Talk:Iridology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Functional Reasoning for Iridology

I am talking from my own observations and there have been researchers and health practitioners of the highest esteem and perceptiveness that have found reason to look into the eyes of their patient to find conclusive evidence. And really there should not be any difficulty to deduct, using simple laws of evolutionary heritage, that if early in the evolutionary progression live forms have begun to gain advantages from closed feedback loops about their environment and their selves, this mechanism would still be appropriate and most likely even refined. The eye is the obvious choice for its potential to integrate photonic energy and make this information continuously available to the neuronal system. It is only a question of time till this functionality will be scientifically documented and intuitively apparent why and how 'distant' inner organs are connected and reflected in the eye. If any mainstream medical practitioners do not understand, believe in and apply iridology then this does rather mean that it still is a parascience.

If any editors here insist on speaking for most (of anything) then where are the statistics to prove that ??? Togo 03:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

there were two publishable papers though

Commenting on "Note however that none of these people have published a paper in a respected scientific or medica journal.": there are, however, two papers that group has published. According to Dan Waniek and Medline/PubMed, one appeared in a Romanian medical journal while the other was published in Medical Hypotheses (a pay-to-publish journal). Don't now about the second one, but I think the first journal is peer-reviewed.--192-94-73-5 15:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

OK I missed the romanian journal, we'll have to check thout one out. Well actually can someone else check it out as I don't have easy access to a university library. As for a pay to publish journal, um respectable? Having said that if you feel I've been too harsh, just be bold and edit me. It's difficult for me to clean up the article in this climate of abuse by irismesiter, so I may well overstep the mark without intending to theresa knott 21:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[personal attack deleted] - irismeister 21:41, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

• OK I'm working on this (check below,) but then what was wrong with the evolutionary justification thingy you deleted? was it just the "slang" (that is, should I rephrase that?), or you believe it to be totally wrong?

I believe to be totally correct. It's just that it didn't sit well there. I should have explained but I intend to put a new section in called something like - theories of iridology where i would put in iridologists own hypotheses (once i find them out) and add the evolutionary thing there.theresa knott 12:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

• And a question for (sigh) irismeister: first of all please DON'T TAKE OFFENSE and read the proposed paragraph below and then give me your thought whether this is accurate - I know you know I know you are kinda directly linked to this:

Few medical researchers managed to secure funding to study the possible non-visual functions of the eye. In a paper published in Medical Hypotheses [Waniek, D. A., 23(1): 309-312 (1987) PubMed ID 3614020], one such group tried to explain the observed patterns of iris transparency that distribute light into the ora serrata (the edge of the optic retina) by postulating a so-called functio ocularis systemica. Based on this hypothesis, the researchers have developed the experimental trans-iridal light therapy method; however, no independent confirmation of the theory and method exists to date. Other results from the mentioned research include early attempts at computerized iris imaging for the purpose of iridologic diagnosis [Popescu M P; Waniek D A, Rev Chir Oncol Radiol O R L Oftalmol Stomatol Ser Oftalmol 30(1): 29-33 (1986) PubMed ID 2940632 (in Romanian)].

(proposed rewrite of the last paragraph from the =History= section)

--192-94-73-5 23:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me theresa knott 12:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe iris is out of town or something. Ive edited the paragraph in question already but am still waiting for comments on accuracy--192-94-73-5 06:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Emergency

Comrades, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here . Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I am sure that Irismeister is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott which is introduced below. -- John Gohde 06:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Theresa Knott

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against Theresa Knott for her consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against Theresa Knott. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievances of your own. -- John Gohde 04:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

removed pieces of "evidence" of effectiveness

Here are the removed pieces of "evidence" along with comments. All the removed references point out that the method is no more efficient than merely chance. Here's why:

• {Ernst E. Iridology: not useful and potentially harmful. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000 Jan;118(1):120-1. PMID: 10636425 Abstract} MNH's quote: "Does iridology work? ... This search strategy resulted in 77 publications on the subject of iridology. ... All of the uncontrolled studies and several of the unmasked experiments suggested that iridology was a valid diagnostic tool. ... In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit from iridology."
  • I have checked the full text of the article and the way MNH put the excerpt is a little twisted. The complete quotes are: "All of the uncontrolled studies and several of the unmasked experiments suggested that iridology was a valid diagnostic tool. Such investigations are wide open to bias. The discussion that follows refers to the 4 controlled, masked evaluations of the diagnostic validity of iridology." ...{discussion follows, then the author concludes}... "In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit from iridology. As iridology has the potential for causing personal and economic harm, patients and therapists should be discouraged from using it."
• {Knipschild P. Looking for gall bladder disease in the patient's iris. BMJ. 1988 Dec 17;297(6663):1578-81. PMID: 3147081 Abstract}
  • Well, just reading the abstract and it's quite clear: "The prevalence of the disease was estimated at 56%. The median validity was 51% with 54% sensitivity and 52% specificity. These results were close to chance validity (iota = 0.03). None of the iridologists reached a high validity. The median interperformer consistency was 60%. This was only slightly higher than chance consistency (kappa = 0.18). This study showed that iridology is not a useful diagnostic aid." The method worked as effectively as reading a goose's stomach.
• {Simon A, Worthen DM, Mitas JA 2nd. An evaluation of iridology. JAMA. 1979 Sep 8;242(13):1385-9. PMID: 480560 Abstract}
  • Again, the abstract is positively negative regarding effectiveness: "Three ophthalmologists and three iridologists viewed the slides in a randomized sequence without knowledge of the number of patients in the two categories or any information about patient history. Iridology had no clinical or statistically significant ability to detect the presence of kidney disease. Iridology was neither selective nor specific, and the likelihood of correct detection was statistically no better than chance."

