Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 5

message: ====Acupuncture====
The NCAHF asserts that acupuncture is scientifically unproven as a modality of treatment. Research during the past twenty years has failed to demonstrate that acupuncture is effective against any disease. Perceived effects of acupuncture are probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion and other psychological mechanisms.   NCAHF states that "scientific literature provides no evidence that acupuncture can perform consistently better than a placebo in relieving pain or other symptoms for which it has been proposed".
The use of acupuncture should be restricted to appropriate research settings. Insurance companies should not be required to cover acupuncture treatment, and licensure of lay acupuncturists should be phased out. [6].
====Amalgam Fillings====
There has long been controversy regarding the use of amalgam fillings by dentists, because the amalgam contains mercury. Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF cites the CDC in stating that there is no evidence that "the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised" or that "removing amalgam fillings has a beneficial effect on health".[7] The NCAHF criticizes those who they believe exploit unfounded public fears for financial gain.[8]  NCAHF asserts that breath, urine and blood testing for mercury are inaccurate. Other tests for mercury exposure described by the NCAHF as invalid can include skin testing, stool testing, hair analysis and electrodermal testing.[9]
====Chiropractic====
The NCAHF contends that chiropractic can be dangerous and lead to injury or permanent disability.[citations needed] However, the NCAHF does not categorically oppose the practice. NCAHF differentiates between what it calls "hucksters" and "scientific chiropractors". The latter should advance only methods of diagnosis and treatment which have a scientific basis. For example, NCAHF claims there is no scientific support for subluxation. Legitimate chiropractors should restrict the scope of practice to neuromusculoskeletal problems such as muscle spasms, strains, sprains, fatigue, imbalance of strength and flexibility, stretched or irritated nerve tissue, and so forth. Chiropractors should refer cases involving pathology to qualified medical practioners. [10]
In contrast, "hucksters" suggest that chiropractic adjustment will cure or alleviate a variety of diseases, such as infection, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, nutritional deficiencies or excesses, appendicitis, blood disorders, or kidney disease. These practitioners use unproven, disproven, or questionable methods, devices, and products such as adjusting machines, applied kinesiology, chelation therapy, colonic irrigation, computerized nutrition deficiency tests, cranial osteopathy, cytotoxic food allergy testing, DMSO, gerovital, glandular therapy, hair analysis, herbal crystalization analyses, homeopathy, internal managements, iridology, laser beam acupuncture, laetrile, magnetic therapy,and so forth.
====Diet Advice and Herbal Remedies====
The NCAHF is opposed to dietary recommendations and practices not supported by scientific evidence that NCAHF recognizes, including behavior related claims.  Unverified assessment methods such as iridology, applied kinesiology, routine hair analysis for assessment of nutritional status are routinely criticized or castigated. NCAHF and some of its members have long and actively opposed implementation of beliefs that they characterize as unfounded or unscientific.
NCAHF  also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Currently, herbal preparations are not regulated as drugs.  The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs)  with an adverse reaction surveillence program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations.
====Diploma Mills====
A diploma mill or "degree mill" is described by the U.S. Office of Education as "An organization that awards degrees without requiring its students to meet educational standards for such degrees established and traditionally followed by reputable institutions."
The NCAHF claims that many unqualified practitioners are able to mislead the public by using diploma mills to get "specious degrees". Diploma mills are not accredited, and frequently engage in "pseudoscience and food faddism". Diploma mills are harmful, both to the "students" and to the public. [12]
:::That would be perfect. Thank you for the effort. :) --Hughgr 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're absolutely unacceptable as they lack critical information about the NCAHF positions on these issues - which was the entire reason these sections of the article were written in the first place.  Can we please get past Jance's attempts to censor valid information from the article?  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Hughgr.  I think we need additional input, from Ronz, maybe others.Jance 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These summaries are great.  I'm for putting them in right away so editors can work on them within the article itself. --Ronz 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that everyone's done with the self-congratulation, can we get back to the issue?  No one has yet explained why the incomplete summaries are necessary or desireable.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Ronz 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute, but utterly beside the point.  Besides, the use of secondary sources in this context is absurd.  The issue at hand is the position of the NCAHF, by definition, information on this subject cannot come from secondary sources.  As I attempted to explain before, the issue at question isn't the validity of the organization's positions, but what those positions are.  If the organization took the view that all homeopathic practitioners come from the planet Mars, we would still have to report the fact.  We could, in the criticism section, include some secondary information that showed how unlikely it is that homeopaths are actually martians.  But that doesn't change the original claim.  Please indicate to me that you have gained some understanding of the point I'm trying to make because the way you keep on about secondary sources, it doesn't seem like you do.  I'll keep explaining until you get it, I just want to know when to stop.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that you don't like my perspective. The secondary sources would help us to show notability of these positions and help us prioritize what we actually include in the article. --Ronz 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dislike your perspective - how quick some people here are in assigning personal motive to dispassionate and constructive criticism.  However, you're still incorrect.  The question is not the validity or notability of the positions but what those positions are.  To answer that question, primary sources are the only suitable means for determining the positions.  If you wanted to know what Al Franken's position on an issue is, you wouldn't ask Rush Limbaugh, would you?  No, you'd ask Al Franken, or, if he had a web site you would quote from his positions as expressed on that web site in order to ensure both accuracy and objectivity in reporting those positions.  It wouldn't be fair to Mr. Franken if some wiki editor paraphased the details of his positions, possibly omitting some key detail dear to Mr. Franken's heart, would it?  No, of course not.  The only fair and accurate method would be to list Franken's positions on issues.  Then, in the criticism section, people like Rush Limbaugh could be quoted, along with, say, Janeane Garafalo to provide some balance.  Don't take this personally.  Just because I'm telling you that you're wrong that doesn't mean I don't like you.  In fact, if you think about it, it actually means the opposite.  My taking time to point these things out to you is a gesture of respect.  Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother.  --Curtis Bledsoe 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you acutally say this?  Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother.  Now I have seen everything.  By the way, since you are such a stickler on "accuacy" and "correctness", I will observe that your grammar is incorrect.  The word "myself" is reflexive.  Jance 06:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason your're inserting your incivil conduct into a conversation that doesn't concern you?  BTW, you're wrong about reflexive pronouns.  My usage in this case was correct as the subject and object of the sentence are the same.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sentence you wrote, " Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother."  Here, "myself" is not the same as "Someone."  Eg, "myself" is not a predicate nominative.  Also, "myself" is not an object.  Therefore, you are incorrect.  So you don't know everything.  Amazing.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: May I suggest that you do this, Ronz?  I will help, but I would rather not make this edit, since Curtis has formally complained to ask that I be banned.  Although it appears that nobody has agreed with him, I would rather not compromise my ability to edit.   I can help you find the references, which are in the history.Jance 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not asked that you be banned.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, blocked.  (Another dangerous paraphrase)    ;-)  Jance 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  The first step to solving a problem is to admit the problem exists. ;-)  --Curtis Bledsoe 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What they need is what was taken out - key information in the form of bullet-points quoted (not paraphased) from the original source.  Without this, the summaries are worthless.  --Curtis Bledsoe 06:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in other words, he wants the entire sections that he added, copied directly from the website.  This is WP:OWN and it is bad writing.  If that is at all relevant in Wikipedia.  Jance 06:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it isn't WP:OWN and I'm not sure you're in a position to comment on "bad writing" either way - even if you did it civilly, which you don't seem capable of doing.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you agree about WP:OWN!  Now we can move on.Jance 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you didn't understand the first time I said it, perhaps I should (though perhaps I shouldn't bother) repeat myself.  Clearly it isn't (note additional emphasis) WP:OWN.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Curtis stop being so goddamn abusive. You are wrong,.  Period,  You tell me what one single editor agrees with you here.  Anyone, except maybe Barrett (if he is that egomaniacal, then I have second thoughts about him).  What you are doing is WP:OWN and abusive. Jance 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I now understand your incivility.  You were reportedly blocked for it before but now you've come back under a pseudonym and it has multiplied.  So my question is why do you continue to be incivil?  --Curtis Bledsoe 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to have the last word, is that it?  Are you having fun  yet?  Or are you always this abusive?Jance 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have no pseudonym.  So your attempts at bullying won't work with me, Curtis.  There is a reason I do the work I do.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NCAHF Positions

