To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Medicine / Health Forum Rules
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Other Sciences > Medicine / Health

rpenner
  • No Advertising.
  • No New Theories.
  • No Treatments for any disease or condition.
  • No Anti-Vaccine paranoia.
If you want talk about therapies, something you saw on TV, or your own medical history, fine. But if you want to recommend anything than seeing a actual medical doctor for an actual medical condition, expect to see your post altered or deleted.

If you do want to supply a medical opinion, then you had better support it with links to neutral medical news sites and/or journal articles of good repute.

These rules are just common sense and common courtesy, enforced with an iron fist.
Star Sludge
Hello rpenner, I have to respectfully disagree.
If you can't place new theories in public then science simply can't advance.
If old theories need dismantling to do this then that's alright.
It may seem scary to go back to square one but if there is new data that needs to be analysed and made sense of then this is just part of the learning process.

I'm quite prepared to be proven wrong by people but if you censor what a person says you deny yourself the chance to prove that person wrong.
Then they take what they have to say elsewhere and you miss out.

You will find that if someone provides new data that shows the problem isn't as simple as once thought then the new thoughts and questions simply raise the consciousness of all.

I'm not looking for any fights here and I commend Physorg for it's tolerance so far.
So a big thank you for moderating with less hysteria than I usually see.
You can call me what you like I still appreciate the chance to talk.
Cal
Argyll
QUOTE (Star Sludge+Feb 12 2009, 12:58 AM)
Hello rpenner, I have to respectfully disagree.
If you can't place new theories in public then science simply can't advance.
If old theories need dismantling to do this then that's alright.
It may seem scary to go back to square one but if there is new data that needs to be analysed and made sense of then this is just part of the learning process.

I'm quite prepared to be proven wrong by people but if you censor what a person says you deny yourself the chance to prove that person wrong.
Then they take what they have to say elsewhere and you miss out.

You will find that if someone provides new data that shows the problem isn't as simple as once thought then the new thoughts and questions simply raise the consciousness of all.

I'm not looking for any fights here and I commend Physorg for it's tolerance so far.
So a big thank you for moderating with less hysteria than I usually see.
You can call me what you like I still appreciate the chance to talk.
Cal

I have to agree... new theories that are presented respectfully, with verifiable supporting evidence - or even without the evidence, but with questions about where to go look for the evidence (in other words, people that are serious about investigating their ideas and not just trying to pitch their latest cure-all) should definitely be allowed. Similarly, criticisms of existing theories and practices, if backed up with actual evidence, should never be discouraged.

If not here, then where?
rpenner
First of all,
  • Facts are observations about experiments, patients or the universe.
  • Hypotheses are candidate relations between Facts, that have not yet been discarded.
  • Laws are Hypotheses which have demonstrated some utility and reliability over a wide range of phenomena.
  • Theories are comprehensive predictive frameworks which allow detailed prediction within a wide field of applicability and within that field, have never been demonstrated to be unreliable.
Anyone can make a mistake reporting a fact, but a theory is trusted precisely because of the total of Mankind's experience shows that it can be trusted.

Thus for science:
Theories > Laws > Hypothesis > Facts (which the non-scientific public often gets out of order)
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-vs-Creatio...d/dp/0313344272

But Medicine is about making life-affecting decisions, and often enough life-or-death decisions, so Medical Science is also about very personal human ethics.

Because this public forum is not a place to discuss confidential medical histories, because this non-medical forum does not have a readership of licensed physicians with extensive clinical experience, because this science forum has a vested interest in verifiable empirical facts, and because this privately-owned forum has no interest in unpaid solicitations for third-party products, medical treatments should only be discussed as news items and where they are new treatments, they should, following the best scientific reporting procedure, be linked to the journal of good reputation where the clinical trials have been reported.

This forum does not expect to advance the progress of scientific frontiers, but we do not intend to be blamed for the spread of faulty information over ground long since explored, especially at the loss of human life. Old theories, if they were of any use whatsoever, will not be dismantled by the progress of empiricism, but rather refined in scope or explanation. Thus even Newtonian physics survives quite well today, even though it is not suitable as a theory for the very large, very small or very fast.

