Discussions

Are Wikipedia editors ignorant of matters of consciences Or are they militant "Guerrilla Skeptics"

Posted July 3, 2013 by Billgreenjeans in Open

commented on Aug. 15, 2013
by Billgreenjeans

Quote

51

Robert McLuhan makes some accusations of deliberate sabotage of truthfulness about matters of Consciousness which includes homeopathy, radionics, and many other subjects of investigation. Many times the articles even have distorted or untruths of well know historical facts. Too often these types of errors fall into one of two categories or sometimes both. Either they are naive and ignorant or they are criminal or both.
Robert McLuhan is looking for effective solutions to a website that is international and viewed by millions on a daily bases. What if anything should be done to give those who rely on Wikipedia for information an opportunity to read unbiased and truthful articles concerning Consciousness?

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2013/03/guerrilla-skeptics.html

  • 51 Comments  
  • Billgreenjeans Aug 15, 2013

    @NewtTrino

    Thanks for joining discussion.

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Aug 14, 2013

    I am new here. But it does seem that the bulk of the load regarding input comes from four or five dedicated members. I will gladly respond if someone remembers an interesting subject to bump. Meanwhile I will read and reply to the current crop of topics.

  • Billgreenjeans Aug 14, 2013

    @ dustproduction

    Not in everything just you. I don't know how many have read the thread here, however I am sure some will not be gullible enough to believe all they read on Wikipedia as many now do. Wikipedia statement of its purpose and what it actually does is not the same.

    An intelligent person like your self could be doing much better than you are now. Your fears are holding you back. Your poor health situation will not be better on your present course. Here is a summary of iatrogenic related or caused problems: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

    In its article on iatrogenics Wikipedia makes it clear that this word includes this: " Iatrogenesis is not restricted to conventional medicine; it can also result from complementary and alternative medicine treatments." Although it never mentions any such in the rest of the article.

    It does vindicate modern medicine like this: "With the development of scientific medicine in the 20th century, it could be expected that iatrogenic illness or death would be more easily avoided. Antiseptics, anesthesia, antibiotics, and better surgical techniques have been developed to decrease iatrogenic mortality." We are fortunate to have these advancement other wise iatrogenic deaths would be number one instead of number three.
    I remember when the doctors went on strike and the death rate drop considerable. "It can also result from complementary and alternative medicine treatments". Where is there evidence to even make the "it can" statement. This is just a fear tatic to frighten people away from seeking such treatment. Intelligent people are not frighten by such and are happy with what works or the results the receive and are gaining less and less confidence in "20th century scientific medicine". The Chinese have a much longer(2000 plus years)history of safe and effective medicine. In China if a doctors patient becomes ill the patient changes doctors because the doctors job is to keep the patient/client healthy. The doctor in scientific medicine gets paid if the patient becomes ill. The Chinese doctor does not get paid if the patient becomes ill. It is a different ecomony and motivation.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 13, 2013

    .......or it can wither on the vine like dozens of other threads.
    Your disappointed in everything is evident in your comments.

  • Billgreenjeans Aug 13, 2013

    "My points have been made. The thread has lost my interest" "re: OK now we can hear form others on the thread.

    ....or it can wither on the vine like dozens of other threads.

    I am disappointed in your change of your contract. I guess your word is not important to you.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Aug 13, 2013

    WHEN disputes arise on Wikipedia, contributors are encouraged to go to a “talk page.” But often an “edit war” ensues: a change is repeatedly done by one person and undone by another—known as a “revert.” These reverts represent the most controversial articles. Taha Yasseri of the Oxford Internet Institute and colleagues looked at Wikipedia’s different language editions from their inception (January 2001 for English) to March 2010 and ranked the most contested articles, based on the number of reverts and the number of edits the contributors have made (dubbed their “maturity score”). The results in some ways confirm cultural stereotypes. Americans bicker over politics and professional wrestling; among the top French squabbles is Freud. When the Wikipedia community meets for Wikimania, an annual gathering held this year between August 7th and 11th in Hong Kong, they presumably will be nicer.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/08/daily-chart-1?fsrc=scn/gp/wl/dc/editwars

    One will note that "homeopathy" is hotly debate in German.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 24, 2013

