User talk:Irismeister/Conventional medicine

Consensus Seeking, Anyone ?

In the land of Wikipedia, Consensus Seeking is obtained by the process of editing articles.

... and good will (bona fide in plain English) :O) - irismeister 16:39, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Talk pages are reserved for discussing controversies as they come up during the normal editing process of articles and for privately discussing POV issues.

Right. And putting POVs on the table until they compete to death so that we might go back to articles and write great NPOV sentences! - irismeister 16:41, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

I just go to the German edition of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Above all else, the objective of both articles and talk pages is to communicate unequivocally in plain English.

Writing in Latin, French, German, and Spanish does promote communication in this English edition of Wikipedia. Nor, does writing nonsensical quips accomplish anything constructive.

Of course, John, but then you have Zeitgeist and bagels, and gringo and smorgasbord, and they give life and new blood to a recent language as young as plain English. In Europe, what you call nonsensical quips is called culture, something nobody in France would give away for nothing in this world ! It also comes free. You see, we'd all like the others to be like we want them to be. Most problems in unsuccessful communication, including that in plain English is that the others tend to be like they are. Rest assured I will translate from the seven languages I use here everyday for your pleasure. I will add even more Wiki brackets so that the "nonsensical quip" is put only one click away. Remember, we all write en-cyclo-pedia, meaning we have, sometimes, to move in circles like this one ;O) - irismeister 16:37, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

My intention, as of now, is to ask for another VfD (ie, vote for deletion) in about a week or two in order to reach a community consensus as to whether or not conventional medicine should be deleted or whether the two notices above it can be removed. Happy babbling until the next vote. The next move is up to you. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:49, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, come back! If you throw the gauntlet away and again, people will look at you like you look at a self-opiniated, self-righteous boring old man. Come back and learn to listen and work cooperatively. You are like a little boy, too! If people don't do the things you would like them to do, you go into your room, close the door and break all the dolls which haven't been elected as Miss Barbie. Hic Rhodus hic salta ! (In plain English: your place is here, between adults). You have a great professional site, you fight for a good cause, and you write well. If your character is a caractère de cochon, this is nature's choice, your problem and none of anyone else's business! We can, should and indeed like to live with you. Look, stay! Even your own stuff will be maturing and embettered as good wine is if you don't agitate it too much :O) - irismeister 18:04, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

It is my position, that conventional medicine must independently justify its own existence. Please don't pass the buck to alternative medicine. Either conventional medicine can justify its own existence, or it deserves to be deleted. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a third way! (Tertium datur, in plain English :O) Nobody, from a POV to a person, to a criminal, nobody deserves to be "deleted". That's what medicine is all about: letting things, people, ideas as they are, alive and well, healthy, wealthy and wise. Medicine, A or C, is about letting life thrive. Medicine, as great doctor, biologist and philosopher Eugene Du Bois put it (it's a plain American, my note :O) is about wherever life is, by all means, let it grow and multiply ! HAppy editing ! - irismeister 16:47, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only thing anybody needs to know about this article before they can responsibly edit it, is:

Conventional medicine is about the reality of medicine, as it is practiced today as part of the modern health care system.

This article is not about medicine as a science, but rather about criticisms voiced concerning the current practice of medicine.

-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your opinion is correct in my opinion, John. We had just one observation in the archive about "about". You need to rephrase that as it is the first paragraph and everybody reads it. "CM is the reality of medicine..." or "CM is mainstream medicine..." something like this. Also the article, although addresses criticism of CM, is not only that. We must not forget that Wiki in plain English is also about the 90% rest, not only about the 10% West ;) And one more thing - even in the West, Medicine, C or A, is not a science, nor will it ever be. Many of us would like it this way (some tried "biomedicine"), but if we say that, we leave the whole clinical thing out in the cold again. Medicine is also an art but than again, not only an art either. And the last thing - medicine outlives us, and the the Western Civilization. Let's think deep, let's think wide, let's think great, in plain English ! - irismeister 16:23, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

how to move forward

oops sorry I should have checked the new talk before editing the page. nice to see a BMJ article – nice very funny, illustrating a serious issue a real keeper!

Overall I think the page is maybe getting better – but irismeister could you please fix what is there before adding more. I feel a bit drowned by new content. It is more slower and coherent (which is great thanks!) but could be even more focused and a lot more NPOV. irismeister, I’ve had a think about your suggestions and I think a better approach would be:

state the individual criticisms in a brief NPOV way
then after each statement have:
- a paragraph (maybe 200 words) that supports the criticsm
- another paragraph (maybe 200 words) that refutes the criticsm

(by the way is possible for the authors of the perjorative bickering on this page to delete it or move it to their own talk pages)--Erich gasboy 15:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion, Erich! With a small caveat though: statement of the individual criticisms in a brief NPOV way is more likely to be NPOV after you put all POVs on the table. You see, very few of us have the gift of educating themselves to be NPOV writers. However, we need not ban all those who cling to their POV. They do great work, and indeed, great POVs !!! Sure, Wiki is all about NPOV. But Wiki is a clever thing. It uses all the help it can get. Editors who are thought police officers go after and hunt all POVs. But this is the silly thing to do! POVs resurface, and they are only sure they will resurface if they cut them. It's like stupidly curing a cancer by running after all tumors once they are out, to cut them off. Wiki will thrive on POVs and POV authors, who are much more than NPOV authors. We must not ban and diabolize POV and POV authors. We can surf over the waves they make, though! Let them state their POV, cool them down (by moving their stuff from the article to the talk page as needed) and then gently letting all POVs compete, elminate the extremes, rounding off the angles, and stating as neuter as neuter can be. Anyway, they will be as stubborn as mules and will bring a bandwagon of followers and stuff and they will do miserable things and they will be ruining the NPOV knowledge space. That's what happened in the last five month with almost all medical articles, still overheated by the fury and rage of people. Wiki suffered. Wiki will suffer less if, overall, we let all POVs expressed as free as free speech is, inside the talk page. Let's call this overall approach Look, Ma, no POVs :O) - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

(by the way is possible for the authors of the perjorative bickering on this page to delete it or move it to their own talk pages)--Erich gasboy 15:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, although good Wikiquette does not separate the chaff from the good grain inside talk pages. As a rule of thumb, people are allowed to cut and move anything on their own talk pages, but they are kindly asked not to cut stuff from the article's talk pages. Everything is archived, recycled and used at its best. I know it's tiring to navigate through a mess of mixed stuff, but that's what talk is, isn't it ? ;-) We would all like to have rich silent and happy patients. But - Happy editing, and I'll be back tomorrow to let you all breathe in the mean time. And don't worry, you'll be all better off when my annoying character will be banned. It's any time now :O) - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

how to REALLY move forward

Actually, I for one, would like for USER:irismeister to read, comprehend, and apply all of the above. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are right, John. I'll do that! - irismeister 16:16, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

There is a need for a Criticism Section

Seems to me, that I am going to have to add a criticism section to this article on conventional medicine. I take exception to your Historical Divisions of Conventional Medicine. You seem intent on aligning alternative medicine with Quackery. Shaman's models are a total joke and certainly are quackery.

You got it all wrong, John. Look, I repeat - we both look into AM as something worth fighting for. Do not take everybody as enemy ! You only complicate your time and lose time, while you gain nothing. - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

I see a direct parallel between modern Chinese medicine and Western Medieval medicine. Medieval medicine is basically Greek medicine and Galen's work at its worst! Chinese medicine, like its counter part Western Medieval medicine, is a functional medicine that develops when surgery and dissections of the human body are not permitted.

An interesting idea. however, Chinese medicine (TCM) has a few millennia of evolution behind it, while mediaeval medicine is only a crude concoction of Galen, as you correctly identified it. You are wrong however in assuming TCM is a contorted development. There is a beautiful treatise of Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China - which I cannot possibly recommend to you less. It's a masterpiece ! - - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine has Five Elements:metal, wood, earth, water, fire. Compare that to the Western Classical elements: fire, air, water, and earth. And Galen's four humours: phlegm (water), yellow bile (fire), black bile (earth), and blood (air) has parallels in Chinese medicine.

Correct, John, TCM has the same ontologic ideas as Chinese Philosophy. However, the parallel stops there. - - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

In short, I would no more praise Chinese medicine than I would recommend Medieval medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TCM has perhaps twelve thousand years of success behind it, and works for more than a billion people nowadays. It couldn't be wrong. Our medicine will only last as much as the Western Civilization, a very late if apparently successful outspring of the Old European Civilization. - - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Did you hear the one about TCM? The lecturer talked for hours about TCM. It was not until I got home that I realized that he was not talking about Traditional Conventional Medicine! Ha!, ... Hah, Ha!

The only difference between TCM and TCM (i.e., Chinese Medicine) is that the Orientals were fixated for thousands of years while Westerns got over it in a few hundred years. The only real difference between TCM and TCM are the herbs! Westerns use Western herbs and the Orients prefer their own Oriental herbs. Foreign herbs appear more exotic to Westerners. And, Chinese medicine has an exotic appeal only because it is foreign. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health

~

Yes, absolutely right and well done! The hieroglyph for Chinese medicine has three radicals, with one showing this pot where plants are apparently subject to extraction. - irismeister 17:23, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted? Perhaps not!

This article looks into the necessity of finding acceptable alternatives for purposes of serving the patient's best interest. This type of material does not belong in any article.

Why ? Isn't the patient worth it ?

There was however, a need for an article that discusses the reality of medicine, as it is practiced today as part of the modern health care system.

Feel free to start another one, if you have a structure in mind, and a lot or research to go with it. The AM is perfectly documented ! And well structured - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

You have succeeded in turning conventional medicine into something that discuses medicine as a science. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health

Thank you, but I believe I discuss it from the patient's standpoint and for the patient's best interest, something both TCM and CM-AM are quick to declare as their objective. CM however is now pirated by other interests, industrial, political, as you saw in the article and in the references and links. - irismeister 16:01, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Hi, John ! I do not think that the article should be deleted. It started from the talk pages of the AM article, while you were banned, I protested for your ban and someone offered the idea. Just look at the archives. Also I worked a lot on it. And what is still more interesting, there are in it a lot of issues that nobody cared to comment, as if they didn't exist. I believe we should not tell others what they ought to do, but to do what we can do, at best. Feel free to contribute, and welcome back ! - irismeister 15:49, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Being that you supposedly live in Paris, France: How come you are not writing articles for the French Edition? A separate article on les médecines parallèles or de médecine alternative has yet to be written. The have an article on Médecine (Medicine) that ends with a section on alternative medicine (Les médecines parallèles). I sure don't see an article on Iridology. Why don't you write articles for the French edition? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Je voudrais, John, mais je n'ai pas vraiment le temps :O) The French had some interesting alternative practitioners, and I am happy you mention that article. They also have this weird syntagm, les médecines douces - probably because they are so adept at tasting everything :O) I did however write some ophthalmological articles in Romanian, and will do some more if our common friend Theresa would give up the game she enjoys more. I'm looking forward for my next ban, so that I'll have time for some less babysitting. I crave the presence of a competent medical editor such as you are for the AM (really an example, John!) so that I might learn something new and do a better job. Yours - irismeister 17:30, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Il y a seulement à sens unique pour trouver le temps, et ce doit le faire. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My area of interest in alternative medicine is psychosocial treatments. Psychosocial treatments is the Alternative Medicine of the New Millennium. I find it an exciting field. There is a lot of overlap between psychosocial treatments and some other forms of alternative medicine. In many respects it is a method of organizing the different forms of treatments. While a few forms of psychosocial treatments require the professional services of psychologists most can be self-taught with the aid of books or instructional videos, or can be learned from an experienced practitioner. Although some initial training is needed, once these techniques are learned, most people will need no additional outside assistance. I think that these psychosocial treatments will leave TCM behind in the dust.

I am going to first update my web site with this information. I am currently writing editorials on it. I will eventually get around to writing another 100% original article on it, here. I am not going here first, of course. These people are too hostile and narrow minded. I am kind of tire of wasting my valueble time with these @#$*^% over this NPOV nonsense. Most of these critics, are about 30 years out of date. I am not going to throw my pearls in front of swine, as they say. Most of these editors rank the importance of alternative medicine at the same level as the their article on tampons. It is said really, but it is their problem. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, I heartily commend you for your psychosocial treatment interest - a perfect future. Really ESSENTIAL. By all means, margaritas ante porcos ! - Who, indeed, is written in the Vulgate, who would feed pigs with pearls ? I for one, will currently retire from Wiki, having made a few points and having ended my assignment here with some fascinating finding of facts about the anti-information cabal. Wiki is not a meritocracy. The fact that you managed to write a perfect AM article shows that only serious people like you can invest so much time and energy into not being bitter, and saying what they have to. I am also serious, not bitter either, and also say what I have to. Looks we are in the same boat, really :O) I wish you good luck in your career. For the time being I have more important things to do than demonstrating the values of editing at face value :O) Nice meeting you, John, and keep up the good work ! - irismeister 08:37, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Moved to User:Irismeister

This entry is an essay, not a Wikipedia article. --The Cunctator 13:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For those less interested in Cunctator's anarchic POV and moves, the article is still here. Hurry - it will not stay in Wiki long, and facts stated there are hard to find.

Facts are "essays" these days... Move it away - and it will save your day :O)

When there are no arguments, a move may save the thinking . What's the use of spending weeks documenting POVs and writing a bare bones article, if someone just steps in and moves it to "essays" - out of harm's way. Happy editing :O) - irismeister 19:07, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)