Talk:George Vithoulkas

message: The old page was a Copyvio of , and had to go. It may be remakable. Adam Cuerden talk 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted as Copyvio 

message: In this edit Adam Cuerden inserted the specificier "several" before the number of books authored by the subject.  It looks GV has authored at least five books, with one being a multi-volume major materia medica.  The word "several" in this context seems quite biased; I would say "many" would be more accurate, but I would expect others to consider that to be biased.  We could also just have "books" without any numerical indication of how many books he has written.  Alternately, we coudl have the number of books he has written.  What do people think?  Abridged 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Materia Medica Viva, he has completed already 11 volumes (not 6).link.Homeopathic 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text from "several" to "a number of".  Abridged 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection seems odd, but I don't mind changing it. I'd have thought an unqualified "wrote books" sounds like he wrote fewer than "wrote several books". Adam Cuerden talk 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I always imagine it as around seven or so. I don't think it's meant to be very specific. Adam Cuerden talk 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I imagine it to be fewer adn that's why I thought the use of "several" infused bias.  You might note that your characterization of my comment as "odd" comes off as a value judgement and a vague attack, although I know you didn't mean it that way.  Abridged 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. As you said, I didn't mean anything by it. Adam Cuerden talk 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know.  I'm just mentioning it to you so you can avoid creating stress for others in future.  Abridged 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many books??

message: It is wrongly described as "an expert dignostic system for homeopaths[4]". It is NOT a diagnostic system. It is a tool that analyses symptoms and suggests the best possible remedy selection(s) for a case, according to a complex set of rules that take into consideration what Vithoulkas believes is important (Vithoulkas is a supporter of Hahnemannan's Classical Homeopathy, as described in Hahneman's Organon). That's the essence of it. Will try to find a phrase that describes that in a more formal way.Homeopathic 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is what an expert system is.  In homeopathy the "diagnosis" = the remedy the patient needs, no?  Abridged 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "Diagnostic system" is utterly wrong. In medicine, diagnosis refers to Diseases, and not to the prescribed remedies. VES analyzes the symptoms the doctor thinks are important in a patient, then VES tries to find the best matching homeopathic remedy, according to Vithoulkas' rules (based on Hahnemann's Classical Homeopathy theory).Homeopathic 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I am using the term too loosely.  In a conventional medical sense, yeah, diagosis = the disease.  In a homeopathic sense diagnosis = the remedy a patient needs.  That being said, it is fine to change the text.  I was trying to come up with something that would make everyone happy and I clearly haven't done that so you should change it.  Abridged 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way what you say is correct, but it is not possible/acceptable to name VES as a "Diagnostic System". There is a phrase, something like "prescription-aid analysis tool"... *something* like this (just cant remember the right word/phrase right now)Homeopathic 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really an Expert system isn't it?  Abridged 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an Expert System. But lacks the "identifier". Expert System about what ? It is a Homeopathic Expert System, regarding symptom analysis and remedy selection, based on a complex set of parameters, defined by Vithoulkas, according to Hahnemann's teachings on Classical Homeopathy.Homeopathic 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it would be enough. I was merely trying to explain exactly what it is.Homeopathic 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About V.E.S.

message: The edit summary here says one thing, but the included quote says another. There's a world of difference between being widely considered to be "the greatest" and "widely considered to be one ..." of(?) "the greatest". So what's the original quote actually say? Please provide the URL and include it in the reference. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the hasty edit summary, I was rather annoyed after the previous editor had removed the quote based on nothing but a vague buzzing sensation between his ears. The exact quote is "According to George Vithoulkas, widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist". You can verify the quote by searching within the book on Amazon  --Lee Hunter 11:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A world of difference 

message: Why are we quoting the people in this section?
:He has been described as "the maestro of classical homeopathy" by Robin Shohet; Lyle Morgan says he is "widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist"; and Scott Shannon calls him a "contemporary master of homeopathy" . Paul Ekins credited Vithoulkas with the revival of the credibility of homeopathy. 
I'm sure we can find equivalent quotes from people of actual note. These people are just minor homeopaths that wrote a single (maybe?) popular book. Adam Cuerden talk 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all at least as notable as Anthony Campbell, if not more and we've given him an entire paragraph. --Lee Hunter 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they notable, though? Beyond writing at least one book? Maybe we could work that information in. Adam Cuerden talk 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Anthony Campbell was reviewing Vithoulkas' book in a prestigeous - perhaps the most prestigeous - homeopathic journal. These are just one-sentence mentions in the middle of a long book. It's not at all the same thing. Adam Cuerden talk 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyle Morgan has written three books on homeopathy.  Scott Shannon was president elect of the American Holistic Medical Association at the time this book was published.  I think they are notable enough to be quoted.  Abridged talk 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, one more thing.  I think it would be more interesting to have quotes from expert folks saying something more substantive about GV and how his contributions to homeopathy are really remarkable than what we have here.  But I do think that the quoted folks I mentioned are notable enough to give an opinon.  Abridged talk 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, but it's always good to say why. My point was that Campbell's piece has weight by being published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, so Anthony Campbell's own notability isn't important. However, these are lines Lee Hunter found by using Amazon's search inside feature for random books (he was showing this on the AfD), and the only mention of Vithoulkas in the books quoted, as far as I can tell. Thus, it's a trivial mention, and the author's relevance is the only thing that makes it notable. Adam Cuerden talk 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  With all respect... 

message: http://knol.google.com/k/george-vithoulkas/homeopathy/3sen01jd43wfi/2#
This is Vithoulkas's opinion on the relationship between homeopathy and conventional medecine.
Are both medical approaches necessary?
(Conventional medicine and homeopathy)
They certainly are.  There is no doubt that there has been a misunderstanding in relation to the therapeutic limits of each method.  This has occurred for many reasons, mainly however due to attempts made by homeopaths to make the new approach known.  For this reason the results of cures have been exaggerated by homeopaths in order to impress.  There is however another far more serious reason.  Since the area around this new approach is somewhat turgid, many have abused it to their own advantage, promising that they can cure everything, such as cancer, schizophrenia, AIDS, obesity or smoking.  All these announcements take place either in public or in private medicine, in order to attract a greater number of patients.  For this reason homeopathy has been presented as unreliable, with the result that an undeclared war broke out among the two approaches, and both sides ended up by having recourse to extreme arguments.
--CLRJAMES2000 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this makes less than no sense. According to our article, Vithoulkas describes "conventional medicine" as "the cause of the degeneration of the human race." He blames vaccination and antibiotics for AIDS. He thinks that people given antibiotics "go into a state of Alzheimer's." Are these factual statements of his beliefs? If not, let's change our article. If those are actual statements of his beliefs, then how do they possibly reconcile with the idea that conventional medicine is "necessary" or potentially beneficial? Right now, the juxtaposition sounds extremely jarring. MastCell Talk 05:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The links to a couple of the sources cited for those statements are broken, but they are still available on Vithoulkas's website:   Brunton (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not really my place to arrange the article so as to show up contradictions in his views. That's actually not the point of biographical articles. I brought it up here because it seems odd and inconsistent, and I wanted to verify that this constellation of views is accurately ascribed. MastCell Talk 07:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you examine Vithoulkas's ideas in more depth you will see that his views have been distorted in the article - by cherry picking specific fragmnents in order to discredit him. No effort has been done to comprehend his beliefs - let alone to present them and (then critisize them) accurately.Thats why the constelation of views seems so odd.--CLRJAMES2000 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Do you mean knol? You seem to be asking us to search a page which doesn't use the term, and asking us to synthesise a view on our reading of his writings: per WP:PSTS can you provide a reliable secondary source giving that interpretation? . .  dave souza, talk 10:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the sources and the arguments in this talk page.  Vithoulkas in his website ( his knol which is hosted there) states that both medical approaches (homeopathy and conventional medecine) are necessary. Does he contradict himself? Maybe. But it is more appropriate to include both sentences. His website is a reliable source. You dont need a secondary source for this. It is  clear. Please.--70.88.10.190 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vithoulkas believes that both medical approaches (homeopathy and conventional medecine) are necessary 

message: I understand that this section could include from the beginning for the sake of clarification that GV himself is a non-medically qualified practitioner by orthodox medical standards and in fact has received no university education ever in any field; this in connection to the fact he has been educating medical graduates in homeopathy and opines on complex medical matters.Polyklinj (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  biographical information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on George Vithoulkas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505142655/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/recip/vith.htm to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/recip/vith.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220173707/http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/homeopathy/homeopathy-html/chapter01.html to http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/homeopathy/homeopathy-html/chapter01.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529192321/http://www.minimum.com/reviews/science-homeopathy.htm to http://www.minimum.com/reviews/science-homeopathy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625155017/http://www.minimum.com/reviews/answer-science.htm to http://www.minimum.com/reviews/answer-science.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001454/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/vithoulkas.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/vithoulkas.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020125557/http://www.minimum.com/reviews/materia-viva.htm to http://www.minimum.com/reviews/materia-viva.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020123459/http://www.minimum.com/reviews/medicine-millennium.htm to http://www.minimum.com/reviews/medicine-millennium.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.vithoulkas.com/research/clinical-trial-randi
http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/235-george-vithoulkas-homeopathy-challenge-starting-anew.html
Randi said 
"The brouhaha that began as a comprehensive homeopathy test In Greece, has been consuming far too much of my time and attention, and of my colleagues, as well. Forget all previous correspondence exchanged on the subject. What appears HERE is the current status" ....
And Vithoulkas says 
Mr Randi after this false experiment (ignoring all other experiments that showed the effect of homeopathy) declared in his website (http://www.randi.org/) that whoever could prove the validity of the action of a homeopathically potentized remedy beyond the Avogadro number would be winning one million $ as a prize.
Mr Vithoulkas according to his website propsoed "a new experiment was conceived that would prove that the highly potentized remedies could actually have a biological effect upon the human organism.
The experiment was simple: An individualized remedy would be given to a number of patients in a double blind fashion and half of the patients would receive placebo the other half would get the real remedy. The Greek Homeopathic physicians that would participate in taking of the cases and prescribing the remedies should point out in the end of the experiment the ones that they had got the real remedy.
The protocol was structured by a group of internationally known scientists and the experiment had to take place in one of the hospitals in Athens"
Jay1938 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randi Vithoulkas experiment