Page 1 of 2
Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:15 am
by Steve Scrutton
Dana Ullman has written a brilliant article on the subject of Wikipedia’s long standing bias against homeopathy, despite many attempts to make it more balanced and ‘encyclopedic’. It is published in the Huffington Post.
It is an important read, not only to understand why Wikipedia is unbalanced, but also to understand the reasons of ‘imbalance’ in media coverage generally, and in many other important organisations that regularly criticise homeopathy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullm ... 24226.html
Please do read it.
Steve Scrutton
Director, ARH
steve@a-r-h.org
Important Email disclaimer
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. If you receive it in error, you should not use or disseminate the information in it; instead, please email it back to the sender then delete the message from your system
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:40 pm
by Dana Ullman, MPH
Friends of Homeopathy,
Yes, the bias against homeopathy on Wikipedia is deep and wide. Has anyone out there tried to edit ANYTHING on Wikipedia? If so, contact me personally…
Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH
812 Camelia St.
Berkeley, CA. 94710
(510)649-0294
dullman@igc.org (personal email)
email@homeopathic.com (professional email)
www.homeopathic.com (website)
www.HuffingtonPost.com/dana-ullman (Blog at the Huffingtonpost)
HomeopathicDana (Twitter)
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:42 pm
by John R. Benneth
Dana tried, as have countless others . . it's useless w/o legal action. The Wikipedia article is responsible for making homeopathy one of two of the world's most contentious subjects, the other being Jesus Christ, according to the Washington Post.
The article knowingly misquotes its references regarding its claim that hpathics are inert and a scam (placebo). Wales needs to be confronted in court in a multi billion dollar lawsuit over this blatant dishonesty.
If we want to correct this we need to take action . . there certainly are enough credible witnesses to make the case.
John
In a message dated 8/5/2016 9:40:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
________________________________
________________________________
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________
________________________________
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:00 pm
by Vicki Satta
Google is now in on it. The other day I was googling for a remedy while looking for a friend. I typed in homeopathic remedy xxxxx It took me to natural medicine sites, herbal sites, but I wasn’t allowed to go to a site that sells to the public. I finally got what I was looking for, but I had to play tricks w/google to get it. Seriously, BEWARE.
We need to understand Dana: this is a global political move toward total control of what we consume. Obama is pushing TPP like hell. Why? BigPharma wants to crush us so we’re all obedient little GMO eaters, VACCINE lovers, and OBEDIENT and SILENT followers of their commands. TPP has to be stopped. Why? Once it passes Congress and is ratified globally, we can never stop it. We know the worst of it, but only a very small number of scarIES that are enough to work diligently to stop it. Clinton says she’s against it, but it’s another lie… another path to victory, but she can always change her mind. She always does (change her mind).
VICKI
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:49 pm
by Roger Barr
The way editing works on Wiki is that you have to work with the established group that is editing a particular topic. In the case of the Homeopathy page there is an entrenched group of editors that have their own NPOV (Negative Point of View) so it is impossible to make changes that reflect any other point of view.
It is a completely unrealistic to say that anyone can have "No Point of View". If you are alive and breathing you have a point of view. Wikipdedia should instead embrace multiple points of view. That wont happen.
There is an interesting article by Steve Bolen on the Bolen Report where he has dug into Wales' a bit. He found that Wales' wikipedia is financed in large part by an organization that has a number of Big Pharma companies on it's board. He is a sworn enemy of homeopathy by his own admission.
Roger Barr
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:36 pm
by Tanya Marquette
Given the vituperative hostility of these controllers of Wikipedia makes you wonder if it wasn't set up specifically to
be able to attack homeopathy and any other subject of that goes against the mainstream/corporate interests.
t
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:28 pm
by Roger Barr
I just thought of a possible mitigating action. Rather than trying to edit the Homeopathy topic directly. It might be possible to create another related page like "Homeopathic/y Therapy" or something similar with our own group of editors and own NPOV.
The problem is that it takes a group of people committed long term to consistently manage the page. Most of the homeopathic community doesnt seem that interested to do this work. They would rather do homeopathy which is my feeling frankly, But it wouldnt take that much time really except initially.
I proposed doing as many corporations do which is hire a marketing firm to do the work. It just means we would have to group fund it. I proposed this to NCH and got no response.
Roger Barr
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:31 pm
by Tanya Marquette
Good idea but I think the topic needs to be broader as too many people are confused and hostile to homeopathy without even knowing why.
But a good documentary on how Big Pharma as subsumed science to its profits and how it controls information would be very useful. Many
people who diss homeopathy thru ignorance, do understand that there is a lot of propaganda around drugs.
t
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:35 am
by Allen Coniglio
That is a good idea, Roger, but I can tell you why it may not get a response. Virtually everyone in today's society is struggling to make a few dollars just to stay alive. Of course, this is all by design with the planned destruction of the middle class and the siphoning of wealth out of the developed nations and into the pockets of the globalists and their political lackeys. One also has to consider the mental castration of humanity by the introduction of fluoride and other brain damaging chemicals into the food and water supplies and even, in some places, into the salt that people use on their food. People are under assault from the allopaths who are pumping these same fluorides into their patients by way of the antidepressants that they are told they need. Fluoride was placed in the water by the Nazis and Soviets to create a docile (political) prison population which would be easier to manage. One can now find fluoride in the water, in salt, in food, in toothpaste, in mouthwash, in antidepressants, at dental visits, and who knows where else. This is a purposeful drugging of the human population which the globalists know they must do in order to quell the human desire to be mentally active and free. Add to this the chemtrails, vaccines, and every other source of pollution of humanity and one can begin to see how we are made into compliant, sleeping dupes who would foolishly consider any of the candidates offered by the establishment political parties as worthy of our votes. Ironically, even the votes are meaningless as the US has mandated that all states use electronic voting machines which can be manipulated to produce any result that those who run the elections may want.
I do not believe that even homeopathy can provide a cure in many cases unless these chemicals are permanently removed from contact with humanity. We can consider such things as the "maintaining causes" which Hahnemann told us would not permit a final cure but which we as homeopaths often overlook when taking a case and prescribing for our clients.
Re: Wikipedia's bias against homeopathy
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:46 am
by Tanya Marquette
There are people like Jeff Hays or John Rappaport who are very supportive of homeopathy, alternative healing as well
as take on Big Pharma. Hays is a documentary film maker. Coming from a broader perspective than just homeopathy, as
I have already suggested, may be an avenue to getting such a documentary made. Crowd funding may be part of the means
to raise money for such a project.
t