• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Announcing: Wiki4CAM

CFLarsen

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
42,371
The homeopaths are disappointed that their woo is not described according to their satisfaction in Wikipedia.

From the Hpathy.com newsletter:

Do you know that nearly all Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM) articles on Wikipedia, including the one that you practice, are heavily biased against CAM therapies? Everything that does not fall into the realm of modern medicine has been labeled as pseudo-scientific or unscientific at Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is among the top 10 websites globally. Through it millions of people who use internet to search for alternative medicine are being systematically exposed to anti-CAM data. At the time when the world is rushing towards alternative medicine, the effort to sabotage the alternative medicine cannot be ignored.

To counter this misinformation, we need a place where the CAM community can build its own knowledge base without the undue interference of skeptics. We need a place where the CAM practitioners themselves write articles and create a true picture of its history, development, efficacy and positive research.

To ensure that the alternative medicines is not discredited or disputed unfairly and to create a true encyclopedia for Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM), Hpathy.com, world’s leading homeopathy portal, is announcing a parallel wiki project at www.wiki4cam.org

We invite you to register at wiki4cam and help us build true information about the CAM modality that you practice.

If you are a School/College of any CAM therapy or if you are a CAM practitioner and if you are concerned about the anti-CAM propaganda, take up the responsibility for creating articles about your CAM therapy at Wiki4CAM. Do not think that someone else will do it. It is YOUR responsibility to actively participate in building a true information base about the CAM modality that your practice and teach!

Please visit www.wiki4cam.org now and find out why the CAM community needs to come together and take charge of its own content.

We request you to forward this information about Wiki4CAM.org to all you alternative medicine friends practicing Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Naturopathy, TCM, Herbalism, EFT or any other CAM modality. Wiki4CAM is meant for the whole CAM community.

Thank you,
Dr. Manish Bhatia
Director, Hpathy.com
Click to expand...

I'm divided here ("diluted", even). On one hand, they say that they want to build a "knowledge base without the undue interference of skeptics". On the other, they do ask those who are "concerned about the anti-CAM propaganda" to participate. I'm concerned. And I did get this in my email box, so I feel invited...
 
Wiki4CAM has been started to provide the CAM community their own space where they can build their knowledge base without any undue skeptical diversions. Only CAM practitioners can participate in this wiki.
Click to expand...
.."without any undue skeptical diversions" - translation: without need for providing evidence. Typical - no criticisms allowed / only SCAM practitioners can contribute. It's Scamipedia.

Manish Bhatia is the homeopath who complained recently that homeopathic revenues were down 50%. As I wrote back then, surely, due to homeopathic principles, seeing fewer patients should make their homeopathic practices stronger?
 
Wiki is rated one of the top 10 sites due to it's ever-changing stance on any topic. This in it's self shows that all it's available information tends to lean towards to the popular belief. Mind you there has to be some form of bias in the moderation of the site, but i doubt that's enough to blacklist CAM completely.
 
Facts do tend to have an anti-woo bias. (Paraphrasing Stephen Colbert.)
 
My addition ("Urine" and "Health risks"):


urinetherapy.jpg



Source

Absolutely nothing about efficacy - only what urine is, and what the health risks are.
 
And here I was all this time thinking that wiki4cam was about quad cam internal combustion engines.
 
Note to potential editors:


"The best way to decide whether a particular statement is accurate is to find independent, reliable sources to affirm that statement, such as books, magazine articles, television news stories, trade journals or web sites."

So, if your favourite anchor man recommends it, it's good enough for Wiki4CAM. Why bother with all that science and testing and doctors and stuff when you can get independent, reliable medical advice from TV personalities, journalists and bloggers? But what types of people really do write and edit articles offering (alternative) health advice to the enquiring masses?

"These people range from university professors to well-informed amateurs and hobbyists."

That's right - amateurs and hobbyists! Seriously, I'm not making this up. Tired of origami or stamp collecting? Why not write a medical journal instead. No experience necessary.

At least they had the good sense to add a disclaimer:

"...the very nature of Wiki4CAM means it should not be trusted completely."

I think they meant "completely should not be trusted".

