Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Reason for revert

I've reverted MNH's revert that he describes as "remove babbling" I'm sorry but user:Bmills text reads a lot better than yours IMO. Please specify what it is you object to here so that we can sort it out line by line in necessary rather than reverting theresa knott 14:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is not original text. This is precisely how Alternative medicine looked about a week or two ago. The text has been improved since then. I simply am reversing, their restoration of a very amateurish presentation of babble.

As this is intended to be an encyclopedia article (he says more in hope than anything else), the first thing would be that the intro paragraph give a brief definition/summary of the content. I also bolded the term Alternative medicine on first appearance, as per wikipedia conventions. It may not be Shakespeare, but, in all modesty, I cannot see how my text could be termed babbling. Bmills 14:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did not know that it was not originally written by Bmills, however i don't see how that makes any difference. How do you define "improved" ? Who gets to decide if a text has been imroved or not? theresa knott 15:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Actually the intro paragraph today was all my own work. Clearly Mr Natural Health is the only one qualified to decide when text is improved as the rest of us are ignorant babblers. Bmills 15:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When do you get to decide when my last edit was not an improvement: NEVER! I shall repeat it yet again. That is exactly how it looked a week or so ago. Amateurish presentations of material have no place on Wikipedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:23, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page is now protected to stop the edit war. Work this out in a more civilized way now. --mav 03:25, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What edit war? What dispute? -- Mr-Natural-Health 00:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The offensiveness of Medical Scientism in action, I suppose? -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, your refusal to accept the right of others to edit the article. This is not your article. All articles "belong" to the community, if they belong to anyone. Bmills 14:08, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, my latest edits are *always* improvements and your one-way or the highway attitude of Medical Scientism is both juvenile and offensive to me. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:16, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You come up with lots of material, much of it worthwhile, but have no apparent comprehension of NPOV or how not to ramble. (This is gold.)
Please. Review Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. At the least, take each sentence of your revision of an article and see if it's made noticeably more NPOV by prefixing it with "It is claimed by [X] that ..."
Writing and editing are separate skills - I greatly enjoy the latter, as you'll see if you go through the list of stuff I've worked on - but one has to be able to do both, and, on wp, accept the process of the second. - David Gerard 15:26, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, none require a high IQ. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
requires. Check your grammar. RickK 05:14, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Definition of Alternative Medicine

The stuff that I wrote in Talk:Evidence-Based Medicine belongs where I put it, Rasmus Faber! -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:43, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==Please, stop moving my comments!!!!== -- Mr-Natural-Health 00:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Then please stop splattering them over the page at random, and learn the use of the leading colon. There's a conventional format that people tend to use to preserve the conversational flow. - David Gerard 14:25, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
You are @#$%^& who added Off-topic POV comments in the research design sub-section, declared that there was an edit war, and then had Alternative medicine protected. You simply forgot to finish the job. Ha, ... Hah, ... Ha! As, soon as I can edit Alternative medicine, more of my improvements will be made to it. -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that the page will be unprotected in the short term. This is because to prevent edit wars, editors have to work together and I am afraid that the very concept of cooperation seems to be beyond you. Calling David @#$%^& is an insult even if you don't spell it out specifically. theresa knott 20:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
He deserves worst for his dirty play tactics!!! -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mr NH is lying about David Gerard here. As far as I can tell David is a newbie user. His first edit in the encyclopedia was 9th Jan. He has only made one edit to Alternative medicine. The user that Mr NH is calling @#$%^& above was in fact me (I told him that I was the person that made the edit he didn't like over on wikipedia:Conflicts between users which is why I an accusing him of lying rather than being mistaken) so he has no reason whatsoever to say this about David. What's more nobody declared that there was an edit war. Mav simply noticed that there was one and protected the page in accordance with policy. theresa knott 11:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me that I am wrong about this, David did request the page be protected. Mr Natural Health I apologize for calling you a liar. This does not mean that i agree that David was being underhanded when he asked for the page to be protected. But I should have checked my facts more thoroughly and am sorry for insulting your honestly. theresa knott 13:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
When there's a pile of repeated reversions happening, how is it "dirty play tactics" to ask the page be protected while it's worked out on the talk page? - David Gerard 14:02, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
It's not. You did nothing wrong. theresa knott 14:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Maybe the best next step is to leave the article as it is, do not ask for unprotection, and then stop feeding the troll by refusing to respond to future inanities. Bmills 14:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Hey Dave! I do not care about conventional formats. Just thought that you might want to know. AM has been formated about 15 different ways over the last 2 months. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you don't care about conventional formats, I predict you'll have a hard time working well with others in general. - David Gerard 22:50, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
YOUR underhanded tactics does not appear to have affected you any. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:27, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please, note that David Gerard engaged in dirty tactics as noted above and is continuing to do so, with the approval of the Trolls. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My complete definition of Alternative Medicine

What I find interesting is that the very first controlled research study ever done was done in the 1700's on the subject of scurvy in the British Navy. The concept of using diet rather than a medication (like seawater) to treat the medical condition called scurvy classifies it as Alternative medicine as well as a Natural therapy. So, alternative medicine actually has been doing valid research longer than Medicine has.

Uh, science is much newer than religion. Does that make science invalid? It doesn't make either more or less valid, IMHO. They operate in different ways. Also, in the 1700's we also tried to "treat" measels with leeches, and "treat" being a witch (or an alternative medicine praticioner) by burning, so it's hardly a good example of an era of sane medical thought. -Bop

A lot of science people are obviously confused about the definition of Alternative Medicine. One key to understanding AM, is thinking in terms of the method of treatment used. Once you start thinking in terms of treatment methods, everything becomes clear. Medicine's primary method of treatment is prescription medication.

I was raised in Tucson, where we count diet, execise, and mental health as parts of treatment. AFAICT, the rest of the world counts those, too. -Bop

The second key, is who is doing the treatment. AM is always performed by a non-physician by definition. Quackery historically from the perspective of a physician has been any form of competition, regardless of the science used.

Okay, you're in a bind of your own creation. Andrew Weil is a physician. Is he practicing any alternative medicine or not? By your own statements, he couldn't be, because he is a physician. -Bop

Thus, a psychologist using cognitive behavior therapy to treat the medical condition called Depression is practicing AM. Any other conclusion, would mean that the psychologist is practicing medicine without a license.

Psychologists are licensed. -Bop

But, the field of cognitive behavior therapy, itself, is not AM. It is only AM when it is used to treat a medical condition.

While these fine points might be slightly confusing, they are precisely what AM is about and precisely why all professionalized forms of AM or CAM are in fact strongly based on Science much to the horror of the dated-viewpoints of the scientism people.

The scientists are usually upset about non-scientific methods sneaking in with scientific ones. The prayer effect is a good model for this issue. Those who pray recover faster, this is well known. However, there is little science to back up a statement such as "praying to Kali will make you live longer". While praying to Kali could improve one's recovery from surgery, there is little evidence that it does actually make people live longer.
This doesn't mean Kali is a fake goddess, it simply means that there is no sound science to back up certain claims. -Bop

Not all areas of AM have been professionalized nor are all areas based on science, but the most popular ones are.

When exploring the individual branches of alternative medicine four questions need to be answered. The answers to these question will reveal whether or not each branch of alternative medicine is mostly quackery or something that the public should seriously consider using.

1.What is the method of treatment utilized?
2.What are its therapeutic effects?
3.What medical conditions does it effectively treat?
4.What modes of action could plausibly account for these therapeutic effects?
I added some possible negatives for NPOV... AM can, and has, hurt people. -Bop
My objection to your addition is that it applies equally to all conventional medical treatments. Ergo, it is not a valid test for determining Quackery. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will certainly brag about these 4 points, as I added them; rather than the brain-dead medical scientism people.

When a physician provides AM services to his clients he is said be practicing complementary medicine. Which is just another way of saying that CM is AM practiced by a physician. Andrew Weil trains physicians at the University of Arizona on AM in his Integrative Medicine program. So, apparently, only graduates of his integrative medicine program can claim to be practicing integrative medicine.

