not Supernatural as you just claimed. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It actually gets worst for the science people. :)

Classification by standard of knowledge is actually a classification by quality of evidence. Hence, the practice of clinical medicine with 85% of its current practices having been unverified by "real" science would only be classified as a protoscience. Only the practice of evidence-based medicine would qualify as a "real" science. Now compare CAM to Conventional medicine using a "Safety" classification system. Integrative medicine, by the rules of rationality, would be in the same class of evidence as EBM is. :)

Just thought that you might want know just how irrational the so called science people actually are. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note comments of Eloquence, above: The matter is complicated by the fact that both factions usually focus on a discipline of AM, rather than on the field as a whole. And, those of Stephen Holland, M.D., Kd4ttc :critics of the article need to put in comments that are rational. I find this nonsense about the JREF prize a total joke and very offensive to those of us trying to write high quality encyclopedic articles. I would suggest that you try placing it in the various branches that you have listed above.

I have just now started a wiki project on Alternative Medicine. One day we may have an entire article devoted to the branches of alternative medicine that can be classified as supernatural, but currently that article does not exist and currently discussions of the supernatural belong in a supernatural related article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:07, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Restored, yet again. MNH only wanted 5 examples, so here's 52 failures in one day. http://www.randi.org/jr/011102.html If that many can fail in one day, I'm guessing the number should be "thousands", not hundreds. Ronabop 00:35, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Deleted YET agian!!! The rule by idiots is rapidly coming to an end! Are you a sixth grade student? Or, perhaps still in Kindergarten? The challenge was five examples of Alternative Medicine Practitioners. A stupid publicity stunt at the level of the National Enquirer tabloid magazine about dowsing claims, parapsychologists, and "psychics" obviously does not qualify. Responding to a comment in your cited link: There are no worse liars than critics still operating at the level of Mickey Mouse Kindergarten attacks. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Will restore again. If AM folks cannot show a natural path, then the claim is, de facto, supernatural, until a natural path is known, shown, and provable." Dowsers" often also claim also to find "danger zones" in the human body, so it's very relevant. As far as "kindergaten attacks", I will refrain from insinuating you are only in the sixth grade, but make note of your attack at the same time.

Restored the older, less summarized, edited (more consensus) version of JREF (support for AM) text. Ronabop 03:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This link: http://www.randi.org/jr/011102.html is nothing but a stupid publicity stunt operating at the level of the National Enquirer tabloid magazine!!! I thought that science people were supposed to be rational?

I think you have managed to dispel that notion. Ronabop 12:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can I please see some challenging college level criticisms aimed at the field of alternative medicine as a whole? Or, am I addressing a group of college drop outs?

You are addressing a much larger group.... including individuals who aren't so stupid as to believe that one or two cited papers in support of an idea are enough evidence to affirm a theory. Ronabop 12:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And, I cannot believe that any rational person would actually try to quote a cheap tabloid publicity stunt because they don't have the mental acumen to articulate a rational criticism against alternative medicine.

Well, stop posting rediculous claims, hit the books, and start with evidence-based science, rather than bizarre meta-studies and citations of proposterous claims, and then stringing them together in such a way as to support a personal theory. In short, if you are doing real science, publish. Not on wikipedia, but in real journals. "Naturopath weekly" doesn't count. "Science" and "Nature" count. If you have been published in either, let us know. Ronabop 12:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time on tabloid quality criticisms!!! -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time with bizarre statements, ad hominem attacks, and assaults on medicine and medical ethics, and see how we respond. There have been no double-blind, placebo controlled, experiments on parachutes, so maybe you could sign up to jump out of a plane. In a similar vein, since you don't denounce homeopathy as quackery, perhaps you would volunteer to be infected with a very small amount of HIV, or ebola, in hopes that you'll be cured of both, or immune to both. Ronabop 12:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having reviewed the last paragraph on the JREF prize, its clear that it contain information and facts pertinent to this article. I just needs NPOV editing, not wholesale deletion. Reid 13:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine?

The Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine aims primarily to facilitate the development of professional looking articles on all aspects of complementary, alternative and integrative medicine. One of its goals is to end the never ending edit wars that exists in many of the alternative medicine related articles. At this stage of development, I am seeking:

Comments and suggestions from any Editor.
Editors interested in becoming participants.