    Here is another example of how Wikipedia demonstrates is pecuniary interest in the drug industry. In its article on Psychoneuroimmunology it only mentions all the chemical drugs that could have effect on the immune system and nothing on the alteration or changes that can be made consciously and subconsciously to effect the immune system.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 23, 2013

    In a recent article "Radionics - Medicine or Magic" appearing in the "Radionic Journal" of the Radionis Association (UK) Dr. Linda Fellows wrote "Russell (1973) lamented how little progress had been made in making the benefits of radionics known to the public 50 years after Abrams' death and 40 years later how little has changed. In fact antagonism has probably increased, probably due, a cynic might suspect, to its being perceived as a threat to the vested interests of some. Look up radionics on Wikipedia and you will find it dismissed as nonsense and Abrams as a charlatan. Many attempts have been made to put the record straight but a dismissive version is always restored within days."

    While few, if any, in IONS obviously either know little of radionics or could care less about this thread and the harm Wikipedia does for the entire field of the study of consciousness. Courage is in short supply. Here the only person who has responded is a "pseudoskeptics" who could very well be working for the " vested interest". Cowardest will receive its reward as the " vested interest" assum more and more power over free speech and thought. Look for the thought police to appear.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 18, 2013

    Here is another gross error found in Wikipedia : "In cell biology, the nucleus (pl. nuclei; from Latin nucleus or nuculeus, meaning kernel) is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in eukaryotic cells. It contains most of the cell's genetic material, organized as multiple long linear DNA molecules in complex with a large variety of proteins, such as histones, to form chromosomes. The genes within these chromosomes are the cell's nuclear genome. The function of the nucleus is to maintain the integrity of these genes and to control the activities of the cell by regulating gene expression — the nucleus is, therefore, the control center of the cell."

    The nucleus is not the control centre of the cell.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 16, 2013

    It appears that Wikipedia is part of the corruption, control, censorship and suppression.

    Being quite familiar with Radionics, I was not surprised to read the fabrication concerning Dr. Albert Abrams in Wikipedias article on Radionics. Dr. Abrams came from a wealth family and was a doctor of medicine out of his desire to aid people's suffering unlike many I know today who are out for greed. He had studied with the worlds best medical scientist at the time including Hermann Von Helmholtz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz
    Dr Abrams was quite famous as a pathologist and professor and medical director at Stanford University. To perpetuate the lie that he became a millionare by leasing or selling his radionics instrument demonstrates how bias and unscrupulous the Wikipedia post is and as stated before "However, the scientific establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics, power, money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it. Realists know and understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don’t.

    The key fallacy that pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific process and the scientific establishment into one, and assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer type crowd.

    In doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression. That’s where their major mistake is. And as such, they deem the science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is not to be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they treat science as a religion. So even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat it as such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an unquestionable authority."

    It appears that Wikipedia is part of the corruption, control, censorship and suppression.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 16, 2013

    re: OK now we can hear form others on the thread.

    ....or it can wither on the vine like dozens of other threads.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 16, 2013

    Being quite familiar with Radionics, I was not surprised to read the fabrication concerning Dr. Albert Abrams in Wikipedias article on Radionics. Dr. Abrams came from a wealth family and was a doctor of medicine out of his desire to aid people's suffering unlike many I know today who are out for greed. He had studied with the worlds best medical scientist at the time including Hermann Von Helmholtz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_von_Helmholtz
    Dr Abrams was quite famous as a pathologist and professor and medical director at Stanford University. To perpetuate the lie that he became a millionare by leasing or selling his radionics instrument demonstrates how bias and unscrupulous the Wikipedia post is and as stated before "However, the scientific establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics, power, money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it. Realists know and understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don’t.

    The key fallacy that pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific process and the scientific establishment into one, and assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer type crowd.

    In doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression. That’s where their major mistake is. And as such, they deem the science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is not to be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they treat science as a religion. So even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat it as such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an unquestionable authority."

    It appears that Wikipedia is part of the corruption, control, censorship and suppression.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 16, 2013

    @ dustproduction

    OK now we can hear form others on the thread.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 15, 2013

    My points have been made. The thread has lost my interest.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 15, 2013

    I am for fairness and do want both sides discussed, however we usually only hear one side. I have given an example here of Wikipedias article on the Big Bang. Here is Wikipedias example of presenting "both sides": "As a theory relevant to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang has significant bearing on religion and philosophy.[102][103] As a result, it has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion.[104] Some believe the Big Bang implies a creator,[105] while others argue that Big Bang cosmology makes the notion of a creator superfluous.[103][106]"

    Firsts of all it appears dead last in the article commentary. Second where is the discussion on how the cosmology makes a Creator fuperfluous. The references are not "the other side". Third it infers that science and religion should be kept as rivals and not discussed as working together. While science technically is not a religion the science community treat it as one and the " only truth " to be discussed. Science has become the prophet by predicting the out come of the univers in this article. So there is no need for any other prophet. The Big Bang theory is treated as the " truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" when in fact it is someone's imagination to help continue receiving grants.

    http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm#Scientism

    "So then, is science a religion, you might ask? Well, yes and no. Technically, science is not a religion. It is a tool and methodology of obtaining logical conclusions through evidence and inquiry. As such, it is not an entity that holds positions or viewpoints, like people do. Therefore, science is not pro or anti-paranormal, anymore than a pencil, computer program or mathematical formula is.

    However, the scientific establishment is another matter, because it involves people, politics, power, money, institutions and vested interests. And as such, politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression are naturally a part of it. Realists know and understand this. But for some reason pseudoskeptics don’t.

    The key fallacy that pseudoskeptics make is lumping the scientific process and the scientific establishment into one, and assuming that they are one and the same. That is the major fallacy of the organized skepticism movement, which consists of the JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer type crowd.

    In doing so, they falsely assume that the science and medical establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression. That’s where their major mistake is. And as such, they deem the science and medical establishment as an unassailable authority that is not to be questioned or challenged. In that sense, they treat science as a religion. So even though they claim that science is not a religion, they still treat it as such, by holding the views of the science establishment as an unquestionable authority."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 14, 2013

    Re: We are support to swallow this with out question

    Are you offended that you are not included as a part of the scientific community?
    I asked, "Is the point here to present both sides of the issue or just the side that interests you?" To which you replied, "it appears that you have no interest in hearing "both sides." To you "it appears" this way. This is your subjective view.
    But the question remains: Are you for fairness and hearing both sides or just the side you favor?

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 14, 2013

    "If, after seeing a room in chaos, it is subsequently found in good order, the sensible inference is not that time is running backwards, but that some intelligent person has been in to tidy it up. If you find the letters of the alphabet ordered on a piece of paper to form a beautiful sonnet, you do not deduce that teams of monkeys have been kept for millions of years strumming on typewriters, but rather that Shakespeare has passed this way.”- P. T. Matthews, The Nuclear Apple

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 13, 2013

    "The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community." Wikipedia

    We are support to swallow this with out question as the end all answer because the details of this fantasy are to be filled in later.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 13, 2013

    From your post it appears that you have no interest in hearing "both sides" only the one that you say is the opinion of the "public". I learnt a long time ago that normal or the opinion of the public is not something to be desired. Mediocrity is nothing important to descend to its level.
    For example Wikipedia describes the Big Bang this way "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe."
    The stinger here is the word "prevailing". In other words the "public" of mediocrity of the science community got together to be certain God is eliminated from cosmology when He had been included there for many centuries before. Usually following the blind flock of mediocrity leads to a deadly cliff. Who are the "prevailers" but militant atheist with an "theory" that requires all their "believers" to have extraordinary faith in a fantastic tale of how we all came to be. Incredible!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 13, 2013

    http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

    Anyone can edit the Wiki. You had no issues with the group http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.co.uk/ who is intent on editing the Wiki for their own purposes. Is the point here to present both sides of the issue or just the side that interests you?

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 13, 2013

    Good question

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 13, 2013

    Re: Wikipedia is certainly not afraid

    Who is "Wikipedia?"

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 13, 2013

    Wikipedia is certainly not afraid,as are you or I, of expressing their "beliefs". In fact few religious persons have such faith as those who express a strong belief in the "Big Bang" when all of the sudden a world so complex and beautiful appeared. Or as well stated here “If, after seeing a room in chaos, it is subsequently found in good order, the sensible inference is not that time is running backwards, but that some intelligent person has been in to tidy it up. If you find the letters of the alphabet ordered on a piece of paper to form a beautiful sonnet, you do not deduce that teams of monkeys have been kept for millions of years strumming on typewriters, but rather that Shakespeare has passed this way.”- P. T. Matthews, The Nuclear Apple

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 12, 2013

    Re: Perhaps your connections with Wikipedia could influence them in to putting this in their article.

    Allow me to disclose that I have not connection with Wiki, other than the fact that I use it as a reference source, and have never edited a Wiki entry.
    However, there is nothing stopping other from editing the Wiki. Obviously, many due in order to foster their beliefs.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 11, 2013

    @ dustproduction

    This would be an alright part of the Placbo article in Wikipedia if it were really there. However it is not. Perhaps your connections with Wikipedia could influence them in to putting this in their article.

    "The Program in Placebo Studies (PiPs) at Harvard Medical School write this about placebo:
    For many years, the placebo effect was considered to be no more than a nuisance variable that needed to be controlled in clinical trials. Only recently have researchers redefined it as the key to understanding the healing that arises from medical ritual, the context of treatment, the patient-provider relationship and the power of imagination, trust and hope.

    Although our biomedical health care system often considers these humanistic dimensions of care as secondary to the administration of pharmaceuticals and procedures, the emerging field of placebo studies is producing scientific evidence that these more intangible elements of medicine may fundamentally contribute to the improvement of patient outcomes.

    They do research, major scientific research.

    On the other hand, The Placebo Research Center is a recent organization, started in 2011, that makes the claim that they are, " the world’s definitive resource for placebo information and inspiration."

    Their website: http://www.placeboeffect.com says, "Placebo Effect is a project launched by the Placebo Research Center, founded in 2011, and directed by longtime social entrepreneur, Daniel Jacobs. The Placebo Research Center is the first of its kind focusing on educating people about how to create and harness a placebo effect in their lives to transform their lives, their communities, and the world."

    The website also states that Daniel is, " is now joined by contributing experts from around the world working together to teach people to harness the power of placebo! *Note that there is no claim that these are "placebo experts" They are contributing experts and I will include the list of who they are.
    Here is the "team." http://www.placeboeffect.com/team/

    Who exactly is Daniel Jacobs? On the website he tells us very little about himself, he is "an author, coach, speaker, and spiritual seeker."

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 11, 2013

    Here is a website that should be interesting to Wikipedia, however the censors don't dare look at it:

    http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 11, 2013

    Learning to edit and slowly make corrections to misleading statements is one approach to giving a more balanced view of topics that people in this forum have expertise. Care should be taken to this because large changes can cause the censors to label an editor a " disruptive" and block any future edit attempts. Where possible edits should contain sources already in Wikipedia to also have an opportunity to avoid censorship.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 08, 2013

    Here is the entire Wiki page for placebo. Its a lengthy posting with 198 references: What is the problem with the entry?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

    The Program in Placebo Studies (PiPs) at Harvard Medical School write this about placebo:
    For many years, the placebo effect was considered to be no more than a nuisance variable that needed to be controlled in clinical trials. Only recently have researchers redefined it as the key to understanding the healing that arises from medical ritual, the context of treatment, the patient-provider relationship and the power of imagination, trust and hope.

    Although our biomedical health care system often considers these humanistic dimensions of care as secondary to the administration of pharmaceuticals and procedures, the emerging field of placebo studies is producing scientific evidence that these more intangible elements of medicine may fundamentally contribute to the improvement of patient outcomes.

    They do research, major scientific research.

    On the other hand, The Placebo Research Center is a recent organization, started in 2011, that makes the claim that they are, " the world’s definitive resource for placebo information and inspiration."

    Their website: http://www.placeboeffect.com says, "Placebo Effect is a project launched by the Placebo Research Center, founded in 2011, and directed by longtime social entrepreneur, Daniel Jacobs. The Placebo Research Center is the first of its kind focusing on educating people about how to create and harness a placebo effect in their lives to transform their lives, their communities, and the world."

    The website also states that Daniel is, " is now joined by contributing experts from around the world working together to teach people to harness the power of placebo! *Note that there is no claim that these are "placebo experts" They are contributing experts and I will include the list of who they are.
    Here is the "team." http://www.placeboeffect.com/team/

    Who exactly is Daniel Jacobs? On the website he tells us very little about himself, he is "an author, coach, speaker, and spiritual seeker.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 08, 2013

    Can we be so optimistic that editor censors will allow such a change of the definition of "placebo"?

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 08, 2013

    Who is "the public"?

  • Anonymous Icon

    hiedak Jul 08, 2013

    I am a victim of "the brain initiative". It is the great deception. Law enforcement are implanting everyone with radio frequency communication chips aka nerve stimulators or wireless in-body antennas. In Virginia, state and local police give you three options: 1) be put in a stabilization ward and be tortured, 2) be put in jail and be tortured, or 3) be infected with an infectious disease. They have tried the first two and are threatening the third. The chip is protruding from my cancer surgery scars. Even though it was implanted without my knowledge and consent by Dr. Lawrence Chang of Pariser Dermatology, surgeons refuse to remove it. It uses technologies like the audio spotlight by Holosonics. They bombard your mind with obscenities, cursing, and all manner of evil things. Wireless tazing with lasers that come through the electrical outlets - see network world (hacking your computer through elctrical outlets). The Army at Picatinny created a laser induced plasma channel and steered lightening at a target. Police use lasers and steer electricity at my mind, body, heart, and private parts. State Trooper Jared Vance informed everyone they come through the electronics in your home. They use radio frequency software, lasers, and millimeter wave transmitters to create holograms and tap into your mind seeing through your eyes what your brain sees and hearing what you hear. (See The Mind Weapon by DARPA scientists). It is a microchip implant initiative to enable law enforcement ubiquitous surveillance. See Safeguards in a World of Ambient Intelligence by Springer to learn about the project. At lease the European Union is trying to inform their public and protect them. After everyone is defamed, defrauded, unemployable, crippled and suffering, who takes care of us. Will there be indentured servitude? Even the Federal District Court Judge knew I was in excruciating pain (according to her own clerk of courts) and she refused to grant a motion for cessation of torture. This is the weapon of the anti-Christ and the mark of the beast. These law enforcement officers are criminals and do not uphold the Constitution. People need to read about these new weapons. (See Mental Illness and Terrorism: New weapons mimic mental health disease). See forbes.com and search Brandon Raub. Virginia has one of the highest suicide rates in the country! Check out Brian Castner's book The Long Walk - our vets are being tortured into suicide. He says, "this is my new life. It's intolerable." I never served in the war, but I know how he feels. I am no longer free to live my life. I am enduring it.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 08, 2013

    http://www.placeboeffect.com/placebo-effect/

    "The Placebo Research Center defines the placebo effect as: the beneficial physical or psychological change in a person resulting from conscious or non-conscious “beliefs” unaided by any medically active pill or procedure. The definition of a placebo effect will vary depending on the resources you search on the web, and how familiar those resources is with 21st century placebo research. Some sources, including, still, Wikipedia’s placebo article, still incorrectly define the placebo effect as, “a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.” Mountains of recent medical research demonstrates that the placebo effect is quite “medically effectual” and others mountains of research have demonstrated that deception is not required for a placebo effect to take place. As more people begin to learn the science behind the placebo effect, such incorrect popular definitions will begin to change (and hopefully Wikipedia will update it’s placebo definition soon!)."

    Here is the complete definiton Wikipedia article on the Placebo effect: "A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please") is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."
    While Daniel is "hopeful" of Wikipedia update on placebo definition http://www.placeboeffect.com/placebo-effect/

    Can we be so optimistic that editor censors will allow such a change?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 08, 2013

    Allow me to self edit:

    My answer is "Yes, the Wiki reflects the current thinking of the public regarding paranormal experiences."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 08, 2013

    Let's get to the real issue here because you've asked such a poor question. The question that should be asked is, "Does the Wiki present both sides of a issue?" Perhaps more specifically, "Does the Wiki present a fair and representative view of paranormal topics?
    My answer is "Yes, the Wiki reflects the current

    McLuhan is referencing this source: http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.co.uk/ So let's just put this out front in the conversation, because it demonstrates a type of tug of war that is going on in the Wiki regarding the paranormal. This isn't as much of a one sided affair as you would have us believe.