No, there are competing programs. -Bop

Whether or not board certification is required, is unknown by me.

No more so than a physician approving of a patient praying. -Bop

The final bug-a-boo of AM are the eclectic branches which are not known for any single method of treatment. You cannot make generations about these eclectic branches of AM. In these cases, you have to go practitioner by practitioner.

We do not have to go preacher by preacher to study the effects of prayer. Maybe this is different, but I do not see a compelling argument being made that each and every claim must be disproven individually. If a physician said that their scalpel reduced surgery recovery time, it would be investigated based on that one physician. If ten thousand physicians made the same claim, about the same scalpel, only one scalpel needs to be tested, not ten thousand physicians. If they had ten thousand different scalpels, each should be tested. -Bop

This has been my position on AM, from day one. It is perfectly correct. And, my position, is my position. Obviously, my position is not subject to debate.

"Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Not everyone has the right to their own facts." -Bop
 -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So you're stating that you will put your view into the article and won't be stopped by anyone, if protection is off? If so, I think you've answered "What edit war? What dispute?"
Does this apply to other articles as well? - David Gerard 22:50, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Are you dense, or are you just not too bright? I always improve the articles that I decide to edit. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:26, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please note our policy of No personal attacks. --snoyes 04:59, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that without a decent definition, the simple linguistic sense of 'alternative medicine' REQUIRES it to have appeared later than medicine. Until you have medicine you can't have alternative medicine. Also, please let's avoid western-centrism. Aruvedic (sp?) medicine, for example, was/is definitely not "alternative" in Inida, it is in the 'west'. If you are talking solely about self-styled "alternative", mainly western pratitioners, the topic becomes rather narrow,

It is indisputable!

There is NO Edit War in Alternative medicine, nor is the content in dispute. You guys are playing dirty. And, of course, all of my editing is made in order to improve articles. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know, the existence of a dispute demonstrates that the matter is not "indisputable". That's called logic. --FOo 22:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to understand that "logic" and "rationality" and "joined-up thinking" and "clues" and "social skills" are merely oppressive tools wielded by those medical scientism geeks to destroy the health of the human race for the greater glory of GlaxoSmithKline. It is inconceivdisputable! - David Gerard 22:52, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Losing time for Wiki

Holders of two doctorates in medicine need not lose time with baby sitting. But they do it, for the sake of "quality"  : ) For Wiki is recently heading towards the general direction of insignificance, thanks to the tyranny of dyslexic cranks. Look at the level of debate with empowered ignarrogants, perpetrators of cut-and-paste culture, paragons of kakocracy : )
I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. - Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC) : )
Sincerely, irismeister 09:10, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
Editor of 13,000+ pages in three months - and growing with each new baby-sitting assignment :)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please, clarify your above 'Losing time for Wiki' statement. -- Mr-Natural-Health 17:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please add link to Auriculotherapy as a modality to this page, whoever has access to edit this page. Thank you. heidimo 19:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have unprotected this page to check status of on-going disagreement. Fred Bauder 15:28, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some thoughts that I've been incubating during the past few weeks.
By the way...

Some alternative medicine techniques are closely tied to religious or philosophical beliefs. Practitioners of these techniques may resist scientific scrutiny, fearing that negative experimental results will be used to question these underlying beliefs.

Is there some way this paragraph can be fixed to MNH's satisfaction? How about...

Some opponents of alternative medicine techniques claim that practitioners of these techniques resist scientific scrutiny, in order to prevent negative experimental results from being used to question religious or philosophical beliefs which underpin these techniques.

