QuackGuru

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:13 am

Has anyone run across more info about QuackGuru (T-C-L) before?

Because for the past few years, he's been one of the top editors of Larry Sanger (T-H-L). And his userpage was repeatedly deleted and restored. He diddled Jimbo's bio, was one of the people fighting to keep Larry as "co-founder", and was apparently a big fan of chiropractic. There are only a few old mentions of him on WR and elsewhere, where he was accused of being Jimbo, Sanger, Jeff Merkey, and some other insider.

It's stupid and trivial, but given that he's still, as of this month, fiddling with Larry's BLP, I'm looking at him.

Versus · Unread post by **Versus** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:17 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Has anyone run across more info about QuackGuru (T-C-L) before?

Because for the past few years, he's been one of the top editors of Larry Sanger (T-H-L). And his userpage was repeatedly deleted and restored. He diddled Jimbo's bio, was one of the people fighting to keep Larry as "co-founder", and was apparently a big fan of chiropractic. There are only a few old mentions of him on WR and elsewhere, where he was accused of being Jimbo, Sanger, Jeff Merkey, and some other insider.

It's stupid and trivial, but given that he's still, as of this month, fiddling with Larry's BLP, I'm looking at him.

My hunch is that he is Stephen Barrett.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:41 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Has anyone run across more info about QuackGuru (T-C-L) before?

Because for the past few years, he's been one of the top editors of Larry Sanger (T-H-L). And his userpage was repeatedly deleted and restored. He diddled Jimbo's bio, was one of the people fighting to keep Larry as "co-founder", and was apparently a big fan of chiropractic. There are only a few old mentions of him on WR and elsewhere, where he was accused of being Jimbo, Sanger, Jeff Merkey, and some other insider.

It's stupid and trivial, but given that he's still, as of this month, fiddling with Larry's BLP, I'm looking at him.

He was, perhaps, the staunchest opponent of alternative medicine on Wikipedia (definitely not a fan of chiropractic). His tactics were of the scorched Earth variety. Early on, he decided the problem was that Wikipedia was marginalizing expert medical opinion in deference to "quacks" and blamed Wales' marginalization of Sanger's ideas for this condition. I once tried to explain to him that Citizendium was in many ways worse than Wikipedia in that regard, but I'm not sure he took that message to heart.

Versus wrote:My hunch is that he is Stephen Barrett.

Your hunch is definitely wrong.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:49 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Has anyone run across more info about QuackGuru (T-C-L) before?

Because for the past few years, he's been one of the top editors of Larry Sanger (T-H-L). And his userpage was repeatedly deleted and restored. He diddled Jimbo's bio, was one of the people fighting to keep Larry as "co-founder", and was apparently a big fan of chiropractic. There are only a few old mentions of him on WR and elsewhere, where he was accused of being Jimbo, Sanger, Jeff Merkey, and some other insider.

It's stupid and trivial, but given that he's still, as of this month, fiddling with Larry's BLP, I'm looking at him.

I ran across him during the Merkey Madness.
Alternatively a Merkey apologist and then a critic.

Definitely not Merkey, as he was fairly sane.

Versus · Unread post by **Versus** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:44 pm

iii wrote:I once tried to explain to him that Citizendium was in many ways worse than Wikipedia in that regard, but I'm not sure he took that message to heart.

Actually Citizendium has cleaned up its act after Larry Sanger left. Sanger was responsible for vetting homeopathy (which has since been toned-down considerably) and their now defunct Healing Arts workgroup. So it's strange to see QuackGuru supporting him fanatically on the internet. Sanger may support experts, but this also involved inviting in homeopaths and chiropractics there, so Sanger was part of the problem - not the solution.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:37 pm

Versus wrote:
iii wrote:I once tried to explain to him that Citizendium was in many ways worse than Wikipedia in that regard, but I'm not sure he took that message to heart.
Actually Citizendium has cleaned up its act after Larry Sanger left. Sanger was responsible for vetting homeopathy (which has since been toned-down considerably) and their now defunct Healing Arts workgroup. So it's strange to see QuackGuru supporting him fanatically on the internet. Sanger may support experts, but this also involved inviting in homeopaths and chiropractics there, so Sanger was part of the problem - not the solution.