message: A diploma mill or "degree mill" is described by the U.S. Office of Education as "An organization that awards degrees without requiring its students to meet educational standards for such degrees established and traditionally followed by reputable institutions."
The NCAHF claims that many unqualified practitioners are able to mislead the public by using diploma mills to get "specious degrees". Diploma mills are not accredited, and frequently engage in "pseudoscience and food faddism". Diploma mills are harmful, both to the "students" and to the public. [12]
:::That would be perfect. Thank you for the effort. :) --Hughgr 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're absolutely unacceptable as they lack critical information about the NCAHF positions on these issues - which was the entire reason these sections of the article were written in the first place.  Can we please get past Jance's attempts to censor valid information from the article?  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Hughgr.  I think we need additional input, from Ronz, maybe others.Jance 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These summaries are great.  I'm for putting them in right away so editors can work on them within the article itself. --Ronz 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that everyone's done with the self-congratulation, can we get back to the issue?  No one has yet explained why the incomplete summaries are necessary or desireable.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Ronz 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute, but utterly beside the point.  Besides, the use of secondary sources in this context is absurd.  The issue at hand is the position of the NCAHF, by definition, information on this subject cannot come from secondary sources.  As I attempted to explain before, the issue at question isn't the validity of the organization's positions, but what those positions are.  If the organization took the view that all homeopathic practitioners come from the planet Mars, we would still have to report the fact.  We could, in the criticism section, include some secondary information that showed how unlikely it is that homeopaths are actually martians.  But that doesn't change the original claim.  Please indicate to me that you have gained some understanding of the point I'm trying to make because the way you keep on about secondary sources, it doesn't seem like you do.  I'll keep explaining until you get it, I just want to know when to stop.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that you don't like my perspective. The secondary sources would help us to show notability of these positions and help us prioritize what we actually include in the article. --Ronz 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dislike your perspective - how quick some people here are in assigning personal motive to dispassionate and constructive criticism.  However, you're still incorrect.  The question is not the validity or notability of the positions but what those positions are.  To answer that question, primary sources are the only suitable means for determining the positions.  If you wanted to know what Al Franken's position on an issue is, you wouldn't ask Rush Limbaugh, would you?  No, you'd ask Al Franken, or, if he had a web site you would quote from his positions as expressed on that web site in order to ensure both accuracy and objectivity in reporting those positions.  It wouldn't be fair to Mr. Franken if some wiki editor paraphased the details of his positions, possibly omitting some key detail dear to Mr. Franken's heart, would it?  No, of course not.  The only fair and accurate method would be to list Franken's positions on issues.  Then, in the criticism section, people like Rush Limbaugh could be quoted, along with, say, Janeane Garafalo to provide some balance.  Don't take this personally.  Just because I'm telling you that you're wrong that doesn't mean I don't like you.  In fact, if you think about it, it actually means the opposite.  My taking time to point these things out to you is a gesture of respect.  Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother.  --Curtis Bledsoe 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you acutally say this?  Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother.  Now I have seen everything.  By the way, since you are such a stickler on "accuacy" and "correctness", I will observe that your grammar is incorrect.  The word "myself" is reflexive.  Jance 06:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason your're inserting your incivil conduct into a conversation that doesn't concern you?  BTW, you're wrong about reflexive pronouns.  My usage in this case was correct as the subject and object of the sentence are the same.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sentence you wrote, " Someone less patient and understanding than myself probably wouldn't bother."  Here, "myself" is not the same as "Someone."  Eg, "myself" is not a predicate nominative.  Also, "myself" is not an object.  Therefore, you are incorrect.  So you don't know everything.  Amazing.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: May I suggest that you do this, Ronz?  I will help, but I would rather not make this edit, since Curtis has formally complained to ask that I be banned.  Although it appears that nobody has agreed with him, I would rather not compromise my ability to edit.   I can help you find the references, which are in the history.Jance 04:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not asked that you be banned.  --Curtis Bledsoe 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, blocked.  (Another dangerous paraphrase)    ;-)  Jance 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  The first step to solving a problem is to admit the problem exists. ;-)  --Curtis Bledsoe 05:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What they need is what was taken out - key information in the form of bullet-points quoted (not paraphased) from the original source.  Without this, the summaries are worthless.  --Curtis Bledsoe 06:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in other words, he wants the entire sections that he added, copied directly from the website.  This is WP:OWN and it is bad writing.  If that is at all relevant in Wikipedia.  Jance 06:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it isn't WP:OWN and I'm not sure you're in a position to comment on "bad writing" either way - even if you did it civilly, which you don't seem capable of doing.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you agree about WP:OWN!  Now we can move on.Jance 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you didn't understand the first time I said it, perhaps I should (though perhaps I shouldn't bother) repeat myself.  Clearly it isn't (note additional emphasis) WP:OWN.  --Curtis Bledsoe 17:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Curtis stop being so goddamn abusive. You are wrong,.  Period,  You tell me what one single editor agrees with you here.  Anyone, except maybe Barrett (if he is that egomaniacal, then I have second thoughts about him).  What you are doing is WP:OWN and abusive. Jance 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I now understand your incivility.  You were reportedly blocked for it before but now you've come back under a pseudonym and it has multiplied.  So my question is why do you continue to be incivil?  --Curtis Bledsoe 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to have the last word, is that it?  Are you having fun  yet?  Or are you always this abusive?Jance 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have no pseudonym.  So your attempts at bullying won't work with me, Curtis.  There is a reason I do the work I do.Jance 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diploma Mills

