Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human bioacoustics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Human bioacoustics
DO NOT DELETE - I have worked with Human BioAcoustics for several years now. As a mathematician myself, I am awed with the mathematics of Human BioAcoustics. The steps involved in doing a Vocal Profile are so logical or ‘BioLogical’ as we often say that I feel like I have solved a problem in mathematics when I have finished. The results obtained are outstanding. This truly is a magnificent science and should be supported and strengthened for the benefit of mankind. Sharlene Simmons (Sharlene@natureswell.com) 8:40PM 24 Nov 2005.

DO NOT DELETE * Having recently taken training at Sound Health Inc, on the subject of Vocal Profiling and Human Bioacoustics, I am impressed with the research that was presented. I am amazed that frequencies produced by the voice can be analyzed to describe the state of the human body. This is very exciting research and needs to be expanded to broaden its impact on human well being. Neil Simmons PE (neil@natureswell.com) 8PM 24 Nov 2005

DO NOT DELETE - this work is among the most profound I have ever encountered. I have referred many patients to Sharry for Bioacoustic evaluation. She never ceases to amaze me and she has been ever so helpful to me, my practice and my patients. I am very thankful for her presence on the planet. Roman Chrucky, MD. Thanksgiving Day, 2005.

User: lita@litalee.com, 10 pm, November 23, 2005
 * DO NOT DELETE My name is Lita Lee, Ph.D.  I am a chemist and my work consists of enzyme nutrition, environmental health, organic nutrition and hormonal balancing.  My website, www.litalee.com has many articles and information on these topics.  I became certified as a BioAcoustics practitioner in 1998 by Sharry Edwards at Sound Health, Inc. So profound is her work that I dedicate a success story called Sound Bites in each of my To Your Health newsletters available free from my website. Since 1998, Ms. Edwards and I (and many other professionals including medical doctors, nurses, dentists, etc.) have worked closely together to combine the modalities of our diverse professions to produce incredible results that heretofore would have been unimaginable. I have personal experience using BioAcoustics in critical situations where no other help was available and these clinical results are posted on my website in my newsletters and in articles by Ms. Edwards and other practitioners. BioAcoustics is truly cutting edge research into a new future of "drugless self-healing."  So, I am not surprised at any negative remarks, condemnations, etc., that would be posted here.


 * Do Not Delete- One would think that an open source encyclopedia would have more open minds reviewing proposed entries. Perhaps the Wikipedia community should be less smug and take a closer look at the alternatives being castigated (the stub was offered, after all, for the alt-med category).

If Wikipedia becomes merely a sounding board for "quackbusters" and similar folk, it will lose any claim to inclusiveness. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her great defense of Speech, Thompson v Western States, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort." *** "We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information." *** "Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring ... a warning that the drug had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown."

So, you see, even the Government needs something more than uninformed prejudice before rejecting ideas. If the reviewers had experienced Ms. Edwards's research and its potential benefits, they might rethink their prejudices against her. They might discover that she is a skilled healer and teacher, with notable value to offer humankind.

I offered the original stub because I do admire her research and think it ought to be better known. Rather too often in the history of healing, those castigated as "quacks" were proven to have the seed of a new idea. Which one of you "deleters" have ever struggled to help another find healing: you can caste the first stone.

To respond to the specific allegations:

1. "Non-notable quackery" - Ms Edwards' research has been reported in a significant number of alternative venues, including Nexus Magazine, and her work was featured in 2004 in Health on the Edge - Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium by Larry Trivieri. In 2002, she was, as noted in the stub, given the O. Spurgeon English Humanitarian Award at Temple University. This award was given, at that same time, to ten other well known alternative wellness researchers, including six MDs and that beautiful mind, Dr. John Forbes Nash (another quack, perhaps?) Check it out at: http://www.lifespirit.org/se2002award.html

2. The "fake peer reviewed journal" is a real peer reviewed journal, with an advisory board that includes an MD and licensed audiologist. The first online edition is an expansion of a private research journal published since 1995. The Sound Health Research Institute is duly recognized and maintains a full ethics and peer review structure. It was precisely the "coming of age" of this modality that led to offering the stub in the first place.

3. "No supporting information" accusation is the result of a lack of willingness to see the research. Somewhat like the Cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Read the Nexus article, for example, at http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/decloakingpathogens.html --or don't read it. I wouldn't want your prejudices disturbed. They are so classic.

4. "Variation on e=mc2" - actually, this expansion of the formula, permitted by the normal rules of substitution, has been noted by others. It is not an example of tampering with Holy Writ. If e=mc2 and e=hv then. ..

5. The "it's wrong and it doesn't work" allegation offers no support other than prejudice. "It's wrong becasue I think it's wrong" is no argument.

6. The "appears to be a hoax" allegation shows an equal lack of thinking. It is soo easy to just go along with the heard, isn't it?

7. "Crackpot" is equally an unsupported ad hominum attack.

None of these objections have any intellectual merit and show an appalling lack of openmindedness. Shame on you all.

If Wikipedia deletes this stub, rather than, say, including an appropriate disclaimer ( such as, "The information in this stub has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration") for the sake of the prejudices of some members of the Wikipedia community, it is doing exactly what Justice O'Connor said is a bad thing to do.

User:lifespirit@usa.net 15:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Non-notable quackery. The page helpfully mentions Ms Sharry edwards, M. Ed. eight times, thus also managing to be a vanity page as well.  This emerging science is apparently supported by a fake peer-reviewed web journal whose first issue is October 2005.  Wikipedia would be wise to wait a while. 66.191.124.236 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete- The "science" of human bioacoustics seems to have no supporting information except Edwards' own writings and the dodgy web journal mentioned above. That makes it unverifiable. My personal opinion is that Ms. Sharry Edwards M. Ed. is a crackpot, and that Human Bioacoustics is unverifiable because it is wrong and doesn't work, but that's neither here nor there.Reyk 06:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable... and per What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not to be used for self-promotion. Edwardian 07:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to be a hoax. Eusebeus 07:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * delete. Crackpot.  Robinh 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as garden variety pseudoscience. Ms. Edwards invented the term, created a research foundation dedicated to her own work, and worked out a variation on Einstein's E=mc squared equation in an effort to make it look authoritative.  Her publications come with a legal disclaimer that her technique cannot diagnose any illness or condition, yet elsewhere she offers a long laundry list of things that she believes it could do.  Shortly after 9/11 she claimed it could diagnose anthrax. Durova 17:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Changing to strong delete in light of Ms. Edwards inserting a rambling essay above everyone's votes. Classic substitution, Ms. Edwards?  It's meaningless substitution unless you demonstrate a loss of mass.  If you claim that equation has any significance to analysis of the human voice then you're proposing new laws of physics.  WP:Complete Bollocks. Durova 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Responding to "strong delete" - Ms. Edwards did not post the "rambling essay about everyone's [sic] votes." I did.  lifespirit@usa.net is my email address, as can be easily ascertained by most any search engine.  My name is Ralph Fucetola.  I am a semi-retired lawyer who has volunteered to work with nonprofits like Sound Health Research Institute.  I posted the original stub on Human Bioacoustics because, after 34 years representing people in the alternative healing world, I've come to the conclusion that Ms. Edwards is the real thing.  That's called an opinion.  You do seem a tad too concerned about this alternative research modality.  My interest is to promote access to information about alternative "medical" research.  What are your special interests?

I assert it is not inappropriate to respond to ad hominum and similar illegitimate attacks. The nature of such multiple unfounded attacks is that a response must be specific to each and therefore longer than any. I did not "ramble" - I composed an ordered response to scurrilous postings, with numbered paragraphs, even…

Wikipedia should be concerned about facts, not ad hominum opinions. The fact is that Ms. Edwards’ research originated a branch of the recognized science of Bioacoustics called Human Bioacoustics, a protoscience that is receiving increasing recognition by its peers. Therefore, it ought to have at least a stub in the alt-med category.

A meaningful discussion of the science behind HBA requires dialogue, not censorship. User:lifespirit@usa.net 6:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. It is the poster's responsibility to meet Wikipedia article standards.  You have failed these standards on many levels.  The purported physics behind this proposal is unworthy of discussion.  Einstein's equation applies to nuclear fission and fusion.  This is completely unrelated to the working of the human body.  It saddens me to see a sincere person waste so much effort due to a lack of basic science education. Durova 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See my comment at Articles for deletion/Sharry edwards. &bull;DanMS 20:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Crackpot pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. I'm only surprised it doesn't mention "quantum" in there as well. --StoatBringer 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If and when this moves on from being a "protoscience research modality" and actually becomes a significant and widely-used technique a (properly balanced) article should be written. Until then it doesn't belong here. --Spondoolicks 16:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete I've worked with researchers in the totally reputable field of bioaccoustics, in fact I have a student working on a project doing real human bioaccoustics, and this article has nothing to do with human bioacoustics it deserves deletion for Original Research at the very least. This is total nutbar crap. Pete.Hurd 02:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, "Crackpot pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo" and "total nutbar crap" work for me. MCB 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Izehar 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.