    Why are those that demand evidence of paranormal BELIEFS label as "skeptics?" What is a skeptic?

    skeptic |ˈskeptik| ( Brit. sceptic)
    noun
    1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

    (ARE PARANORMAL BELIEFS "accepted?")

    The term was often applied to Christianity: • a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.

    Even if paranormal experiences were as common place as Christianity science, and even IONS seeks evidence. As long as evidence remains inconclusive there will remain a struggle to present BOTH sides of the paranormal debate.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 07, 2013

    http://www.placeboeffect.com/placebo-effect/

    "The Placebo Research Center defines the placebo effect as: the beneficial physical or psychological change in a person resulting from conscious or non-conscious “beliefs” unaided by any medically active pill or procedure. The definition of a placebo effect will vary depending on the resources you search on the web, and how familiar those resources is with 21st century placebo research. Some sources, including, still, Wikipedia’s placebo article, still incorrectly define the placebo effect as, “a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.” Mountains of recent medical research demonstrates that the placebo effect is quite “medically effectual” and others mountains of research have demonstrated that deception is not required for a placebo effect to take place. As more people begin to learn the science behind the placebo effect, such incorrect popular definitions will begin to change (and hopefully Wikipedia will update it’s placebo definition soon!)."

    Here is the complete definiton Wikipedia article on the Placebo effect: "A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please") is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."
    While Daniel is "hopeful" of Wikipedia update on placebo definition http://www.placeboeffect.com/placebo-effect/
    Can we be so optimistic that editor censors will allow such a change?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 07, 2013

    "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles.
    Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.
    This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

    I was pursuing the homeopathy issue because you claimed the Wiki had untrue statements. What's untrue?

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 07, 2013

    "The Placebo Research Center defines the placebo effect as: the beneficial physical or psychological change in a person resulting from conscious or non-conscious “beliefs” unaided by any medically active pill or procedure. The definition of a placebo effect will vary depending on the resources you search on the web, and how familiar those resources is with 21st century placebo research. Some sources, including, still, Wikipedia’s placebo article, still incorrectly define the placebo effect as, “a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.” Mountains of recent medical research demonstrates that the placebo effect is quite “medically effectual” and others mountains of research have demonstrated that deception is not required for a placebo effect to take place. As more people begin to learn the science behind the placebo effect, such incorrect popular definitions will begin to change (and hopefully Wikipedia will update it’s placebo definition soon!)."

    Here is the complete definiton Wikipedia article on the Placebo effect: "A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please") is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."
    While Daniel is "hopeful" of Wikipedia update on placebo definition http://www.placeboeffect.com/placebo-effect/
    Can we be so optimistic that editor censors will allow such a change?

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 07, 2013

    @dustproduction

    Why don't you start another thread if you want to discuss homeopathy.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 07, 2013

    We are discussing editing Wikipedia

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 07, 2013

    Are we discussing homeopathy or the Wiki?

    The basis for inclusion in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia is not modern scientific testing, but homeopathic "provings" conducted during the 1800s and early 1900s. The current (ninth) edition describes how more than a thousand substances are prepared for homeopathic use. It does not identify the symptoms or diseases for which homeopathic products should be used; that is decided by the practitioner (or manufacturer). The fact that substances listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia are legally recognized as "drugs" does not mean that either the law or the FDA recognizes them as effective.
    Because homeopathic remedies were actually less dangerous than those of nineteenth-century medical orthodoxy, many medical practitioners began using them. At the turn of the twentieth century, homeopathy had about 14,000 practitioners and 22 schools in the United States. But as medical science and medical education advanced, homeopathy declined sharply in America, where its schools either closed or converted to modern methods. The last pure homeopathic school in this country closed during the 1920s.
    Homeopathic "remedies" enjoy a unique status in the health marketplace: They are the only category of quack products legally marketable as drugs. This situation is the result of two circumstances. First, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was shepherded through Congress by a homeopathic physician who was a senator, recognizes as drugs all substances included in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States. Second, the FDA has not held homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs. Today they are marketed in health-food stores, in pharmacies, in practitioner offices, by multilevel distributors, through the mail, and on the Internet.

    from Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake
    Stephen Barrett, M.D.

