![]() | This account is a
sockpuppet of
NotThatJamesBrown (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs), and has been
blocked indefinitely. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
Archives
|
I thought that my statement here [1] was very civil and was not any veiled threat for an edit war. It was a very reasonable statement about wanting us to work together to get RS, notable, and NPOV information and references. Sometimes, the positions that we each take lead us to stereotype others. Let's each try not to do that. I am a reasonable guy. You and I may have different POVs, but we're both hyper-rational folk. I'm glad that you have access to Elia's article and its many references to studies that have been published in conventional chemistry journals (as well as in the Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences). Based on what you've said so far, it doesn't seem as though you've read any of his work. Please consider doing so, and let's discuss it, though I personally can only discuss things on user-pages for the next 6.5 days or so. DanaUllman Talk 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to respond to your post sentence by sentence. I'll put your words in quotes. Hopefully this will deal with your points directly and without claims of misdirection:
I don't admire doubt, however I distrust people who lack it.
I don't think I'm anti-homeopathy. If homeopathy could be proven to work (in the technical sense), the I'd support it fully. It would, of course, then become part of "medicine" and no longer be alternative. To characterise me in this way is lacking in good faith, and goes against your very request not to stereotype.
I aim to be NPOV, which respects the scientific point of view and doesn't give undue weight. If I have acted against this please provide diffs so I can analyse them.
I have disparaged no other journal nor Elia's other work. I have not disparaged Homeopathy; it is an accurate description.
To answer your question, no. And I haven't asked for this link to be included in the article, so please don't misrepresent what I have said or done like this. Blog links are fine on talk pages, so long as they aren't spamming and have something to do with the topic. This blog link has a complete copy of the article, allowed by the publishers, and also has some good comments. People were asking you to provide the reference, and you hadn't, so I did. People can now discuss this research on the talk page if they wish. Like science, wikipedia doesn't grow in the dark.
It is a description that fits neither one of us, nor anyone else. I did say "us" in my reply, and I said why it doesn't fit me.
This is a point that would need further debate, if you are willing.
There was no misdirection. If not Whig, who do you mean? Notice I asked you if you meant Whig, I didn't assert anything and asked a question. There are, however, several "misdirections" made by you on this page, such as in your final sentence:
The verification that you eventually acknowledged had already been provided, and was fairly simple. The reason you were blocked was not for asking for verification, but for "low level edit warring". This is recorded on the homeopathy probation pages. Was there anything else you wished to discuss? >> Partyoffive ( talk) 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<<
I'm not familiar with any statistics that large or small numbers of UK doctors use homeopathic medicines as "placeboes." If you have this data, please share it. This data is what it is: it shows that certain percentages of people in certain countries "trust homeopathy." This doesn't "prove" homeopathy; this article has details about "prevalence" of homeopathy, and this is information about prevalence and belief in homeopathy. It is what it is, and this market research company is not a rinky-dink company. DanaUllman Talk 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Homoeopaths routinely respond to negative meta-analyses by cherry-picking positive studies. An observational study,[12] which amounts to little more than a customer-satisfaction survey, has been promoted[13] as if it trumps a string of randomised trials.
12 Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 793–98.
13 Grice E. Keep taking the arsenic. Daily Telegraph Nov 25, 2005. [www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&xml=/health/2005/11/25/hhomeo25.xml](accessed Nov 8, 2007))
There is currently insufficient evidence of effectiveness ... to recommend homeopathy as a treatment for any specific condition.
A forthcoming response from me will list several meta-analyses on specific diseases that have shown statistically significant differences between treatment and placebo groups. The Cochrane report on Oscillo is just one. Anyone who takes the Shang report as the end all or be-all has his or her head in the sand. More later... DanaUllman Talk 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This account is a
sockpuppet of
NotThatJamesBrown (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs), and has been
blocked indefinitely. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotThatJamesBrown for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
Archives
|
I thought that my statement here [1] was very civil and was not any veiled threat for an edit war. It was a very reasonable statement about wanting us to work together to get RS, notable, and NPOV information and references. Sometimes, the positions that we each take lead us to stereotype others. Let's each try not to do that. I am a reasonable guy. You and I may have different POVs, but we're both hyper-rational folk. I'm glad that you have access to Elia's article and its many references to studies that have been published in conventional chemistry journals (as well as in the Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences). Based on what you've said so far, it doesn't seem as though you've read any of his work. Please consider doing so, and let's discuss it, though I personally can only discuss things on user-pages for the next 6.5 days or so. DanaUllman Talk 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to respond to your post sentence by sentence. I'll put your words in quotes. Hopefully this will deal with your points directly and without claims of misdirection:
I don't admire doubt, however I distrust people who lack it.
I don't think I'm anti-homeopathy. If homeopathy could be proven to work (in the technical sense), the I'd support it fully. It would, of course, then become part of "medicine" and no longer be alternative. To characterise me in this way is lacking in good faith, and goes against your very request not to stereotype.
I aim to be NPOV, which respects the scientific point of view and doesn't give undue weight. If I have acted against this please provide diffs so I can analyse them.
I have disparaged no other journal nor Elia's other work. I have not disparaged Homeopathy; it is an accurate description.
To answer your question, no. And I haven't asked for this link to be included in the article, so please don't misrepresent what I have said or done like this. Blog links are fine on talk pages, so long as they aren't spamming and have something to do with the topic. This blog link has a complete copy of the article, allowed by the publishers, and also has some good comments. People were asking you to provide the reference, and you hadn't, so I did. People can now discuss this research on the talk page if they wish. Like science, wikipedia doesn't grow in the dark.
It is a description that fits neither one of us, nor anyone else. I did say "us" in my reply, and I said why it doesn't fit me.
This is a point that would need further debate, if you are willing.
There was no misdirection. If not Whig, who do you mean? Notice I asked you if you meant Whig, I didn't assert anything and asked a question. There are, however, several "misdirections" made by you on this page, such as in your final sentence:
The verification that you eventually acknowledged had already been provided, and was fairly simple. The reason you were blocked was not for asking for verification, but for "low level edit warring". This is recorded on the homeopathy probation pages. Was there anything else you wished to discuss? >> Partyoffive ( talk) 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<<
I'm not familiar with any statistics that large or small numbers of UK doctors use homeopathic medicines as "placeboes." If you have this data, please share it. This data is what it is: it shows that certain percentages of people in certain countries "trust homeopathy." This doesn't "prove" homeopathy; this article has details about "prevalence" of homeopathy, and this is information about prevalence and belief in homeopathy. It is what it is, and this market research company is not a rinky-dink company. DanaUllman Talk 14:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Homoeopaths routinely respond to negative meta-analyses by cherry-picking positive studies. An observational study,[12] which amounts to little more than a customer-satisfaction survey, has been promoted[13] as if it trumps a string of randomised trials.
12 Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 793–98.
13 Grice E. Keep taking the arsenic. Daily Telegraph Nov 25, 2005. [www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&xml=/health/2005/11/25/hhomeo25.xml](accessed Nov 8, 2007))
There is currently insufficient evidence of effectiveness ... to recommend homeopathy as a treatment for any specific condition.
A forthcoming response from me will list several meta-analyses on specific diseases that have shown statistically significant differences between treatment and placebo groups. The Cochrane report on Oscillo is just one. Anyone who takes the Shang report as the end all or be-all has his or her head in the sand. More later... DanaUllman Talk 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)