Please take a few minutes of your time to leave your comments on Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK! Sounds very promising and I agree on all aspects. I have a two week commitment to a medical problem, but then I will be dedicated soul and body to your project. You do things right, John! It's a welcome refreshement after these months in wiki - and also a reward of patience and prayers answered :O)- irismeister 08:50, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

proponents of alternative medicine sometimes cite ... Huh?

This however also works the other way around - proponents of alternative medicine sometimes cite a single example of success with one technique attempting to prove that all alternative medicine is effective.

I think that if you are going to make an assertion, you should be able to provide some specific examples thereof. I have no idea what you are talking about!!! -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

alternative medicines are often sold as "dietary supplements," ... Huh?

Currently, alternative medicines are often sold as "dietary supplements," exploiting a loophole in government regulation.

Attacking dietary supplements is like attacking homeopathy. The criticism sections is supposed to be about the generic concept of alternative medicine. Want to criticize dietary supplements? Then take your attack to the dietary supplement article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

potentially dangerous ... Huh?

several of its forms (particularly herbal medicine, chiropractic, and acupuncture) are at least potentially dangerous.

Cannot you provide some examples of your assertion? Again, take your criticism of chiropractic and acupuncture to their respecitive articles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not hard to figure out at all. Sticking needles into people might cause infection, herbal medicine might have side effects, and hitting people sometimes hurts them. Ashibaka ✎ 03:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I remember seeing in the news the sad story of some people who had taken some "medical" herbal teas... and destroyed their kidneys, leading them to have to undergo dialysis until some eventual transplant. I would of course like to find a reference for this, but this proves that, contrary to the expectations of many people, so-called "natural" health techniques can have very bad side effects. David.Monniaux 06:34, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, try attributing the assertions made in the criticism section of the actual article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Research methodology

The scientific community argues that many studies carried out by alternative medicine promoters are flawed, as they often use testimonials and hearsay as evidence, leaving the results open to observer bias. They argue that the only way to counter observer bias is to run a double blind experiment, where neither the patient nor the practitioner knows whether the real treatment is being given or if a placebo has been administered. This research should then be reviewed by peers to determine the validity of the research methodology. Testimonials are especially useless in this procedure, because by chance alone some people will get cured and will be able to testify that the method really helped them. Furthermore, if the majority of people using a method do not notice any benefit or even get worse, there will still be a minority that can testify that the method really helped for them.

I give up! You have just argued about research methodology. Now, what does that have to do with alternative medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All medical techniques, to be accepted as such, have to demonstrate some properties (efficiency on some illness, reasonable side effects etc...) - otherwise, they can't be called "medicine", not even "alternative". It's thus of primary importance with respect to so-called "alternative medicine" to point out that in many cases, that demonstration has not taken place. David.Monniaux 06:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, try attributing the assertions made in the criticism section of the actual article. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finalization of Standards of Quality Guidelines

I believe that theStandards of Quality Guidelines for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine have been finalized. Comments from everyone are requested in Talk:Standards of Quality. I have developed many of the ideas for these standards from past controversy in the alternative medicine article. By the time summer is over, I will expect to have reviewed and rated alternative medicine based upon these guidelines. So, now is the time to voice your opinion. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rationally applying Standard of Quality Guidelines to the JREF prize

Per these guidelines: When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source. Ideally, this would be an independent scholarly work, but most of us don't have access to this kind of material (Guidelines for controversial articles).

You can operationally test for this sub-topic by applying the following questions to the CAM article under review.

4. Does the article reference tabloid quality web sites, or web pages that looks like publicity stunts?

YES, the JREF prize link at http://www.randi.org/jr/011102.html positively references a reference tabloid quality web site that looks like a publicity stunt.

What link are you referring to?

I see only one link referenced above. I read throught that link, yet again and found a reference about "spoon-bending children" but absolutely nothing remotely connected to alternative medicine. What planet do you live on? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 02:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

4.A. Do the reference web sites reference their own assertions?

No, the JREF prize does not provide references.

The prize is there. What other references do you need? Sylvia Browne asked for him to put it in escrow, and he did.

4.A.1. Or, is the article simply passing along Internet gossip that has never been supported with valid references?

The JREF prize link simply repeats gossip that has absolutely nothing to do with alternative medicine.

Gossip?

