| Revision as of 23:36, 19 September 2007 edit85.144.129.243 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:18, 25 January 2008 edit undoDanaUllman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,200 edits Editors here have ignored the body of scientific evidence on this medicinal substance.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :I've changed 'remedy' into 'substance' for no sources of the effectiveness of this 'remedy' were cited. Furthermore, the encyclopedic value of this article is disputable. | :I've changed 'remedy' into 'substance' for no sources of the effectiveness of this 'remedy' were cited. Furthermore, the encyclopedic value of this article is disputable. | ||
| ==This article seems to be full of POV-pushers== | |||
| I've just found this article, and wouldn't you know that I find many of the most frequent anti-homeopathy editors here. Hello everyone! This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too. This article deserves better than where it is now...let's try to maintain the good wiki-spirit in this process. My apology if I'm sounding a bit arrogant or paternalistic, but coming to this article fresh, I can't help but feel that the editors here are asleep at the wheel (and seem to be proud to be asleep). Eeeeks. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:18, 25 January 2008
|
This article is within the scope of the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Homeopathy. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
- I've changed 'remedy' into 'substance' for no sources of the effectiveness of this 'remedy' were cited. Furthermore, the encyclopedic value of this article is disputable.
This article seems to be full of POV-pushers
I've just found this article, and wouldn't you know that I find many of the most frequent anti-homeopathy editors here. Hello everyone! This article is another piece of evidence that many of the anti-homeopathy editors assert that there is "no scientific research" on this or that subject within homeopathy, and yet, either these editors are purposefully ignoring the body of basic science evidence and clinical research or they are choosing to not look and simply asserting that there is no research (when you don't look for something, it is indeed hard to find it). What is also so interesting is the degree of self-justification that goes on in the homeopathy-bashing and the unapologetic tendencies for either ignoring or attacking homeopathic research. "How convenient" is all I have to say about the lack of references to the scientific literature at this article, especially when there is a reasonable body of basic science work (testing homeopathic doses of this medicine) and clinical trials too. This article deserves better than where it is now...let's try to maintain the good wiki-spirit in this process. My apology if I'm sounding a bit arrogant or paternalistic, but coming to this article fresh, I can't help but feel that the editors here are asleep at the wheel (and seem to be proud to be asleep). Eeeeks. Dana Ullman 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)