| Revision as of 01:11, 15 February 2008 editArion 3x3 (talk | contribs)2,063 edits →Many vs. some: a specific example← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:08, 22 February 2008 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Many vs. some: homeopathy banNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| :I was responding to "Scientizzle" who was asking for a specific example. So I pointed out that the use of "some" and "many" have very different connotations, and that "many" can be used to argue a position in a perjorative way . ] (]) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | :I was responding to "Scientizzle" who was asking for a specific example. So I pointed out that the use of "some" and "many" have very different connotations, and that "many" can be used to argue a position in a perjorative way . ] (]) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Deceptive edit summary== | |||
| You were engaged in a struggle for editorial control when you made this edit that included an edit summary "see talk", but you did not make any talk page comments or otherwise try to resolve editorial differences. Given the conditions stated at ] of which you are aware, I am banning you from all Homeopathy related pages for a period of 7 days. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:08, 22 February 2008
 Archives |
|---|
Questionable medicine
Since you mentioned statins, I was recently recommended bisphosphonates for osteoporosis by an orthopedist on the basis of a bone density scan, which is not diagnostic for someone of my age, sex and body type. I got a referral to an endocrinologist and he reversed the diagnosis, and also we discussed what the long term effects of bisphosphonates are. In short, they don't improve bone health and increase the risk of fracture. I can honestly find no justification for them ever to be given. —Whig (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your mention of biophosphonates makes me wonder whether the orthopedist was influenced by the recent television and radio ad campaign for Fosamax. Fosamax and other such biophosphonates appear to be potentially extremely dangerous. There have been a number of front page stories in various newspapers over the last 12 months, including the New York Times, recounting horror stories from people who had taken these drugs and as a result their jaw bones were crumbling (osteonecrosis of the jaw)!
- The drug companies use the claim: "Bisphosphonates, such as alendronate (Fosamax), slow the rate at which bone dissolves and is absorbed into the body, resulting in increased bone density and strength." The truth is that Fosamax and the other bisphosphonates do not build bone. They are anti-resorptives. They simply prevent the oseoclasts from resorbing bone. They do this by binding to the active sites of resorption and prevent the osteoclasts from absorbing calcium out of bones. What is one of the purposes for osteoclasts in human physiology? In order to maintain the proper acid/alkaline balance in the body, they draw calcium from bones to act as a neutralizer when there is excessive acid in the system. What do you think will happen if you stop them from fulfilling their normal function?
- The number of reported victims of this drug's side effects is increasing, with more complaints of stomach problems, esophageal ulcers, and severe acid-reflux disease. I personally have a friend who has been suffering from esophageal lining irritation as a side-effect of Fosamax. This is all being brought to us by our "scientific" medical benefactors.
- The situation has actually gotten severely out of hand. Just as the medical fad of the last decade was giving female hormones to every woman who came to the medical doctor's office over the age of 45, now that has been replaced by Fosamax (or another biophosphate) being given to every middle age woman - and man - to "prevent osteoporosis"! Practically every time I ask a new patient that has previously been to a conventional medical doctor what drugs they are taking, they proudly announce that they are taking their Fosamax and Lipitor as prescribed. I doubt we will hear anything about this dangerous new medical fad from our friends at Quackwatch. They are too busy "protecting" us from the "scam artists" - namely those in the complementary healing arts. Arion 3x3 (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, once I went back to the orthopedist it was clear he'd talked to the endocrinologist and he backed up and said as well that bisphosphonates may cause bones to become brittle and it was very interesting that he'd done an about face. I don't want to say more here. —Whig (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
grammar
Thank you dear editor Arion 3x3 for your grammar revision of the article about the magnum opus The RCC; I am truly glad this aid came from a Physician! I am now going to do a break from Misplaced Pages's editions, which I am not able to garantee if to be a definitive break. Best wishes into your constructive efforts and may you have a fine 2008 new year. Best regards, --Tekto9 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
abstracts
I noticed "... I did post 3 short excerpts from 3 abstracts of laboratory research indicating there were definite measureable biological effects elicited by homeopathic remedies at the 200C level (no molecules left) which could not be explained away by placebo effect..." at the COI thing. Could you point me to that reference? Is the material published, pending review, submitted...? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per your request, here are links to 3 research studies in recent years that indicated that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters.:
- (I corrected the above links, now that the Homeopathy talk section has just been archived).
- I believe that this research data should not be dismissed or ignored, and that we should include this information, with the reference citations, in a section titled Homeopathic research in the Homeopathy article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- (from my Talk, in reference to exactly the above) Thanks for the reply. The links, at the Homeopathy talk to which you link, are to intermediate sources of questionable reliability; the Journal of Verterinary Medicine is a good reference, but the citation is to Bill's Blog (whatever), which presumably in turn cites the JVM. We should cite the reputable sources when possible. However, that said, it led me to this: NIH published material which is definitely a good reference (all else being equal; sometimes big mistakes get published by reputable journals, and are retracted or corrected later). So material exists for you to pursue. I'll repost this at your Talk, because I'm intested in you picking a specific claim and source, not me :-) but I'd prefer a more direct reference, as in my example. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Temporarily banned from Talk:Homeopathy
This edit series was a little too confrontational and I regretfully think that it's best if you stay off Talk:Homeopathy for the next 24 hrs to let things settle down. Please consider this a community topic probation ban until this time tomorrow. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Was action taken with respect to User:Filll's involvement in this dispute? —Whig (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still looking at edits over the last few hours but haven't concluded any other specific editors need sanctioning at the moment. Nor am I done looking, however.
- Also; Technically, Arion did one edit to rearrange the talk page right after the caution / ban was given here - however, I believe that it was an edit in progress as I left my warning here, and the edit was a harmless organizational edit to group conversations, so there's no harm or foul with that and I don't consider it as being a violation of the short ban. You should stop now, though 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Replying to the comment on my talk page... I think that Filll was being more generic than attacking you personally. Two other editors on the talk page seem to have agreed with that. I don't want to deny you the ability to participate in give and take discussions - but I and others believe that your particular response went too far there, hence the short temporary ban.
- I think you may have taken his comments as personally aimed at you; I think I understand why you might have concluded that, but I don't think that's what he intended. Having uninvolved administrators here to help referee helps spot situations like this. Nothing is going to happen in the next 24 hrs that your not commenting on it will cause irreparable harm, and I hope that you taking some time to not participate will help bring you perspective and help you work with everyone to balance your concerns and theirs in the long term. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought Filll's comment was logical, coherent, cogent and on the mark: deal with the article, fuck the drama. OK, that's crude (maybe rude), but y'all need to stop the feud. Jehochman has a page for improving the article: besides me, only a semi-bot has offered anything. Sad, very sad. •Jim62sch• 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand everyone's desire for order and civility on the Homeopathy topic. However having me banned for 24 hours makes no sense to me. I was simply objecting to Filll's attack upon my response to another person's comments - calling my comments "meaningless drivel and spam". I still do not understand why my objecting to another's incivility and lack of repect would be a reason to ban me. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, the link cited for the block looks pallid to me as a rationale. Pete St.John (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Many vs. some
Was your response to me? It looks like you placed it above my question. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was responding to "Scientizzle" who was asking for a specific example. So I pointed out that the use of "some" and "many" have very different connotations, and that "many" can be used to argue a position in a perjorative way . Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deceptive edit summary
You were engaged in a struggle for editorial control when you made this edit that included an edit summary "see talk", but you did not make any talk page comments or otherwise try to resolve editorial differences. Given the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation of which you are aware, I am banning you from all Homeopathy related pages for a period of 7 days. Jehochman 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)