No offense MNH, maybe there are other, more suitable references out there.--192-94-73-5 06:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

As the above are evidence of ineffectiveness, I have replaced them in the article with the full quotes attached under the "Criticism" section.

The currently Included evidence of ineffectiveness should be removed since it did not present the Iridologist with the living Beeing. Of course a static image can not replace the "dynamic Communication" a knowledgeable Iridologist would have with the patient and his living tissue. Togo 19:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Do we have a full quote from *Demea S. [Correlation between iridology and general pathology] Oftalmologia. 2002;55(4):64-9. Romanian. PMID: 12723182 Abstract ? - David Gerard 11:19, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Instead of vandalizing this article with one of the most dumbest and cumbersome methods of referencing research that I have ever seen; why does not [personal attack deleted] make a new talk archive? -- John Gohde 17:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

If you also (<-- added later to make things clear for Mr. NH Unconcerned 22:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)) dont like my registered user ID, thats your problem Mr. NH. Do you agree with the comments above? If not, please comment. In addition, please read dispute resolution, several times if necessary. As for your not agreeing with the research referencing, would you please provide an excerpt of what you consider a valid method of referencing research? other than taking quotes out of context?--Unconcerned 17:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

The only thing that I see is that Iridology is a royal mess. Most of which is due to arguing over research within the text of article. SQG#1-No advocacy of any kind is permitted. And, that includes research. -- John Gohde 18:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs by its own rules already. Your idea of introducing the "evidence of effectiveness" was a good one except that the evidence was contrary to the intended purpose, from what can be seen. The only "vandalism" done was a correction of the error. Explanations have been given on the talk page, and the history shows you've been invited to discuss this several times. There was no advocacy involved in the article. You took it personally without trying to understand the reasoning and engaged in an edit war without first trying to seek a compromise (see dispute resolution). You have not answered whether you agree with the comments above, as you've been asked.--Unconcerned 18:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, oh whoever who posts on talk with a user name but corrects the article unregistered, if that does not disqualify you from a rational discussion nothing else does. I do not belive in talking to mental cases.

Having, an intended purpose is an admission of advocacy. SEE and READ SQG#1. Personally, I think Iridology is total B/S. But, I have also come across specific instances of medical researchers adovcating their personal biases in so-called peer reviewed research meta-analyses/reviews on the subject of vitamins and nutritional supplements. It is like letting the fox guard the hen house. Guards are not above abusing prisoners, you know! So, my quote from the full text of the Ernst 2000 study documents a possible instance of such researcher bias tanting their review.

What you are doing is so fundamentally stupid that I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to post a newsgroup thread in an encyclopedia! -- John Gohde 18:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is "fundamentally stupid" MNH? As for your quote, you have purposedly taken text fragments out of context in order to serve your purpose. This is against normal practices of citation. Ernst intended to state that uncontrolled and unmasked evaluations are prone to bias, and that they were only going to consider the 4 masked and controlled studies. What is wrong with that, and why edit the author's statement? I don't understad what exactly is the "intended purpose" you are mentioning. And why pour in personal attacks such as "mental cases"? Isn't that also against your SQG#1?--Unconcerned 19:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Most of my response was actually directed at 192-94-73-5, of course, that may in fact apply to you to. -- John Gohde 19:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Then what exactly is directed at 192 and what at me, Mr NH? Why personal attacks anyways--regardless of whom theyre addressed to? The history file shows I was actually logged on, so I dont get youre point:

      # (cur) (last)  . . 10:48, 22 May 2004 . . 192-94-73-5 (=Pro= rm'd duplicate entry, you already have it twice in the text)
   >>># (cur) (last) . . 10:41, 22 May 2004 . . Unconcerned (=Citations to Research= full quote please)<<<
      # (cur) (last) . . 10:32, 22 May 2004 . . Mr-Natural-Health (Adding Citations to Research)
      # (cur) (last) . . 10:28, 22 May 2004 . . 192-94-73-5 (=Pro= rm'd duplicate ref to paper by Demea)

--Unconcerned 22:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

MNH, please use talk page for discussions, and not summary lines from edits to the article. I don't see why my numerical user name should determine you to automatically revert my edits. David Gerard, and others, --wouldn't it be better to have a separate subpage with all the citations and evidence of (in)effectiveness, and simply leave a neat "Criticism" section ending with a note reading: "See also: Published research supporting or dismissing iridology"?--192-94-73-5 18:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

To repeat, I do not talk to ''personal attack deleted''. Anybody who is dumb enough to chose as an user name one that mimics an unregistred user deserves their fate! You are and will remain ''personal attack deleted''. -- John Gohde 19:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

That's not really Wikipedia practice. Excising the criticism and putting it on a separate page tends to be a method used by advocates of a point of view to try to wish away criticism. WikInfo adopts this "sympathetic point of view" policy and often has pairs of articles. Wikipedia, however operates on Neutral Point Of View, where all the relevant views are mentioned right there in the article. Putting one of the points of view on a separate page violates that. A typical exception is if there's more than 32k of text to properly explain one of the POVs, so it actually doesn't fit - in which case it needs to be summarised with great care - David Gerard 19:11, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just looked at the linked article and that's not what you're asking at all! Erm. Excising a slab of article would only be necessary if it grossly unbalances the structure of the article (which I don't think it does here) and/or the article is well over the 32k recommended limit - David Gerard 19:14, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I still think there's too much clutter due to the many research references. Do we agree that at least the papers already cited in the Criticism section should not appear again in the "Citations to research" section, and the only reference left (Demea) could actually go with the "See also" section? Alternative: have all papers listed with numbers in a "References" section, and replace all citations within the text with the respective numbers. Which one soulution sounds better, if any?--192-94-73-5 23:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Leave the quotes in the "criticism" section with references (Foobar, 2004) and list said references at the end, I should think - David Gerard 00:10, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Done, hope it looks good; also added a quote from Demea's abstract, as well as numbered links to the References section--192-94-73-5 01:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of (in)effectiveness

MNH: you originally inserted this header as "Evidence of effectiveness" [1]. Then it turned out all the studies you had cited in English were actually evidence of ineffectiveness. So why is "effectiveness" NPOV and "ineffectiveness" POV?

I already answered that question a day or so ago.

You simply present the evidence. A revolutionary concept for an obviously biased person such as yourself, no doubt?

You present the evidence, and the reader decides if it is or is not effective. -- John Gohde 20:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Also: I notice that when deleting the paragraph of rambling speculation from the intro, you inadvertently deleted any mention that iridology is widely considered a pseudoscience. I've fixed that for you - David Gerard 19:42, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

We have reached agreement with the physicians on Wikipedia on this issue (ie, WikiDocs). Sorry, to hear that you are not as accomplished as they are. Some people actually know what they are doing. You have my condolences. -- John Gohde 21:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Could you please give links to this past discussion you're referring to? - David Gerard 22:08, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer on that first question - David Gerard 20:36, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary review of this Iridology article

The Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine will soon be auditing all of the major branches of alternative medicine that have been developed beyond a stub. So, I took a quick scan through Iridology to see if our checklist of key questions obviously left something major out. Our checklist, checked out just fine.

Overall, if I was a reader trying to get information from this article my first impression would be very favorable. There were a few problems, however.

The section on history is totally out of sequence. I would either put it in a separate article (my preference) or move the history section to the very bottom of the article.

The only real problem areas seem to be coming from the science people who apparently do not know how to write well in plain English. I am referring to the criticism sections and their vandalism of the introduction. They are extremely poorly written. Also, as expected, these science malcontents seem to be spending their entire lives trying to start edit wars by deliberately putting controversy in the introduction. My suggestion is to put your criticisms in the criticism section of the article. Figure out what the criticisms are and then articulate them in plain English. A few short paragraphs should be more than enough for anybody who knows how to articulate their viewpoints. -- John Gohde 20:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

mediation of controversy in first para

MNH, Theresa and David, how does this sound as a replacement for the disputed line in the first paragraph: Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and patient's state of health. --192-94-73-5 04:03, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

So, I am to understand that it is considered as pseudoscience by most scientists and mainstream medical doctors does in fact translates to: little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and patient's state of health?

Actually I think the state of play is "no scientific evidence", but I'd settle for "little or no scientific evidence" if MrNH can be brought on board theresa knott 08:41, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I can quote at least two other sources for what is wrong with putting this sentence in the introduction of an article.

Source one is as follows. The perfect Wikipedia article...

• begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. (The perfect article)

Source two is as follows. An article on Charles Darwin, likewise, should not begin with something like "Darwin created controversy with the publication of Origin of Species..." It should begin with something like the following:

Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) was a naturalist and geologist who proposed the modern theory of evolution.... (Establish context)

The purpose of the introduction to the Iridology article is to allow the general public to learn what this article is all about. It is not there to make editors in the basic sciences happy. Articles are there to present information to readers. This articles is not there to advocate that this form of alternative medicine is probably quackery. Iridology exists. It is therefore perfectly permissible to document what Iridology is all about.

A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in articles about alternative medicine.

CAM articles voluntarily comply with the Wikipedian Guidelines for controversial articles in order to prevent edit wars. And, the easiest way to prevent an edit war is to prevent controversy from entering into the article (See Guidelines for controversial articles).

See SQG#7, No controversy, No advocacy of any kind, No weaselspeak of any kind. Just straight to the point information that defines the topic.

We are targeting all CAM articles with a history of controversey, not just Iridology. -- John Gohde 04:36, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

MNH we cant exclude any POV that you don't happen to agree with in order to prevent an edit war. There is nothing contraversial about saying that scientists think iridology is pseudoscience. No one even disputes this. It's a fact. So why do you insist it is contraversial? theresa knott 08:41, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

MNH, Theresa and David-- "is considered pseudoscience by most scientists and mainstream medical doctors" sounds like POV to MNH because the pseudoscience label is attributed to the science geeks' belief. But the basis of this "is considered" is the lack of scientific evidence. This is the actual fact, it is uncontested, verifiable and easy to document just by looking at the reference section. It looks more like NPOV (at least to me.)

MNH, the lack of scientific evidence means simply that the iridologysts' claims could not be reproduced in controlled, masked and otherwise neutral test conditions. Scientific evidence means merely reproducible evidence. Part of our tax money goes into repeating experiments and verifying claims. That's what science is all about. Anybody can engage in scientific research so long as they're committed to this simple standard of verifiability. It is a matter of decency to warn the unsuspecting person about unverifiable claims. Since the intro section should be a summary of all facts regarding the subject, a statement about the verifiability of claims has to be part of it.

Any thoughts?--192-94-73-5 19:22, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Putting discussions in the middle of all this is getting a bit confusing - perhaps we should archive the discussion and start anew?

Having said that, I think the "little scientific evidence" sentence is a reasonable replacement for the "pseudoscience" sentence. Iridology's standing in the medical world is an important piece of information that needs to be part of the introduction, no matter how much it alarms some people - but you're right, we have to careful about NPOV-ish tone. - DavidWBrooks 13:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Where is the rally of support from the science people?