Lest we forget, Larry is also an anti-vaxxer.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:14 am

Vigilant wrote:
Versus wrote:
iii wrote:I once tried to explain to him that Citizendium was in many ways worse than Wikipedia in that regard, but I'm not sure he took that message to heart.
Actually Citizendium has cleaned up its act after Larry Sanger left. Sanger was responsible for vetting homeopathy (which has since been toned-down considerably) and their now defunct Healing Arts workgroup. So it's strange to see QuackGuru supporting him fanatically on the internet. Sanger may support experts, but this also involved inviting in homeopaths and chiropractics there, so Sanger was part of the problem - not the solution.
Lest we forget, Larry is also an anti-vaxxer.

Links would be nice.....

jinkinson · Unread post by **jinkinson** » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:17 am

He's still active. I know this because after Michael0156 (T-C-L) got blocked indefinitely for disrupting the NaturalNews (T-H-L) article, QuackGuru, whoever he is, then posted on his talk page about how poor Michael had actually edited "according to Wikipedia policies".

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:31 am

jinkinson wrote:He's still active. I know this because after Michael0156 (T-C-L) got blocked indefinitely for disrupting the NaturalNews (T-H-L) article, QuackGuru, whoever he is, then posted on his talk page about how poor Michael had actually edited "according to Wikipedia policies".

Gack. I came across that NaturaNews crap about 2 years back when a group of old hippie friends started sending me links to it. Someone should drown him and Mercola in a Nitric Acid. Apparently Breast Screening is a conspiracy to give women cancer.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/healthranger.htm

Also chances are good that Michael0156 (T-C-L) is actually Mike Adams.

jinkinson · Unread post by **jinkinson** » Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:50 pm

You aren't the first person to propose that, BullRangifer is. However, if you go on his YouTube channel you can see what his real name is, and it would seem not to be Mike Adams. Also, looking at his comments it is clear he is the same person as Michael0156 on Wikipedia, particularly because he seemed to acknowledge it on Talk:NaturalNews after I posted a mention of his YouTube activities. [http://www.youtube.com/user/michael0156]

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:03 pm

Thanks I should have recalled that there is more than one nutter named Mike.

jinkinson · Unread post by **jinkinson** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:52 am

Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:54 am

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

I'm not blocked or banned.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:01 am

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

You've just proven you're not capable of writing the world's most popular encyclopedia. Please desist. You can only do more harm than good.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:06 am

Mancunium wrote:
jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.
I'm not blocked or banned.

I'm not blocked. User Khazar2 (T-C-L) said I was. But, you get something as inaccurate as en.Wikipedia courtesy of the inaccuracy of its community. Dennis Brown (T-C-L) blocked me when I first started editing for asking a question at the help desk. He is now confused about why the Foundation doesn't want him doing sock puppet hunts. He should stop being confused about why en.Wikipedia can't retain editors, though.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:44 am

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

I'm not blocked or banned either.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:32 am

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

Which of my accounts did you look up? Sometimes even I lose track of which ones are blocked, and which ones are increasing the size of my PayPal account.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:55 am

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

Ming is still active but at a low level these days.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:55 pm

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

I got blocked in 2006.
Since the common bum on the street corner knows more about network protocols than your average checkuser, I edit when I please.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:14 pm

jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.

Sigh.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:49 pm

Well, it looks like an acupuncturist and a TCM practitioner got angry enough to start this wonderful event:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 (T-H-L)

I got kinda pissed by that.

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by the arguments of certain Wikipedians along the lines of, "Does good work, but fails to make the environment nice and cozy for those who don't do good work."

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:50 pm

Acupuncture and chiropractic are, based on my biased observations, much more accepted and respected here in east Asia than in the west. From what I'm told by my Japanese family and friends, public and private medical insurance usually cover visits to the acupuncture or chiropractic clinic. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find similar situations in S. Korea, Taiwan, and mainland China. So, again I'm reminded that much of the anti "pseudoscience" or "fringe medicine" activism in Wikipedia is apparently by close-minded young, likely white, Western men who have very little world depth or breadth of experience and/or knowledge. Sometimes, it appears that the English Wikipedia is being used to try to impose Western culture on the rest of the world.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:25 pm

Vigilant wrote:
jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.
I got blocked in 2006.
Since the common bum on the street corner knows more about network protocols than your average checkuser, I edit when I please.

Vigilant, you may have been blocked in 2006 but Prioryman was still making baiting deletions of your talkpage content ("Page not needed - hell will freeze over before he is unblocked") as late as August, 2013. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history.)

PS: Dan Murphy quit Wikipediocracy?

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:59 pm

Cla68 wrote:Acupuncture and chiropractic are, based on my biased observations, much more accepted and respected here in east Asia than in the west. From what I'm told by my Japanese family and friends, public and private medical insurance usually cover visits to the acupuncture or chiropractic clinic. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find similar situations in S. Korea, Taiwan, and mainland China. So, again I'm reminded that much of the anti "pseudoscience" or "fringe medicine" activism in Wikipedia is apparently by close-minded young, likely white, Western men who have very little world depth or breadth of experience and/or knowledge. Sometimes, it appears that the English Wikipedia is being used to try to impose Western culture on the rest of the world.

The thing about evidence is that it doesn't care who you are or where you live. While acupuncture is more popular in China, for example, Christian faith healing is more popular in America. We all have our vices!

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:00 pm

Triptych wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.
I got blocked in 2006.
Since the common bum on the street corner knows more about network protocols than your average checkuser, I edit when I please.
Vigilant, you may have been blocked in 2006 but Prioryman was still making baiting deletions of your talkpage content ("Page not needed - hell will freeze over before he is unblocked") as late as August, 2013. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history.)

PS: Dan Murphy quit Wikipediocracy?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:54 pm

Triptych wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
jinkinson wrote:Am I the only one who here who actually still edits Wikipedia? I'm looking you guys up and it looks like most of you are blocked or banned.
I got blocked in 2006.
Since the common bum on the street corner knows more about network protocols than your average checkuser, I edit when I please.
Vigilant, you may have been blocked in 2006 but Prioryman was still making baiting deletions of your talkpage content ("Page not needed - hell will freeze over before he is unblocked") as late as August, 2013. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history.)

I just don't edit with that account.
On a slightly different note, Prioryman aka Chris Owen, hasn't made a Gibraltar themed edit in a good long while.
Did the contract run out?

PS: Dan Murphy quit Wikipediocracy?

Hersch.

MilesMoney · Unread post by **MilesMoney** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:37 am

iii wrote:Well, it looks like an acupuncturist and a TCM practitioner got angry enough to start this wonderful event:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 (T-H-L)

I got kinda pissed by that.

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by the arguments of certain Wikipedians along the lines of, "Does good work, but fails to make the environment nice and cozy for those who don't do good work."

Don't be.

I ran into QuackGuru on a few articles, including Rupert Sheldrake, and found that he was yet another editor who was actually trying to make Wikipedia suck less. He defended me when I was targeted, and now he is himself a target. This is how Wikipedia "works".

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:42 pm

Hi Chris Owen aka Prioryman!!!

I see that you jumped right back to work on Gibraltar related topics as soon as I posted this message.

You're a good, well-trained little monkey, aren't you?
Perhaps, if you're really good, someday all of your Gibraltar articles will get QRCodes...

Here's to dreaming!

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:57 pm

It seems he has disappeared. How does this happen?

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:01 pm

Ah. Just a red user

Jbhunley · Unread post by **Jbhunley** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:53 pm

Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user

S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

SneakySasha · Unread post by **SneakySasha** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:43 pm

Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.

Jbhunley · Unread post by **Jbhunley** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:16 am

SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.

WTF?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:40 pm

Jbhunley wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.
WTF?

SneakySasha · Unread post by **SneakySasha** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:10 am

Jbhunley wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.
WTF?

Well, if you truly don't comprehend, I must be mixing you up with another JBH.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:16 am

SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.
WTF?
Well, if you truly don't comprehend, I must be mixing you up with another JBH.

I'm going to ask for a clarification,
or these posts will be going on a long vacation.

SneakySasha · Unread post by **SneakySasha** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:09 am

Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.
WTF?
Well, if you truly don't comprehend, I must be mixing you up with another JBH.
I'm going to ask for a clarification,
or these posts will be going on a long vacation.

Give me a couple days to check the Wiki link.

Jbhunley · Unread post by **Jbhunley** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:05 pm

SneakySasha wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Jbhunley wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:Ah. Just a red user
S/he is one of those editors who likes to have no user page. Their current project is some pie-in-the-sky idea to "Reform Wikipedia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quac ... kipedia%20.

