User talk:Alain Guierre

Alain Guierre DO (UK) www.osteoweb.com

External link removal
I have added a purely informational page to the external links that has no direct marketing value. It is a research paper written by the doctor in support of Cranial Osteopathy. The information provided in this report is all cited research. This is the exact kind of page Wikipedia supports as it directly adds to the knowledge-base for this subject. Please do not remove this link.

I looked over your other edits and I really appreciate your efforts in keeping the content of this article legitimate, non-misleading, and unbiased. I truly believe that the page to which I am linking is in keeping with your efforts.

Thank you.

Levine2112 18:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer but all the references mentionned in your article have been proven wrong by Hartman and Norton in the following text and some others: http://www.osteopathie-france.net/Principes/Hartman-Norton.pdf I could add the link above but I think it'll initiate a link "war". The idea is to keep a neutral opinion, so the best, in my opinion, is to remove your link. Respectfully, Alain G.

"Proof" is in eye of beholder, it seems. As the Wiki page on Osteopathy states: "Cranial osteopathy is a contested issue within the profession". I am merely providing a potential researcher with a supportive argument. As it is now, the section on Cranial Osteopathy is very slanted with judgemental phrases such as: "So called cranial osteopaths" and "How this mechanism is related to health / disease is not established" and "The brain does pulsate, but this is thought to be exclusively related to the cardiovascular system". Those are not neutral statements. They are based on research slanted against Cranial Osteopathy. Also, I believe the entry confuses cranioscaral therapy with the wholly divergent science of Cranial Osteopathy. Rather than quibbling over semantics within the Wiki article, I thought it best to provide a supportive external link.

We have contrary opinions - we can surely agree to disagree here - but as the article I am trying to link to states: "The decision is yours." I must insist for the sake of expanding the knowledge base of Cranial Osteopathy that the link remains. Anyone researching the subject using Wiki would certainly benefit from the link.

All sorts of article throughout Wiki have supportive and critical external links. All I am trying to do is add a supportive link, which is completely within the scope of the Wiki community philosophy.

Sincerely, Levine2112 21:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Proof" is in eye of beholder, it seems. [Exactly. For some of us and regarding "cranial" or most other medical procedures, only data collected under controlled circumstances can offer proof. Others see proof in their more casual observations or their received doctrine. We have no more data now for the efficacy of "cranial" treatments than we ever had for the efficacy of blood letting. I do wonder how "cranial" practitioners can be so confident that they are right. As much as I've learned in recent years about human psychology, it still baffles me.] As the Wiki page on Osteopathy states: "Cranial osteopathy is a contested issue within the profession". I am merely providing a potential researcher with a supportive argument [Based on blatant or inadvertent misinterpretion of relevant literature]. As it is now, the section on Cranial Osteopathy is very slanted with judgemental phrases such as: "So called cranial osteopaths" and "How this mechanism is related to health / disease is not established" and "The brain does pulsate, but this is thought to be exclusively related to the cardiovascular system". Those are not neutral statements. They are based on research slanted against Cranial Osteopathy. [Not at all: of the three, statements two and three simply summarize the evidence. There is NO evidence for common "cranial" counterviews.] Also, I believe the entry confuses cranioscaral therapy with the wholly divergent science of Cranial Osteopathy. Rather than quibbling over semantics within the Wiki article, I thought it best to provide a supportive external link.

We have contrary opinions [Some of which are supported by data and others not.]- we can surely agree to disagree here [But is it wise to stop there if all data points in one direction?]-

Alain Guierre

So how do you want to leave it?

I still don't feel that the article is self-promotion. I think it is promotion of Cranial Osteopathy in general, but not specifically for this doctor. I do believe that the article provides a unique resource beyond what the article has currently. There are no products being sold on this page (nor on any page of this site.

I would like you to be comfortable with me leaving the link there so, as you said, we don't have a link war.

Please let me know. (I have noticed and do very much appreciate your continued diligence in removing the links that are clearly shameless self-promotion and advertising and keeping this page only about research and knowledge... such as the Singapore clinic.)

Levine2112 20:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)