Short Wiki4CAM review
 
Last edited:
We need a place where the CAM practitioners themselves write articles and create a true picture of its history, development, efficacy and positive research.
Click to expand...

There isn't any problem with this wiki as far as I can tell. Regarding efficacy, all their articles will say something along the lines of "In double-blind, randomized trials, [treatment] performed no better than placebo". All the positive research will show that CAM only "works" in conjunction with evidence-based treatments. As such, this whole project will actually show that evidence-based medicine is the way to go.
 
Dr Steve Novella (New England Skeptical Society) had a nice post about this on science based medicine today

sciencebasedmedicine .org/?p=187
 
Everyone seems to be at it, check out flame detox:

Flame detoxification is a relatively new procedure, developed by Dr. Fong Yu in Beijing, China. It is based on the theory that in ancient times, our bodies were able to handle the lower levels of toxins in the environment. As the world has become more industrialized, we have become more toxic. One evening, as he was cooking a meal, he realized that the fluids released from his food as a result of cooking were potent toxins. After many years of research and testing, he developed the flame detox process.
Click to expand...

Edited by chillzero: 
Edit to add link and remove some C&P for rule 4
http://www.wiki4cam.org/wiki/Flame_detox


References:

1. Yu, Fong (2005) Flame Detoxification Therapy From Within to Without, 1st Edition; Translated by Bill Backerak, MD, Inner Tradition Publishers Ltd, (New York).

Sorry I can't link to it because I'm a newbie. The faith healing one is also made up - by Bing Mcghandi.
Its going to be like Conservapaedia, people aren't going to be able to tell the difference between parody and the 'real' thing.

Hat tip Respectful Insolence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm....I would prefer it if the information we added was correct, but simply warned people of the dangers of sCAM practices.

The point is that they can't really remove such information. It is one thing that they don't want their readers to see that there isn't scientific evidence that any of this crap works: That's just mind control and censorship, so common in WooLand.

But if they remove e.g. the paragraphs that I put in, they are withholding information about the dangers of using sCAM.

Public debate about the efficacy of sCAM may be divided, but if there is one thing that can unite people in a flash, it's if people's lives are in danger. That will turn public opinion in a flash.
 
So much is telling about these folks. From their homepage:

Only CAM practitioners can participate in this wiki.
Click to expand...

So it would seem only those with an interest in promoting the subject may write about it. How convenient.
 
daSkeptic said:
So much is telling about these folks. From their homepage:



So it would seem only those with an interest in promoting the subject may write about it. How convenient.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no requirements asked before you are allowed to sign up.

All you need is a working email address. Access is automatic.
 
Today, they've added Quantum mechanics.

Apparently, it's the basis for many CAM therapies.
In quantum mechanics, the observer has an effect on the observed, forcing it to change from a superposition of all possible states into the one "reality". By using powers, called psychic by some, humans can further decide which of the states in the superposition it should fall into.
Click to expand...
Positive thinking, they say, forces quantum states into "the desired positive options". On the other hand negative thinking is bad for you,
...and often causes CAM remedies to fail. This is also why skeptics can disrupt the effect of treatments, and why some clinical trials, run by the skeptical, fail.

Quantum entanglement can help, however. By entangling himself with the patient by the choice of remedy, CAM practitioners can use their own positive thinking to affect the patient...
Click to expand...

Then it references Milgrom, before concluding:
Quantum mechanics is investigated by physicists worldwide, hence all the above can be considered accepted science.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Mojo said:
Today, they've added Quantum mechanics.

Apparently, it's the basis for many CAM therapies. Positive thinking, they say, forces quantum states into "the desired positive options". On the other hand negative thinking is bad for you,

Then it references Milgrom, before concluding:

:dl:
Click to expand...

Didn't just someone say it will be hard to tell the difference between this site and parody? He/she was right.
 
The Quantum mechanics page is improving: it's now citing What the Bleep... and The Secret and wittering on about twins and "spooky action at a distance".

Meanwhile, Codex Alimentarius is "a set of rules that want to limit people's freedom of being healthy." I'm keeping an eye out for the page on fluoridation.

How are we supposed to know which bits are parody?
 