To "prove you wrong" even in an approximate sense, I have to infect people with HIV in a benzene-free environment and show that they get AIDS while people in a benzene-dirty environment free of HIV don't develop AIDS. This is ( a ) unnecessary since my literature back to WWI shows that benzene poisoning is not like AIDS except for your cherry picking of data points, and ( b ) totally unethical.

But I can censor you with a clean conscious and, provided my proposed guidelines are accepted by management, with impunity. It's not a fight -- it's my duty, my authority and my capability.
Argyll
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 12 2009, 01:38 AM)
First of all,
  • Facts are observations about experiments, patients or the universe.
  • Hypotheses are candidate relations between Facts, that have not yet been discarded.
  • Laws are Hypotheses which have demonstrated some utility and reliability over a wide range of phenomena.
  • Theories are comprehensive predictive frameworks which allow detailed prediction within a wide field of applicability and within that field, have never been demonstrated to be unreliable.
Anyone can make a mistake reporting a fact, but a theory is trusted precisely because of the total of Mankind's experience shows that it can be trusted.

Thus for science:
Theories > Laws > Hypothesis > Facts (which the non-scientific public often gets out of order)
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-vs-Creatio...d/dp/0313344272

But Medicine is about making life-affecting decisions, and often enough life-or-death decisions, so Medical Science is also about very personal human ethics.

Because this public forum is not a place to discuss confidential medical histories, because this non-medical forum does not have a readership of licensed physicians with extensive clinical experience, because this science forum has a vested interest in verifiable empirical facts, and because this privately-owned forum has no interest in unpaid solicitations for third-party products, medical treatments should only be discussed as news items and where they are new treatments, they should, following the best scientific reporting procedure, be linked to the journal of good reputation where the clinical trials have been reported.

This forum does not expect to advance the progress of scientific frontiers, but we do not intend to be blamed for the spread of faulty information over ground long since explored, especially at the loss of human life. Old theories, if they were of any use whatsoever, will not be dismantled by the progress of empiricism, but rather refined in scope or explanation. Thus even Newtonian physics survives quite well today, even though it is not suitable as a theory for the very large, very small or very fast.

To "prove you wrong" even in an approximate sense, I have to infect people with HIV in a benzene-free environment and show that they get AIDS while people in a benzene-dirty environment free of HIV don't develop AIDS. This is ( a ) unnecessary since my literature back to WWI shows that benzene poisoning is not like AIDS except for your cherry picking of data points, and ( b ) totally unethical.

But I can censor you with a clean conscious and, provided my proposed guidelines are accepted by management, with impunity. It's not a fight -- it's my duty, my authority and my capability.

First off, let me be absolutely clear that I was in no way advocating any specific idea, but rather the open exchange of all worthy ideas.

That being said, I understand the concern as to this forum being a vector for the dissemination of misleading and/or dangerous information and practices. I just don't want to see this forum so restricted that valid ideas cannot be exposed, discussed, argued, and possibly eventually accepted.

I do understand the difference (in scientific terminology) between a theory and a hypothesis, and I agree that untested, unproven ideas should never be put forth as scientific theories.
Star Sludge
...But what if new theories have just as much data and evidence to prove them as the old theories...then that data needs to be added to understand the 'Syndromes'

And what if the 'Totality of Mankind's experience shows that it can't be trusted'

I just think science is in a state of stagnation at the moment, one of the only things I find exciting is the work on endogeous retroviruses and their role in cell division and growth...now that's new stuff I'm including and needs to be talked about.

This issue to me is about a generation of children being exposed to AIDS drugs that deserve better non-toxic treatments and because their DNA is being damaged this will be passed on to further generations.
It is important and should be debated whether we are doing the right thing in this world.

Respectfully, everyone makes mistakes, admitting them is the way to move forward.



rpenner
But I have already ruled that you haven't made your case, that you have hurt your reputation by posting here and now have an inferior reputation to some random person who posts bad poetry from an Internet cafe, and that this is entirely the incorrect venue for posting. Further, your last post was not on topic (of what the policy for this forum is and should be) and was deleted.

Finally, in the deleted, off-topic post, you linked to an article in Medical Hypotheses, when the draft rules require a journal of good reputation. Even Wikipedia is aware of this jourals ham-fisted embrace of quackery and nonsense. For that alone, the post should be deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses
http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2008/03/jo...outrageous.html

I will consider recommending that policy be loosened when the UK is again measles-free.
Ron
Not to speak for you, RP,
But, our new and extremely competent moderator has already stated (in an intro-type thread I believe) that you should be putting new theories in the new theory section anyway. I believe that his extra attention to apply this to a health topic to be extremely responsible, and should be at the very least stated explicitly even in a new theory thread, although RP's first bullets may be the safest way: leave it to the pros.
Peace,
Ron
rpenner
From a science point of view, I would tend to agree with you. But from a medical point of view, I worry about ethics. And from a practical point of view, the UK has a resurgence of measles precisely because of medical denialism.

The poster at the current time claims to have a method (or methods) not currently in the literature by which he cured both AIDS and cancer, so if there is even 0.1% chance he is right he ethically owes it to the world to get his findings published in a medical journal of good repute, and by wasting time coming here he is wasting his few hours upon this Earth, perhaps to the detriment of all humanity.

On the other hand, if he is just hawking a worthless panacea, then his posts are spam.

As I don't have the test subjects or medical records to evaluate the claim, how fortunate am I that the draft forum rules don't require me to evaluate the claim.
rpenner
QUOTE (Star Sludge+Feb 12 2009, 11:18 PM)
I respectfully disagree again.
I don't know why you felt the need to call me an idiot and lunatic but that is just plain rude.

And using the words "Iron fist" is threatening behavior.

I can't believe you deleted Harold Foster's studies so I'll put them here again because the claim that new theories shouldn't be put forward is so narrow minded.

I know Mr Penner is trying to keep mad ideas out of the forum but I have provided enough data to show that hypomethylation is a potential and major cause of diseases and is a factor in cancer, AIDS and autoimmune diseases.
I never said I cured cancer, I said this is what advise as a complementary diet for friends suffereing from cancer, they at least are grateful.
I have way more data because I've been doing what can only be called a meta-analysis of hypomethylation effects on the body and can only show you via a forum because I don't work in the medical industry.

Now the proper way to address new ideas is to put them in public as I'm doing and you all then have the right of reply.
So don't be scared of this process, if you think I'm wrong you have the opportunity to dismantle and give references to data which you think will prove me wrong.

If I get deleted then I take these thoughts to my own blog where I can then moderate and you may not get the right of reply.

So Harold foster's theories in practice with results are here.

[deleted]

I'm really not in the mood for a fight, I'd rather Mr Penner cheerfully dismantle anything I say because if I'm wrong he should have fun doing that.
But deleting is an act of running away, you should have the courage to meet new ideas and the new challenges.

I'll also say that at the moment Australians are feeling a sense of revulsion as we watch fellow countrymen burn to death.
Mainly because the fires were lit by arsonists, so I feel sick, I think most of us do here.
Don't feel like fighting, I'd like Mr Penner to be nice and civil and I will be too.
If anyone has the generosity Google "The Victorian Bushfires appeal" and help.
Lots of care.

I did not call you a lunatic. I said you were "preaching lunacy." I have no personal knowledge of your personal belief in any one of your vast and varied medical-themed beliefs. Indeed, as you I did call you a "dangerous idiot" because that was the most charitable description I could come up with at the time.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=398490

I am threatened by nothing. It is not my lack of courage that makes me antagonistic to medicine by amateur. I am threatening nothing. I am not interested in fighting you. I am explaining why I will and won't countenance certain threads and posts on this forum. This is part of an ongoing discussion with management. I don't require you to change your behavior, so I need not threaten you with consequences. But there will be consequences, and I feel the need to explain them so that management will see fit to reward me with perhaps more responsibility.

You are preaching some sort of equality of ideas philosophy where all new ideas must be given equal consideration. But this is not the philosophy of this website, which would like a restriction to science and technology topics. It is not the philosophy of science, where empiricism rules and so some ideas must be wrong. It is not the philosophy of medicine, where we cannot try all new ideas out on patients. And from the least consideration from economics, the universe of all ideas is random noise and exceeds all capacity to record, let alone debate. But as you already have a forum which caters to your desire to air ideas in public, you are welcome to it. I have no intention of following you there.

So I have several arguments against the equality of ideas. The UK measles epidemic shows that new ideas can in fact be harmful and lead to death. Therefore, it is sensible that on this forum of non-experts we should leverage and rely upon places where experts do vet these new ideas. You are welcome to respond to these arguments.

As this is the thread reserved (indeed, it has been specially marked) for discussion of this decision-making process, your lengthy quote of Harold Foster's press release is unnecessary and off-topic. So it is deleted.

You also go off-topic with your plea for the victims of the recent rash of Australian firestorms, but I shall assist your intent with a direct link to the most useful website: http://www.redcross.org.au/
GeneSplicer
rpenner,

With the new rules and policies regarding substantiated posts, will the warn level and related bans be enforced again or is that system going away?

I was wondering how you propose to handle the more aggressive posters that post such pseudoscience that it approaches the level of SPAM.
rpenner
I, too, would like clarification for this.

Right now, I'm trying to get rid of posts that recommend inserting sage leaves under your eyelids to cure genital warts and the abusive back-and-forth of accusations of genital warts.

But until the link to Terms of Use in the bottom right corner is fixed, I don't have guidance on what management would feel about me deleting every post which doesn't work in a body of amassed empirical evidence and logical inference.
Star Sludge
Hi Mr Penner and Physorg, I'd just like to say that I've said anything controversial in previous posts, they are useful because you know then that I don't think the same as anyone else.
I've copped far worse trying to say these things elsewhere, so Mr Penner has done what a good forum manager should and try to curb anything too outrageous.
Though I must say the "ban him" comment did make me think of the burn the witch scene in Monty Python.
(:
From my point of view there has been a war between orthodox and alternative therapies for much too long, both sides have viable treatments but won't look at eachother's data.
If the two sides got together we'd make a real difference to the lives of sick folk.
I'm happy to stand in the middle.
I disagree with heaps of hippie things, I think fasting is dangerous, I think naturopaths would have us all starve if we took their dogmatic advice to stop wheat and milk....some things work and some don't.
The magical thing is that there are now studies available to gauge data and see if there is any effect, orthodox and alternative.
Anything I say from now on will be direct, understandable, interesting and informative, nothing will be off topic.
I think a lot of people will enjoy the research journey I'll take them on.
Big thanks.
CU's soonish

Thanks for putting in the bushfires link too, much appreciated.
GeneSplicer
rpenner,

I ment to do this sooner, but life keeps geting in the way of personal time.

Using the Web Archive, I found the TOS for the forum dated 01/29/08.

Would these guidelines be applicable or are your hands tied until the TOS page is populated again?

http://web.archive.org/web/20080115180406/...g.com/terms.php

For what it is worth:

QUOTE
PhysOrg Forums usage terms and conditions
VIEWING, POSTING OR REGISTERING FOR ACCESS TO A PHYSORG MESSAGE BOARD CONSTITUTES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE USAGE TERMS.

This agreement governs your access to PhysOrg.com Forums (http://forum.physorg.com) ("PhysOrg Forums", "PhysOrg" or "we") facilities, message boards, and services (collectively the "Service"). In consideration for your right to use the Service, you agree as follows:

SERVICE PROVIDED
PhysOrg Forums provide access to its message boards to users who are at least eighteen (18) years old and to minors over the age of thirteen (13) who have parental permission. Service is provided "as is." There may be, among other things, unexpected downtimes, loss of data, or interruptions of service. PHYSORG SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES YOU MAY SUFFER AS A RESULT OF SUCH INTERRUPTIONS OR DATA LOSSES, OR OTHERWISE AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION LOSS OF BUSINESS. PhysOrg is not obligated to monitor the Service, but may do so and may remove or edit any message or adjust your access to the Service. Messages that PhysOrg may, in its sole discretion, elect to remove or edit include without limitation those which violate the "Restrictions" enumerated herein.

CONTENT
PhysOrg ordinarily does not review messages before they are posted to its message boards. Opinions expressed on a PhysOrg message board are those of the message author and not of PhysOrg. Likewise, PhysOrg makes no representations or warranties concerning the truth or falsity of any assertion of fact made by message authors (other than PhysOrg) on a PhysOrg message board. If permitted by a board's owner, users may create a custom poll in their message. Although our poll feature has been designed to limit a unique user to one vote, PhysOrg cannot guarantee such an outcome. Polls and their results are provided for entertainment only, and poll results may be skewed for a variety of reasons, including without limitation the group of users targeted. Polls are subject to all other provisions of these usage terms. PHYSORG SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES YOU MAY SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ANY MESSAGES POSTED BY THIRD PARTIES OR YOU TO ANY PHYSORG MESSAGE BOARD.

RESTRICTIONS
You must be at least thirteen (13) years of age to post a message to any PhysOrg message board. The following content is not permitted to appear in any messages posted to PhysOrg message boards:
• Racism
• Hatred
• Harassment
• Adult content
• Obscene material
• Nudity or pornography
• Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
• Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
• Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
• Any illegal content
• Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links (other than those which we have placed on a board)
• Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
• Press releases
• Identical posts to different threads
• Creating identical threads
• Any material deemed offensive by PhysOrg (in each particular case our moderators reserve the right to decide which material is offensive).
• Any material deemed inappropriate by PhysOrg (in each particular case our moderators reserve the right to decide which material is inappropriate)
• Board spamming
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. PHYSORG EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER IMPLIED OR EXPRESS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT. NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM PHYSORG (INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, AND AFFILIATES) OR THROUGH OR FROM THE SERVICE SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY NOT EXPRESSLY STATED IN THESE USAGE TERMS. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT PERMIT DISCLAIMERS OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS HEREIN MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

WAIVER OF DAMAGES
YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT: NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING ELSE IN THESE USAGE TERMS OR OTHERWISE, PHYSORG SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS, GOODWILL, DATA OR OTHER LOSESS (EVEN IF PHYSORG HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO YOUR USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT PERMIT EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN DAMAGES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS HEREIN MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

INDEMNIFICATION
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless PhysOrg Forums and its contractors, agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders and affiliates from any losses, damages, or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from any claim or demand arising out of or related to your (including your contractors', agents', employees', officers', directors', shareholders', and affiliates') use of the Service, including without limitation claims arising out of or related to your violation of these terms or service, your violation of the rights of another person, or the content of any message or messages posted to a PhysOrg message board.

TERMINATION
PhysOrg reserves the right to terminate or take steps to terminate your access to the Service, in whole or in part, without warning, for any reason at its sole discretion. Acts or failures to act for which PhysOrg may terminate or take steps to terminate your access to the Service include without limitation the infringement of the intellectual property or other rights of third-parties or PhysOrg.

MODIFICATION
PhysOrg reserves the right to modify these usage terms at any time. Modifications will be posted to this website. You agree to review these usage terms for modifications regularly, and, at a minimum, to review these usage terms at least once every 15 days. You accept new usage terms if you use the Service at any time after twenty-five (25) days of any such modifications.

NO UNSOLICITED EMAIL
Individuals or organizations that promote or use spamming (unsolicited bulk e-mail) or methods thereof are not allowed to use PhysOrg message boards. Any form of unsolicited e-mail or newsgroup posting that includes a link to or references a PhysOrg message board is prohibited.

GENERAL TERMS
Any information that is disclosed on a PhysOrg message board becomes public information. You should exercise caution when deciding to disclose your personal information. To control abuse, your IP address is stored together with your post. After any posting, your IP address, as well as your user-agent string, which ordinarily includes such information as your computer's operating system and the type and version of your web browser, is also available to the owner of the PhysOrg Forums. Your IP address, and any other information you disclose, will also be revealed to the owner of a board if their board requires registration and you register for access. Under no circumstances may you disclose personally identifying information about or related to a person under the age of thirteen (13). You agree that PhysOrg may preserve content (including identifying information) and may release any or all preserved content to governmental agencies, courts, or other third-parties if we believe, in our sole discretion, that you have or may have committed illegal activities, violated these usage terms, violated the rights of third-parties, impaired in any respect the ability of PhysOrg to operate the Service properly, or endangered in any respect PhysOrg or third-parties, or in the event that the information is subpoenaed or subject to other judicial or administrative process. PhysOrg does not claim ownership of content you or third-parties post to a board. With respect to content that you post or make available through a board, however, without limiting any other rights these usage terms afford to PhysOrg, you grant PhysOrg a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, and publicly display such content for the purpose of providing and promoting the Service. You may not, in connection with your use of the Service, impersonate any individual or misrepresent your affiliation with any individual or group. Should PhysOrg decide, in its sole discretion, that it needs to discover your identity to enforce this agreement against you, you waive any right you might otherwise have had to prevent PhysOrg from learning your identity from your internet service provider. PhysOrg shall have the sole discretion as to what constitutes a violation of any of these usage terms. This agreement creates no third-party beneficiaries.

CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM
These PhysOrg usage terms shall be governed by the laws of the European Union exclusive of choice-of-law principles. You hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the European Union in any and all disputes arising out of, or related to, your use of PhysOrg's services.

SEVERABILITY
If any provision of these usage terms is found unenforceable, PhysOrg reserves the right to modify the provision to comply with the law. All remaining provisions shall remain valid and enforceable.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT
These usage terms contain the entire agreement of the parties and there are no other promises or conditions in any other agreement whether oral or written. These usage terms supersede any prior written or oral agreements between the parties.

NO WAIVER
PhysOrg's failure at any time to enforce any provision of these usage terms shall not constitute a waiver or limitation of PhysOrg's right subsequently to enforce every provision of the usage terms.

Please read this page to learn more about our privacy policy.

VIEWING, POSTING OR REGISTERING FOR ACCESS TO A PHYSORG MESSAGE BOARD CONSTITUTES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE USAGE TERMS.
Questions?
e-mail us



rpenner
Yes those are the terms and give me a lot of leeway. But actually I have responsibilities not spelled out there.
RoP

QUOTE
But I have already ruled that you haven't made your case, that you have hurt your reputation by posting here and now have an inferior reputation to some random person who posts bad poetry from an Internet cafe, and that this is entirely the incorrect venue for posting. Further, your last post was not on topic (of what the policy for this forum is and should be) and was deleted.

Finally, in the deleted, off-topic post, you linked to an article in Medical Hypotheses, when the draft rules require a journal of good reputation. Even Wikipedia is aware of this jourals ham-fisted embrace of quackery and nonsense. For that alone, the post should be deleted.


Good one rpenner!

Evocative of Beadle.




sporacle
Non standard, unresearched "medical" ideas are everywhere and often popular among people without medical training or understanding of scientific method. It is estimated that people pay about as much for "alternative medicine" as they do for standard medical care.

The now standard and central strategy of evidence based medical treatment is stated umpteen times over in all contexts in reputable, mainline medical journals.
Chromodynamix
QUOTE (sporacle+May 2 2009, 09:50 PM)
Non standard, unresearched "medical" ideas are everywhere and often popular among people without medical training or understanding of scientific method. It is estimated that people pay about as much for "alternative medicine" as they do for standard medical care.

The now standard and central strategy of evidence based medical treatment is stated umpteen times over in all contexts in reputable, mainline medical journals.

Well said.

There is far too much pseudoscience being peddled about these days and it needs to be put down with an "iron fist" if need be.

In a line from the movie Apocalypse Now, "The bullshit is piling up so fast, you need wings to stay above it"
StevenJack
Hello friend ,you write a good discussion.Yes those are the terms and give me a lot of leeway. But actually I have responsibilities not spelled out there.
Chromodynamix
Have to agree with RP with stricter moderation in this section.
There are far too many snake oil salesmen, pseudoscience and homeopathic nonsense around these days and it's getting worse.

As he says, you are talking life and death scenarios.
Capracus
No Advertising.
No New Theories.
No Treatments for any disease or condition.
No Anti-Vaccine paranoia.

If you want talk about therapies, something you saw on TV, or your own medical history, fine. But if you want to recommend anything than seeing a actual medical doctor for an actual medical condition, expect to see your post altered or deleted.

If you do want to supply a medical opinion, then you had better support it with links to neutral medical news sites and/or journal articles of good repute.

These rules are just common sense and common courtesy, enforced with an iron fist.

Formally yours,

Rpenner
Capracus
No Advertising.
No New Theories.
No Treatments for any disease or condition.
No Anti-Vaccine paranoia.

If you want talk about therapies, something you saw on TV, or your own medical history, fine. But if you want to recommend anything than seeing a actual medical doctor for an actual medical condition, expect to see your post altered or deleted.

If you do want to supply a medical opinion, then you had better support it with links to neutral medical news sites and/or journal articles of good repute.

These rules are just common sense and common courtesy, enforced with an iron fist.

Formally yours,

Rpenner
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.