#1  
Old 04-27-2010, 06:37 AM
athletic dept's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 343
athletic dept will become famous soon enough
Default What's going on at Wikipedia?

What's Going on at WIKIPEDIA?
Do You Detect Any Bias Against Nutritional Medicine?


(OMNS, Apr 26, 2010) Wikipedia is a popular internet site for those seeking information on a very wide variety of subjects. What is unique about it is that anyone, it is said, can contribute to or edit its content. The Orthomolecular Medicine News Service has received complaints from readers who have tried, and failed, to correct what they think are a number of strongly biased declarations at the Wikipedia page on Orthomolecular Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine .
Here are some of those statements. (Emphasis added.) How many do you agree with?
"(T)he broad claims made by advocates of megavitamin therapy are considered unsubstantiated by available medical evidence. Critics have described some aspects of orthomolecular medicine as food faddism or quackery. Research suggests that some nutritional supplements might be harmful; several specific vitamin therapies are associated with an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, or death."
"In the early 20th century, some doctors hypothesized that vitamins could cure disease, and supplements were prescribed in megadoses by the 1930s. Their effects on health were disappointing, though, and in the 1950s and 60s, nutrition was de-emphasized in standard medical curricula."
"Amongst the individuals claimed posthumously as orthomolecularists are Max Gerson, who developed a diet that he claimed could treat diseases, but which is now thought to be ineffective and dangerous."
"Niacin has no known efficacy in psychiatric disease."
"(Dr. Abram) Hoffer believed that particular nutrients could cure mental illness. In the 1950s, he attempted to treat schizophrenia with niacin."
"Orthomolecular therapies have been criticized as lacking a sufficient evidence base for clinical use: their scientific foundations are too weak, the studies that have been performed are too few and too open to interpretation, and reported positive findings in observational studies are contradicted by the results of more rigorous clinical trials. Accordingly, 'there is no evidence that orthomolecular medicine is effective.'"
"The lack of scientifically rigorous testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific. It has been described as food faddism and quackery, with critics arguing that it is based upon an 'exaggerated belief in the effects of nutrition upon health and disease.'"
"The claims made by orthomolecular medicine proponents have been rejected by the medical community as unsubstantiated or false; as of 2009, current evidence does not support the efficacy of orthomolecular medicine in treating any disease."
"Barrie Cassileth, an adviser on alternative medicine to the National Institutes of Health, stated that "scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease," and medical textbooks also report that there is "no evidence that megavitamin or orthomolecular therapy is effective in treating any disease."
"The American Academy of Pediatrics labeled orthomolecular medicine a "cult" in 1976, in response to claims that orthomolecular medicine could cure childhood psychoses and learning disorders."
"(O)rthomolecular medicine can cause harm and is often very expensive."
"Further clinical studies show no benefit of vitamin E supplements for cardiovascular disease."
"Several orthomolecular related AIDS approaches such as multivitamins, selenium and amino acids are used with reported improvements in patients, which are attributed to the placebo effect."
As you read the full article, you may find more statements that you think are biased, or that you may agree with. Either way, your input to Wikipedia is invited. And, perhaps, very much needed.
The problem, according to our sources, is that when interested people have tried to correct biased or even derogatory Wikipedia statements, their contributions and edits have been immediately eliminated and overwritten.
If you would like to verify whether this is true or not, please go directly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine and make whatever corrections you think are needed in order for the Orthomolecular Medicine page to be more accurate.
Then check Wikipedia again in a few days.
We would welcome your sharing your Wikipedia experiences with us: [email protected] A sampling of readers' comments will appear in a future OMNS release.


Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: https://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.


Editorial Review Board:
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, PhD (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: [email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-27-2010, 06:57 AM
saved1986's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,652
saved1986 will become famous soon enoughsaved1986 will become famous soon enough
Default

That sucks! I remember an article 10 yrs ago by the U of Minnesota school of medicine that said Vit E is very helpful in cardio disease. many other studies say the same and how many people have you ever heard about , read about or know have had any issues what so ever with vit E! I bet ZERO! How many people do you know personally who have had issues with statins? I bet you know at least one if not more.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-27-2010, 07:59 AM
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern Ky.
Posts: 2,063
EarlyBird is on a distinguished road
Angry

Sure sounds biased to me!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-27-2010, 08:14 AM
saved1986's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,652
saved1986 will become famous soon enoughsaved1986 will become famous soon enough
Default

Athletic dept: I am on a board occsisionally for those living and doing travels to costa rica. There is an MD who lives there and is on the board. Whenever anyone asks a med question, I usually respond with a nat med treatment. Once I mentioned Andrew Weil recommends this herb. A guy pm'd me the next day saying I really pissed off the doc on the board because she is extremely anti Andrew Weil.

Secondly, in the 90s I would go to these macrobiotic dinners and the macro instructor would get a kick out of all these doctors who had cancer and refused chemo and radiation and would come to him for macro advice.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-27-2010, 08:32 AM
saved1986's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,652
saved1986 will become famous soon enoughsaved1986 will become famous soon enough
Default

https://www.doctoryourself.com/heartdisease.html
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-27-2010, 10:06 AM
Arrowwind09's Avatar
Standing at the Portal
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,563
Arrowwind09 will become famous soon enoughArrowwind09 will become famous soon enough
Default

I posted one to wikipedia once Ozone therapy providing references on studies and hospitals that use ozone. It was booted in short order. Since then I have learned to read their articles carefully before using them as a reference.

They are big pharma biased, but I think that is likely only because most of the quote intellectuals unquote are from major universities and not necessarily pharmaceutical industries, at least that is the impression I got, but who knows what extreme a pharaceutical company may go to

Nothing like a well studied intellectual go get you off track.
__________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Marcus Aurelius
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2010, 09:19 AM
athletic dept's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 343
athletic dept will become famous soon enough
Default

Widespread Condemnation of Wikipedia Bias
Readers Report Suppression of Nutritional Medicine


(OMNS, May 3, 2010) The public has something to say about a lack of objectivity at the Wikipedia page on Orthomolecular Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine :
One reader writes:
"I created a Wikipedia account to learn to edit in order to keep the orthomolecular side straight. If you check edits under CSC 42 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CSC_42 you'll notice that after hours of editing, my edits have nearly all been replaced by original posts. Looks to be an edit war."
Another reader attempted to add the following text, unsuccessfully:
"Diseases that are accepted by conventional medicine to be the result of vitamin or other nutrient deficiencies are: scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, rickets, tetany, osteoporosis, goiter, Keshan disease, and iron deficiency anemia."
Here is some of the other correspondence that OMNS has received:
Australia:
"It is clear that Wikipedia authors are biased against orthomolecular medicine. Those of us who use ascorbate and other vitamins in high doses know better. The science behind the use of vitamins as recommended by orthomolecular physicians and researchers is very well established. https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v02n02.shtml There are many hundreds of MDs, naturopaths, nutritionists and others who successfully treat patients with mega doses. And there are many thousands of well educated people who use the same on their own."
United Kingdom:
"Wikipedia? Rubbish! I don't care what anyone writes about orthomolecular medicine. I use it and it has served me well." https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n11.shtml
"Homeopaths are experiencing the same bias on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy When a person posts truth about how homeopathy works, or bona fide research into the effects of homeopathic medicine, it is immediately changed to lies. I suspect that it is the same for virtually any form of natural medicine."
France:
"There is no doubt in my mind that there is an organized campaign against orthomolecular research. In my experience there is one way to defeat them, and that is to do like you have done in this newsletter: let a hundred thousand eyes search for the truth." https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml
California:
"For over three years after being diagnosed with chronic lymphatic leukemia I have been receiving 100,000 milligrams of vitamin C intravenously, twice a week. My oncologist is extremely impressed that my white blood level has maintained a healthy level. My treatments have now been reduced to one treatment per week. I feel strong, have a great sense of well being, and I have had no ill effects from this mode of treatment." https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n09.shtml and https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n19.shtml
Nebraska:
"Having headed up the research centers for several national medically-related corporations, I have reviewed articles at the Wikipedia site quite a large number of times in recent years and have long been familiar with its strong biased reports disseminated quite widely throughout their system. Their extreme negative spin has convinced me that there is a no-win status in trying to influence them." https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n02.shtml
Minnesota:
"Creating a Wikipedia for natural medicine is the only way to ensure accurate data on the subject. I am not sure how we would manage data from Big Pharma backed authors." https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n02.shtml
South Carolina:
"I have noticed an almost universal Wikipedia bias against any form of alternative medicine, and against those who have well documented and reasonable concerns about the safety and efficacy of many practices of the pharmaceutical companies, especially vaccinations. ( https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n17.shtml and https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n06.shtml ) This attitude goes against the Wiki spirit that truth should be distilled through the process of debate. When labels like "quack" are thrown around so freely, when statements such as "these claims are not verified by science" (meaning the reigning establishment, of course), it does not lead to healthy debate and exposes the ignorance of those who must resort to name calling rather than intelligent conversation. There seems to be a power complex behind what was meant to be a public arena."
Elsewhere in USA:
"Wikipedia editors that have a long history of maintaining an article keep tabs on the content. After reading the article it seems quite clear that those holding a negative viewpoint have won the battle. The only way to get the article to be more neutral is to propose a change and cite peer-reviewed references in the Discussion tab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine . It is quite educational to read the existing Discussion to get a feel for the players involved and what their objections are likely to be."
A registered nurse writes:
"Wikipedia bias? Oh well, that leaves more great supplements for the rest of us!"
Allan N. Spreen, M.D.:
"The biggest objectivity problem with Wikipedia is that by its very concept, nothing can be trusted in any of the information. Bias is implicit. If they see something they don't like, they can remove it, without reference to qualifications. That's why I never use Wikipedia."
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D.:
"The old war is still intense. Wikipedia's account of Orthomolecular Medicine makes me regret that pharmaceutical medicine's stubborn defense of its practices can only be bolstered by attacking the enemy. Yet rarely does a week go by but "Medscape" warns physicians of a new "black box" label attached to a drug, due to bad side-effects. What is "normal" vitamin intake? Five to seven pesticide-laden fruit and vegetable servings a day, and processed foods virtually devoid of nutrients?"
Erik Paterson, M.D.:
"The Wikipedia account of Orthomolecular Medicine is quite misleading. Dr. Roger J. Williams https://www.doctoryourself.com/rjwilliams.html found there to be a wide range of variations in human biochemistry and need for nutrients, work which has never been refuted. Mainstream medical scientists and doctors do not take such variability into account when considering the nutritional requirements of patients. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of the individual nutrients only provides enough to prevent the deficiency diseases in healthy people but offers nothing about the requirements of people who are ill. https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n10.shtml Orthomolecular physicians take the specialized nutritional needs of sick patients into account. Drugs, best described as deadly poisons given in sublethal doses, cannot be considered safe, since, in the USA alone, well over 100,000 patients per year die from the toxic effects of drugs given according to the manufacturers' recommendations. By contrast, deaths due to vitamins given in doses far higher than the RDA is zero https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n04.shtml ."
Interested readers may contribute to the Wikipedia Orthomolecular Medicine page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine .
Or can they?


Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: https://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.


Editorial Review Board:
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, PhD (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: [email protected]
__________________
Doctors give drugs of which they know little,
into bodies, of which they know less,
for diseases of which they know nothing at all.
Voltaire
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2010, 10:17 AM
Guide
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: In my head
Posts: 495
u&iraok will become famous soon enough
Default

Wikipedia is known to be a Skeptic hangout. (Skeptics are a group who are vehemently Anti-Alternative Medicine.) Stephen Barrett from Quackwatch has editors on Wikipedia. I ran into a few once on a non-health website. Or they were at least information gatherers. They were young, probably in their 20's, known for spending long amounts of time at the computer, somewhat proud of being Wiki editors and rabidly anti-alternative medicine. I got the feeling they were being used as grunts but didn't know it. Also Freelancers and Bloggers have been hired by the pharmaceutical industry and others to edit there.

From WikiSynergy:

Quote:
This is a partial list of editors of Wikipedia who have gained prominence by helping to ensure that Wikipedia articles are written from the skeptical point of view (as opposed to Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View).
The extent to which the active skeptical editors vote and speak as a group is extraordinary. The true flavor is hard to get without reading a number of Wikipedia discussions, votes, and edit histories. In general, they function as a loosely organized voting/editing block to bias articles and to attack, harass and drive away editors who disagree with them. Testimony to this effect is easy to come by, but the most vehement statements are mostly in private email. The group also drives away moderate skeptics (also confirmed by email). One example is DGG, a moderate skeptic who has stated his opposition on Wikipedia.[1
One of the Skeptic editors is Paul Lee. From WikiSynergy:

Quote:
BullRangifer[5] is the Wikipedia username of Paul Lee, PT, a physical therapist and skeptic who was for many years an anti-quackery activist, but who has slowed such activities in recent years. His primary interest as a skeptic is alternative medicine and health fraud, especially the field of chiropractic. Although a skeptic of the paranormal, he rarely deals with paranormal subjects. He has shifted his focus of interest from activism on websites and discussion groups to editing Wikipedia. He has never been a member of any skeptical organization, but does receive the Brights movement newsletter, as well as the Consumer Health Digest, Randigram, and some other email newsletters.
A quote from Lee:

Quote:
"It is proposed that pro-science editors refrain from editing all controversial scientific and health articles from February 1 until March 1, 2008. Let the cranks, kooks, and fringe editors have a field day. This demonstration should make the front page of the New York Times..."

Last edited by u&iraok; 05-03-2010 at 12:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-11-2010, 10:48 AM
athletic dept's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 343
athletic dept will become famous soon enough
Default

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, May 11, 2010

The Hidden Wikipedia:
How to Find Deleted Material about Nutritional Medicine


(OMNS, May 11, 2010) There is nothing quite like a paper trail, and Wikipedia has one. Consequently, you can read for yourself all the material that has been added, and then deleted.
For example: Wikipedia's page about Max Gerson, M.D., is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Gerson . The doctor is widely known for the nutritional cancer therapy that bears his name. Gerson's principal biographer is his grandson, Howard Straus https://www.doctoryourself.com/gersonbio.htm . Mr. Straus tells the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service of some interesting experiences he has had with Wikipedia bias:
"Some years ago, on seeing that the pages for Dr. Max Gerson and the Gerson Therapy were only stubs (short place-holders with little information on them), I took it upon myself to flesh out the pages. I thought Wikipedia was fairly neutral on balance, so I put in all the information that I could, and kept it factual with references, citations, and literature links.
"Within a month, the following had happened:
"The information was labeled as "biased" and "unreliable" because I am Dr. Gerson's grandson and biographer. There appeared a big red flag at the top of the article labeling the articles neutrality "dubious." The photograph I posted was removed. Provable, referenced facts, with dates and places, all suddenly became "claims," even quotes from no less than Nobel Laureate Albert Schweitzer, M.D., who famously said: "I see in Dr. Max Gerson one of the most eminent geniuses in medical history." Dr. Schweitzer and his wife were patients of Dr. Gerson, making this a first-hand account from a rather reliable source.
"All my links, references and citations were removed. They were replaced by links to the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute, which offer only criticism of the Gerson Therapy. Even quotations from published scientific papers were removed. Attempts to rectify these actions were immediately overwritten.
"It's easy enough to show the progression of the pages, since Wikipedia displays former edits on request, dated and documented. One can verify this by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the Max Gerson page, and looking at 2005 and before. My editing is archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.109.140.164 and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Howard_Straus
"A second Wikipedia page, specific to the Gerson Therapy, has been completely removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerson_therapy&redirect=no . To see something of what happened, you can click the "History" tab here as well."
The OMNS adds just one other intriguing statement about Dr. Gerson's work that is probably too "unreliable" to be seen on Wikipedia:
"I know of one patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been told she was suffering from terminal cancer and would not survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven years later, she is alive and well. So it is vital that, rather than dismissing such experiences, we should further investigate the beneficial nature of these treatments." (H.R.H. Charles, Prince of Wales)
Max Gerson is not the only nutritionally-oriented physician whose work is slanted or censored at Wikipedia. Others include Matthias Rath, M.D., and Robert F. Cathcart III, M.D.
Matthias Rath, M.D.
Dr. Rath coauthored a number of papers with Linus Pauling. (1-8) They discussed high-dose vitamin therapy for cardiovascular disease. To see what is going on at Wikipedia concerning him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthias_Rath
Paul Anthony Taylor, a supporter of Dr. Rath, comments: "Instead of providing free access to the sum of all human knowledge, as is its supposed aim, Wikipedia would appear to be just another way of supporting the scientific, political and social status quo. In a sense, however, the game is already up for Wikipedia. The official exams watchdog in the UK, Ofqual, recently stated that schoolchildren should avoid it as it is not "authoritative or accurate" and in some cases "may be completely untrue" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6943325/Schoolchildren-told-to-avoid-Wikipedia.html Believe it or not, one of Wikipedia's contributors is the CIA, and they are not just updating their own entries, either. https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/16/2007049.htm When it comes to nutritional therapies, you won't currently find much of it on Wikipedia."
Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.
The Wikipedia page for this physician has been deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Cathcart
Why? Because Dr. Cathcart "does not meet notability criteria per WP:BIO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO " and "a quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject."
Indeed? It appears that someone was not looking. Orthopedic surgeon Robert F. Cathcart III is the inventor of the Cathcart Elliptical Orthocentric Endoprosthesis, a replacement hip-ball joint still in widespread use today after 37 years. https://www.orthomed.com/pros.pdf Some physicians report it to be superior to other similar devices. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2661497 That alone qualifies him as notable, and invalidates the deletion of his page at Wikipedia. In addition, Linus Pauling personally singled out Dr. Cathcart for recognition for his nutritional knowledge as early as 1978. (9)
Possibly, just possibly, the real reason Dr. Cathcart is deleted from Wikipedia has much more to do with his outspoken advocacy of very high doses of vitamin C to treat viral illnesses. https://www.doctoryourself.com/cathcart_thirdface.html and either https://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html or https://www.orthomed.com/titrate.htm
Here is all the deleted material on Dr. Cathcart: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Cathcart&action=history
Take a look and decide for yourself.
For More Information:
Max Gerson, M.D.
Complete bibliography of Dr. Gerson's publications: https://www.doctoryourself.com/bib_gerson.html
Extensive list of papers about the Gerson Therapy: https://www.doctoryourself.com/bib_gerson_therapy.html
For free access to a documentary on the Gerson Therapy: https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7357629140536485998
A review of this film, from J Orthomolecular Med, 2006: https://www.doctoryourself.com/gersonmovie.html
Additional Reading:
https://www.doctoryourself.com/gersontherapy.html
https://www.doctoryourself.com/charlotte.html
Matthias Rath, M.D.
Papers coauthored with Linus Pauling:
1. Rath M, Pauling L. Immunological evidence for the accumulation of lipoprotein(a) in the atherosclerotic lesion of the hypoascorbemic guinea pig. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Dec;87(23):9388-90. PMID: 2147514
2. Rath M, Pauling L. Hypothesis: lipoprotein(a) is a surrogate for ascorbate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Aug;87(16):6204-7. Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Dec 5;88(24):11588. PMID: 2143582
3. Rath M, Pauling L. Solution To the Puzzle of Human Cardiovascular Disease: Its Primary Cause Is Ascorbate Deficiency Leading to the Deposition of Lipoprotein(a) and Fibrinogen/Fibrin in the Vascular Wall. J Orthomolecular Med, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 1991, p 125.
4. Pauling L, Rath M. An Orthomolecular Theory of Human Health and Disease. J Orthomolecular Med, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 1991, p 135.
5. Rath M, Pauling L. Apoprotein(a) Is An Adhesive Protein. J Orthomolecular Med, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 1991, p 139.
6. Rath M, Pauling L. Case Report: Lysine/Ascorbate Related Amelioration of Angina Pectoris. J Orthomolecular Med, Vol 6, 3&4th Quarters, 1991, p 144.
7. Rath M, Pauling L. A Unified theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease Leading the Way To the Abolition of This Diseases As A Cause for Human Mortality. J Orthomolecular Med, Vol 7, First Quarter 1992, p 5.
8. Rath M, Pauling L. Plamin-induced Proteolysis and the Role of Apoprotein(a), Lysine and Synthetic Lysine Analogs. J Orthomolecular Med, Vol 7, First Quarter 1992, p 17.
Dr. Rath's Assessment of Wikipedia: https://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/wiki_rath/how_the_facts_arent_welcome_on_wikipedia.html
Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.
Reference 9. Pauling L. Robert Fulton Cathcart, III, M.D., an orthomolecular physician. The Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine Newsletter, 1(4):1-3 Fall 1978. Free download of article: https://www.orthomed.com/PDF/pauling.pdf
Short biography of Dr. Cathcart: https://orthomolecular.org/hof/2008/cathcart.html His extensive website on vitamin C therapeutics: https://www.orthomed.com/ Bibliography of his publications with links to full-text articles: https://www.doctoryourself.com/biblio_cathcart.html


Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: https://www.orthomolecular.org
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:36 AM
athletic dept's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 343
athletic dept will become famous soon enough
Default

Wikipedia Bias: Now You Can Do Something About It

Leaving Online Feedback is Quick and Easy

(OMNS, Aug 17, 2011) If you have been interested in what appears to be bias against nutritional medicine at Wikipedia, you now can comment about it online. No sign-in or registration is required.
At the very bottom of most Wikipedia pages, there now is a "Rate This Page" survey box, where you may click to leave feedback as to whether it is "trustworthy," "objective," "complete" or "well-written."
Among the Wikipedia pages that have been widely criticized for incompleteness, incompetence, or outright bias are those on:
Max Gerson, M.D., and the Gerson Therapy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Gerson
Orthomolecular Medicine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine
Orthomolecular Psychiatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_psychiatry
Abram Hoffer, M.D.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Hoffer
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Orthomolecular_Medicine
FoodMatters documentary film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Matters
OMNS readers are invited to look at these and other related pages and decide for themselves how to respond.
Why should you? Wikipedia is an extremely popular internet resource, visited by millions. Persons unfamiliar with nutritional medicine tend to uncritically accept what they read there, unaware that it may be false or misleading. Reporting inaccuracy and bias will help make Wikipedia a lot more trustworthy than it currently is.
To submit your evaluation with just a couple of clicks, scroll all the way down any Wikipedia page to the "Rate This Page" section. You can also click "View Page Ratings" to see how others have voted. No personal information is collected.
Previous OMNS Reporting on Wikipedia Bias against Nutritional Medicine:

What's Going on at WIKIPEDIA? Do you detect any bias against nutritional medicine? Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, April 26, 2010.
https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n14.shtml
Widespread Condemnation of Wikipedia Bias: Readers report suppression of nutritional medicine. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, May 3, 2010.
https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n16.shtml
The Hidden Wikipedia: How to find deleted material about nutritional medicine. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, May 11, 2010.
https://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n18.shtml


Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: https://www.orthomolecular.org
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-18-2011, 06:12 AM
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern Ky.
Posts: 2,063
EarlyBird is on a distinguished road
Question

I've never used Wikipedia for anything & after reading all of this sure won't for any natural health info.
I wonder just how many Big Pharma contacts & payola crappo is going on there?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-18-2011, 06:05 PM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,815
pinballdoctor is on a distinguished road
Default

Big Pharma has a finger in every pie, including wikipedia.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-18-2011, 10:16 PM
Arrowwind09's Avatar
Standing at the Portal
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,563
Arrowwind09 will become famous soon enoughArrowwind09 will become famous soon enough
Default

So I just went to their page for Ozone therapy and found it failry credible, at least compared to what they had up there before. It is still riddled with errors IMHO, but better, much better than before. I think this opinion poll and the ability to make comments may move wikapedia forward.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-19-2011, 04:55 PM
ozzie's Avatar
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: australia
Posts: 624
ozzie will become famous soon enough
Default

I have just gone to most of those links on wikipedia, to leave a comment, and guess what?I just get an error message, typical of wikipedia.
Reply With Quote
Reply Bookmark and Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wikipedia’s Anti-Natural Health Slant.. pinballdoctor General Discussions 4 09-16-2010 06:14 AM
Wikipedia - fact or fiction? Marcus Chitchat 11 08-29-2006 09:52 AM