User talk:Politas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A welcome from Sputnik

Hi, Politas, Welcome to Wikipedia!

- СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiproject

Hi politas, nice shot of the Canberra hospital! Would you be interested in joining the wikiproject Canberra, a project for Canberra related articles -- Astrokey44|talk 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADF Command Image

Thanks for alerting me to my incorrect use of a technical phrase. I've since corrected this. --Nick Dowling 07:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks [1]--E-Bod 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic medicine

Hi Myk, apologies for the mistake, I meant to say in the edit summary that naturopathic medicine is not necessarily the same as Alternative medicine. You said: Many "alternative medicine" practitioners are known to make excessive claims of scope and effectiveness for their treatments. - that comment would have been be better placed in the article on Alternative medicine.

Naturopathic physicians in the US and some in other countries are state-registered and therefore well regulated and not allowed to make claims that are "excessive". It is true that there are practitioners who call themselves naturopaths who are not registered with a regulating body, and that point should be made strongly.

Amongst the criticism of homeopathy, the Homeopathy article also quotes the BMJ: the researchers found 22 high-caliber studies, 15 of which showed that homeopathic medicines were effective. and: The meta-analysis on homeopathy concluded, "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications. - It's a bit heavy-handed to say Many naturopathic modalities have not been proven to be effective (eg homeopathy). Perhaps you could be a bit more NPOV when making broadly generalising comments like this.

I welcome your contributions, and the Naturopathic medicine article does need some work, but please give some thought to the subject matter of the article and balance of statements. --apers0n 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BMJ article is mentioned here and the link to the article is PMID 1825800 --apers0n 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if one only looks at the conclusions of the abstract, it does not appear positive overall, however the abstract also states: The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. - how does one account for so many positive results in so many trials? On balance homoeopathy was 'proven' to work 81 times, and to not work 24 times. I do not have access to the full study, so I tend to trust the people who do and who have reported it in the article.

This type of discussion would probably be more appropriate in Talk:Homeopathy, and also see: User_talk:Homy. --apers0n 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But neither could they say how many positive trials were started and then abandoned for that matter... --apers0n 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, although as I said before, the correct place to discuss that would be on the Homoeopathy page or it's talk page, rather than making a sweeping generalisation in another article. --apers0n 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

You are invited to the next Canberra Meetup 10th November 2007, 2:30pm, Old Parliament House Cafe This box: view • talk • edit

Graeme Bartlett 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)