I would like to know where is the rally of support for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine?

Quite a few people are very unhappy about our inclusion of the knowledge classification in our infobox. The only reason I have insisted upon putting the knowledge classification within our infobox is to make the science people happy. And, the only real incentive we have for putting citations of research in the CAM articles is to raise these classifications to the level of a protoscience.

So far the project has received only harassment for our efforts from the science people in Iridology. I have seen absolutely no indication what so ever that our infobox is making the science people happy in Iridology. Or, that our drive to include evidence of effectiveness in the CAM articles has been the least bit appreciated by the so-called science people in Iridology.

So, I am giving the science people exactly two weeks notice. Either, we are going to receive support for our efforts from the science people in Wikipedia or the following will happen.

1. We will drop the knowledge classification from our infobox as part of the debugging process.
2. We will drop the requirement for adding citations to research in the CAM articles as part of the debugging process.
3. The persons inflecting this harassment upon our project in Iridology and elsewhere will personally be held responsible for the above in our project pages.
4. And, our drive to remove all forms of controversy from the introduction of all CAM articles will continue unchanged indefinitely.

It is your choice. What will it be? Do you want the knowledge classification in our Infobox or not? -- John Gohde 07:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

1. Knowledge classification is inherently POV anyway. I for one want it to go. It's much better to say Most scientists view xxxx as mumbo jumbo quackery in the intro that put munbo jumbo quackery in the knowledge field without attributing that pov.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean it will ok to write "so and so found such and such out" without linking to their actual research date then you risk it getting deleted because poeple think you are making it up.
3. I tell you what MNH, leave the others out of it. Just blame me. We both know you are talking about me anyway.
4. The introductions to the AM pages that I have on my watchlist will be a brief overwiew of the subject. They will give a potential reader a quick summary of what the topic is about. And they will follow NPOV. If this includes things you don't like so be it.

Finally. I don't want the info box at all. But if we end up getting stuck with it then no i don't want the knowledge classification.

I hope this clears things up. theresa knott 08:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This supposed two-week deadline is fallacious - almost any page may be edited by almost any user at any time, so if you come up with a contentious solution it may and will be edited by others at any time later. That is, you need to come up with an inherently obvious and robust solution that will maintain itself.

I submit that your statements on "science people" show insufficient wikilove - David Gerard 09:03, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

There is no inherent reason to put the knowledge classification in the infobox. So, either the science people are going to cooperate with us or it is coming out. The only rational place to put criticisms is in the criticism section. No advocay is permited in the intro. I think the whole concept of scientific research is a proven farce by anybody who cares to look at what these science geeks are doing with our tax money. It is nothing but job security for science geeks. Let them get a real job like everybody else. -- John Gohde 14:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Mentioning that it is considered pseudoscience is presenting a viewpoint as per NPOV. Remember that the intro of an article is supposed to be a synopsis of the article. There are plans for a print Wikipedia based largely on the intros of articles, on the assumption that they are synopses in inverted-pyramid form of the articles (see the WikiEN-L mailing list on the subject of the print version). If your Suggested Quality Guidelines say otherwise, then they are in contradiction of the NPOV policy. Which, unlike the SQGs, are actually hard Wikipedia policy, and most definitely not a voluntary suggestion - David Gerard 14:21, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

You are simply WRONG. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 14:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

No I'm afraid he is right. NPOV is the one binding policy that is non negotiable, coming from when Jimbo and Larry first started wikipedia. If you cannot abide by NPOV then you are in the wrong project. theresa knott 14:55, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I assume you can back up that statement. My backing is Wikipedia:Lead section which states: "The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:News style)." This would imply that, as a synopsis of the article, it is also covered by NPOV. Wikipedia:News style says "Encyclopedia articles don't have to follow news style, but a familiarity with news style conventions should be a great help in organising an article."

While these are both merely style guides rather than hard policy (as NPOV) is, they are style guides that have evolved over the course of the project — rather than (as with your SQGs) being largely the work of a single author who has reverted almost any changes by others to the guide in question [2]. - David Gerard 14:50, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Both of these articles are hardly bigger than a stub. And, they most certainly do not say what you are implying that they do.

Nowhere does it say that editors are allowed in the introduction or lead:

• to defecate on topics you personally find distasteful
• to advocate one point of view as being better than another
• to add controversey
• to attack the topic of the article

-- John Gohde 19:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Demea paper: who translated?

The Demea paper referenced in the article is listed as being in Romanian. The quote is in English. What's the source of the translation? - David Gerard 14:21, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

D'oh, never mind - it's the PubMed abstract. - David Gerard 14:33, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

MNH refusal to post to talk pages

MNH has posted here, in Talk:Alternative medicine, that he will not discuss changes on talk pages. Despite this, he insists on making changes that are debateable (to say the least). I suggest this is a bad idea - if making controversial changes, one must be prepared to explain them, no matter how dicey the server is today - David Gerard 20:32, May 25, 2004 (UTC) MNH, could you please explain how noting your refusal to post to talk pages concerning your changes constitutes a "personal attack" [3]? I find it particularly a matter of concern given that I posted it here in connection with your most recent edit to Iridology [4], made after said post, which you still aren't discussing. Although that means the page protection wouldn't be lifted - David Gerard 14:57, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

