Talk:Alliance for Natural Health

POV
This artice seems to have been written from a non-neutral point of view. There is plenty of factual and referenced content, such as the information on the failed legal challenges, but the fundamental issue is never confronted: that the organisation campaigns for potent drugs to be sold without regulation if they are arbitrarily designated "natural".

(Or, alternatively, that the organisation campaigns for ineffective substances to be sold without regulation.) Steve Graham (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To support your POV and enable you to add content to this effect, you will need appropriate references per WP:V. Otherwise, your assertions will contravene WP:NOR. Vitaminman (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the nonneutral perspective, based on (as mentioned above) the amount of factual content and the citations. The statement that is made above as the “fundamental issue” seems to be more biased than the rest of the article. I am actually concerned about the labelling of the article as possibly nonneutral, without an author’s strong opinions expressed in the article itself (though opinions of the organization and its executive director are stated, they are placed in a section clearly labelled as such, and are relevant to someone searching for information on the organization). That label itself seems to me a bit biased. 108.35.203.98 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Marches On
"The ANH runs campaigns in favor of dietary supplements, "sustainable healthcare", and traditional medicinal cultures..."

"Speaking at the inaugural "Scientific Research in Homoeopathy" conference held by the Complementary Medical Association..."

Nice sneer-quotes!

We get it, we get it! There is NO SUCH THING as sustainable healthcare, and there is NO SUCH THING as scientific research in homeopathy.

Point made!

50.141.12.130 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Alliance for Natural Health USA with Alliance for Natural Health
It is the same organization with some of the same topics. Editing both ot these is likely to lead to old or mis-information on one or the other article. Also, citations are needed. Akrasia25 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose; it seems that the US organization is quite active, and acting quite independently on many issues. Their websites are distinct, and it seems sufficient on Wikipedia to keep the pages well-linked. Klbrain (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)