By the way, the Quackapedia page on "Alternative Medicine":
The term alternative medicine, as used in the modern western world, encompasses any healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine,"[1] Commonly cited examples[2] include naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, hypnosis, bodywork, homeopathy and diet-based therapies, in addition to a range of other practices. It is frequently grouped with complementary medicine, which generally refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[3][4][5] under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM. Some significant researchers in alternative medicine oppose this grouping, preferring to emphasize differences of approach, but nevertheless use the term CAM, which has become standard.[6][7]
Click to expand...
bears a striking resemblence to this one:
The term alternative medicine, as used in the modern western world, encompasses any healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine."[1] Commonly cited examples[2] include naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, hypnosis, bodywork, homeopathy and diet-based therapies, in addition to a range of other practices. It is frequently grouped with complementary medicine, which generally refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[3][4][5] under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM. Some significant researchers in alternative medicine oppose this grouping, preferring to emphasize differences of approach, but nevertheless use the term CAM, which has become standard.[6][7]
Click to expand...
Surely that makes it a bit suspect according to Quackapdia's own raison d'être.
 
CFLarsen said:
My addition ("Urine" and "Health risks"):


[qimg]http://www.skepticreport.com/images/jref/urinetherapy.jpg[/qimg]


Source

Absolutely nothing about efficacy - only what urine is, and what the health risks are.
Click to expand...

Actually you added "Urine" and "Criticism by mainstream medicine". I'm personally amazed they didn't use the world "allopathy".

ETA: Look at the talk page Scientific Method and their page on Myths about homeopathy.
 
Last edited:
From the Myths about homeopathy page:

Unlike orthodox medicine, outcomes of homeopathic treatment are measured by the LONG TERM curative effects and the eradication of the disease state culminating in complete restoration of health. If we could have two year trials of outcomes for conditions such as asthma, arthritis and other chronic diseases, this could be proven.
Click to expand...

Why can't they have two-year trials? What is stopping them from conducting the sort of testing they claim will prove their case?

Homeopathic medicines undergo a scientific 'Proving' where a control group of 50+ healthy volunteers ('Provers') are instructed to keep taking a remedy under trial until they develop symptoms which they must record in detail.
Click to expand...

The test subjects themselves conduct the testing and record the results? Does that not introduce all manner of confounding variables?

A study of 6500 patients at the Bristol Homeopathic hospital was conducted showing that over 70% of patients reported complete cure or significant improvement of their symptoms.
Click to expand...

Complete cure? How exactly did the patients determine this? Did they perhaps mean the patients reported full-relief from their symptoms?

Historical records show that epidemics such as cholera and typhoid were treated successfully using homeopathy in the 19th century with very high success rates, compared to orthodox medicine.
Click to expand...

Really? Did any of the practitioners involved receive Nobel Prizes for such radical success? If not, why not?

In orthodox medicine trials, all are given the same medicine to be tested. In homeopathy all may be given different medicines!
Click to expand...

If everyone is given a different medicine, what exactly is being tested?

Yet what if someone witnessed a car accident and the Police wanted them to make a statement? Would the statement in court be dismissed as anecdotal evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes, anecdotal evidence might be dismissed if it is found to be inconsistent with other, more reliable evidence (e.g. physical evidence).

--------

I could go on. This article is so full logical fallacies it's practically a comedy. Like most woo out there, the perceived credibility derives from a naive public. The article seems to suggest that homeopathy's success is based upon the subject's own personal perception of their symptoms, and that questioning those perceptions is a bad thing. When are people going to learn that personal perception is extremely fallible? There's a reason cold, hard, measurable data are demanded by scientists.
 
Last edited:
I emailed Manish Bhatia to ask him why he had removed the "Flame Detox" page. He replied:

We could not find any reference to any such therapy or practice.
Click to expand...

So I guess for a therapy to be included, there must be some evidence of it being used somewhere before. No evidence it works... just evidence it has been used.
 
Someone called 'Camrus' is having fun over there .. :)

Makes finding stuff in the edit log more of a challaenge anyway
 
All references to the risks/dangers of urine therapy have been removed.

This is how it looks today:

wiki4camurine2.jpg


These people are dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom