Talk:Conventional medicine/Archive 1

Conventional medicine (CM) vs. Alternative medicine: (AM)
Request for comments

Untitled
21 critical, disputed and operational issues to be addressed in the definition of CM vs AM :


 * (01).  mainstream   (central tendency) vs. variability (complementarity .) Legislators found it useful to coin "Complementary and Alternative Medicine'' (CAM) for the purpose of advanced billing codes (ABC). This leads to confusion between CM (complementary medicine) and CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) ;
 * (02).  art  vs science (see alternative medicine talk page discussions here). Probably the old distinction between Western Medicine and Oriental Medicine and all de-relativization and politically correct issues have a place here ;
 * (03).  regulated   over free (board-endorsed or "dissident"). Yet another case for more litigation in the medical litigation industry;
 * (04).  experimental  vs magisterial (amico Plato sed magis amico veritas )
 * (05).  statistical   vs. individual (cohorts vs anecdotal case studies: FDA regulates medical practice exclusively with clinical studies, which clearly say nothing for a given individual who may as well die as an acceptable  collateral damage; on the other extreme you would perhaps not dismiss as anecdotal evidence an exotic and obscure drug which clearly cured your terminal cancer.)
 * (06).  touching   the patient vs remaining distant (clearly a tendency exists of replacing cases in all their complexity with numbers. Also see the hysteria about not touching kids in order to hunt possible pedophilia in medical personnel - a case for abusus non tollit usum  ?);
 * (07).  caveat emptor  vs quies custodiet ipsos custodes (see at CM text)
 * (08).  biomedicine   vs clinical experience, intuition and even feelings (in mainstream medicine the difference between good and bad doctors is still in this dilemma )
 * (09).  lawful  vs illegal (see Good Samaritan Acts - are novices and laymen  entitled or tolerated to dispense medical care if and when needed ? )
 * (10).  proven  vs accepted (this seems  to be a non-starter, since being foolproof by design  does not a dilemma make. However, the issue is serious, since there are AM practices which are proven and not accepted, and there are proven CM practices which do not work. See the British Pharmacopoea who was duly proven - and only thirty years later again  proven to contain 78% useless drugs. Moreover, AM practices so new that no expert has even started to design clever experiment protocols for validation, would never make it into  the debate. Thomas Kuhn must feel vindicated (for the record, he maintained, against Karl Popper that a whole generation must disappear before a scientific paradigm has a chance to live :)
 * (11).  falsifiability  vs. credibility (Incidentaly, Karl Popper, in a trend-setting epistemologic effort, determined that the main attribute of a good scientific theory is not its credibility, but, and cunningly, its falsifiability (see his famous "Logik der Forschung  - Logic of Scientific Research"). Indeed, the more degrees of liberty a theory has  in rejecting the (null ) hypothesis, the better that theory fits into a pattern of advancing knowledge. Ad absurdum, a non-falsifiable theory does not even deserve the name of theory. The Popper epistemologic criteria seem to have been forgotten by most medical regulation bodies, who require credentials first of all, perhaps in the epidemiological context of aggressive marketing.
 * (12)  admissibility   and confessio delicti. More than 50 % of the arbiters paid by the FDA to independently  assess a new medical drug or procedure are also players for our field day. Most of them are now known to have a direct financial interest in the object of their "independent" judgement (USA today published data - with the puerile admission that "there are - hold on your laugh - simply not enough numbers of highly esteemed experts to be employed"... :). Of course, this means nothing in principle for the logical content of our article here, but practically, does hardly qualify FDA as a tax-paid federal low-bias regulator. Moreover, research of big science  is sometimes so pushed  for by the interests of markets that criminal procedures are pulled  out from Pandora's box. The yearly published  top 100 confessed corporation criminals pleading guilty always contains the big fives  of the drug industry. The combined figure for fines paid, sometimes as high as 500,000,000 USD each, is five orders of magnitude higher than the research budget for AM. Even the operational costs  of the clinically dead Office Of Alternative Medicine is five figures below. It's really simple to see how this happens: Whoever worked in medical financial management like myself, would confirm that it is of course  more profitable to include such high costs (which still compare so unfavorably with profits) under the research budget items, and to perpetuate the confessio delicti  policies in the process. Last, but not least, the very process of new drug admission is biased by design, since marketing companies took over experimental design as if design drugs meant design procedures to validate them. A priori, AM is still too far from CM to be contaminated by the new  procedures.
 * (13)  myth of safety  and  myth of freedom of the press  issues: By our benevolent dictator Jim's own example (you know where, item # 1), you can't say anywhere in Wiki that corporations are criminals, even if they are. (Click here for a list of top 100 corporate criminals pleading guilty and fined as much as USD 500,000,000). Need not add that in excess of 100,000 people die each year in the USA as a direct consequence of side effects from FDA-endorsed drugs. Recently even the highly publicized FDA procedures are bypassed in the name of "Patriot Acts I and II" so that known dangerous vaccines might be sold and innoculated in a soon-to-become-mandatory nation-wide procedure. (It already happened in Gulf War I - for all but the French troops there - and except for the French, 78% of GW I veterans are now disabled as a direct consequence.) These are hard facts one can hardly ignore, especially when writing about CM vs. AM. These facts, and others, clearly throw the myth of consumer protection in conventional medicine over board, by any  standard. Also, by the published admission of the very CM board-edorsed doctors who have a legal obligation to hunt witches in the AM, we have this paradox: if one counts the victims of CM vs victims of AM, up to four orders of magnitude burst into anyone's eyes. Quite an interesting paradox from the hight of my own clinical experience. Reminds me of the safety obsessions in Sweden where the government compulsively evacuated the eskimos in an area of the remote north in order to avoid death from some meteoric or comet desintegration alert, only to find that helicopter medevac accidents increased the risk of mortality for the population thus "protected" some ten thousand times. As always, highly paid independent statistical, epidemiological and even medical experts determined  that such  risks were indeed acceptable in the general direction of Aristotle's actual  vs. potential  debate. Hmm. Talk about work in progress...