    "How Effective Is Homeopathy?
    Medical researchers have been keeping a close watch on the efficacy of homeopathic treatments ever since its foundation. The British government sponsored studies concerning the effectiveness of homeopathy during the World War II. Clinical trials conducted recently were not very convincing. According to systematic reviews, the effectiveness of this alternative medicine has not yet been proven for any condition or illness. There is still insufficient evidence as to the clinical efficacy of homeopathic treatments. This is highly contested by the homeopaths. They claim that the clinical trials and research are irrelevant. Since most of the homeopathic treatments contain water or alcohol, it can still be considered generally safe."
    Adding the disclaimer: You need to be aware that this alternative medicine is still highly controversial because it lacks enough scientific data to support or validate its efficacy.
    http://www.healthsearchonline.com/how-effective-is-homeopathy/

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 07, 2013

    "The Placebo Research Center defines the placebo effect as: the beneficial physical or psychological change in a person resulting from conscious or non-conscious “beliefs” unaided by any medically active pill or procedure. The definition of a placebo effect will vary depending on the resources you search on the web, and how familiar those resources is with 21st century placebo research. Some sources, including, still, Wikipedia’s placebo article, still incorrectly define the placebo effect as, “a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.” Mountains of recent medical research demonstrates that the placebo effect is quite “medically effectual” and others mountains of research have demonstrated that deception is not required for a placebo effect to take place. As more people begin to learn the science behind the placebo effect, such incorrect popular definitions will begin to change (and hopefully Wikipedia will update it’s placebo definition soon!)."

    Here is the complete definiton Wikipedia article on the Placebo effect: "A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, "I shall please"[2] from placeō, "I please") is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."
    While Daniel is "hopeful" of Wikipedia update on placebo definition http://www.placeboeffect.com/placebo-effect/
    Can we be so optimistic that editor censors will allow such a change.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 06, 2013

    @dustproduction. You have again wandered far from the thread. The placebo effect is truly one of the most important healing effects known and is one that too little is known of how it works. Several of the giant international pharmaceutical companies have joined forces to try to combat this "pesky" problem of the placebo effect because too often the placebo out performs their multimillion dollar chemical. When we understand this healing effect we will understand how many other modalities function that are now deemed by many pitidusters as "worthless".

    What any of this has to do with correcting Wikipedia is beyond me, however if we have a "disinformation" specialist among us, which many here will say we do, then it is quite understandable why false rabbit trails are being created.

    Returning to the thread, one suggestion is to form a charity that specialises in exposing the reason why "Guerrilla Skeptics" insist on blocking information that shows another side of their negative argument. Many have pointed to the donations received by Wikipedia Foundation as given by certain interested parties as having a strongly influential say on certain article subjects.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 06, 2013

    Dr. Offit gives a nod to 4 of the 51,000 supplements on the market: omega-3 fatty acids to prevent heart disease; calcium and vitamin D to prevent osteoporosis in postmenopausal women; and folic acid during pregnancy to prevent spinal-cord defects in newborns. As it happens, several months ago — presumably after the book went to press — an influential national task force found the evidence for calcium and vitamin D to be unconvincing. So that reduces the list of sensible supplements to two.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean that the remaining 50,998 products are worthless, Dr. Offit points out, or that acupuncture, chiropractic, massage and other unproven procedures don’t bring real relief. In fact, most of them probably work reasonably well, enabled by the extraordinary magical powers of the human mind. Dr. Offit’s chapter on the depth, range and power of the placebo response is comprehensive and convincing, perhaps one of the best brief reviews of that subject to be found.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/health/mind-over-matter-debunking-alternative-medicines.html?ref=science

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 04, 2013

    Learning to edit and slowly make corrections to misleading statements is one approach to giving a more balanced view of topics that people in this forum have expertise. Care should be taken to this because large changes can cause the censors to label an editor a " disruptive" and block any future edit attempts. Where possible edits should contain sources already in Wikipedia to also have an opportunity to avoid censorship.

    PS two drops of Rescue Remedy in a large glass of water and taken slowly over a thirty minute period of time could not be too "dangerous" for just about any adult. Water, a minuscule amount of grape alcohol, and " information "to my knowledge has not harmed anyone. However I suppose that " information" could be the cause of some concern. If someone has been harmed it must be their reaction to that "information".

