User:MrBill3/sb2

Ref work:

Characterization as pseudoscience in sources: This article (Beall 2013) was cited in an article (Manohar 2013) stating,
 * "Both [astrology and ayurveda] are labeled 'pseudosciences' in the official agenda of the rationalists" The "rationalists" with an official agenda being referred to are the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti (ANiS) a significant focus of the book Disenchanting India which is described in it's introduction as about, "a movement that is based on the explicit intent to challenge belief in magical powers of irrational efficacy as well as the influence of charismatic gurus."
 * Ayurveda warrants an entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy published by Routledge in 2013.
 * "Selling pseudoscience: A rent in the fabric of American medicine" presents a critique of studies of ayurveda.

Maharishi Ayur-Veda: guru's marketing scheme promises the world eternal 'perfect health' PMID:1817475

A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo

1.18 lb

hit squad

Amen
Return of the neuropundits Slate article. It is very clearly in the sources that the uses for which Amen applies SPECT are not supported by the research and have been widely criticized. "The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven." Is quite fairly paraphrased as, "The validity of SPECT comparisons for aiding diagnosis, or to guide treatment, is not supported by research and is widely criticized by mental health and medical imaging experts." Especially when it is backed up by multiple other sources as accurate and not contested in any reliable sources.

Read the position/consensus papers from the APA they are quite clear. Use of SPECT as a research tool is irrelevant to Amen's practice of using it to make diagnoses and evaluate the progress of treatment. This is clearly not supported by the APA statements or the field as multiple quoted individuals say in the sources. The sources also make multiple references to a wide body of professionals that are highly critical. A few examples follow.

Should this content be added as a direct quote or does the paraphrase used adequately convey it without analysis or synthesis? How would you paraphrase that?

What about these statements,

How would you paraphrase that in terms of Amen's use of SPECT for specific things about individual patients?

There's this,

Should we have the individuals quoted, plus a paraphrase of the author of the piece?

And this,

What quotes and paraphrases from this should be included?

This,

Statements by multiple sources that are uncontested by any reliable sources can be asserted clearly especially biomedical information that is backed by such high level sources as conensus statements from major respected national professional organizations. Such extensive criticism need not be placed in the article one item at a time and attributed but can fairly be described as "widely criticized" or it can be all included. Note in the sources above there are no weighty experts adding voices of support for Amen's ideas and practices.

The lead needs to include that the diagnoses ( or sub categories) "devised by Amen himself" are not supported by, recognized by and do not correlate with the accepted diagnoses of ADD and have not been researched to demonstrate validity, generalizability, consistency, specificity and sensitivity. Made up diagnoses need to be presented secondary to accepted mainstream medical science and the degree of support for them needs to be presented clearly.


 * "The Amen clinics use a system of diagnoses that does not correspond to the standard system defined by the DSM."

New subtypes and categories asserted by one practitioner that exceed "the benchmark of the field" with no peer reviewed research to support them and no evidence of acceptance in the field must be presented as fringe with mainstream understanding presented more prominently.

changes to skep articles

Virginia Henderson

 * A video interview by Anne Bavier and Eleanor Herrman with introduction by Nell Watts.

Selected publications

 * Originally published: (1978); New York: Macmillan. Henderson was also coauthor of the 4th (1955) edition.
 * Originally published: V. IV (1963), V. I (1966), V. II (1970), V. III (1972); Philadelphia: JB Lippincott.
 * Originally published: (1978); New York: Macmillan. Henderson was also coauthor of the 4th (1955) edition.
 * Originally published: V. IV (1963), V. I (1966), V. II (1970), V. III (1972); Philadelphia: JB Lippincott.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Reference Templates
Veda

Podcast

Hansard

Court

AV Media

Episode

YouTube references

UK Law