Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 13

message: Regarding today's addition: Skeptics would argue, however, that it has acupuncture has never been shown to be effective in healing anyone of anything, though some people have been hurt by it by either the practice itself directly or indirectly by subsequent avoidance of conventional medicine. It is notable that the aforementioned British Medical Acupunture Society fails to mention the metaphysical implications of acupuncture on their website, and actually makes a conspicuous error in effectively denying them. The section is entitled "Medical education", not "Criticism of accupuncture". The points in the first sentence regarding concerns about efficacy, direct harm, and indirect harm have already been stated previously in the article (see Alternative_medicine#Criticism_of_alternative_medicine). I assume that the "British Medical Acupunture [sic] Society" was offered only as an example of education offered in alternative medicine, so it's a bit irrelevant to rebut acupuncture claims here. Can an someone suggest why these comments should stay here and not be moved to acupuncture? Edwardian 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: they don't belong in acupuncture either: see the section below.PhatRita 18:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that, too. I wanted them out of here and thought I could "pass the buck". Edwardian 07:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Medical education"

message: I suggest combining the subsections entitled "In the US and UK", "Around the world", and "Rising use of alternative medicine" (a total of 7 sentences) into one section, then moving that section to immediately before or immediately after the section entitled "Legality and regulation". Thoughts? Objections? Edwardian 06:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well wikipedia english is mainly uk and us and rising use of alternative medicine is a different topic heading in itself, so I disagree with that idea. I do agree with placing it after legality and regualtion PhatRita 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought was that the three subsections each reflect "usage of alternative medicine", and could easily be combined into one concise paragraph. I'll leave them as subsections, but move them as noted above. Edwardian 04:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Contemporary use of alternative medicine"

message: From: This can be a particular issue in the treatment of children and individuals whose capacity to evaluate the treatment is impaired, and of animals.
To:  This can be a particular issue in the treatment of individuals whose capacity to evaluate the treatment is impaired.
Reason: The issue of children (and animals!) not being able to make an informed decision is not unique to alternative therapies. Are there any objections to this change? Edwardian 00:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes your reason does not appear to make a case.Geni 01:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Edwardian, I don't get your point? The current wording does not imply: that children not being able to make an informed decision is unique. It is saying "children AND individuals whose capacitiy . . . etc... ".  Note the use of the word "AND". dave 07:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Issues of informed consent are not unique to AM. The sentence doesn't really need to stay. Edwardian 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion change in section entitled "Safety issues"

message: I don't think I'm qualified to edit the article, and it's probably been said before, so I'll just post this here. For some reason, I have never heard of an "alternative" treatment used to treat  trauma. Why is this? Am I missing something? Alternative medicine only seems to address the rather nebulous issue of disease. When did the last N.D. fix up a gunshot wound or a lacerated, bleeding liver from a car accident victim? Can a chiropractor reassemble a compound-fractured leg or remove an icepick from someones brain? etc. etc. etc. It is the 21'st century, after all. Surely there's "natural" "cures" for these traumas, are there not??  
If they could actually do anything they wouldn't be called "alternative;" "alternative" is a euphemism for all these quacks thatthe Establishment won't endorse because they can't prove them effective, but people flock to because they can't be proven ineffective. Then in this case "alternative" is a euphemism for "fringe." It's fringe versus mainstream, pseudoscience versus science. If alternative medicine could be shown effective, it would become mainstream and cease to be "alternative" even though it would be "an alternative" in the proper sense of the word, which is to say an different yet equally valid option. The trouble is these pseudo/pre-scientific practices aren't equal, they are often ineffective and/or directly or indirectly harmful.
Maprovonsha172 01:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trauma 

message: The purpose of Wiki is not to accommodate everyone's opinion on everything. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:. Edwardian 06:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Regarding: "In the UK no medical schools offer courses teaching courses in clinical practise of alternative medicine." Is there an extra word or two in there? Edwardian 05:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well the sentence means "no medical schools offer courses which teach the clinical practise of alternative medicine". that would probably be a lot better. PhatRita 21:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Medical education"

message: What do you guys think? Edwardian 04:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Edwardian 03:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive?