User talk:Hermesian

April 2019
See WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. These are the germane WP:RULES which cover Anthroposophic medicine. Wikipedia owes allegiance to mainstream science and mainstream medicine, it does not subscribe to the idea that there are no facts, or that the facts cannot be known by scientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It does seem that the Wikipedia editors who frequent this entry have a definite view on the subject. But don't you think the entry would be more credible if it mentioned the fact that all anthroposophic doctors must also be fully qualified in conventional medicine? Using pejorative language to describe AM while not mentioning this fact at all is a pretty big hole. Also, Elsevier (publishers of The Lancet and Science Direct) would by any measure be agreed to represent mainstream science. Yet their publication assessing whether AM fulfilled the criteria of being science - which is easy to source and which found that it did (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229917308804) - is not mentioned while the view of the relatively little-known Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is quoted as evidence that AM is "widely regarded as quackery". I can understand that Wikipedia chooses to represent the "mainstream" when navigating tricky waters, but who decides what is mainstream, especially these days? There is a danger of entries veering away from being balanced appraisals albeit viewed through an overt "mainstream" lens. This inevitably colours the usefulness of Wikipedia, which is already disregarded as a reliable source in many schools and universities. Please accept this is a genuine contribution to the debate, and excuse any clumsiness on my part as a new visitor. I really hope Wikipedia can find a positive way through these very difficult problems.Hermesian (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)