Minutus

Further, if anyone cares to Google "Guerilla Skepticism" you'll find first hand evidence that this is actually the case.
http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-w ... alog_false

Tiny url:

http://tinyurl.com/lwubznd

Sign!

thenoseknows schreef op 16-12-2013 16:38:

Wikipedia was never good on homeopathy but it has seriously deteriorated
since Jimmy Wales made the following comments about homeopathy earlier
this year. They were quickly removed when we first reported on them but
fortunately we saved a screen capture.

http://homeopathyplus.com.au/wikipedia- ... omeopathy/

Kind Regards,

Fran Sheffield

Thanks for bringing us this link, Fran. The Wikipedia bashing of homeopathy should be something of critical importance to homeopathy users and practitioners, and ultimately to human health and well being. I think we all have a responsibility to stand up to these kind of attacks on effective medical practices as Fran Sheffield and others have done in Australia.
There is one thing I haven't heard anyone bring up yet, though, and this is big, real big, this is a critical killshot on Wikipedia's Homeopathy article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy. I've seen this work before on Wikipedia and it should work again.
That article states "Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more than a placebo,[2]” The "[2]" is a footnote reference that presumably validates the assertion that homeopathic remedies are placebos, and it is the only footnote given as a reference to the placebo assertion.
The footnote links to an article by US National Institutes of Health's National Council on Complementary Medicine entitled "Homeopath: An Introduction." But nowhere, NOWHERE in this article does it say anything of the kind. The word "placebo" is nowhere to be found in the article.
The placebo assertion implies that "homeopathic remedies" are inert. It is the primary thesis of the WIkipedia article, presents it as proof that homeopathy is pseudoscience, yet for this particular claim it presents only one link to substantiate it, and even this turns out to be hollow in support of it.
This is not the first time Wikipedia has done this in an attempt to validate its placebo assertion in its Homeopathy article. A former version made the same assertion, but linked to Edzard Ernst's Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy, that stated that Linde, "The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos. WHat Linde actually said was "our results are not compatible with the placebo hypothesis" tinyurl.com/84xt56k
The Ernst link was dropped from Wikipedia when I pointed out in my blog Linde was only one of several major meta analyses and reviews that concluded that homeopathic remedies were not placebos, amongst dozens of biochemical and biological tests that falsified the placebo hypothesis.
Whereas WIkipedia cannot give even ONE honest link that validates its placebo accusation, I can give seven [7] that validate the assertion that homeopathic remedies are NOT placebos:
FISHER: hi quality repeated experiments yield positive results http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
JOHNSON 2007: metas find significantly better than placebo http://tinyurl.com/7htoejq
SHANG 2005: Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo http:// tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten
LINDE 1997: results not compatible with placebo hypothesis http://tinyurl.com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT 2000 homeopathy more effective than placebo http:// tinyurl.com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN 1991 evidence of clinical trials is positive http:// tinyurl.com/kleijnen
BMJ homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo http:// tinyurl.com/bmjrhin
"Wikipedia considers the deliberate insertion of false and misleading information to be vandalism .[21] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
THERE IS NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PLACEBO HYPOTHESIS FOR HOMEOPATHY.
Homeopathy may have some problems, there is obviously a lot we don't know about it and most practitioners struggle with it, but I have found that ALL criticism of it by pathological skeptics is false and easily refuted, as is evident in the Wikipedia section on Homeopathy.
Benneth
In a message dated 12/19/2013 4:26:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

LENR gets the same treatment. I am going to guess that ANYTHING that the usual skeptopath thinks is unreal will get the same treatment.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: jrbenneth@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:25:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Petition to Wikipedia to stop anti-holistic propaganda
Thanks for bringing us this link, Fran. The Wikipedia bashing of homeopathy should be something of critical importance to homeopathy users and practitioners, and ultimately to human health and well being. I think we all have a responsibility to stand up to these kind of attacks on effective medical practices as Fran Sheffield and others have done in Australia.
There is one thing I haven't heard anyone bring up yet, though, and this is big, real big, this is a critical killshot on Wikipedia's Homeopathy article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy. I've seen this work before on Wikipedia and it should work again.
That article states "Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more than a placebo,[2]” The "[2]" is a footnote reference that presumably validates the assertion that homeopathic remedies are placebos, and it is the only footnote given as a reference to the placebo assertion.
The footnote links to an article by US National Institutes of Health's National Council on Complementary Medicine entitled "Homeopath: An Introduction." But nowhere, NOWHERE in this article does it say anything of the kind. The word "placebo" is nowhere to be found in the article.
The placebo assertion implies that "homeopathic remedies" are inert. It is the primary thesis of the WIkipedia article, presents it as proof that homeopathy is pseudoscience, yet for this particular claim it presents only one link to substantiate it, and even this turns out to be hollow in support of it.
This is not the first time Wikipedia has done this in an attempt to validate its placebo assertion in its Homeopathy article. A former version made the same assertion, but linked to Edzard Ernst's Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy, that stated that Linde, "The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos. WHat Linde actually said was "our results are not compatible with the placebo hypothesis" tinyurl.com/84xt56k
The Ernst link was dropped from Wikipedia when I pointed out in my blog Linde was only one of several major meta analyses and reviews that concluded that homeopathic remedies were not placebos, amongst dozens of biochemical and biological tests that falsified the placebo hypothesis.
Whereas WIkipedia cannot give even ONE honest link that validates its placebo accusation, I can give seven [7] that validate the assertion that homeopathic remedies are NOT placebos:
FISHER: hi quality repeated experiments yield positive results http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
JOHNSON 2007: metas find significantly better than placebo http://tinyurl.com/7htoejq
SHANG 2005: Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo http:// tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten
LINDE 1997: results not compatible with placebo hypothesis http://tinyurl.com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT 2000 homeopathy more effective than placebo http:// tinyurl.com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN 1991 evidence of clinical trials is positive http:// tinyurl.com/kleijnen
BMJ homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo http:// tinyurl.com/bmjrhin
"Wikipedia considers the deliberate insertion of false and misleading information to be vandalism .[21] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
THERE IS NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PLACEBO HYPOTHESIS FOR HOMEOPATHY.
Homeopathy may have some problems, there is obviously a lot we don't know about it and most practitioners struggle with it, but I have found that ALL criticism of it by pathological skeptics is false and easily refuted, as is evident in the Wikipedia section on Homeopathy.
Benneth
In a message dated 12/19/2013 4:26:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Thanks John. It's good that this information is documented and kept. I think we too often like to turn a blind eye to what is happening as there is a lot of time and work to do otherwise.

I will incorporate some of it into our article as well as this problem is bound to come up again and again in the future and people should be aware of what has (and still is) happened.

Kind Regards, Fran Sheffield