MNH I just want to add my voice to David's here. May I respectfully suggest that you refrain from refactoring other peoples comments from now on. If you feel someone has made a personal attack then please ask a neutral party to step in on your behalf. Sam Spade may be up for it, or someone else of your choosing. I am suggesting this because you do not appear to actually understand our "remove personal attacks" policy and it looks as if you are trying to remove legitimate critisms of your behaviour. I'm sure that you aren't actually doing this, for that would be very underhanded. So if you get someone else to do it, they will be better able to judge a true personal attack from a legitimate concern. theresa knott 15:24, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I submit that your above statements show insufficient wikilove - John Gohde 19:31, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well that certainly wasn't my intention. theresa knott 21:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and what is your current contention on your current intention, prey? You are suggesting arbiters for yet-another-reading-of-objective-measures-of-your-trolling-activity (YAROMYTA) ? Oh, Theresa, theresa, you have become a case study for Wikipolice - irismeister 21:39, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Excellent to see you posting to talk pages again! Now, I'd love you to answer the question of how noting your refusal to post to talk pages concerning your changes constitutes a "personal attack" [5]. And to discuss your previous edit that you wouldn't discuss otherwise. - David Gerard 21:50, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

The witness is making a conclusion rather than testifying as to fact!

Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and patient's state of health.

In the court room, good lawyers would object to that type of testimony on the grounds that the witness is making a conclusion rather than testifying as to fact. Before, such testimony could be allowed under oath the witness would first have to be first qualified an expert witness. This is part of the rules of evidence.

So anybody who says that Little scientific evidence exists confirming any such link between the aspect of the iris and patient's state of health is not advocating that one position is better than another one; does not know what they are talking about. And, the judge would defiantly be screaming and yelling at them. -- John Gohde 14:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Can you see my replies now David? I am still waiting for a response!

Copied from above ...

I assume you can back up that statement. My backing is Wikipedia:Lead section which states: "The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:News style)." This would imply that, as a synopsis of the article, it is also covered by NPOV. Wikipedia:News style says "Encyclopedia articles don't have to follow news style, but a familiarity with news style conventions should be a great help in organising an article."

While these are both merely style guides rather than hard policy (as NPOV) is, they are style guides that have evolved over the course of the project — rather than (as with your SQGs) being largely the work of a single author who has reverted almost any changes by others to the guide in question [6]. - David Gerard 14:50, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Both of these articles are hardly bigger than a stub. And, they most certainly do not say what you are implying that they do.

Nowhere does it say that editors are allowed in the introduction or lead:

• to defecate on topics you personally find distasteful
• to advocate one point of view as being better than another
• to add controversey
• to attack the topic of the article

-- John Gohde 19:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Getting even more specific I can quote from your above selected project pages, I can point out the following direct quotes.

Wikipedia:Lead section

The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article.

News style

Most importantly, they [i.e., news writers] use neutral or nonjudgemental language. Journalists view non-neutral words and unattributed statements of opinion as "editorializing" or failures of objectivity.

You lose David, yet agian. == John Gohde 20:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Yet again you are trying to win. David can't lose , because this is a cooperative project not a combattive one. MNH if you cannot work with people you should leave. No one here finds iridology distateful everyone here (except you) is trying to write a neutral article. NPOV is not the same as pro, that good and bad have to be both represented. Oh yes, this is not a court of law, this is a cooperative encylopedia. There is no judge, only readers. The readers need to be presented with all the facts, not just the pro ones. theresa knott 01:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the usual Wikipolice "workaround" to remove competent editing complete with editors :O). Get a life, Theresa! You crave for arbitration as much as you seem to look for intellectual masturbation :O)- irismeister 21:29, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Your reply is non-responsive to my above specific points. Nor, is your name David. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 02:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Behavior on this talk page has been cited in a request for arbitration concerning Irismeister. The case of Irismeister 2 has been accepted. Please submit evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2/Evidence if you are involved in the cited disputes. --mav 03:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the usual Wikipolice "workaround" to remove competent editing complete with editors :O). Get a life, Maveric! You crave for arbitration as much as you seem to look for intellectual masturbation :O)- irismeister 21:29, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

I've put a request concerning User:Mr-Natural-Health on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - David Gerard 09:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Your reply is non-responsive to my above specific points, David. You started this debate. And, I would like a simple answer to my above question. I asked a simple question and your response is to request arbitration. Is that being mature David? How may times have you stated in public that you are waiting for a reply? Your behavior is just plain rude, David. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 15:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the usual Wikipolice "workaround" to remove competent editing complete with editors :O). Get a life, David! You crave for arbitration as much as you seem to look for intellectual masturbation :O)- irismeister 21:29, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Graphic Image of the Eye

Who ever decided to move the graphic image of the Eye below the infobox, which I thought TK refused to permit, failed to change the margins on the right side of the eye back to normal. Since we cannot edit this article, I obviously cannot correct this gross error. I just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 19:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I haven't refused to permit anything of the sort. Please don't put words into my mouth. All I tried to do was to prevent the image, infobox and TOC all bashing up against one another in certain display settings. I tried to do that by moving the infobox up above the eye. You took that as an attack on the infobox, and said the info bak has to go below the intro (you didn't say why though). Sam then tried to move it down to the bottom of the page. You took that as an attack as well. I'm fine with someone moving the eye down a little. theresa knott 20:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

As I very clearly recall, putting the eye directly below the infoxbox was my original recommendation for all articles containing graphics. This position of mine was very well documented in page history over on the project pages of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. It was of course the version of the infobox which you originally attacked. -- John Gohde 01:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that'll be me. I put them in a div so they wouldn't clash, and proceeded to foul up the layout as you describe. Mea culpa - David Gerard 13:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Royal Mess

Credits: Ms Theresa Knott and the Wikipolice cabal
Problem: The Mess
Solution: Let John clean it
Inhibitors: All parasitic diversions
Stimulators: Competent editors (the full Romanian team)
irismeister 20:30, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

Royal Iris Color

To whom it may concern:
Iris color has little if any iridologic value. irismeister 21:24, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

---

Some references from Mainstream British media

1. Alternative treatments which the committee found scientifically unproven and unregulated [...] Iridology: Diagnosing health problems through studying the iris of the eye and noting marks and changes. The Guardian
2. Professor Daugman is dismissive of claims by iridologists that changes in the iris can be used to diagnose health problems. "There is absolutely no evidence that the iris changes its appearance," he says. "Iridology is a superstition, like palm reading, and has no basis in fact." The Telegraph (requires registration)
3. Part of the problem is diagnosis [of candida]; complementary practitioners use Vega machines, kinesiology and iridology that are dismissed by the medical profession. The Telegraph (requires registration)
4. [House of Lords committee] criticised crystal healing, Chinese medicine and iridology - healing by examining the eye, claiming that evidence of their effectiveness was "sparse". It also expressed concern at the safety implications of an unregulated herbal medicine sector. The Telegraph (requires registration)

See also:

1. Media Response to House of Lords Select Committee Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine
2. The report from the Parliamentary Stationary Office
3. BBC covers the Lords' report

Useful search: Google Lords' committee on CAM

---

The problem is that when dealing with alt med the media is not excatly a relible resource.00:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Teaching and 'encouragement'

I am confused by this sentence "Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic and Romania are a few amongst the European countries where medical doctors are encouraged to practice iridology.". This is very unclear - who encourages doctors to practice iridology? Medical schools ? Specialists boards ? governments? Lay pressure groups ? Iridologists ? Please specify and give evidence and re-insert a clarified version. Thanks ! Refdoc 12:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Refdoc, this whole article is a complete mess due to credits earned by Theresa, David, Jwros (and other Wikipolice officers, Wikithoughtpolice underintendents and Wikicensors at large) in the last nine months. Please do not rely on "information" provided here - it's outrageously biased under the sordid banner of the famous fallacy aka the "NPOV" point of view. Please avoid any Wiki article where the above-mentioned editors "contributed" (other than by banning John Gohde and harassing Lyr and others). Visit some decent information provider instead. If you are serious about scientific iridology reasearch, the first thing to do is to avoid this Wikimess. Thank you ! - irismeister 15:22, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

This sentence is unchanged since you introduced it on 19 February, irismeister ([7]). - MykReeve 21:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(personal attack removed by Jwrosenzweig) - irismeister 18:50, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

On the danger of uspetting you - I agree with the NPOV policy. And if you don't agree with the NPOV polocy the web is big enough so that you should be able to find other places more interested in your style of writing or your content. Apart from this I have not seen anything that makes me believe that iridology is anything more than quackery of the silliest sort. But this is both beside the point. This article is an encyclopaedic article and not about your or my POV. My question has remained unanswered. Who 'encourages' iridology? Refdoc 23:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ILLEGAL CENSORHIP in WIKIPEDIA

Theheherresa, STOP reverting and CENSORING MEDICAL information in WIKIPEDIA. STOP with this puppettering business - it's ILLEGAL as my lawyers just proved. You are only making your case (and Rosie's own personal case) much worse. Besides, INDEFINEEEETE is a better spppellling thaaahhn yoooouyhrs :O) Any indiscriminate, unjust, rubber stamping on indefinite banning is as ILLEGAL as CENSORHSIP in WIKIPEDIA and carries full legal responsibility for complicity and cospiracy to hide truth. Watch out, baby - we're back to keep you busy :O) - irismeister 14:49, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC) And while you work hard towards my next ban keep in mind that SEVERAL trusted third parties are now WATCHING every move you do in Wiki ! We now know how to deal with your buckets and spades :O)- irismeister 14:49, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

Irismeister you know very well that you have been banned from editing the iridology page by the AC. For that reason I will revert every edit you make. What's more you are on a personal attack parole. Calling James "rosie" and me "baby" is a personal attack. We also do not allow legal threats here. For this reason I am temp blocking you. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 14:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WHAT'S NEW

[personal attack rant deleted] irismeister 12:07, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

WHAT's NEW BESIDES CENSORSHIP AS USUAL :O)

For the recent addition about rigorous tests - it's presumptious nonsense! Visit some decent NEW information provider and update this text from its current misery towards the general direction of less red shift in the background Internet noise! - irismeister 15:25, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC) Sixth grade nonsense, user hostile "encyclopedia", wanted disinformation, on purpose iris-research-bashing. With such standards I no longer recommend the English Wikipedia, the most user hostile and weird of them all. Even the Aromanian Wikipedia is more informative, far more friendly and still commendable. - Good luck with your disinformation and "scientific" tests, great experts and specialists and SHAME on you ! - irismeister 15:25, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

With such standards I no longer recommend the English Wikipedia - ah, that explains the vast decline in page views! - DavidWBrooks 23:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

... and the increase of porn page views :O) - irismeister 15:40, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Removed from the article

This stuff needs to go on the talk page:

The definition you give for iridology is far from accurate. I should first explain the 2 different methods of iridology. The American model is based on the fact that only medical doctors can make a diagnose, this for iridologists in America meant changing its main principles resulting in bastardisation and inaccuracy. The other model stems from Europe and is totally different from the American model.

In most of Europe people are free to learn and practice iridology unlike in the USA where people do not have the same freedom, which is strange for a country that is forever saying it is the land of the free. In Europe iridologists do use iridology to name specific diseases.

The terms referred to “overactive” and “inflammation” is inaccurate and misleading and is the foundations of American iridology. Such terminology is shallow, misleading and non professional. You are also wrong in stating that the iris changes, it does not.

In the 1980s I conducted my own research into the iris changing. What occurs is a photograph taken of an iris in sunlight appears different to the same iris taken in a darkened room. Pupil dilation or constriction changes the patterns of the iris. It took me a couple of hours to prove this, which begs the question why hasn’t one American iridologist with half a brain found the same.

You also state “Other features that iridologists look for are contraction rings and Klumpenzellen, which are said to indicate various other health conditions, as interpreted in context.” This is again American bull shit. Who ever wrote this should resign.

Iridologists in Europe view the iris before taking a medical history, or any information that can be seen to be passing the same information back to the patient who has already stated a medical problem. You also state “A visit to an iridologist can have a placebo effect.” Such a statement cements your ignorance of iridology.

Scientific research into iridology Oh dear, if the same criteria was given to all medical research as in Simon et al.4, 1979 the second biggest killer of people being doctors in America, would create a national panic. Diagnosis from a photograph is not possible.

The Paul Knipschild trail was flawed; Knipschild could not find any iridologist to take part in his plan. So he got 5 doctor cronies to work from an iridology book, which just happen to be the American model of iridology. Anyone for heart surgery, I have a excellent book to work from.

You presented no research that is available from Spain, Russia, or Korea which shows very good results for iridologists.

If you can’t be honest then don’t write it.

James Colton (UK)

Hi James. I agree the article needs a lot of work. But this is a wiki. Feel free to improve the article yourself! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

"Catharral"?

Is this a real word? The only appropriate word that I can think of is "catarrhal", but that doesn't seem to fit the context. Given that the author misspelt "inflamatory", [sic] I am inclined to believe that "catharral" is a mistake. Axl 20:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect it's a non english way of spelling catarrhal. It gets quite a few google hits. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not convinced. The majority of Google hits seem to be misspellings of catarrhal. Given that the author uses the word to refer to 'healing', I wonder if he actually means cathartic? Where's an iridologist when you need one? ;-) Axl 12:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scientific research

I have just conducted my own search for medical articles referring to iridology. I concur with the description given in Scientific research. The author has given an accurate representation of the relevant literature, reported in a non-biased way. Axl 13:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose specific diseases..."

The first paragraph of the second paragraph states: "Iridologists do not claim to be able to diagnose specific diseases, but to highlight those systems and organs in the body that are healthy and those which are, for example, 'overactive' or 'inflamed.'" Is "overactive" and "inflamed" the same as "unhealthy? Does "highlight" mean "diagnose"? The author(s) of this particular statement are careful to state that iridologists do not diagnose specific disease (which would be illegal - i.e. practicing medicine without a license), but there is no doubt that iridologists implicitly claim to diagnose disease in general. In fact, one of the Pro-Iridology links at the bottom of the article states, "Iridology is used as more of a diagnostic tool than a treatment.""http://altmed.creighton.edu/Iridology/ A google search for "iridology" and "diagnostic tool" will turn up similar results from other Pro-Iridology sites. I suggest changing this statement to "Iridologists cannot legally claim to diagnose specific disease..." or change "highlight" to "diagnose". --AED 15:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benefits of Iridology/Placeo effect

I have edited the third paragraph before realising what hornets' nest this page is... Anyway the deed is done : changes I made are evident and explanation is duely given : 1) The Placebo effect is well recognised and researched, indeed, but is not restricted to medicines/drugs, applies equally to surgical operations and indeed even to simple medical examination - I have cured many stomach aches by examining and declaring every thing being ok. It is a function of suggestibility, belief in teh particular intervention/health system/ behaviour of teh therapist and other matters including obviously the fee. WAs it is a probability it is a bit facile to suggest if teh patient beliefs he will feel better - chances are and they depend also on the seriousness of his/her condition - so teh formulation had to be a bit sharper tahn it was. I also cut out following sentence :". , and some studies indicate that around one third of all visits to doctors have at least some psychosomatic component." as I found little use (and little truth) in it. All illness has a psychosomatic component (sometimes larger, sometimes smaller) and hence the placebo effect may well be always be of some concern. The person who put the quote in misunderstood. True is, between 30% to 60% of all primary care consultations will have a mental health component - ranging from simple distress to severe mental illness. But the placebo effect has little to with the mental health aspect and can be equally present when peole are perfectly corpus mentis and happy. I hope i expressed myself clearly enough. Have fun reverting :-) Refdoc 19:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LOL Don't worry you wont be reverted. The edit wars on this page were because of one problem editor who is currently banned from editing the page. Feel free to edit the page as you would any other page :-) theresa knott 19:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(removed personal attack) - Sincerely, irismeister 12:44, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Passed with one votes in favour, and none opposed so far :O).

Today's version states: A visit to an iridologist can have a placebo effect. (this specific claimed benefit is seen as being particularly ludicrous by skeptics, as an actual medical physician would never claim the placebo effect as being part of a beneficial result and an excuse to use what is otherwise recognized as an ineffectual treatment). I am not convinced that a visit to an iridologist can have a placebo effect in that it is a method of diagnosis (or "highlighting" as the iridologist must legally claim) rather than a method of treatment... or is the claim here that diagnosing (or "highlighting") is a method of treatment? The second part of the sentence is simply not true. Mainstream medicine often takes advantage of the placebo effect to achieve a beneficial result. This part should be removed, but we can entertain some discussion since it was just added today. AED 04:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

When does mainstream medicine take advantage of the placebo effect to achieve a beneficial result? Really, I don't know, other than the investigation of the effect itself I really can't think of anything. It is not the practice of physicians to fool them into thinking they're getting a treatment which works, so far as I know. Anywho, while I think your first removal edit after mine is ok, I reverted the removal of the possible harmful effects subsection which I added because I think that if the article has a "benefits" section there is no reason we shouldn't include the negative effects right along with. --Deglr6328 05:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

When does mainstream medicine take advantage of the placebo effect to achieve a beneficial result? [How about sugar pills to relieve pain. Since we're discussing the eyes, ask an optician or optometrist about the "heat and light" treatment for adjusting eyeglasses or changing an eyeglasses Rx.] Really, I don't know, other than the investigation of the effect itself I really can't think of anything. It is not the practice of physicians to fool them into thinking they're getting a treatment which works, so far as I know. [It's the practice of physicians to make patients better... sometimes that involves the use of a placebo.] Anywho, while I think your first removal edit after mine is ok, I reverted the removal of the possible harmful effects subsection which I added because I think that if the article has a "benefits" section there is no reason we shouldn't include the negative effects right along with. [I agree. That's why there is a section entitled "Criticism".] AED 05:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

???You think doctors regularly prescribe sugar pills to treat pain? I hope I never accidentally go to your doctor! I really can't make sense of the rest of what you wrote.....--Deglr6328 05:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I take it that we're done with civilized discussion on this issue. AED 05:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean?! Just explain what you mean so we can come to an agreement. Why did you revert this edit [8]? I see no reason to start sentences in an article with "...".--Deglr6328 05:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of placebos, I do not think most physicians regularly prescribe sugar pills. Obviously there is no clear consensus within mainstream medicine: http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.678/healthissue_detail.asp In my opinion, this is sufficient to refute the remark that "an actual medical physician would never claim the placebo effect as being part of a beneficial result...".

Secondly, the "..." indicates the continuation of a sentence. The trouble with the "Criticism" sections in many of the alternative medicine-type articles is that they ramble or attempt to counter the pro-alternative method point-by-point (see Homeopathy for an example of the huge mess it has become). In this article, many of the criticisms leveled at iridology are not specific to iridology. It would be nice if those that are not had some consistent format from article to article. AED 06:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I am genuinely shocked by the admission of a REAL doctor of the unapologetic deceit of his own patients. So the section I added sould be be modified with a "majority of doctors" or something or we should just get rid of the entire thing altogether because iridology is not a method of treatment but is only claimed as a method of diagnosis and so can't have a placebo effect. I still do not like the setup of the section under criticism with those sentance fragments. --Deglr6328 09:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"When does mainstream medicine take advantage of the placebo effect to achieve a beneficial result?" "How about sugar pills to relieve pain."

Mainstream medicine routinely uses the placebo effect for this purpose. However mainstream medicine (usually) only uses this in a treatment with recognized efficacy. Occasionally mainstream medicine uses treatments without recognized efficacy. Such treatments may be controversial, and might not be regarded as 'mainstream' by the majority of doctors. Edwardian, I am unaware of the 'mainstream' prescription of sugar pills to relieve pain. The use of placebos in research is only justified when there is no proven efficacious treatment against which to compare the novel treatment (placebo-controlled trial). Axl 07:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we’re losing site of the original quote which was: “[A]n actual medical physician would never claim the placebo effect as being part of a beneficial result and an excuse to use what is otherwise recognized as an ineffectual treatment”. That is simply false. Most physicians recognize that the placebo effect is often a large part of the patient reporting improved symptons. Whether or not most mainstream physicians (i.e. in this context, those practicing what is often termed conventional medicine) prescribe sugar pills for pain relief is a separate issue… as is the ethicality of such use clinically and in research. AED 21:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, your claim about the mainstream prescription of sugar pills is a fallacy. I see that you have now side-stepped the issue rather than try to defend your statement. Axl 16:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't give a rat's ass what you think I'm claiming or doing. There is a difference between the "mainstream prescription of sugar pills" and "mainstream doctors prescribing sugar pills". If you can't read for full context, that's your problem. AED 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever claim that placebos dont hame some legitimate use like for determining the efficacy of another drug in trials or something. obviously. And clearly some doctors DO use placebos in place of actual treatments so yes the statment needs modification. However I still do think that outside of clinical trials and the like where placebos are used for good by proxy, that thier use directly is very uncommon. Anyway I may as well remove the whole thing as per your complaints previously regarding iridology not being a treatment etc.--Deglr6328 00:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian, what is this "heat and light" treatment? I didn't find an appropriate reference on Google or Pubmed searches. Axl 07:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You won’t. It’s a variation of telling the patient that you’re doing something, but doing nothing, to achieve a placebo effect. AED 21:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This does not explain the lack of reference to it in a Google search. Can't you demonstrate even one reference? If not, I conclude that this so-called 'mainstream heat and light' treatment is another fallacy. Axl 16:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Conclude what you want - same reason as above. Or ask your optician about it as I suggested. Or if you're too lazy to make the trip, post to Optiboard or someother forum with opticians or optometrists in it. AED 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your rude response confirms my suspicion. Other readers shall draw their own conclusions. Axl 07:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, they shall. When you start making mealy-mouthed insinuations about a person’s integrity, you shouldn’t be so surprised to receive uncooperative or rude responses in reply. If you’re truly interested in knowing more about the aforementioned colloquialism or how the power of suggestion plays a large part in the placebo effect – which I suspect you are not – check back when you have more manners. AED 08:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)