message: I have inserted the text, per our consensus.  Here is one section that Curtis added, that needs to be edited properly.  Please help with this:
====Herbal Remedies====
The NCAHF claims that the sale of OTC herbal remedies is a multi-billion dollar business.  They describe the following as problems:
*Unreliable Labeling
**False and Misleading Labels.  According to the claims of pharmacognosist Varro Tyler, less that half of the herbal remedied examined were accurately labelled.  There are four ways in which herbs are commonly described: the English common name, the transliteration of the herb name, the latinized pharmaceutical name and the scientific name.  Thus, ginseng can be referred to four different ways: "ginseng", "ren-shen", "radix ginseng" and "panax ginseng".  However, the English term "ginseng" can also refer to P ginseng (a.k.a. "oriental ginseng"), P quinquefolius (a.k.a. "American ginseng") and Eleutherococcus senticosus (a.k.a. "Siberian ginseng") which, though they are referred to by the same generic name, are different plants.
**Misinformation Mongering.  Many individuals will, in order to promote their businesses and increase their profits, perpetuate false and misleading claims both about their own products but also about orthodox medicine.
*Questions of Safety.  In their natural state, herbs may vary in both potency and contain substances with unwanted side-effects.
**Questions of Efficacy.  Currently, herbal preparations are no regulated as drugs.  The NCAHF believes that it would be in the interests of consumers for this to change.  
*Economic Issues.
To address these, and other issues, the NCAHF makes the following recommendations:
*Establish a special category of OTC medicines called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs) regulated as follows:
**Labels must alert consumers to the fact that herbal remedies are held to a lower standard than that applied to standard medicines. Suggested wording:  "This product is regulated as a 
Traditional Herbal Remedy, a special category of medicines not required to meet the full stipulations of the U.S. Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act which are applied to standard medications." 
**Limit THR products to those with properties sufficiently documented in the pharmacognosy literature to assure an acceptable measure of safety and efficacy. 
**Limit herbal remedy products to those known not to have lethal or damaging side-effects when taken in overdose, or over an extended time period. 
**Limit THRs to the treatment of nonserious, self-limiting ailments. 
**Require THRs remedies to meet the same labeling standards for all drug products. 
**Require plant sources to be identified by their scientific names. 
**Require that all active ingredients (items that cause an effect) be quantitatively and qualitatively identified on the label. 
**Require herbal remedy products to contain sufficient amounts of pharmacologically active substances for the product to perform as expected. Only those expectations that can be supported by science should be permitted on labels. The FDA should develop a set of acceptable claims just as it has with health claims for food products. 
**Require labels to inform consumers about what effects they should expect. Suggested wording: (eg, valerian)
"The active ingredient in this product is valerian. Traditional folk medicinal uses for this substance include: as a sleep aid, and a relaxant. Valerian has been shown to depress the central nervous system at the doses indicated." 
**Require a highly visible, easily accessible postmarketing surveillance system for tracking unanticipated adverse reactions. The system must enable consumers as well as health professionals to report, and regulators to gather and disseminate information on adverse effects. A good candidate for the agency to receive reports is the U.S. Pharmacopeia Practitioner Reporting System which passes reports on to the FDA and Poison Control Centers. Suggested wording:
"Adverse reactions associated with the use of this products should be reported to 1-800-638-6725." 
**Require manufacturers to mark product batches for identification, testing, and tracking. 
**Require warnings about dangers of self-treatment on labels and/or package inserts. Suggested wording:
Caution: Self-treatment may delay proper health care. See a medical doctor if health problems persist. 
**Require substantial representation from outside of the herbal industry to assure sufficient skepticism in herbal regulation. 
**Impose strong penalties for adulterating herbal products with potentially dangerous substances. 
Source:  [http://www.ncahf.org/pp/herbal.html NCAHF Position Paper on
Over-the Counter Herbal Remedies.] NCAHF. 1995. accessed online 31 Dec 2006.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jance (talk • contribs) 
=== "a reductionist view" ===
I propose the following as a summary of the NCAHF herbal page, added to the Diet Advice section:
NCAHF  also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Currently, herbal preparations are not regulated as drugs.  The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs)  with an adverse reaction surveillence program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations.--I'clast 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me.  Jance 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that too. It's concise and to the point, well done.--Hughgr 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inserted Text

message: I propose the following as a summary of the NCAHF herbal page, added to the Diet Advice section:
NCAHF  also questions the health claims, marketing, safety, efficacy and lableling of herbal supplements. Currently, herbal preparations are not regulated as drugs.  The NCAHF advocates regulations for a special OTC category called "Traditional Herbal Remedies" (THRs)  with an adverse reaction surveillence program, product batches marked for identification and tracking, package label warnings about proposed dangers of self-treatment, oversight requirements from outside of the herbal industry, and strong penalties for unapproved changes in herbal product formulations.--I'clast 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me.  Jance 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that too. It's concise and to the point, well done.--Hughgr 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a reductionist view" 

message: (I've moved this from the "Alleged Copyright Violation" section because it appears from Seejyb's post that this is an ongoing concern. Sarah 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this makes two reasons that these edits should not be included here.  Thanks for clarifying.Jance 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, the NCAHF website very clearly states, "All articles on this Web site except government reports are copyrighted". If the copyright holder wants to release this material for us to use, he/she needs to send an email from an address associated with the site the material has been copied from to permissions@wikimedia.org, stating that they give permission for the material to be used under the GFDL and that they understand that this means it may be freely copied, redistributed, edited and used commercially outside of Wikipedia. Or they need to place a note on the website stating that they agree to the material being used under the GFDL licence. An anon editing from an IP and signing as "Barrett" is simply not sufficient for permission. You may be able to quote small excerpts under fair use, but only under this guideline: "Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted." Sarah 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Sarah. Does Curtis have anymore objections?--Hughgr 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that clearly allows me to quote portions of the individual documents in question in order to illustrate the positions of NCAHF with regard the the various issues on which they take positions.  So now that we've gotten past this copyvio red-herring, can we FINALLY move on?  --Curtis Bledsoe 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks, Sarah.  Hopefully when the protection lifts, there will be no reversion problems.  The Wikipedia policy makes sense..  And, I am heartened that most editors are willing to work together to build consensus.   Jance 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not resolved.  Curtis ignores "brief" and "...only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted."  Illustrating NCAHF's position could equally be met by paraphrasing.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's resolved either.  Curtis' participation in this "Protected" discussion completely ignores the group consensus and numerous discussions of why information absolutely must be abridged in an encyclopedia article.  Perhaps I'm misreading his perspective? --Ronz 04:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What can we do to find resolution?  I seem only to antagonize Curtis, since I had first suggested the summary.  Therefore, I thought it more productive to let others talk with him.  I have a much better feeling about Wikipedia, after seeing people like Ronz, and I'cast, Arthur, and others focus on a content issue and come to agreement.  Sarah has helped clairfy the Copyright policy, and most agree that more is not better.  I guess the next step is to see if we can agree on a non-protected article.  Consensus does not require 100% agreement.  What to do you think we do from here?Jance 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask the admins to remove protection or at least update the "Positions" section, and if necessary, let the admins make the first move to solve Curtis' "hearing problem".--I'clast 07:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would someone else like to do this (this might be better).Jance 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked him on his talk page,diff no answer yet but its only been a couple of days...I don't know how long we should wait. Or should we just request that the page get unlocked and see if he disrupts it again?--Hughgr 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he is ever going to concede.  We might as well request the page be unlocked, and then if he reverts it, we can call in an admin.  I don't know what else to do, do you? Jance 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, let the editing continue. :) --Hughgr 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright concerns

message: the referrence to the herbal suppliments para. I'clast has it above. Thanks! I really should learn one of these days....... :)--Hughgr 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks, Hughgr.  Unfortunately I know how to do it, but I dont know what website s//he sourced.  Jance 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure whether "she" refers to MastCell or me, a "he". Anyway I have inserted the dreaded NCAHF ref, the original text for it was hidden under 1 "b" instead of the usual a. I am sure some will forgive me ;->--I'clast 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, l'clast!  I will not make that mistake again.  Clearly I wasn't thinking.  And thank you!Jance 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone add 

message: Anyone have a more complete reference?  I was assuming it's a book by the page number, but maybe it's an essay inside a book? --Ronz 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I left a vital part out of the reference... the magazine name from where it was taken - The Townsend Letter. There was an "Op. Cit." in the reference from which I was drawing it and it threw me off. Levine2112 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indexed here. Waltzing...#117, p. 339--I'clast 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannot verify: Waltzing with the 'Quackbusters' — To Whose Music?

message: * Undue weight
The critiquing is mostly from a minority of alternative medicine proponents not the mainstream scientific consensus.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. GigiButterfly 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alt med (which not all of these represent) is a significant minority and we are representing those views with notable adherents perfectly. Levine2112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The tone is completely fair are represents accurate and very plausible positions. Would you prefer that we should present these refuting views within the rest of the article rather than keeping them collected in this one section? That's fine too, as long as all of these critiques are represented in full. Levine2112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting the refuting views within the rest of the article is unacceptable, as far as I've seen from other Wiki articles. --Ronz 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on this article. NCAHF would never get to say what it was about without being refuted every other sentence. --Dematt 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what any of us believe.  See WP:Verifiable and WP:RS.  Also see weasel words. --Dematt 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight and fairness of tone 

message: Slow down!  It most certainly does matter what any of us believe.  We are the editors.  So ..
# This is an article on an organization that criticises alternative medicine.  So it is not only appropriate to have a complete 'criticism' section, it is necessary.
# Whether or not alternative medicine is a minority view is irrelevant here.  This is not an article on alternative medicine.  Again, it is an article about an organization critical of alternative medicine.  The judge was critical of NCAHF, but not because of its position on alternative medicine, but because of how the organization chose to litigate.
# If there are questions about WP:Verifiable and WP:RS and weasel words, then raise the concern here.   Point out which statement or resource you think falls into any of these categories. To broadly categorize a section as weasel words is rather weasely, in my opinion - no personal affront intended.
# The "tone is unfair" does not help describe what needs to be changed.  A criticism section is likely going to be critical.  As stated above, this is not a parallel to an article on 'flat earth theory'.   NCAHF is an organization that criticizes and litigates against alternative medicine practitioners.  That those which it criticizes disagree is no surprise.  Again, any article about the NCAHF would not be complete without the discussion of the 'other side'.  If there were not a controversy, there would be no NCAHF, and no article.Jance 03:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, the 'criticism' section does look rather like a laundry list.  I am not suggesting that all or any of the content should be deleted, but it should be better organized.Jance 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't argue semantics because you essentially seem to be saying the same thing.  I agree with your outline above.  I would add to 2) that the choice the organization made can be considered a reflection of the organization itself. That also said, we just went through a similar transition on the Quackwatch page about the criticism section that we might consider evaluating before going too fast. --Dematt 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not an issue of what is "fair" or "not fair".  Jance 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the fact that this article is about an organization with a sole purpose of criticizing and suing "alternative" practitioners, yes, I think that some criticisms that reflect the response to the organization are in order.   This particular quote does voice a certain type of criticism.  Whether it is fair or not, I don't know.  I don't have to know.  It may not be fair at all.  That is not the point.  I don't know how else to state this.Jance 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An article about an organization critical of alternative medicine, ''not'' an article on alternative medicine 

message: Robert Coleman Atkins, MD (October 17, 1930 – April 17, 2003) was an American doctor and cardiologist, best known for the Atkins Nutritional Approach (or "Atkins Diet"), a popular but controversial way of dieting that entails eating low-carbohydrate, high-fat and high-protein foods.  Most people due not follow the low carb craze. I consider it a minority but well known. Like a grapefruit diet. GigiButterfly 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: heck I don't know.  I didn't add this.  I agree that Atkins is well-known.  How much of a 'minority' the Atkins diet is, I have no idea.  It isn't relevant, for the same reasons I discussed above.  This is not an article on alternative medicine.  It is an article on an organization (started by a medical doctor, I believe) that criticizes - and sues - alternative medical practitioners.   Whether Atkins is a critic of that organization, I also have no idea.  Let's keep this question on the talk page, and if nobody produces a reference, then delete it.  Jance 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of people talk about, but do not follow, low carb 'crazes'.  But that is purely my biased opinion, based on no supportive facts.  ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's allow the editor who added this to comment.  Maybe there is a reference we do not know about.  If not, it goes.Jance 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkins is part of a minority view 

message: Suggestions below. Don't be shy now.
:I wasn't shy, and I did change the section.  I am open to criticism, from "pro" NCAHF to "anti" NCAHF.  I know that I condensed this significantly, and deleted a number of the quotes.  It may need exapansion, but this is a start.  The idea is to not have a string of quotes.Jance 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization ideas for criticism section 

message: I removed the tags.   Neither fit for this "criticism" section  There are no weasel words, since specific speakers are mentioned.  The tone is critical.  That is why it is called "criticism".  It is a much better idea to work on changing the organization, than to add tags that don't describe the problem.Jance 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: The section should be readable. Great job Jance. GigiButterfly 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is now readable 

message: I moved this to the talk page mostly because I don't see it as really relevant for this article the way it is written.  Unless it can be greatly improved, I suggest that we scrap this one;
*Criticism of chiropactric benefits aired on US national television in June of 2002, triggered an uproar from the chriopactric profession.PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors available online  Daryl D. Wills, D.C., president of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) complained about the broadcast in a letter.PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors available online  The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) announced for a swift response from the chiropractic community to protest for the distortion of the practice of chiropractic.PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors available online The producers of the program responded in a letter to ACA.PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors available online The NCAHF responsed in a letter on their website about the complaints from the ACA as well as the ICA.PBS Broadcast Angers Chiropractors available onlineResponse to the ACA avaialble online --Dematt 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Critiqueing is good...  writing is bad.  I thought you didn't want too much critiqueing?  We need to rewrite to make it good;) --Dematt 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Much better... rewrite good.  Still not relevant.. more critiqueing of chiropractic than NCAHF, but I might have a WP:COI so I will leave it.  So much for boldness, huh.  --Dematt 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Awe, just when you were getting good.  You and SA should have a good time! --Dematt 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chiro criticism part 

message: The section contains poor sources, unreliable sources, and there has been little or no effort to balance the material per WP:NPOV.  There also appears to be some WP:OR here as well.  Should we start by going over the sources? --Ronz 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section - npov dispute

message: I started a new section. Please help expand it and share your ideas. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  05:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The_National_Council_Against_Health_Fraud#Usefulness_as_a_source|Usefulness as a source]] 

message: I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:
* Link to RfC at alternative medicine. 
-- Fyslee / talk 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC alert 

message: This article would benefit from a bit of historical information about this non-profit. See http://www.ncahf.org/about/history.html ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Registering is easy and free, and reveals the following information:
NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD INC
119 FOSTER ST BLDG R 2ND FLR 
PEABODY, MA 01960   
GENERAL INFORMATION
Who We Are
PUBLIC CONSUMER HEALTH EDUCATION
* This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity . 
* This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because its income is less than $25,000. 
* Contributions are deductible, as provided by law.
NTEE Code
W90—Consumer Protection and Safety
  
Source
-- Fyslee / talk 04:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidestar ref