4.A.2. "Do the assertions sound logically based on fact, or are they unbelievable?"

The JREF prize link is so irrational that one can only wonder at what kind of a person could post such trash while claiming to be a scientist?

Irrational? Ashibaka ✎ 19:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This community will not be tolerating such gross violations of established Wikipedian Guidelines and Policies to serious work for much longer. You have been warned. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 13:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have the standing to "warn" other users. If you need help, please ask an administrator (like me). Thanks. --Uncle Ed 14:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just laid out my case above. The JREF prize also in my opinion clearly violates several other Wikipedian Guidelines referenced in the above project's quality guidelines. I have made a rational argument about what is wrong with it. The project will be reviewing all CAM related articles, including this one in the future. But, we wont start with alternative medicine.

I am sure that all administrators believe that editing should be done on a rational basis. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not so fast: what about irrational concepts like religion and the paranormal? The only thing I'm willing to commit to here and now is Accuracy and Neutrality.

Articles should be as clear and factual as we can make them.
Articles should not endorse any point of view (POV) on controversial subjects.

I am sure that all members of the CAM committee believe that writing should be accurate and neutral. --Uncle Ed 16:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See project's document on Classification systems under classification by Knowledge Systems. Religion and the paranormal fall into the 'supernatural' classification. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I read the talk and haven't found a convincing argument not to have this in. Especially in it's new form.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine will achieve its objectives by mobilizing community support to end the current state of never ending edit wars in CAM, by giving the science people what they want. The first step is establishing what the science people want. This project is going to say to the community at large that the science people want what is in our Standards of Quality Guidelines. Thus, if a CAM article passes our test the edit wars should stop. If they do not, the people doing it are in the wrong per our guidelines.

Yes, the end of these edit wars in alternative medicine is near.

In the meantime, there is always tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year to make a revert. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:16, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Going back to sixth grade, te number one problem with the 'JREF prize' criticism was that it was *never* footnoted in the article. Second, the only link provided was in talk, which of course doesn't count at all. That link was not remotely connected to alternative medicine. So, at the college level you guys would have gotten a goose egg. Or, perhaps earned being kicked out of school for breaking the honor code by providing a fraudulent link. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual because I have only addressed the basics required' by well established Wikipedian guidelines. (See the Quality of Standards Guidelines for the project)-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 12:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John watch your tone please. references to the sixth grade are insulting. theresa knott 20:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, watch your tone please. I found your:

I'm sorry but I read the talk and haven't found a convincing argument not to have this in. Especially in it's new form.

Edit Summary insulting. And, I find having to point out that the criticism section has yet to footnote most of its assertions to be insulting. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 22:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's the root of the trouble I think. You find the fact that someone disagrees with you insulting, and then feel free to relatiate by being rude. Please note that we have a policy against personal attacks, calling someones argument "6th grade" is a personal attack, failing to footnote is not.It's very simple really theresa knott 05:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Show me where I did any of what you just accused me of doing! Otherwise, I would like to receive a public apology from you.

And, please Theresa since you brought the subject up (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.). I consider your attempt to interject an emotional argument into a rational discussion as an intentional move on your part to both harass and personally attack me.

Also, kindly archive talk while you attempt to support the personal attack that you just made against me. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 13:58, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eh? how have I made a personal attack against you? If you perceive me pulling you up for being rude as an attack then I am happy to apologize, for that was not my intention. I really don't think you are even aware of how rude you sound most of the time. Don't worry about it though, i will help ypu by pointing out to every time you do it. The phrase "So, at the college level you guys would have gotten a goose egg. Or, perhaps earned being kicked out of school for breaking the honor code by providing a fraudulent link" is rude, . Again I apologize in advance if you feel that I am attacking you by pointing this out. As for archiving this page, i'll do it when i see fit. You are of course free to archive it yourself if you feel it's too long theresa knott 14:14, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eh? If factually correct analogies directed only at a removed faulty criticism as a whole rather than to specific individuals are rude, then they are rude only in the minds of people who believe that violating clearly established Wikipedian Guidelines is okay provided that their motivations for doing so are as pure as the driven snow. To me, I find something rotten in Denmark with those types of motivations. Any connection of my above comments to living, or fictitious, editors is purely coincidental and unintended. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well my mistake. I thought your "6th grade" accusations were aimed at the writers. theresa knott 18:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)