All these should perhaps be weighted against  the time-proven golden standard: patient's best interest. Now, having said all that, to me, as a seasoned, senior and indeed old practicing medical doctor (and after  my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator) the single most important fact about conventional medicine for the 21st American Century, is that it still exists. Sincerely, irismeister 11:03, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Highly POV-alert-prone positions
(these NEED not be discussed - left out by me on purpose )
 * 14. What people happen to believe is NOT a matter of objective fact, my own belief (and Jim's own belief) in stating this notwithstanding :)
 * 15. Drugging America Down to Death articles - inflammatory, needs not be quoted even as a POV;
 * 16. "Wisdom is finding alternatives".
 * 17. Species survival issues. Nothing lasts for ever;
 * 18. Licensure and re-licensure (procedures whereby boards make sure money is cut away from those who no longer reinforce big industry);
 * 19. Big science is no longer science. Drug industry now funds medical universities;
 * 20. "There isn't much left, your honor:)" Oldies and goldies - retired MDs encouraged to become alternative practitioners (when no financial security pressures exists for them any longer);
 * 21. Barrett is a proven quack paid by the drug industry for busting quacks!

Why detroy such a solid tradition in ALL medical articles ? Cut, and then talk
fabiform | talk, if you want discussions, discuss without rethorical questions. As long as this material grows old here without anybody caring to address the topic issues - please do not refrain, cut, and then talk :-) Happy cutting :-)

Prevention of loss of valuable data with the impending next cut
Conventional Medicine is that medicine which is officially promulgated by various mainstream national and international medical organizations. The "opposite" is Alternative medicine.

Attempted Consensual Definition
The Conventional  moiety in this definition of Medicine points to the absolute requirement of a prior convention existing between practitioners and a regulating body. However, the merits of the conventional  concept are close to nil since this is only an ad-hoc , operational definition required only by virtue of a logical need to accomodate Alternative medicine. Conventional medicine is really only medicine (and nothing else), as much as alternative medicine is medicine (no mainstream-dissident attributes added). There is a growing consensus between dispensors and receivers of medical care that only the patient's best interest should apply to the most general, acceptable definition, complete with attributes, of medicine per se.

The issue of protection  of either patients (if naive and under pressure from quacks), or the biomedical and drug industry (under pressure from the 15 billion dollar per year and growing alternative  market) is already addressed by the caveat emptor  principle of liberal economies. The issue of scientific control of the medical offer  is in balance with the principle of reciprocity in regulation, aka quies custodiet ipsos custodes  (who controls the controllers). Therefore, it has been argued (although not peremptorily) there is only one medicine - that medicine which is best for a given case at a given moment in time. Indeed, if regarded in context, the sum total of alternatives depends on the mainstream as much as it depends on some intrinsic variability, and the central tendency is such that the alternatives integrated over time yield zero.

''This article is a stub, created to help resolve an issue in Alternative medicine. Depending upon how the issue is resolved, this stub will either be expanded or deleted.''

The Conventional medicine (CM) vs. Alternative medicine Outstanding Debate: (AM)
Request for comments 21 critical, disputed and operational issues to be addressed in the definition of CM vs AM :


 * (01).  mainstream   (central tendency) vs. variability (complementarity .) Legislators found it useful to coin "Complementary and Alternative Medicine'' (CAM) for the purpose of advanced billing codes (ABC). This leads to confusion between CM (complementary medicine) and CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) ;
 * (02).  art  vs science (see alternative medicine talk page discussions here). Probably the old distinction between Western Medicine and Oriental Medicine and all de-relativization and politically correct issues have a place here ;
 * (03).  regulated   over free (board-endorsed or "dissident"). Yet another case for more litigation in the medical litigation industry;
 * (04).  experimental  vs magisterial (amico Plato sed magis amico veritas )
 * (05).  statistical   vs. individual (cohorts vs anecdotal case studies: FDA regulates medical practice exclusively with clinical studies, which clearly say nothing for a given individual who may as well die as an acceptable  collateral damage; on the other extreme you would perhaps not dismiss as anecdotal evidence an exotic and obscure drug which clearly cured your terminal cancer.)
 * (06).  touching   the patient vs remaining distant (clearly a tendency exists of replacing cases in all their complexity with numbers. Also see the hysteria about not touching kids in order to hunt possible pedophilia in medical personnel - a case for abusus non tollit usum  ?);
 * (07).  caveat emptor  vs quies custodiet ipsos custodes (see at CM text)
 * (08).  biomedicine   vs clinical experience, intuition and even feelings (in mainstream medicine the difference between good and bad doctors is still in this dilemma )
 * (09).  lawful  vs illegal (see Good Samaritan Acts - are novices and laymen  entitled or tolerated to dispense medical care if and when needed ? ). Also, is the government allowed to practice medicine without a license? The WVA Bill SB439, introduced by Senator Prezioso of Marion County and Senator Minard of Harrison County has already passed the Senate HHR Committee on February 19, 2004. It is expected to pass the Senate floor and House committees. Indeed, the WVA Bill will remove physicians' ability to exercise individual judgment for their patients, by forcing them to grant medical exemptions for only "commonly accepted practices." This is tantamount to the government practicing medicine without a license.
 * (10).  proven  vs accepted (this seems  to be a non-starter, since being foolproof by design  does not a dilemma make. However, the issue is serious, since there are AM practices which are proven and not accepted, and there are proven CM practices which do not work. See the British Pharmacopoea who was duly proven - and only thirty years later again  proven to contain 78% useless drugs. Moreover, AM practices so new that no expert has even started to design clever experiment protocols for validation, would never make it into  the debate. Thomas Kuhn must feel vindicated (for the record, he maintained, against Karl Popper that a whole generation must disappear before a scientific paradigm has a chance to live :)
 * (11).  falsifiability  vs. credibility (Incidentaly, Karl Popper, in a trend-setting epistemologic effort, determined that the main attribute of a good scientific theory is not its credibility, but, and cunningly, its falsifiability (see his famous "Logik der Forschung  - Logic of Scientific Research"). Indeed, the more degrees of liberty a theory has  in rejecting the (null ) hypothesis, the better that theory fits into a pattern of advancing knowledge. Ad absurdum, a non-falsifiable theory does not even deserve the name of theory. The Popper epistemologic criteria seem to have been forgotten by most medical regulation bodies, who require credentials first of all, perhaps in the epidemiological context of aggressive marketing.
 * (12)  admissibility   and confessio delicti. More than 50 % of the arbiters paid by the FDA to independently  assess a new medical drug or procedure are also players for our field day. Most of them are now known to have a direct financial interest in the object of their "independent" judgement (USA today published data - with the puerile admission that "there are - hold on your laugh - simply not enough numbers of highly esteemed experts to be employed"... :). Of course, this means nothing in principle for the logical content of our article here, but practically, does hardly qualify FDA as a tax-paid federal low-bias regulator. Moreover, research of big science  is sometimes so pushed  for by the interests of markets that criminal procedures are pulled  out from Pandora's box. The yearly published  top 100 confessed corporation criminals pleading guilty always contains the big fives  of the drug industry. The combined figure for fines paid, sometimes as high as 500,000,000 USD each, is five orders of magnitude higher than the research budget for AM. Even the operational costs  of the clinically dead Office Of Alternative Medicine is five figures below. It's really simple to see how this happens: Whoever worked in medical financial management like myself, would confirm that it is of course  more profitable to include such high costs (which still compare so unfavorably with profits) under the research budget items, and to perpetuate the confessio delicti  policies in the process. Last, but not least, the very process of new drug admission is biased by design, since marketing companies took over experimental design as if design drugs meant design procedures to validate them. A priori, AM is still too far from CM to be contaminated by the new  procedures.
 * (13)  myth of safety  and  myth of freedom of the press  issues: By our benevolent dictator Jim's own example (you know where, item # 1), you can't say anywhere in Wiki that corporations are criminals, even if they are. (Click here for a list of top 100 corporate criminals pleading guilty and fined as much as USD 500,000,000). Need not add that in excess of 100,000 people die each year in the USA as a direct consequence of side effects from FDA-endorsed drugs. Recently even the highly publicized FDA procedures are bypassed in the name of "Patriot Acts I and II" so that known dangerous vaccines might be sold and innoculated in a soon-to-become-mandatory nation-wide procedure. (It already happened in Gulf War I - for all but the French troops there - and except for the French, 78% of GW I veterans are now disabled as a direct consequence.) These are hard facts one can hardly ignore, especially when writing about CM vs. AM. These facts, and others, clearly throw the myth of consumer protection in conventional medicine over board, by any  standard. Also, by the published admission of the very CM board-edorsed doctors who have a legal obligation to hunt witches in the AM, we have this paradox: if one counts the victims of CM vs victims of AM, up to four orders of magnitude burst into anyone's eyes. Quite an interesting paradox from the hight of my own clinical experience. Reminds me of the safety obsessions in Sweden where the government compulsively evacuated the eskimos in an area of the remote north in order to avoid death from some meteoric or comet desintegration alert, only to find that helicopter medevac accidents increased the risk of mortality for the population thus "protected" some ten thousand times. As always, highly paid independent statistical, epidemiological and even medical experts determined  that such  risks were indeed acceptable in the general direction of Aristotle's actual  vs. potential  debate. Hmm. Talk about work in progress...

All these should perhaps be weighted against  the time-proven golden standard: patient's best interest. Now, having said all that, to me, as a seasoned, senior and indeed old practicing medical doctor (and after  my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator) the single most important fact about conventional medicine for the 21st American Century, is that it still exists. Sincerely, irismeister 11:03, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Highly POV-alert-prone positions
(these NEED not be discussed - left out by me on purpose )
 * 14. What people happen to believe is NOT a matter of objective fact, my own belief (and Jim's own belief) in stating this notwithstanding :)
 * 15. Drugging America Down to Death articles - inflammatory, needs not be quoted even as a POV;
 * 16. "Wisdom is finding alternatives".
 * 17. Species survival issues. Nothing lasts for ever;
 * 18. Licensure and re-licensure (procedures whereby boards make sure money is cut away from those who no longer reinforce big industry);
 * 19. Big science is no longer science. Drug industry now funds medical universities;
 * 20. "There isn't much left, your honor:)" Oldies and goldies - retired MDs encouraged to become alternative practitioners (when no financial security pressures exists for them any longer);
 * 21. Barrett is a proven quack paid by the drug industry for busting quacks!

CM "Service" Profiling Plaintiffs
Internet Database That Profiles Malpractice Plaintiffs SOURCE: Associated Press A consumer rights group Friday urged the Texas Medical Association to denounce an Internet database that profiles patients who have sued doctors for malpractice. Texas Watch said the profiling amounts to a blacklist. The Web site www.doctorsknow.us boasts of being the first company to profile plaintiffs, their lawyers and expert witnesses in malpractice lawsuits in Texas and other states. For $4.95 a month, the site invites doctors to use the service to "assess the risk of offering your services to clients or potential clients." A site slogan reads: '''"They can sue, but they can't hide." ''' Dan Lambe, executive director of Texas Watch, said the site is attempting to scare patients. "This type of blacklisting runs counter to the Hippocratic Oath to the ethical and moral goals and obligations of medical professionals," Lambe said. Dr. John Shannon Jones, a radiologist who created the database, could not be reached by The Associated Press for comment Friday (2004-03-05, my note - irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)). He told The Wall Street Journal that people who sue doctors are going to find their access to health care may be limited (my stress - irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)). "That's a harsh thing to say, but this is a war," said Jones, who has settled two malpractice cases. My Interesting times comment: Welcome to Orwell land! If you think you  were  mistreated by conventional medicine, you  will ! No more comment - Happy editing :O) irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

CM Using Dubious Vaccines
Dr Meryl Nass, MD, in a review of two major recent US vaccine fiascos, on an unprecedented national scale points out TEN documented reasons behind Bush Administration's plan for Buying 75 Million Doses Anthrax Vac For Public. My Interesting times comment: When the Government takes care of buddies more than constituencies, health of citizens and even laws, we're in for a complete review of CM practices by independent panels of time-proven and non-supressed clean evidence, judges and jurors.

Copying and pasting
Much of this was copied from Natural health, including parts of that article which are copied from http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.politics.medicine/msg02694.html and http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html. RickK | Talk 03:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What are your talking about, my attempt to start this article over or my latest addition? My addition is from:
 * http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/C/Criticisms-of-modern-medicine.htm
 * Which is something that I recall writing a month or two ago. I am, also, the author of the above links too. So, what precisely is the problem?
 * -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It pleases my heart to see what I had written for the Allopathy article, what was subsequently moved to Criticisms of modern medicine, and what was later voted on to be deleted and was actually deleted has now found a new home in conventional medicine. :)


 * It pleases me even more to learn that there are several duplicate copies of Wikipedia out there on the web with copies of Criticisms of modern medicine still in them, along with the other stuff that I have written. You can delete my work off of  Wikipedia, but not off of the Web it appears. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep! Even my stuff on medical scientism is out there bigger than ever! -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consensus Seeking, Anyone ?
The CM article and this page were created by a contributor of the AM discussion page, in an attempt to reach consensus. Its supression without addressing my own contributions is looming. All calls for loving care of the orphan issues have been ignored. Is anyone still interested in this debate, in lieu of ranting, right before the next impending deletion ? - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 14:23, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the only thing I see is an article named:conventional medicine. Who ever created it, chose its name as conventional medicine rather than Conventional medicine(Consensus-seeking). I have absolutely no interest in your nonsense called consensus. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem - irismeister 09:42, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)


 * It is *NOT* okay with me!


 * What I hate are people who not only are not part of the solution, they are THE problem.


 * Being you are the one who made this mess called conventional medicine, how about cleaning up your mess? Or, do you really expect somebody else to always do your thinking for you? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free, Mr President ! The Congress will only uses rubber stamps for your salutary acts in your enlightened crusade against the likes of me. I wonder why I was born in the first place, to complicate lives of genii doing the thinking for myself - Happy thinking and enlightened editing quand même ! - irismeister 15:03, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

So - i'm a very confused Newbie - at it's about bedtime here in Brisbane - this page is mostly illogical to from ranting and personal abuse. Is the gist that if we think it should go we just cut it out. There seemed to be about 300-600 words of some thought provoking, if alternative, views on conventional medicine practice. I'm happy to cut and clean - but it's radical surgery and not a lot will be left. Would that be a good thing - or is that rude? sorry genuine question - i am truly new! best wishes --Erich gasboy 15:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Erich, you are welcome ! This is a complicated debate, moved here from an even more complicated discussion from the iridology and alternative medicine pages, only in an attempt to cool down those blocked pages. Sorry if it looks confuse. Please feel free to bring light into this pile of rubble - Happy editing ! - irismeister 15:03, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)

Deleting Orphan Issues only Adds Injury to the Insult of Ignoring Them
OK, now with the deletions committed, who will EVER address them, once out ? Please remember that in the last four months, they have been cut, carried away and buried from the iridology, alternative medicine and now conventional medicine to this final (seventh) location. There was much research work invested in presenting the points made inside the article. Even fabiform, who had a deletetionist addiction, respected them. Now cutting them en bloc will only repeat the pattern of deletion-moving-under-the-carpet moves. I start wondering if anyone in Wiki is REALLY interested in serious medical information ? - Happy editing quand même :O)


 * Looks better now, at least in accomodation of deletions. Why is the MedWatch and why is the external link lost in the process ? And these are still bit-losing edits... As if, Look Ma, issues volatilize ! - - Happy editing quand même - irismeister 17:11, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)

Hi - i should say a bit about me to be fair! you may be guessing I'm on the conventional side - rather squarely really... but this is a debate that should be had... I think it needs to be:


 * 1) NPOV
 * 2) tidy
 * 3) understandable to the outside world

Conventional medicine needs some criticism.. as does each of us, the government, my cat, and the chair i'm sitting on! I think those two papers in the references are excellent examples of the problems of modern 'conventional medicine'--Erich gasboy 17:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi - I am also on the conventional side, and have others declaration of bias. But feel free to argue, Erich gasboy with the bits not removed, that is. I mean, if parts of the article are removed, we have less to argue about, but is this real criticism ? Let's add point

4.  over ' the carpet :O) - Yours, irismeister 17:32, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

accepted... but they need to be 1. before they can 4. You could help by making this stuff NPOV--Erich gasboy 17:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good. I must however kindly ask you to do it for me, point by point as I will be banned soon. I understand you have those exams, but after successfully taking them you can do that for me. Highly appreciated. Good luck! - irismeister 20:59, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)

yes I checked out your history. you're quite a character around town! Well maybe you can redeem yourself with some NPOV editing... If it's left to me, i'm sorry, but if there is nobody else taking interest it will be a 8 minute amputation operation rather than the 36 hour marathon microsurgical job this page deserves. I know that's a bit hardline but the onus needs to be on the proposer of content to make it NPOV not on others to fix up. Is this all your stuff? is anybody else still interested? I'll leave it alone if others still have patience with it the way it is. --Erich gasboy 00:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I see you like cutting more than microsurgery. Good. This, Erich gasboy, reminds me of choice offered to a patient needing hymenoplasty. It's an emergency room joke, but maybe you have a taste for it :O)

- Well, said the microsurgical expert, we have two procedures - one, the 36 hour marathon, would cost you 17,236.21 USD, and the other, the 8 minute amputation is only 12.57 USD. Which one you prefer ? - Would they both restore my full virginity, de facto ? - Sure. - OK, I'll take the second one.

Aussitôt dit, aussitôt fait. Surgery is performed, patient pays, case is closed. Half an hour later, the patient comes back and - full of greed, curiosity and maybe litigation anger, asks that:

- Doc, what would this microsurgery business have been in my case ? - Well, you know, inosculation anastomoses of hymenal arteries, YAG laser, in situ tissue nursing, keratomileusis, human HLA w-23 matched homografts, state of the art immunosupression, melatonin and PUVA therapy. In four words, as good as new. - Oh my ! And then what did I get for 12.57 USD ? - Well, a few knots on your excessive pubic hair...

Happy editing :O) - irismeister 19:02, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

irismeister doesn't communicate period. With a little bit more effort at communicating irismeister might have something. But, so far irismeister has not even managed to communicate what he is trying to do. Therefore, I would conclude that irismeister doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. Otherwise, irismeister would have stated it long ago. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * communicare - implies com- and something like sharing. What is your offer, Mr President ? :O) - irismeister 19:02, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)


 * You need to get off your ego trip. And, start communicating.  Of course, being able to clearly articulate a position requires more than brains.  It actually requires getting the job done.  Something, that you have yet to do one time since you have started to waste our times. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For the "acid trip" you offer outside the confines of THAT ego in which I do not see myself, not thanks. I recently reviewed my bibliography and from two hundred something medical articles, in excess of 88% are COLLABORATIVE WORK with me as second or n-th author. This is comparable to the Wiki standard. So you don't really have a case in your attempt to paint my character in your colors. You are probably not right, Mr President, as you weren't right concerning my qualifications. And I am certainly not wrong - as you attempted to prove. This is the fact of the matter. But should we continue to talk, and write great Wiki stuff together, we may all win. However, we need to be well inside the culture of communication, based on shared belief, shared vision and a willingness to commit to quality. We certainly don't need superficiality and a "culture" of diabolizing opponents. Indeed, shouting louder about DEMOCRACY over their shoulders, when we are pharisees is like "exporting" it complete with WMDs. DEMOCRACY is freedom of speech and you MUST think freely not remain bound to some tubular vision in order to commit to communicare. If you want to be listened to, start by listening to others yourself. If you agree with all that, by all means, what is your offer ? I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 09:14, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

I don't like Internet trolls that don't communicate. I don't like people who start out a conversation with, I am a MD. The only thing that I care about is how you write. You write like a mentally ill fool. Ivan Illich could write polemics, but irismeister writes like a fool who is THE problem rather than the solution. You couldn't pass 6th grade, let alone college, with your writing style. You don't communicate because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. That is why you prefer trolling I will just wait for another editor to undo your damage. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health

Good morning Mr President :O) And how are you today ? If you are right as usual, why do you need to talk ? Perhaps you are not a MD yourself, and would like to address me with "Dr Dan" in lieu of the usual derrogatives. I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

In my various travels on the web, I have found that the primary characteristic of a quack is their insistence on being called a MD or PhD. Does that characteristic, irismeister, remind you of anybody? These people have a pathological need to buy a degree from a paper mill. I on the other hand, not only don't have a basic science background, ... I actually obtained my reputation as a troll by bragging about it. I have talked to many a MD on the web, and you clearly don't talk like an MD. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a Quack. Pardon me, Mr. Duck, while I get back to my life. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Medical degrees cannot be bought, not yet, Mr President. I'm sorry to deceive your childish insistence on delusions, more reminiscent of severe syndromes of denial of reality than serious collegial attitudes. Invidia medicorum pessima. Also diabolization, trollization, quackness, crying wolf, suggestions of mental disease are not helpful, but might separate the chaff from the good grain. Let's see which of us two can answer MD questions on the spot. This is a challenge and a litmus test. Let's just get back to some (happier) editing if you please. I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 18:27, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) :O)

A New Beginning?
People! Can we all please try to address the issue of fixing this page? I think everybody needs to have a few big breaths in and out and calm down. All the non-NPOV material needs to be fixed or deleted. Ideally the people that created or advocate for the non-NPOV material should make it NPOV. Personal attacks have no role here. Let us work on the text. You will see my comments on the Pages_needing_attention page.--Erich gasboy 15:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good new start, Erich gasboy. Keep up the good work. IMHO those references can be maintained, as they bring water under the AM vs CM mill. Happy editing - irismeister 18:27, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) :O)


 * I would like a simple ANSWER to my simple QUESTION. What precisely in plain English is supposed to be the objective of this conventional medicine article?  Second, compare and contract that objective to what I have written on a criticism of allopathy per comments made by Andrew Weil, MD in three of his books.  Until I get a simple answer to that question, doing anything is a total waste of time, in my opinion. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * John, this CM stuff was offered by a neutral editor (not one of us) to help YOU continue whatever you were not allowed to add in the AM and AM:talk frozen pages (during the sad period of your ban, that is.) Feel free to contribute, in a contrasted, down-to-earth, indeed simplest manner. Dr Weil's comments are welcome here TOO. Although CM now looks more than a critic of allopathy (and even more in the realm of critical thinking), the orphan issues in AM by all means mandate a systematic approach, which is better served by all of us doing the homework here. Try to think from a doctor's POV. MDs simply could not afford to ignore AM any more. The sticking FDA and AMA thought police officers too. Help us here, and in time, a NPOV, great CM article will see light. Happy editing - irismeister 07:13, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * YOU have not answered my question. Until irismeister does, I suggest that we do not continue to feed this Troll. And, Please irismeister stop trying to insult my intelligence.  -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * John, we must co-operate, not look under the bridges for painted monsters, but build bridges. - irismeister 16:12, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * Why don't you two discuss your interpersonal issues on your talk pages? --Erich gasboy 15:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right. - irismeister 16:12, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

thanks. But would you mind explaing how the references relate to the topic? I can't see how we need wheel turning here, or grinding for that matter. I'm seeing more of a need for clarity, brevity and objectivity. (btw, fixed or deleted may become my motto! what do you think of that for a motto?) best wishes Erich --Erich gasboy 19:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A great motto ! Dignifies our Roman ancestors. Alla breve. The references show how conventional medicine has a number of unique flaws, which demonstrate, in perfect contrast, the relative benefits of the alternative stuff. Moreover, alternative is closer than conventional medicine in original Hippocratic terms (See primum non nocere an essential caveat.) But if you don't like them, OK, leave them out although they weaken the AM vs CM case. Good work, Erich. See what a little fresh blood would do to us :O) - irismeister 19:49, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)


 * irismeister if you want to put back the articles that I cut, can you please place them in a NPOV context. You have also not replied or provide explanation of why you disagree that my point about drug errors is incorrect - you have simply undone my edits - (is that the correct protocol?). thanks! --Erich gasboy 15:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You are welcome and you are right. I will (provided my next ban does not come too soon :O) I agree with your point on drug errors and with your three-step approach to CM. In the mean time, OK, you may leave the references out, and let the POVs that go with them just grow and mature. Look, the current protocol is this, and I cannot stress more that ALL POVs must be heard in the knowledge space of the article. They must be written in the talk page and addressed, not ignored. Once these competing POVs accumulate and mature, the NPOVs appear as a golden, harmonic mean as if by miracle and as by themselves. Conversely, if you let POVs out in the cold, not only they do NOT catch cold and die, but they loom in the dark and will pop out somewhere else, not frozen, and indeed hotter... - irismeister 16:12, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?
This article is complete crap and should be deleted. There is no such thing as "conventional medicine." There is Medicine, and there are various things which purport to be medicine but are not. This is just another piece of tiresome irrationalist anti-science propaganda of which there is far too much floating around Wikipedia. Adam 14:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

well I agree it is not NPOV - my view is the authors need to fix it... I've already indicated I'll just delete it if the proponents of these view can't fix them. There is a case for a page of criticism of medicine though. The concerns i have with medicine are
 * 1) its extremely expensive
 * 2) its prone to error making it dangerous
 * 3) it is not always rational (although it tries hard)

these points above diserve some NPOV discussion - so that's why i went to the pages need work page rather than for deletion--Erich gasboy 15:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I recommend you just start again with article. Delete what's there at the moment and write what you think is a fair, balanced and NPOV criticism of conventional medicine. theresa knott 15:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I recommend to the author above to start by reinforcing an excellent, if recent Wiki guideline before making auctorial, magisterial and blah-blah recommendations. A good rule of thumb is to refrain from editing articles where the only positive contribution of the "author" was to police and ban the two outmost, outstanding and outspoken collaborators. Common sense and decency recommends not to recommend whan you are not qualified to understand, let alone recommend.


 * No, Erich, this is not a commendable recommendation I could agree with.

These issues have been ignored too much and were painfully reaserched for. Of course it's always simple to look the other way and start it all over again. But this is delusion. The issues will appear again, and stronger. I strongly oppose yet another deletion and propose a four step approach instead :

STEP 01: Let's start with the numbered issues above and include them in your three chapter idea, which is both simple and great; STEP 02: Let's argue something we feel is only a POV. Argue it as a POV !!! STEP 03: Let's balance the POVs once they are all here, well written and mature; STEP 04: Let's issue the consensus called a NPOV, without throwing out what we don't like in the process.

COMMON ERRORS

 * ERROR 01 : Deleting POVs as if they didn't exist. We only throw the baby away with the water. For NPOV wouldn't exist without POVs, of which they are only a mean, a median and a mode - pick your own choice.

We must leave POVs in place, only mark them as such. Indeed, without letting POVs in, we cannot possibly form a NPOV but only a biased surrogate of balance, for there are no POVs to be balanced in the first place; Conversely, if all POVs are heard, a golden mean, a harmonical, natural, indeed "automatic" NPOV ensues, as the right proportion of POVs.


 * ERROR 02 : Diabolizing and banning authors on POV editing grounds.

This is, in my long experience, the most common, time consuming error in Wiki. Look at all hot issues around us ! The deletion of POVs before they make themselves heard is rampant. I cannot possibly stress more that we must not only not hunt them, but cherish them and formulate them properly, freely, well heard - and argue them - only marking them as such - as POVs. Leaving them out in cold, and starting "it" all over again (the n-th time, I must say) might look attractive for a sysop who doesn't write articles herself, and only thrashes them, but is wrong, and much worse - only a delusion. POVs are not only surviving there, but they come back even hotter :O) Usually in another article. From iridology to reflexology to AM to CM - you name it. Than POV police hunts them away, complete with authors via various arbitrations and bans, and so on, until they are too hot and real for anybody to ignore. That's when they become mainstream and drag the NPOV towards them. NOBODY has an inborn genetic trait to edit NPOVs. Every NPOV only exists as a balance and a mean, median and mode of ALL POVs. NPOVs exist only after, and because of POVs. Learning fast from my previous and impending future bans... What a waste in throwing the baby away with the water, what a waste. Too clean of POVs is only a dreadful monster megaPOV :O )- irismeister 17:12, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

Adam 15:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1. The cost of medical services has nothing to do with medicine as a science. This is a consequence of social policy.
 * 2. All human activities are prone to error. So what? The fact that humans practice medicine imperfectly is not a criticism of medicine. I think you'll find that the absence of medicine is much more dangerous.
 * 3. Medicine is by definition rational. A good definition of medicine would be "the application of reason to the prevention and cure of illness." That which is not rational (ie, faith healing) is not medicine.
 * Anyway none of those points is relevant to my earlier point. The title of this article is inherently POV - there is no such thing as "conventional medicine." There is only Medicine and non-medicine. The choice of title demonstrates the POVistic intent of whoever created it. That is why it should be deleted.
 * And Theresa, what on earth is "NPOV criticism"?

NPOV critism - "One critism of conventional medicine is that it is very expensive. For example blah blah blah costs Some number times as much as folk remedy blah blah blah. So and so of such and such place claims that conventional medicine is too dependent on drugs, and that patents and blah blah blah make conventional medicine too expensive for poor sods dying in developing countries or even the underprivaliged in rich countries. On the other hand Dr watsit from some place or other says that most folk remedies are a load of old rubbish and that they represent very poor value for money since they don't work "An expensive product that actually cures is better than a cheap one that doesn't". Professor Brainiac from institute of boffins points out however that "If peaple cannot affort to buy a drug, it is useless as a cure to them".

That's what I had in mind, my choice of words was probably a bit daft though. theresa knott 15:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * hi Adam & Theresa - thank you so much for coming! don't get me wrong Adam I'm on your side I think... I just got home from work in a very modern hospital where I was personally giving people synthetic drugs not herbs... I use BIG needles but this aint acupuncture! I have a sound grasp of applied statistics and I believe in randomised double blind controlled trials to guide my pracitce. but this page is more about the reality of the practice of medicine. I'm coming in as an insider seeing the merits of self-criticism - I also don't want to stifle criticism of my belief system because I have faith in my belief in science (he he!! I cannot believe I just said that!! but its true!) you wont have to look hard in medical literature to find my concerns freely aired. since i work in the hospital i see the problems on first hand they are real and warrent rational and objective discussion. That's why I see a legitimate role for this page. Maybe the name of this page is wrong and it should go somewhere else.--Erich gasboy 15:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Like your style Theresa! --Erich gasboy 16:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A clean slate (briefly)
Geez Adam - I thought I had a penchant for radical surgery - a full delete is even more radical than I planned! I hoped somebody would just retrieve the useful stuff! but they've just pulled it all back. so you're not a consensus man then! ;-)--Erich gasboy 16:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To say that "medicine is by definition" or "this is the only" is the very essense of "POV." I agree this article needs work and may end up being deleted. But until then, lets strive for NPOV, shall we? Slrubenstein

gedday Slrubenstein! this page does need to be NPOV. I wonder why the authors aren't the authors willing to make it so?--Erich gasboy 16:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

gedday Erich! And thanks for respecting (you, at least, sigh :O) my four month work, before anyone else puts it under the carpet AGAIN :-) Here is why authors aren't willing to do that: For five months now they are hunted as criminals, banned and arbitrated, instantly reverted and their articles are thrown away, with pages blocked, frozen-protected and all :O ) I put in a more rational four-step approach my answer to your question [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conventional_medicine#Should_this_article_be_deleted? here]. Once we agree not to ban POVs even before they are written (and criminalize authors of POVs in the process, waisting everybody's time), we can put the cards on the table and balance them properly. We would all like to live only with our chosen nieghbors, hear only what we want, see only what we see, and to hell with others - they are POV garbage and good riddance. It so happens that they do not commit suicide and express themselves freely. We might or might not like that. But the need to express one's mind is irresistable, is seems. Let us all not start it all over again, and address the painfully researched issues. Agreed, everyone ? Or should we wait until my next ban ? - irismeister 17:24, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * I gotta tell you irismeister, that Im sorry but I don't really fully understand the numbered points at the top of the page! perhaps you should pick the most important one or two and make them NPOV. I agree it is not ideal to delete POVs but nobody can expect everybody else to edit their material for them - the onus has to be on the proponent. if not a single proponent of a POV cannot (or will not) express their views clealy NPOV then maybe the POV is in perilous danger. why should somebody who doesn't agree or even understand a POV spend their time on it? the delete button beckons frustrated users in that situation --Erich gasboy 17:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. Never mind, Erich gasboy I'll put them under your three chapter offer, well explained, if you like, agreed ? - irismeister 17:42, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

Like here:

it's extremely expensive CM is more and more a burden for everybody, starting with the modern state's budget. With all things remaining equal, Medicare, even by the most optimistic projections will be broke by 2019. Medical insurance costs have increased continuously, and this trend is increasing itself. Attempting an answer about the causes of this unbearable and rampant cost issue, we see:
 * 1) COST
 * (12)  admissibility   and confessio delicti.

A. ...that more than 50 % of the arbiters paid by the FDA to independently  assess a new medical drug or procedure are also players of the drug industry.

Most FDA experts are now known to have a direct financial interest in the object of their "independent" judgement (USA today published data.)

Clearly, this is not fair.

However, FDA's admission that "there are simply not enough numbers of highly esteemed experts to be employed" is an argument which hardly holds water, if at all. Of course, this means nothing in principle for the logical analysis, but practically, does hardly qualify FDA as a tax-paid federal low-bias regulator.

B. Research of big science  is sometimes so pushed  for by the interests of markets that criminal procedures are pulled  out

from Pandora's box in the process.

The yearly published  top 100 confessed corporation criminals pleading guilty always contains the big fives  of the drug industry. The combined figure for fines paid, sometimes as high as 500,000,000 USD each, is five orders of magnitude higher than the research budget for AM.

C. Even the operational costs  of the clinically dead Office Of Alternative Medicine is five figures below. It's really simple to see how this happens: Whoever worked in medical financial management like myself, would confirm that it is of course  more profitable to include such high costs (which still compare so unfavorably with profits) under "expenses" and to perpetuate the confessio delicti  policies in the process.

D. Last, but not least, the very process of new drug admission by FDA is biased by design. Eversince marketing companies took over experimental design, there are no more independent arbiters at all. Indeed, as if new drug design meant designing procedures in order to validate them, marketing considerations reign supreme.

A priori, AM is still too far from CM to be contaminated by these procedures and addresses COST issues better.



it's prone to error making it dangerous
 * 1) LITIGATION



it is not always rational (although it tries hard)
 * 1) RATIONALITY

This also means that organization of CM is based on a statistical measure of central tendency, not on individual cases. Conceptually, and morally this is wrong, not in agreement to the Hippocratic Oath and worse - irrational. The organization of AM starts with variability by design: While CM reduces the patient to a category named disease, and sticks a tag on people, AM reduces the category of disease to an individual, named a suffering person.
 * (01).  mainstream   (central tendency) vs. variability(complementarity .) Legislators found it useful to coin "Complementary and Alternative Medicine'' (CAM) for the purpose of advanced billing codes (ABC). This leads to confusion between CM (complementary medicine) and CAM(complementary and alternative medicine) ;

slow ing down!

 * hey thanks irismeister for fixing my spelling. I spell like a chimp! whoooa though – I wasn’t really proposing those three as a framework… I think there is a long list of problems – that’s just three that spring to mind! I think the list and grouping of problems should just evolve naturally. We need to build incrementally… slow and steady, clear and NPOV or we’ll all start to become overwhelmed! I have to say I find your last paragraph very chaotic. Can you try to build up a single point. There are points in there and I can’t see how they link together. This is what you wrote:


 * “Conventional medicine addresses the interests of the drug industry as well as the patient's best interest Historically, medicine was administered on a request-and-serve basis, inside the unique, case-by-case and doctor-to-patient relationship. Modern and post-modern systems of health care necessarily introduce more complex, institutional relationships, based on technology, industry, and epidemiologic considerations, all of which cannot ignore the statistical approach. Conflicts of interest may ensue. For instance, patients may complain about undergoing schematic approaches, not caring, individual therapeutical attention. While financial considerations seem to favor something else than the patient's best interest, many patients feel compelled to criticize their doctors on various reasons. Conflicts of interest are rampant, and medical litigation has become an industry in itself. “--Erich gasboy 18:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome :O). I know what I wrote. The point is that CM is not for patients anymore, CM is for increasing GDP!!!! Now how would you put this into a politically correct sentence ? :O) - irismeister 18:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * well i'd delete all the comments that didn't support that primary point. and say something like "Modern medicine is accused of not being about patients as much as about increasing GDP" then i'd back that up with why. Things need to link logically to that statement and build it up. (at the moment I can't see how that statement is true, but I'm open to having it explained) does that help? --Erich gasboy 18:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It does! Aaaand you are right ! As usual ! Erich, you are a blessing disguised as a new Wiki editor. Much unlike us poor old cranks :O) Will follow you and help help us you cauz' you're a young raising promising author. Highly recommended ! - irismeister 13:21, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

you h a v e    g o t  to  s l o w   d o w  n !!!!--Erich gasboy 18:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oups, sorry - emergency room habits again :O) Will come back tomorrow (if I'm not banned that is :O) - which explains persistance of my old emergency room habits :O)irismeister 18:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)

OK, I'm back and way   s l o w e r   due to some extra-Wiki obligations. Did some historical research and authoring. Yup I went sloooooow and eeeeaaaasy :O) One sick person at a time. Next, please : O ) - irismeister 13:18, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

I have two concerns about the opening of the article. I know others have been putting in a lot of work, so before I unilaterally change them I want to give others a chance. First, I don't get the syntax of the first sentence, "Conventional medicine is about the reality of medicine." I simply do not understand what "the reality of medicine" means, so using this predicate to define "conventional medicine" doesn't help me, in fact it confuses me. Moreover I don't get the use of "about." If the sentence were "This article is about ..." it would make sense to me (grammatically; I still might not understand the predicate) but when the word "about" is used I am just not sure what kind of noun "Conventional medicine" is. Is it an institution? A Practice? An ideology? An academic study? A popular concept? For some of these things, "about" is an inappropriate word.

Hi, Slrubenstein! Thank you for this contribution, which is remarkable. Of course there is neither syntax nor sense in the first sentence. Let's here John's POV and perhaps he would care to change it before someone else does this for him, as good Wikiquette mandates. - Happy editing - irismeister 14:02, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Second, I really have problems with the history section which provides an at best highly arguable and POV myth about the origins of medicine. This myth implies an identification between western medicine and shamanism, and implies some sort of evolution. Now, one may compare and contrast shamanism and medicine for didactic purposes. But whether shamanism is a form of, or antecedent to, medicine is highly arguable. Whatever shamanism is it has its own history, and its own meaning in its cultural context. I udnerstand that many people in the west call shamans "medicine men" or "witch doctors" but it is far, far from certain that people in these societies see their shamans as being "like" doctors. Even outsiders have choices, they can view shamans as a form of religion (as Eliade does) or politics -- not as medicine at all. And there are many scholars who now argue that there is no such thing as "shamanism;" that what people in the West, likee Eliade, call "shamanism" is a conflaction of many heterogenous practices and institutions from many different cultures. I suggest either cutting this section entirely -- or contextualizing it in terms of who makes these claims today, and why. For example, we can say something like "in the 19th century Westerners began to take serious comparisons between Western and non-Western practices. Today, participants in debates over medicine are divided: many advocates of alternative medicine idealize non-western "shamans" as models; some people however see shamans as antecedents to conventional medicine.  Other scholars, who are not involved in depates about medical practice, study shamanism from other points of view (e.g. as religious or political actors; see: ...)" or something like this -- and probably much lower down in the article, in a section on ideological debates about conventional medicine. Slrubenstein


 * Very interesting, excellent, and - personally, as a follower of Eliade - very attracting POV !!! :O) Chamanisme et techniques de l'extase is an outstanding, trend-setting work, way before Castaneda and followers, from the South African to Rhodanian scholars like Jean Clottes. I'll address this great idea of yours immediately, in a tentative, non-final rephrasing. But let me first restate my declaration of bias: we ALL HAVE to

Four Step Approach to Non-hostile Editing
And then (and only then) start authoring the main page, in NPOV business as usual. Let us look around in Wiki! ALL hot issues make EVERYBODY lose enormous time and energy just in the game of preventing/letting people express POVs. If we delete their POVs (or them with arbitrations and bans) as we did, they only move the problem in another Wiki area, for they always surface back with a revenge. Let's look no further than the Iridology - Reflexology - AM - CM frontline as a recent four-month marathon ! So, if we care to learn from past mistakes, let us not ban anyone, let us all do our homework and let us go down to business as usual. Diabolizing opponents was never a democratic or even some shamanic tradition ;O) Healthy, wealthy and wise are only those who DO NOT DIABOLIZE :O)- Happy editing, irismeister 14:13, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC) :°)
 * STEP ONE: explain and defend ALL POVs in the article's knowledge space - this puts all the cards on the table.
 * STEP TWO: mark them as such (yours, mine, John's);
 * STEP THREE: let them marinate, mature, and mix on this talk section;
 * STEP FOUR: find the least common denominator and the golden mean of all such contending, competing and never condescending POVs :O);