  • bestearth Jul 04, 2013

    Are you a shill Dust-o-matic? Or just a grandstander. Is it my imagination, the selfishness beaming out of your words, or is it another delusion of mine?

    http://consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/1147073/

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 04, 2013

    This isn't about me at all, its about homeopathy.
    (Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument so let's get back to the discussion)
    Asking, "What is "Untrue" about these statements?" asks you to explain your claims of untruthfulness, a seemingly simply enough request.

    The problem, as I see it, is that you want the "editors" of Wiki to censor any references to research that may demonstrates that homeopathy is a myth, or might actually be harmful.

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 04, 2013

    @ dustproduction. Your post is far from the thread.

    It is strange that you continue in this form unless you have some other motivation than researching consciousness because you always dwell on the side of "Guerrilla Skeptics". It appears from other post that few, if any, take you seriously. These are just my observations and if any two, other than yourself, want to disagree let them post.

    PS. One positive, you cause me to invent a new word. Petiduster similar to petifogger. Thanks for that. If you get yourself some Rescue Remedy for all that stress your carrying around unnecessarily, I guarantee you'll feel better. Your good health is important to me as I sure it is for others.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 03, 2013

    In February 2010 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that:
    ... the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.
    The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.
    The Committee concluded – given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy – that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.
    In the Committee's view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice – which the Government claims is very important – as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.
    Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.[6]

    The Committee also stated:
    We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals – hospitals that specialise in the administration of placebos – should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths.[225]

    What is "Untrue" about these statements?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 03, 2013

    Homeopathy is a popular but implausible form of medicine. Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos. The benefits that many patients experience after homeopathic treatment are therefore most probably due to nonspecific treatment effects. Contrary to widespread belief, homeopathy is not entirely devoid of risk. Thus, the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies, beyond the beneficial effects of placebos, do not outweigh the potential for harm that this approach can cause.

    Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK
    http://www.cell.com/trends/pharmacological-sciences//retrieve/pii/S016561470500218X?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016561470500218X?showall=true

    Here are the footnote that were used:

    ^ Paul S. Boyer. The Oxford Companion to United States History. ISBN 9780195082098. Retrieved January 15, 2013. "After 1847, when regular doctors organized the American Medical Association (AMA), that body led the war on “quackery,” especially targeting dissenting medical groups such as homeopaths, who prescribed infinitesimally small doses of medicine. Ironically, even as the AMA attacked all homeopathy as quackery, educated homeopathic physicians were expelling untrained “quacks” from their ranks."
    ^ James Randi (1995). An encyclopedia of claims, frauds, and hoaxes of the occult and supernatural. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9780312109745.
    ^ a b Shaw, D. M. (2010). "Homeopathy is where the harm is: Five unethical effects of funding unscientific 'remedies'". Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (3): 130–131. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.034959. PMID 20211989. edit
    ^ a b c Ernst, E (2005), "Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?", Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 26 (11): 547–8, doi:10.1016/j.tips.2005.09.003, PMID 16165225
    ^ "When to believe the unbelievable", Nature 333 (6176), 1988: 787, Bibcode:1988Natur.333Q.787., doi:10.1038/333787a0, PMID 3386722
    ^ a b Maddox, J.; Randi, J.; Stewart, W. (1988). ""High-dilution" experiments a delusion.". Nature 334 (6180): 287–291. Bibcode:1988Natur.334..287M. doi:10.1038/334287a0. PMID 2455869. edit

  • Billgreenjeans Jul 03, 2013

    "The concept behind radionics originated in the early 1900s with Albert Abrams (1864–1924), who became a millionaire by leasing radionic machines which he designed himself."

    It is well known that Dr. Abrams came for a very wealth family and was a millionaire long before he discovered radionics.

    "The medicinal claims of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of modern scientific research". Wikipedia

    "Up to the end of 2011, there have been 164 peer-reviewed papers reporting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy. This represents research in 89 different medical conditions. Of those 164 RCT papers, 71 (43%) were positive, 9 (6%) negative and 80 (49%) non-conclusive – http://www.facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/

    I am sure you could find more than this if you search.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 03, 2013


    Please provide some examples of "untrues." found in the Wiki.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS