User talk:Arion 3x3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
2006-2007 2008

[edit] grammar

Thank you dear editor Arion 3x3 for your grammar revision of the article about the magnum opus The RCC; I am truly glad this aid came from a Physician! I am now going to do a break from Wikipedia's editions, which I am not able to garantee if to be a definitive break. Best wishes into your constructive efforts and may you have a fine 2008 new year. Best regards, --Tekto9 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] abstracts

I noticed "... I did post 3 short excerpts from 3 abstracts of laboratory research indicating there were definite measureable biological effects elicited by homeopathic remedies at the 200C level (no molecules left) which could not be explained away by placebo effect..." at the COI thing. Could you point me to that reference? Is the material published, pending review, submitted...? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, here are links to 3 research studies in recent years that indicated that homeopathic preparations, even at the 200C level, have significant biological effects on test animals using objective measurement parameters.:

"Efficacy of the potentized drug, Carcinosin 200 fed alone and in combination with another drug - Chelidonium 200, in Amelioration of p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene- induced Hepatocarcinogenisis in Mice." [1]) (full text pdf: [2])

"A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice." [3] (full text pdf: [4])

"Supportive Evidence for the Anticancerous Potential of Alternative Medicine against Hepatocarcinogenesis in Mice" [5] (full text pdf: [6])

(I corrected the above links, now that the Homeopathy talk section has just been archived).

I believe that this research data should not be dismissed or ignored, and that we should include this information, with the reference citations, in a section titled Homeopathic research in the Homeopathy article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(from my Talk, in reference to exactly the above) Thanks for the reply. The links, at the Homeopathy talk to which you link, are to intermediate sources of questionable reliability; the Journal of Verterinary Medicine is a good reference, but the citation is to Bill's Blog (whatever), which presumably in turn cites the JVM. We should cite the reputable sources when possible. However, that said, it led me to this: NIH published material which is definitely a good reference (all else being equal; sometimes big mistakes get published by reputable journals, and are retracted or corrected later). So material exists for you to pursue. I'll repost this at your Talk, because I'm intested in you picking a specific claim and source, not me :-) but I'd prefer a more direct reference, as in my example. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Judging by some of your recent comments on the New Age talk page, I thought the following discussion might be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Scholarly_sources_vs._news_sources. Cheers, Jayen466 13:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)