--Uncle Ed 18:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This revert of David does not address the issue of how a researcher designs the methodology to be used in a research study to determine the validity of a non-drug form of treatment on a specific medical conditions. Therefore, David's comments/revert are out of place and thus are not appropriate. If David is going to make this comment, he has to take the responsibility of sticking them in the proper place in the article.
Of course, these comments of David's are pure POV. Notice the 'private conversation style' of David's comments. Exactly who is he talking to: himself?
-- Mr-Natural-Health 17:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Help needed

cross-posted to Talk:Iridology Our distinguished colleague Theresa Knott (theresa knott) has recently misled readers in at least four major medical articles (Mycobacterium leprae, alternative medicine, sodium hypochlorite, and iridology). We need competent editors to check all her medical "contributions" in order to avoid the mess and possible death that may arise as a consequence of maintaining her constant pattern of disinformation. Her editing is a health hazard ! Sincerely, irismeister 15:34, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

The latest changes are pure POV, of course!

I am referring to:

In the United States, conventional medicine is represented (some say dominated) by holders of the M.D. degree at hospitals and prestigious medical schools. It is supported by state boards which rate and license professionals, and by the FDA which officially approves or disapproves drugs and some therapies.
Alternative medicine chafes at these restrictions and seeks to bring new ideas to the people more quickly than the established procedures allow, which sometimes results in conflict. Mainstreamers maintain that official oversight is needed to prevent quackery, while advocates of alternative medicine loudly protest that their contributions and discoveres are being unfairly dismissed, overlooked or suppressed.
While alternative medicine is usually supposed to replace conventional treatments,

If you people cannot restructure these comments to take out the POV, I will have no problem doing so in my mediation process.

-- Mr-Natural-Health 17:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Spotted a few typos, added iridological validation (repeatedly cut by Theresa from the iridology page before she asked for a freeze so that nothing else could be added there). Please make sure Theresa does not fulfill her hidden agenda which already resulted in a disastrous iridology article (reading like a campaign against it, with censorship of the validation side masked as NPOV), in disinformation about sodium hypochlorite, and so on. Sincerely, irismeister 00:22, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

Official medicine - Valediction from insiders - JAMA studies

  • Jason Lazarou, Bruce H. Pomeranz and Paul N. Corey, "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta analysis of prospective studies," Journal of American Medical Association, April 15, 1998, 279(15): 1200-05.

    This study found more than 100,000 deaths per year and 2,000,000 severe side effects in U.S. hospitals alone. However, this study did not include deaths from pharmaceutical drugs that occur outside the hospital, or deaths from prescription errors by doctors or pharmacists. Additionally, because 90-99 percent of all adverse drug reactions are never reported (see following reference), this figure should be adjusted substantially upwards.
  • David Kessler, " Introducing MedWatch: A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effect and product problems," Journal of American Medical Association, July 2, 1993, 269(21): 2765-68.

This is an issue that deserves comments by a serious editor, in the pro Apionem section. Theresa dear, if you have something to add, please consider hic Rhodus, hic salta  : ) Sincerely, irismeister 00:29, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

I've cut irismeisters addition "Alternative medical systems such as iridology have perfectly validated physiological explanations, and are subject to advanced official research. "

As he has been unable to give any details of the supposed "advanced official research" despite being asked to do so over at iridology. If I'm wrong, and there have been validated physiological explanations, then perhaps he would care to source them for us. theresa knott

Liking Theresa is not the issue, her "not able" comments are !

Theresa rest assured, as a person, you have all the rights - including your brand new typos and your being wrong all the time in editing medical stuff - . Whether or not I like you (in fact I do like you and your drawings) is not an issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong: I only resent disinformation you spread about medical articles as a whole. What you do best - *.png drawings of minimum size - requires perhaps more of your exclusive attention. Lying about medicine is mortal. Correct medical information is safe. Medicine is a never ending story - so perhaps you'd care more for your strict implementation of a policy of rigorously correct information in Wiki. Non supra crepidam, non te petto, piscem petto ! . Sincerely, irismeister 00:49, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

I understand your problems with her completely. Theresa just publicly lied about our mediation over at Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health in her statement. As far as I am concerned, I have a valid reason not to believe a word that she writes about anything. -- Mr-Natural-Health 06:41, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I did not lie. Mediation is finished. Our mediator announced the fact that mediation had failed to jimbo on friday.here is the message I'm sorry that you were not told, but the truth of the matter is mediation is off, and arbitration is on.theresa knott 08:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Let me see now,
(1)First, both mediation & arbitration was unilaterally called off.
(2)Then Mediation was unilaterally called back on, according to you.
(3)Next, arbitration was unilaterally called back on.
(4)Mediation was then unilaterally called off without officially notifying me. All because Jim Wales said, for whatever reason, that the arbitration was back on.
(5)Somewhere in between the arbitrators unilaterally decided that they don't have to follow any rules of fair play because Jim Wales has spoken.
And, you people went to all this trouble because you are unable to articulate your criticisms of alternative medicine in plain English?
Do you really expect me to take you people seriously?
-- Mr-Natural-Health 19:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

supposed "advanced official research" Cut supposed , Theresa! Immediately ! Your ignorance is no excuse whatsoever !

being asked to do so over at iridology That's a blatant lie ! Moreover, each time I was starting an edit, you jumped in almost symmultaneously as if you were afraid to let me add evidence. The page history and your dozens of reversals are proof enough of your character, editor  !

perhaps he would care to source them
That's simple, indeed ! Just have a look at the nineteen obsessive-compulsive censorship acts in the iridology page. Theresa, you are worse than an iridology denier, worse than I thought and a danger for the cause of good, balanced, pertinent, updated, correct information in Wiki. Trust me, I'll watch every single medical "contribution" you make, like in the sodium hypochlorite bluff, which, as a lab technician, you are perhaps not entitled to neglect. Sincerely, irismeister 00:49, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue of sourcing your claim. If "iridology have perfectly validated physiological explanations" then you should have no problem telling us who validated the physiological explanations. That is all I ask. theresa knott 01:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reading the manual loud

part one in three: READ what you EDIT OUT or DON'T EDIT !

I will repeat myself:

  • IRIDIAL STUDIES.
  • MULTIDISCIPLINARY.
  • OPHTHALMOLOGICAL RESEARCH.

As you know, there is a whole research site online here. There are four thousand pages online on physiological explanations about the iris, SEVEN published volumes of high-end data, FOUR aditional volumes of refined interpretation, SEVENTEEN discussion fora, a complete list of ophthalmological, iridological and alternative medical BIBLIOGRAPHY and REVIEWS, a list of five-star certified medical doctors and certified peer-reviewed practitioners worldwide, a list of test material, seminaries, hard data, serious results of twenty-one years of multidisciplinary research.

part two in three: DO RESEARCH!

I will watch you very carefully in ALL the contributions that you make from now on. Such contributions will certainly destroy Wiki, like I feel they have destroyed the iridology, the mycobacterium, the hypochlorite and other articles.

part two in three: APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD !

In conclusion,I suggest the following five-finger approach:

  • PURPOSE
  • METHOD
  • DATA
  • INTERPRETATION
  • CONCLUSION

This is called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Has lots of strengths in the right hands.

Sincerely, irismeister 09:19, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC) (14,000 Wiki edits in 3 months) == The above contribution has been edited to decrease its rudeness == - De-rude-i-fier 09:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)) see here for irismeister's abusive personal attack.theresa knott 09:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Articulation goes before mediation : )

First rule here is ignorace is only a POV. As a first rule, it needs to be addressed here first. Indeed, and moreover, there is nothing more rude than ignorance posing arrogantly as savvy editing :) A few baby sitting sessions can never harm the right editor, provided she-or-he can learn. Morevoer, it's a free country, Wiki is a meritocracy and freedom of speech is not important for democracy, freedom of speech IS DEMOCRACY. Do you have POVs on the matter, De-rude-i-fier ? Or is there a consensus that we need to censor ignorance well in advance of anything else, including for-free, good-will, bona fide (NOTE for *theresa: it means "good will") baby sitting 8). Sincerely, User:De-igno-rance-i-fier irismeister 09:42, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

:No it's not a free country, it's an encyclopedia. We have a rule of "no personal attacks" which you find it very difficult to comply with. theresa knott 09:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The meritocratic principles of editing, is an obstacle for democracy

Why do you keep cutting informative sentences without explanation, Theresa ? You only make Wiki a poor medium ! Your personal problems are NOT a reason for butchering articles. Sincerely, irismeister 09:50, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

I've already explained why. I believe that what you are trying to add is not true. I will not let you add it in until you verify it. Not by inserting links to you own web site, but with independent results. If you can't or wont do that, I'll keep cutting it out. It's very easy to get me to stop - prove what you are saying is true by posting an independent link. theresa knott 09:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On bona fide editing and objective measures thereof

Since 'anything can be viciously invoked as a virtue and put on display like a pharisee's clothing, I have two proposals for bona fide editing here :

  • citation index/indices (CI) Editors who cannot enter into a decent discussion about the nuts and bolts of the subject they "attack" need not apply for it, let alone the "quality" of editors. A minimum of one hundred Wiki articles initiated and written as full essays, not stubs, may be a precondition for entering discussions. Stubborn, vicious, ignorant contributions may thus be avoided, although the obstinacy sported as a theresa trade-mark will perhaps never be avoided 8) .
  • the complaints-and-mediations-per-genuine-authoring (CAGA) ratio Editors making a Wiki living out of cutting things they never care to read, let alone understand, will be asked to produce this CAGA credential. Perhaps objective docimology and mediametry can help Wiki volunteers more than generous, endless reversals to the general direction of background noise.
  • authoring-signal-to-noise-ratio (ASNR) For details on this initiative, please contact me. 
Sincerely, irismeister 10:10, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC) (14,000 edits in Wiki in three months, thanks in part to theresa :)

Vote for it ! We can all lose less time as a consequence.
NOTE: Eliminating ignorance in medical information can save lives!

Page protected

The edit-warring and generally unhelpful talk-page discourse over the past few days leads me to believe it would not benefit from further editing at the moment, so I've protected it as a temporary measure. --Delirium 10:07, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

In my sleep I came upon a new general argument in support of Alternative medicine. It was starring me in the face all along, but I did not recognize it for what it was until this morning. So, I go first thing to improve this article once again and what do I find? Theresa and her antics have once again ended up with this simple top node article being protected. May I suggest Mediation, Theresa? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1)It's all my fault? Irismeister has no part in it whatsoever ? Tell me Mr Natural health, do you think it acceptable to put in a claim that is unsourced ? Do you agree with irismeisters inserted text?
2) It wasn't me who called off mediation.
3) It's too late for mediation now, as the arbitration comittee are deciding what to do about you.
4) If you want to insert something in the page put it here on the talk page. When the page is unprotected it can be inserted. Or if nobody has any objections about it can be inserted anyway theresa knott 14:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On day one when I first cleaned up this article by removing all the pro-science bias, one of the first things that I did was remove a paragraph on homeopathy added at the very top.
A general top node article on alternative medicine should not discuss or mention any specific branches, such as iridology, under any circumstances; outside of listing the various branches as links.
Make one exception and people will start babbling about homeopathy, astrology, faith healing and who knows what else. These comments belong in their respective articles. Want to comment on iridology, then put it in Iridology.
-- Mr-Natural-Health 15:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New argument in support!

Genuine physicians who are holders of the M.D. degree and who as physicians are subject to the disciplinary actions from 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 value in these alternative forms of treatments. Further, the University of Arizona, College of Medicine, under the leadership of Andrew Weil, M.D., offers to practicing physicians a program in Integrative Medicine. In this fellowship physicians are trained in "guided imagery, homeopathy, acupuncture and osteopathic manipulation." The program "neither rejects conventional medicine nor embraces alternative practices uncritically." -- Mr-Natural-Health

Hey guys, Alternative medicine is meant to be an encylopaedia artice about the subject, not a tit for tat for/against essay. Aducing more agruments in support or against isn't the point and the fact that so much time is being wasted on this talk on such arguments, with a liberalhelping of personal abuse, makes me despair of it ever being a proper encyclopaedia article at all. Bmills 14:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My offers of making it a proper encyclopaedia article were turned down in mediation. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_medicine/Archive_3&oldid=832312052"