Minutus

Actually Wikipedia itself is neutral on homeopathy
but the people who have been editing the homeopathy article
are decidedly negative about homeopathy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
I would encourage anyone who is interested to take time
to edit this article. Wikipedia is frequently the first contact someone
has with a new unfamiliar concept such as homeopathy.
Those of you unfamiliar with Wikipedia, anyone can edit an article.
I dont think it is worthwhile getting into edit wars. It is probably
better to just put in additional paragraphs with a different point of view.

Roger Barr

POB 1427, North Fork CA 93643-1427
Phone: 559 682 0177 (skype: rrandor)
Cell: 916 799 7918
e-Fax: 915 808-7233

I have spend several hour editing Wikipedia, to find that the following day the editing was removed.
There must be someone out there keeping a closed eye on this.
I ended up deciding that it was a waist of time. I would have better off spending time doing a good prescription and helping someone. Those at the end are the results that really count
Kind regards

Lucy De Pieri PhD, DCH

Unfortunately, I think we need to continue to make the effort in this digital age.
You wont get the clients referred to you in the first place (as is happening in the UK)
and they wont get the benefit of your good prescriptions if homeopathy is percieved
as quack science by the general public. homeopathy used to be just off the radar, now it is
on the radar and developing a negative perception.
You can save all the text of the article after you make your edits and then when
you see its been changed, copy and paste your saved text. Just takes a few minutes.
There is a watchlist on Wikipedia so that one can tell if your watched pages have changed.
Roger
Posted by: "Lucy De Pieri" lucydepieri@yahoo.com :

I have been discussing the homeopathy article on Wikipedia with
other editors and got the following challenge:
I questioned their limited source of journals but otherwise the point is taken.
Does anyone want to take up the challenge and come up with edits to the existing article with documentation?
I would be willing to work on it with you.
Roger

I just read 'wickedpedia' and found the last paragraph to border libel however, there is a tell-tale sentence that is commonly used in the US: "Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments." This is the 'classic' line of the enema er, enemy er, AMA I presently live in Oregon, USA where they enacted a law that 'if 3 MD's who practice "conventional medicine" state that you have no more than 6 months to live then you can acquire assisted suicide drugs'. This is spite of the fact that the state has a large alternative medicine community and the strongest naturopathic laws in the country. As the saying goes, Who Died And Left Them Boss? Many people who could be declared terminal within 6 months have been helped by homeopathy and other alternative forms of medicine. And note the word "effective". To skeptics who squeal "placebo, placebo" I always ask 'Why Does Homeopathy Work So EFFECTIVELY On Animals?'

I am not anti MD and even complement them publicly (www.newhopetherapy.net ) as they do good things in certain areas but until a philanthropist comes along and funds some studies that prove the efficacy of homeopathy all we can do is quietly persevere and be thankful for outlets (such as Minutus) to vent now and then. I know it helps to keep me going!

Grace & Peace,
Unfortunately, I think we need to continue to make the effort in this digital age.

You wont get the clients referred to you in the first place (as is happening in the UK)
and they wont get the benefit of your good prescriptions if homeopathy is percieved
as quack science by the general public. homeopathy used to be just off the radar, now it is
on the radar and developing a negative perception.
You can save all the text of the article after you make your edits and then when
you see its been changed, copy and paste your saved text. Just takes a few minutes.
There is a watchlist on Wikipedia so that one can tell if your watched pages have changed.
Roger
Posted by: "Lucy De Pieri" lucydepieri@yahoo.com :
_____________________________________________________________
Free information - Art School Scholarship. Click now!

Hi ....wikipedia and a lot of online stuff is not worth your time
altering I agree ...I wont get into online discussions re does
homeopathy work as my time is indeed better spent treating a patient
or even organising my paperwork than trying to convince people who
dont want to be helped. Wikipedia sadly is mainstream as are most
websites in the public domain. I happily respond to peoples queries
online but am supremely cautious (sad I know)after being accused of
peddling quackery ....hmm oscillococcinum better than any flu jab lol
!! Fiona xxx

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Roger" wrote:
this
happening
homeopathy is
off the
and then
takes a few
watched pages
better

Wikipedia is not there to impart accurate information; it is there to impart consensus views. Changing an entry in Wikipedia on homeopathy is as improbable as changing conventional allopathic positions on homeopathy. Wikipedia will always reflect current mainstream thinking. It is to their credit that they are willing to even mention that alternative views exist--even if they pooh-pooh them at the same time. At least people who want to dig deeper are introduced to our existence.
I think it is a waste of time and effort to try to change statements such as "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible." I believe that statement is egregiously wrong; there are any number of mechanisms by which homeopathy could be scientifically explained. But unfortunately, there is no consensus in *mainstream* literature to counter such statements. There are only isolated studies, which reflect neither a consensus nor mainstream literature. We could put together a well-researched and articulate case to change that statement, but I think in the end, it will simply be ignored. Such is politics. Wikipedia is not concerned about the truth.
Again, in my humble opinion, it would be a better use of time to correct factual details of the history of homeopathy or introduce different philosophical models within homeopathy. As long as we are not challenging the "scientific" position (i.e. the mainstream position they like to label "scientific"), I think they might be more willing to include the information.
Just my opinion (I could be wrong),
Helen

I respectfully disagree that "until a philanthropist comes along and funds some studies that prove the efficacy of homeopathy all we can do is quietly persevere and be thankful for outlets (such as Minutus) to vent now and then."
Being quiet is what we've done for years. Every so often someone like Dr. Jennifer Jacobs produces a well-designed study that SHOULD impress the allopathic community, but it's never accepted -- because there is no communal open mind on this issue. This is a door that will NEVER open to us, no matter how effective we are in treating patients.
Rather than save our pennies for the randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials to prove to the "scientific community" the efficacy of homeopathy, we need to point out how shoddy their trials are, how much the medical journals have relaxed their standards in the past decade as research not funded by drug companies has become a species on the verge of extinction. In other words, rather than being defensive about homeopathy, IMHO we should be proactive in pointing out the flaws of their paradigm, which doesn't suit any alternative medicine and which can no longer claim any pretense to honesty.
Junk science isn't the province of alternative medicine; it's fostered by big companies trying to sell their products and unhappy at the prospect of competition from the likes of us.
Peace,
Dale

The stated policy of Wikipedia is that:
"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."
What is an article on homepathy except an article devoted to the view of homeopathy?
By their own guidelines they _have_ to give us time to explain our views.
Again, does anybody want to spend some time on this?
Roger