Wikipedia hasn't been what they claim to be for years now so I'd say it's long overdue for reform. But then you are just as much of a quack with your fishing expeditions against imagined COI editors and the belief that it's okay to OUT any supposed COI editor.
WTF?
Well, if you truly don't comprehend, I must be mixing you up with another JBH.
I'm going to ask for a clarification,
or these posts will be going on a long vacation.
Give me a couple days to check the Wiki link.

Or, alternatly, you could simply ask me my views on the subject without being a dick about it. There are long discussions at WT:HARASSMENT where the tension between privacy and COI (or more specificly undisclosed paid editing which is a violation of the Terms os Service) is being discussed and where I most definitly do not advocate outing of COI editors or anyone else nor do I do so elsewhere. I edit under my real name and have signed the Wikimedia Access to Confidential Information Agreement for OTRS so I am both familiar with and abide by en.wp's current policy on outing and the Foundation's Privacy Policy which, incidentally, are very different from one another and could be a good topic for discussion.

As to "hunting" COI editors there are about a half dozen or so who I have worked with, one for months, that I have encountered via NPP or through OTRS requests. There are also *many* articles which do not meet the notibility criteria like bands and autobiographies which I have tagged or nominated for deletion. If those were written by obvious COI or paid editors they get a notice of Wikipedia's policies on that subject just as they do on notability or sourcing. There are also a few, probably less than 10, accounts that I have posted a notice about undisclosed paid editing to. Hardly "fishing expeditions". You can click on the "my workspace is here" link on my userpage where I keep notes on such things - a bit obsessive I admit but RL has given me the habit of documenting stuff rather than depend on memory. It is also good to have when people like you show up.

If you have questions about my Wikipedia editing *ask*. If you do not like something *ask*, nicely. That way it will at least look like you want to do something productive rather than just pick a fight. Although a fight could be fun it will not advance the purpose of either this site or Wikipedia.

@Zoloft: If Mr/Miss Sneaky wishes to continue this a split to its own thread may be in order. -Jbh

WWHP · Unread post by **WWHP** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:42 pm

iii wrote:
Cla68 wrote:Acupuncture and chiropractic are, based on my biased observations, much more accepted and respected here in east Asia than in the west. From what I'm told by my Japanese family and friends, public and private medical insurance usually cover visits to the acupuncture or chiropractic clinic. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find similar situations in S. Korea, Taiwan, and mainland China. So, again I'm reminded that much of the anti "pseudoscience" or "fringe medicine" activism in Wikipedia is apparently by close-minded young, likely white, Western men who have very little world depth or breadth of experience and/or knowledge. Sometimes, it appears that the English Wikipedia is being used to try to impose Western culture on the rest of the world.
The thing about evidence is that it doesn't care who you are or where you live. While acupuncture is more popular in China, for example, Christian faith healing is more popular in America. We all have our vices!

I think this exchange highlights the issue and concern perfectly. I don't think when it comes to alternative medicine articles or their proponents that the issue is simply 'editors want to contradict evidence' and promote pseudoscience but rather the issues are very complex and have to do with over all contextualization of how these topics are presented. Consider, alternative medicine or integrative medicine is also adopted in a large percentage of US hospitals and medical universities. I agree that young western white males with an axe to grind about 'pseudoscience' are not responsible enough to control context on how these articles are presented, and there is a tendency to demonize any other point of view on the issue and just lable it as 'pseudoscience fringe pushing' when the issue is far more complex than that.

milowent · Unread post by **milowent** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:19 pm

WWHP wrote:I think this exchange highlights the issue and concern perfectly. I don't think when it comes to alternative medicine articles or their proponents that the issue is simply 'editors want to contradict evidence' and promote pseudoscience but rather the issues are very complex and have to do with over all contextualization of how these topics are presented. Consider, alternative medicine or integrative medicine is also adopted in a large percentage of US hospitals and medical universities. I agree that young western white males with an axe to grind about 'pseudoscience' are not responsible enough to control context on how these articles are presented, and there is a tendency to demonize any other point of view on the issue and just lable it as 'pseudoscience fringe pushing' when the issue is far more complex than that.

there is no "axe to grind", just skepticism of anything not accepted by the mainstream Western medical community. I can go to the Japanese wikipedia to discover how everyone's blood types are a predictor of their personality if I need to. But when my neighbor trumpets the wonders of their Chelation therapy, I would prefer an article that tells me whether it has been proven effective as a scientific matter.

johnthedinosaur · Unread post by **johnthedinosaur** » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:27 pm

QuackGuru was peripherally involved in this sockpuppet investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... meduser024 but I find the details unclear

WWHP · Unread post by **WWHP** » Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:42 am

milowent wrote:
WWHP wrote:
there is no "axe to grind", just skepticism of anything not accepted by the mainstream Western medical community. I can go to the Japanese wikipedia to discover how everyone's blood types are a predictor of their personality if I need to. But when my neighbor trumpets the wonders of their Chelation therapy, I would prefer an article that tells me whether it has been proven effective as a scientific matter.

Integrative medicine is accepted by the mainstream western medical community - that is why a high percentage (I believe it's 40%) of US Hospitals have adopted it as well as major universities. Like I said, it's not about WP showing evidence of efficacy - it's about a broader context that is not be treated responsibly.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:36 pm

WWHP wrote:
milowent wrote:
WWHP wrote:
there is no "axe to grind", just skepticism of anything not accepted by the mainstream Western medical community. I can go to the Japanese wikipedia to discover how everyone's blood types are a predictor of their personality if I need to. But when my neighbor trumpets the wonders of their Chelation therapy, I would prefer an article that tells me whether it has been proven effective as a scientific matter.
Integrative medicine is accepted by the mainstream western medical community - that is why a high percentage (I believe it's 40%) of US Hospitals have adopted it as well as major universities. Like I said, it's not about WP showing evidence of efficacy - it's about a broader context that is not be treated responsibly.

"Tolerated" may be closer to what you're looking for. The "adoption" of integrative medicine (which is just repackaged alternative medicine) is mostly done to keep patients in good spirits. It's when you get to arguments about evidence-basis that things become heated. This type of discussion normally only occurs at about the time that the Reiki master starts to ask why they aren't on the hospital payroll.

JCM · Unread post by **JCM** » Mon May 16, 2016 4:13 pm

iii wrote:
WWHP wrote:
milowent wrote:
WWHP wrote:
there is no "axe to grind", just skepticism of anything not accepted by the mainstream Western medical community. I can go to the Japanese wikipedia to discover how everyone's blood types are a predictor of their personality if I need to. But when my neighbor trumpets the wonders of their Chelation therapy, I would prefer an article that tells me whether it has been proven effective as a scientific matter.
Integrative medicine is accepted by the mainstream western medical community - that is why a high percentage (I believe it's 40%) of US Hospitals have adopted it as well as major universities. Like I said, it's not about WP showing evidence of efficacy - it's about a broader context that is not be treated responsibly.
"Tolerated" may be closer to what you're looking for. The "adoption" of integrative medicine (which is just repackaged alternative medicine) is mostly done to keep patients in good spirits. It's when you get to arguments about evidence-basis that things become heated. This type of discussion normally only occurs at about the time that the Reiki master starts to ask why they aren't on the hospital payroll.

I have to agree with iii here. A lot of hospitals will realize that they will be less likely to get negative press about perceived biases by just adding a few people practicing alternative medicine to their payroll or staff. This will be particularly true regarding vaguely "New Age"-y medicine which have a broad degree of vocal support, but little if any real academic support. I think that sort of "popular" demand of what is basically unfounded, but hugely popular, alternative practices is one of the reasons why Canada has given chiropractic the attention it has received in hospitals.

I have recently finished a book rather clearly biased from the Christian perspective about a lot of the "lies" of the New Age in all fields, including medicine and science. Much to my surprise, it seems to me, based on at least the content of that book, and what it specifically indicates as being "new age" presuppositions and premises, that Hillary and some of the similar Democrats in the US have a perspective in almost complete agreement with them. I am thinking, sort of, maybe writing some sort of opinion piece for the Signpost relating to that.

This is not to say that I support Trump. I don't. Trump is a narcissistic of a different stripe, but still a narcissist. But I think the similarity of premises and presuppositions is interesting.

Jimbo Jambo · Unread post by **Jimbo Jambo** » Mon May 16, 2016 6:50 pm

To me, a fundamental difference between science and religion is that science distinguishes between what is known and what is unknown (or not yet known.) Religions typically claim all is known by someone or something and revealed definitively by inspiration.

To say scientifically, "we know this treatment doesn't work" requires a complete understanding of human biology, which we haven't achieved. We can disprove specific claims - e.g. X was intended to bind to protein Y and it does not - but on a general level the best science can say is: "the efficacy of this treatment hasn't been demonstrated" which is a more modest claim than the former.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Mon May 16, 2016 7:08 pm

Jimbo Jambo wrote:To me, a fundamental difference between science and religion is that science distinguishes between what is known and what is unknown (or not yet known.) Religions typically claim all is known by someone or something and revealed definitively by inspiration.

To say scientifically, "we know this treatment doesn't work" requires a complete understanding of human biology, which we haven't achieved. We can disprove specific claims - e.g. X was intended to bind to protein Y and it does not - but on a general level the best science can say is: "the efficacy of this treatment hasn't been demonstrated" which is a more modest claim than the former.

How convenient. Some quack claims that he has a cure for cancer, fails to provide evidence that it does anything, and it is all the fault of 'science'...

Do you apply the same standards to other fields of science? Like aerodynamics for instance, which still lacks complete explanations of everything? If some guy were to claim that sprinkling the wings of a B747 with buzzard-droppings will halve its fuel consumption, should we give him the benefit of the doubt and let him try to fly the Atlantic with half-empty fuel tanks because we can't say for sure it won't work?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon May 16, 2016 7:23 pm

The base of a lot of this argument is that there are groups on Wikipedia that are POV pushing to ensure that none of this makes it into Wikipedia. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a medical text or a health related website. It contains information about topics and IMO that should include topics about differing views.

Just as a lot of Christians want to erase all the Witchcraft articles from Wikipedia there is a group that want all these types of articles removed as well. If Wikipedia hopes to be an unbiased resource then they need to include some of these things in the project. Not just provide information about the expensive drugs by the for profit pharmacoms.

Jimbo Jambo · Unread post by **Jimbo Jambo** » Mon May 16, 2016 7:33 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Jimbo Jambo wrote:To me, a fundamental difference between science and religion is that science distinguishes between what is known and what is unknown (or not yet known.) Religions typically claim all is known by someone or something and revealed definitively by inspiration.

To say scientifically, "we know this treatment doesn't work" requires a complete understanding of human biology, which we haven't achieved. We can disprove specific claims - e.g. X was intended to bind to protein Y and it does not - but on a general level the best science can say is: "the efficacy of this treatment hasn't been demonstrated" which is a more modest claim than the former.
How convenient. Some quack claims that he has a cure for cancer, fails to provide evidence that it does anything, and it is all the fault of 'science'...

Do you apply the same standards to other fields of science? Like aerodynamics for instance, which still lacks complete explanations of everything? If some guy were to claim that sprinkling the wings of a B747 with buzzard-droppings will halve its fuel consumption, should we give him the benefit of the doubt and let him try to fly the Atlantic with half-empty fuel tanks because we can't say for sure it won't work?

It's not a fault but I think a misunderstanding of the questions answered by experimental science.

I'm very much pro-science but there's a difference between not advocating unproven treatments and advocating against treatments which haven't been proven harmful - the difference between what we know for certain and what we think is likely based on what we know for certain.

When it comes to resources allocation (e.g. how a ideal medical system should be run) that difference is largely irrelevant - different story when you're claiming to know "the truth,"

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon May 16, 2016 7:48 pm

There definitely is a misunderstanding here. You can't prove that a new cancer treatment has no beneficial effect whatever. You can prove that it doesn't have a 100% success rate. You can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is less effective than existing treatments, so is not worth using.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Mon May 16, 2016 8:06 pm

Jimbo Jambo wrote:I'm very much pro-science but there's a difference between not advocating unproven treatments and advocating against treatments which haven't been proven harmful - the difference between what we know for certain and what we think is likely based on what we know for certain.

The idea that alternative medicine does no harm is a beguiling one, but it is also an argument that isn't as easy to make as it first appears. Take homeopathy. If someone takes a homeopathic treatment, it is highly unlikely that it will do them any harm directly. On the other hand, many people who take homeopathic treatments also avoid treatments that will help them (often with the encouragement of their homeopaths). At some point, this kind of treatment refusal becomes a harm to the patient.

I believe in a patient's right to refuse treatment, but I'm not so keen on the right of a third party to convince a patient to refuse treatment. And as soon as you bring kids into it... hoo boy.

Harm is an interesting question, and it is certainly not as clear cut as you are trying to make it out to be. Here's a nice memoir which explains this in some personal detail.