Archives
2006-2007

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)[reply]

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was giving female hormones to every woman who came to the medical doctor's office over the age of 45, now that has been replaced by Fosamax (or another biophosphate) being given to every middle age woman - and man - to "prevent osteoporosis"!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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album. Thank you. TableManners^C·U·T 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your statement in the Arbcom case, you mentioned:

I maintain that this is a general encyclopedia that should be a handy source of information, and a starting place for people wanting to pursue further research into a topic. It is not a "Skeptics Encyclopedia" in which mainstream scientific opinions are portrayed as the only reality, and non-mainstream topics are dismissed with insulting labels ("pseudoscience", "fringe", "junk science", etc.), and scientific evidence that does not fit the current mainstream is ignored or dismissed, with endless questioning of their validity and where they have been published.

Taking the specific example of the article about homeopathy: it is about homeopathy, pure and simple, not about "homeopathy and how it is viewed within mainstream medicine". However "homeopathy and how it is viewed within mainstream medicine" could (and should) be a subsection of the article on the topic of "homeopathy".

Per: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience, we already have policies that rather explicitly state that we do in fact tag non-mainstream scientific theories as such.

I understand that you disagree with that position. But it's well established Wikipedia policy.

Railing against it in this manner on an Arbcom case won't help matters. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I myself disagree that Pseudoscience (whatever that may comprise) should be treated the same way as science in the encyclopedia, which I consider intrinsically secular. Our purpose is educational and, for example, describing snake oil as a cure for cancer would be disinformative. (Just to give an extreme, cliche example.) Alternate "modalities of truth" shlould be distinguished from scientific, judicial, logical, revealed, and other kinds of truth. Homeopathy may be some kind of truth but it is not, so far as scientists currently generally comprehend it, scientific truth. That said, I'd be very interested in a specific single case history of the use of a strictly homeopathic remedy by a modern licensed physician; perhaps you can point me to one? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I respectfully disagree with labeling homeopathy with the category listing it as "pseudoscience". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by calling it "pseudoscience", but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon the science of homeopathy.

I would point out that there would be as much resistance if someone placed "Category:Pseudoscience" on the Podiatry or Psychoanalysis articles. If there was a "Category:Pseudoreligion" or "Category:Cult", there would be as much resistance if placed on the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons articles. All of these have received wide criticism, and quoting criticisms within an article is acceptable. However having Wikipedia insult the subject of an article with a perjorative category label is unacceptable, in my opinion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your archive is actually in the main space...you should move it to User talk:Arion 3x3/Archive 1. Then leave a {{db-rediruser}} on the cross-space redirect that will leave. Let me know if you have any questions or need help. — Scientizzle 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to determine whether there's any problem with the fact that you work as a Homeopath, I've opened an item at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Homeopathy. You are welcome to express your own viewpoint on the matter there. Note that I'm not personally sure whether this actually qualifies as a COI problem; I'd just prefer to get it cleared up so we don't get distracted arguing about something like this. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just incidentally, the wikipolicy regarding conflict of interest pertains to content disputes; that is, where there is no content dispute, there is no COI. In the absence of content issues the COI insinuation can be disruptive itself, but it looks like the topic has been dropped at the ANI COI item. Pete St.John (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.:

"Efficacy of the potentized drug, Carcinosin 200 fed alone and in combination with another drug - Chelidonium 200, in Amelioration of p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene- induced Hepatocarcinogenisis in Mice." [1]) (full text pdf: [2])

"A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice." [3] (full text pdf: [4])

"Supportive Evidence for the Anticancerous Potential of Alternative Medicine against Hepatocarcinogenesis in Mice" [5] (full text pdf: [6])

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]