順勢療法討論區 Homeopathy Discuss!

 註冊 register
查看: 5198|回復: 3

維基百科針對順勢療法的不實敘述 Dysfunctionat Wikipedia on Home...

admin 發表於 2015-12-15 17:21:03 | 顯示全部樓層 |閱讀模式
維基百科針對順勢療法的不實敘述 Dysfunctionat Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine
Posted: 10/10/2014
It may surprise and even shock most people to learn that, accordingto the Washington Post, the two most controversial subjects on Wikipedia infour leading languages (English, French, German, and Spanish) are the articleson "Jesus Christ" and "homeopathy."
  根據《華盛頓郵報》(Washington Post) 報導:在維基百科 (Wikipedia) 四大語言(英文、法文、德文、以及西班牙文)的網頁中,有兩個最具爭議性的話題,就是關於「耶穌基督」(Jesus Christ) 及「順勢療法」(homeopathy) 的文章,這個結果可能會令很多人感到大吃一驚。

Wikipedia is expected to be a resource of reliable information,however Wikipedia is falling below standards, and in fact, Wikipedia's articleon homeopathy is providing strongly biased, inaccurate information. This strongbias is a symptom of a deeper problem at Wikipedia in select articles on topicsthat challenge dominant medical and scientific worldviews.

1. Is Homeopathy Reallya "Pseudoscience"?  順勢療法真的是「偽科學」嗎?
Evidence of the strong bias against homeopathy and against anobjective encyclopedic tone is evident throughout the article. I will firstfocus on the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article and the 6references which purport to substantiate these claims:

Homeopathy /ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy;from the Greek ὅμοιοςhómoios "like-" and πάθοςpáthos"suffering") is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 bySamuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like, according to whicha substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will curesimilar symptoms in sick people.[1] Homeopathy is a pseudoscience[2][3][4] andits remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.[5] [6]
       順勢療法/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/(也可拼寫為homoeopathy homœopathy;源自希臘文「ὅμοιοςhómoios」,意即「相似-」,以及「πάθοςpáthos」是「痛苦」),由山姆.哈尼曼在1796年所創立,是建基於「相似者能治癒」原則的一個另類醫療系統。當中指出,一種能夠在健康人體上產生疾病症狀的物質,也就能夠治癒具有相似症狀的病人。[1] 順勢療法是偽科學 [2] [3] [4],它的療劑效能已被發現連安慰劑都不如。[5] [6]

References from Wikipedia's article on "Homeopathy":

1.     Hahnemann, Samuel(1833). The Homœopathic Medical Doctrine, or "Organon of the Healing Art".Dublin: W.F. Wakeman. pp. iii , 48-49 . "Observation, reflection, andexperience have unfolded to me that the best and true method of cure is foundedon the principle, similiasimilibuscurentur. To cure in a mild, prompt, safe,and durable manner, it is necessary to choose in each case a medicine that willexcite an affection similar (ὅμοιοςπάθος) to that against which it isemployed." Translator: Charles H. Devrient, Esq.
2.     ^ Tuomela R (1987)."Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC,Marcello P. Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. BostonStudies in the Philosophy of Science 98 (Springer). pp. 83-101.doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4 . ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
3.     ^ Smith K (2012)."Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics 26 (9):508-512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x .
4.     ^ Baran GR, Kiana MF,Samuel SP (2014). "Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: HowDo They Differ?" . Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century(Springer). pp. 19-57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2 . ISBN978-1-4614-8540-7. "within the traditional medical community it isconsidered to be quackery"
5.     ^ Shang A,Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects ofhomoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials ofhomoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726-32.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 . PMID 16125589 .
6.     Evidence Check 2:Homeopathy - Science and Technology Committee , British House of CommonsScience and Technology Committee, 22 February 2010, retrieved 2014-04-05

Wikipedia asserts that "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief orpractice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a validscientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot bereliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

The "editors" at Wikipedia have deemed homeopathy to be a"pseudoscience" even though randomized double-blind and placebocontrolled studies that have been published in many of the best medicaljournals in the world have shown efficacy of homeopathic treatment for manycommon and serious health problems (below is a partial list of such studies):
  雖然已有不少隨機雙盲安慰劑對照研究 (randomized double-blind and placebo controlled studies) 在多份全球最優的醫學期刊發表過,表明順勢療法治療在許多常見而嚴重的健康問題上,都具有療效(以下是這類研究的部分列表),但是維基百科的「編輯們」都依然將順勢療法評價為一種「偽科學」。
    Chronic obstructivepulmonary disease: Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence ofpotassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest,March, 2005;127:936-941. The journal, Chest, is the official publication of theAmerican College of Chest Physicians.
    Hayfever: Reilly D, TaylorM, McSharry C, et al., Is homoeopathy a placebo response? controlled trial ofhomoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model," Lancet, October18, 1986, ii: 881-6.
    Asthma: Reilly, D, Taylor,M, Beattie, N, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?"Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
    Fibromyalgia: Bell IR,Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgiapatients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo,Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. This journal is the official journal of the BritishSociety of Rheumatology.
    Fibromyalgia: Fisher P,Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment onFibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia)," BMJ, 299(August 5, 1989):365-6.
    Childhood diarrhea: Jacobs,J, Jimenez, LM, Gloyd, SS, Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea withHomeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study in Nicaragua,Pediatrics, May, 1994,93,5:719-25.
    ADD/ADHD: Frei, H, EvertsR, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K,Hassink R, Steinlin M, ThurneysenA.Homeopathic treatment of children withattention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebocontrolled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr., July 27,2005,164:758-767.

Can you name ONE other system of "pseudoscience" that hasa similar body of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinicaltrials published in high-impact medical journals showing efficacy of treatment?

It is more than a tad ironic that this first paragraph in theWikipedia article on homeopathy references only one article that was publishedin a peer-review medical journal. This one article by Shang, et al. has beenthoroughly discredited in an article written by Lüdtke and Rutten that waspublished in a leading "high impact" journal that specializes inevaluating clinical research. The Shang meta-analysis is highlighted onWikipedia without reference to any critique of it. The fact that there is nohint of any problems in the Shang review, let alone a reference to the Lüdtkeand Rutten article that provided evidence of bias, is itself a cause for concern.
      出乎意料的是,在維基百科中第一段對順勢療法引用的文章,只有一份被刊登於同行評審的醫學雜誌之中。這篇由尚文 (Shang) 等人發表的文章,被 Lüdtke 和呂滕 (Rutten) 在一本專門評估臨床研究的領導性期刊中批判得顏面無存。維基百科特別強調尚文的薈萃分析,但卻沒有提到任何評論它的文獻。事實上,很值得令人關注的是,維基百科並沒有談及尚文的評論可能存在之任何問題,這個做法本身已有很大問題,更甚的,是它竟然沒有提及Lüdtke 和呂滕已證實其偏差的文獻。

The Shang article is also the primary reference used by the widelyridiculed "Evidence Check" reports issued by the Science andTechnology Committee of the British House of Commons, which also convenientlyomits reference to the severe limitations of this one review of research.Further, the "Evidence Check" was signed off by just three of the 15members of the original committee, never discussed or endorsed by the whole UKParliament, and had its recommendations ignored by the UK Department of Health.
      尚文的這篇文章,是《實證檢查2:順勢療法》(Evidence Check) —— 一份被廣泛嘲笑的報告——的主要參考來源。《實證檢查2:順勢療法》報告是由英國下議院的科學技術委員會發行,同樣也是忽略不提這份同行評審研究之嚴重缺乏。再者,整個委員會中的15名成員,只有3名成員簽字認可《實證檢查2:順勢療法》,它從來沒有經整個英國議會討論或贊同,英國衛生部門一直都忽視其提出的建議。

It should be made clear that the Shang meta-analysis was co-authoredby M. Egger who is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy and who wrote to theLancet that his hypothesis before conducting the review was that homeopathy wasonly a placebo effect. Readers were never informed of this bias.
  我們應該弄清楚的是,尚文的薈萃分析是與艾格 (M. Egger) 合著的,而艾格是出了名的順勢療法懷疑論者。在發表這份薈萃分析之前,艾格曾經致函《柳葉刀》(Lancet) 說明他的假設——順勢療法只是一種安慰劑效應,讀者們則從來沒有被告知這個偏見。

The meta-analysis by Shang evaluated and compared 110placebo-controlled trials testing homeopathic medicines with 110 testingconventional drugs, finding 21 homeopathy trials (19%) but only nine (8%)conventional-medicine trials were of "higher quality." Lüdtke andRutten found that a positive outcome for homeopathy would have resulted ifShang had simply compared these high quality trials against each other.However, with some clever statistical footwork, Shang chose to limit the highquality trials to only 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional medical trials, aresult that led to a "negative" outcome for homeopathy. Lüdtke andRutten determined this review as biased for its "arbitrarily defined onesubset of eight trials" and they deemed the entire review as "falselynegative."
  尚文的薈萃分析,針對了110份順勢療法療劑與安慰劑對照試驗,以及110份傳統藥物與安慰劑對照試驗,進行評審和比較,發現有21份順勢療法試驗 (19) 是具有「高質素」的,但是符合「高質素」的傳統藥物試驗則只有9 (8)Lüdtke和呂滕發現,如果尚文純粹在這些高質素試驗之間作比較,就會得出順勢療法的正面結果。然而,尚文運用了一些狡猾的統計方法,把高品質試驗的選取範圍縮小,僅限於8份順勢療法療劑試驗,以及6份傳統藥物試驗,就能產生順勢療法的「負面」結果。Lüdtke和呂滕把尚文的薈萃分析評論為「具有偏見」,原因是「它單以一個含有8份試驗的子集來莽下定論」,他們認為整個審查是「假陰性結果」。

By reducing the number of studies, Shang created convoluted logicthat enabled his team to avoid evaluation of ANY of the above high qualitystudies that were all published in respected medical journals. Further, 7 of 8homeopathic studies only tested one homeopathic medicine for everyone with thesimilar disease even though one of the primary tenets of homeopathy requires individualizationof treatment. Many other extremely scathing critiques of the Shang researchwere published in the Lancet shortly after publication, including the exclusionof one high quality homeopathic study due to the questionable assertion thatthe researchers could not find a study in all of conventional medical researchthat treated patients with polyarthritis (arthritis that involves five or morejoints).
  透過縮減研究數目,尚文設計出迂迴曲折的邏輯,使他的團隊能夠避開任何高質素研究(通通被刊登於受尊重的醫學期刊)的評鑑。此外,順勢療法主要原則之一是個人化處理,但是在8份順勢療法療劑研究中,有7份是只測試一種順勢療法療劑,給予每個擁有同樣疾病的病人。尚文的研究在《柳葉刀》刊登後不久,瞬即得到很多嚴厲的批評,當中包括它剔除了一份順勢療法針對多發性關節炎(涉及五個或以上關節的關節炎) 的高質素研究,原因就只是因為研究人員無法找到主流醫學在處理同樣問題上的研究。

Skeptics typically assert that the above high-quality studiespublished in high-impact medical journals are simply "cherry-picking"the positive studies, and then, they begin cherry-picking studies that hadnegative results. However, skeptics of homeopathy fail to differentiate good,sound scientific investigations that are respectful of the homeopathic methodand those that are not. Just because a study was conducted with a randomizeddouble-blind and placebo controlled method does NOT mean that the study gavethe appropriate homeopathic medicine for each patient or even each group ofpatients. This ignorance is akin to someone saying that antibiotics areineffective for "infections" without differentiating betweenbacterial infections, viral infections, and fungal infections. Ironically,skeptics of homeopathy consistently show a very sloppy attitude about scientificinvestigations.

What the Most Comprehensive Review of Homeopathic Research Found...

Skeptics commonly assert that various meta-analyses verify thathomeopathy doesn't work and that homeopathic medicines are equivalent to theeffects of a placebo. These skeptics typically chose to ignore variousmeta-analyses that were published in highly respected medical journals and thatshow positive benefits from homeopathic medicines. Skeptics also ignore thelargest and most comprehensive review of research ever conducted...one that wasfunded by the government of Switzerland.

It is useful to know that the Shang/Egger meta-analysis was fundedby the same Swiss government's Complementary Medicine Evaluation Program thatalso funded a much more detailed and comprehensive review of clinical research,preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies,animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells), epidemiologicalevidence, and cost-effectiveness studies.

This more comprehensive Swiss government-funded report found aparticularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment ofUpper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions,"with 24 studies having a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Six out ofseven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventionalmedical treatment showed homeopathy to be more effective than conventionalmedical interventions. When the researchers evaluated only the randomizedplacebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result infavor of homeopathy.

Ironically, the Shang/Egger meta-analysis acknowledged that therehave been at least eight clinical trials of patients with acute infections ofthe upper respiratory tract and that there is "robust evidence that thetreatment under investigation works." And yet, Shang/Egger assert thatthis limited number of trials is inadequate for evaluating homeopathy, while atthe same time they assert that eight other trials provided unquestionableevidence for damning homeopathy, it should be noted that Shang/Egger somehowdetermined that some of the studies on respiratory infection and allergy werenot "high quality," even though numerous other meta-analyses haveunanimously defined three trials by David Reilly as high quality (two werepublished in the British Medical Journal and one was published in the Lancet).
  諷刺的是,尚文/艾格的薈萃分析也承認了,至少有8份關於急性上呼吸道感染病人的臨床試驗,顯示「強而有力的證據證明順勢療法有效」。然而,尚文/艾格聲稱由於試驗數目有限,不足以用來評估順勢療法是否有效。然而與此同時,他們卻又斷言,其他8份試驗提供了無容置疑的證據,證明順勢療法無效。我們應該注意的是,即使許多其他薈萃分析都一致公認,3份由大衛.賴利 (David Reilly) 進行的試驗為高質素研究(其中兩份試驗曾於《英國醫學雜誌》(British Medical Journal, BMJ) 上發表,另外一份則被刊登在《柳葉刀》),然而,尚文/艾格卻莫名其妙地判定這些上呼吸道感染和過敏研究並不是「高質素」。

In actual fact, although some meta-analyses have had a"negative" result, there have also been a significant number ofmeta-analyses that have had positive results, including this partial list:
    Linde L, Clausius N,Ramirez G, Jonas W, "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy PlaceboEffects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials,"Lancet, September20, 1997, 350:834-843. Although a later review by some of these authors found areduced significance, the authors never asserted that the significance was nolonger present. Further, two of the lead authors of this article provided avery sharp critique of the Shang, et al. review of research (2005). Also, bothLinde and Jonas wrote to the Lancet after the Shang/Egger article was publishedand asserted that the Lancet should be "embarrassed" by theirpublication of this article and the accompanied editorial (Lancet, 366 December17, 2005:2081-2).
    Kleijnen J, Knipschild PterRiet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ 1991, 302, 316-23. Of the 22best studies, 15 showed positive results from homeopathic treatment. Theresearchers concluded, "there is a legitimate case for further evaluationof homeopathy."
    Jacobs J, Jonas WB,Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: CombinedResults and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials,Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showeda highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
    Kassab S, Cummings M,Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effectsof cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2.
    Taylor, MA, Reilly, D,Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versusplacebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ,August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. The BMJ published an editorial in the issue inwhich this study was published asserting, "It may be time to confront theconclusion that homeopathy and placebo differ...... This may be more plausiblethan the conclusion that their trials have produced serial false positiveresults" (This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better thanplacebo. BMJ 2000;321:0).
    Jonas, WB, Linde, Klaus,and Ramirez, Gilbert, "Homeopathy and Rheumatic Disease," RheumaticDisease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123.

 樓主| admin 發表於 2015-12-15 17:24:13 | 顯示全部樓層
2. Is Homeopathy Really"Implausible"? 順勢療法真的是「不合情理的」嗎?
The third paragraph in the Wikipedia article continues to show bothstrong bias against homeopathy and inaccurate information.

Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility[10] and the axioms of homeopathy have been refuted for some time.[11] The postulated mechanisms ofaction of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[12][13] andnot physically possible.[14] Although some clinical trials produce positiveresults,[15][16] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawedresearch methods, and reporting bias. Overall there is no evidence ofefficacy.[12][17][18][19] Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidencethat it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it increasesthe suffering of patients by discouraging the use of real medicine,[20] withthe World Health Organisation warning against using homeopathy to try to treatsevere diseases such as HIV and malaria.[21] The continued practice, despite alack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized withinthe scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[22] quackery,[4][23][24] ora sham.[25]
        順勢療法欠缺生物學的合理性 [10],順勢療法的原則已經有一段時間遭受駁斥。[11] 順勢療法療劑的假設性作用機制,既是在科學上不合情理[12] [13],同時也不可能在人體上產生作用。[14] 雖然有些臨床試驗產生正面結果,[15] [16] 系統評審指出那是因為巧合、有缺點的研究方法、以及偏頗的報導方式。總體而言,並沒有證據證明有效。[12] [17] [18] [19] 儘管有證據證明順勢療法沒有效,由於它不鼓勵病人使用真正醫療(主流醫學)而增添病人痛苦,因此,繼續施行順勢療法治療已被批判為不道德的,[20] 因此世界衛生組織正在向使用順勢療法來嘗試治療嚴重疾病者(例如:愛滋病和瘧疾)提出警告。[21] 儘管缺乏有效證據,繼續使用順勢療法,已經致使科學界和醫療團體將她視為胡說、[22] 騙術、[4] [23] [24] 或一場騙局。[25]

Ironically, the article makes reference to articles written by knownantagonists to homeopathy (such as E. Ernst and K. Atwood) that have not evenbeen published in peer-review scientific or medical journals. Reference #10 byErnst was published in "The Skeptical Inquirer," a magazine that isnot listed in Index Medicus or any other respected scientific indexing service,and reference #11 by Atwood wasn't even published in a magazine but at awebsite. If and when any person tried to edit the article on homeopathy in anyway in which homeopathy is presented in a positive light and makes reference toa "magazine" or a "website," that person would be laughedoff of Wikipedia, and yet, the editors of the homeopathy article allow and evenencourage the use of inappropriate skeptical references (according toWikipedia's usual standards).
  諷刺的是,該文章引用了知名順勢療法反對者(例如:埃得扎德 (E. Ernst) 及阿特伍德 (K. Atwood))的著作,但是他們的文章從未在同行評審或任何科學或醫學雜誌上發表過。埃得扎德的參考資料#10在《懷疑論的探究者》(The Skeptical Inquirer) 上發表過,這是一本尚未被列於醫學文獻索引或任何其他受尊崇科學索引的雜誌;由阿特伍德撰寫的參考資料#11,也只是在某一網站上發表過,而沒有被刊登於雜誌上。如果(和當)有任何人嘗試編輯對順勢療法持正面態度的文章,並引用某些「雜誌」或「網站」,這個人就會在維基百科上被嘲笑。但是,維基百科准許、甚至鼓勵此文章的編輯們使用不恰當、尚無定論的參考資料,違反了維基百科的準則。

In the same way that Wikipedia's editors have inappropriately deemedhomeopathy to be "pseudoscientific," they have also deemed thathomeopathy lacks "plausibility." The definition of plausibility is:"having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval oracceptance; credible; believable."

The journal, Langmuir, is the journal of the American ChemicalSociety, and in 2012, they published an important article that provided aplausible explanation for the actions of homeopathic medicines. First, theyverified using three different types of spectroscopy that clearly showed thatnanoparticles of six original medicinal agents persisted in solutions evenafter they were diluted 1:100 six times, thirty times, and even two-hundredtimes.
  《朗繆爾》(Langmuir) 是一本由美國化學學會 (AmericanChemical Society) 出版的刊物。在2012年,他們發表了對順勢療法藥物作用提供合理解釋的重要文章。首先,他們使用3種不同類型的光譜儀取得證實,即使經過6次、30次、甚至200次的1:100比例進行稀釋,6種療劑原物質的納米粒子都依然存在於溶液之中。

Avogadro's number predicts that none of the original medicinalagents would have ANY persisting molecules of the original medicinal substancewould remain after 12 dilutions of 1:100. However, the scientists describereasonable and even predictable factors that lead to the persistence ofnanoparticles after their multiple dilutions. The scientists note that the useof double-distilled water in glass vials leads to varying amounts of silicafragments that fall into the water, as much as 6ppm. The vigorous shaking ofthe glass vial creates bubbles and "nanobubbles" that bring oxygeninto the water and that increase substantially the water pressure (WilliamTiller, PhD, the former head of Stanford's Department of Material Science,estimated this pressure to be 10,000 atmospheres).
         根據阿伏加德羅常數,在經過12次的1:100比例稀釋後,藥物原物質的任何分子都不會存在。然而,即使經過多次稀釋,科學家們都能夠提出合理及可預期的因素,來解釋納米粒子為何持續存在。科學家們指出,在玻璃小瓶中使用二次蒸餾水,會令不同數量的矽碎片落入水中(例如6ppm)。 劇烈搖晃玻璃小瓶會產生氣泡及「納米氣泡」(nanobubbles),這樣會把氧氣帶入水中,並因此而大幅增加水壓(威廉.蒂勒博士 (William Tiller),是史丹福大學材料科學系前系主任,他估計這種壓力會達到10,000大氣壓力)。

Ultimately, this increased water pressure forces whatever medicinalsubstance is in the double-distilled water into the silica, and every substancewill interact with the silica in its own idiosyncratic way. Then, when 90% ofthe water is dumped out, the silica fragments predictably cling to the glasswalls.

When skeptics of homeopathy reference Avogadro's number as"evidence" that homeopathic medicines beyond 24X or 12C have "noremaining molecules left," they are simply verifying their own ignoranceof Avogadro's number because this widely recognized principle in chemistry doesNOT account for the complexities of the silica fragments, the bubbles ornanobubbles, nor the increased water pressure. In fact, any serious scientistor educated individual who asserts that a homeopathic medicine is "beyondAvogadro's number" has no ground on which they stand. And yet, Avogadro'snumber is prominently a part of Wikipedia's article on homeopathy.

Despite the obfuscation throughout Wikipedia's article onhomeopathy, in actual fact, the homeopathic pharmaceutical procedure called"potentization" is a clever, perhaps brilliant, method of creatingnanoparticles of whatever substance is originally placed in the glass vial.Even more compelling is the significant and growing body of evidence thatnanodoses of medicinal agents have several benefits over crude doses of thesame substance, including enhanced bioavailability, adsorptive capacity,intracellular accessibility, increased ability to cross cell membranes and eventhe blood brain barrier, and of course, a substantial better safety profile.

The creation of nanodoses actually increases various characteristicsof a substance's properties. Once a substance has an extremely small size buthas larger surface area to volume ratio, the nanodose properties createincreased chemical and biological reactivity, electromagnetic, optical,thermal, and quantum effects. Further, the idiosyncratic properties ofnanomedicines reduce the required doses by orders of magnitude and predictablyreduce toxicity.

In light of the above, it is stunning and shocking that Wikipedia'sarticle on "Nanomedicine" has no mention of homeopathy, which rightlyis deemed to be the original nanomedicine and nanopharmacology. At a time inthe history of medicine and science in which the field of nanomedicine isbecoming increasingly accepted and respected, Wikipedia seems stuck in the 20thcentury, or perhaps the 18th century. It is not surprising that there is aninternational and inter-disciplinary journal that focuses on the power ofextremely small doses in various biological systems, not just medicine.

Given the above, it is no longer accurate to consider homeopathicdoses to be "implausible." Wikipedia's article on homeopathy assertsotherwise, deeming homeopathy to be "biologically implausible" (citedby a non-peer review magazine, called "The Skeptical Inquirer," thatis not listed in any scientific indexing service), "a sham" (cited ata website!), and running "counter to the laws of chemistry andphysics" (what is interesting here is that the article cites an article inthe journal, "Homeopathy," and yet, whenever a positive statement orclinical trial or basic sciences trial is published in this same journal, theWikipedia editors claim that this journal is not worthy of a citation).

Further, just one of the theories of how homeopathic medicines workhas been described as the "memory of water." The Wikipedia articlerefers to this concept as "erroneous" without any acknowledgementthat it is inaccurate to assert such a black-and-white statement. It is moreaccurate to say that this theory is "controversial" because there is,in fact, evidence of a "memory in water," as both verified by theabove research on nanoparticles remaining in homeopathically potentized waterand as evidenced by research conducted by the French virologist Luc Montagnierwho discovered the AIDS virus and who won the Nobel Prize for doing so. Dr.Montagnier has not only published research that provides evidence of this"memory of water," he was interviewed in the prestigious journal,Science, and on July 5, 2014, the French government's public television stationshowed an hour-long documentary entitled "We Found the Memory inWater" ("On a retrouvé la mémoire de l'eau")
  再者,其中一個形容順勢療法療劑能夠發揮作用的理論是「水有記憶」。維基百科的文章在沒有任何認可參考的情況下,就斷言這個概念是「錯誤的」,以這種非黑即白的陳述方式來表達,其實是不正確的。更正確的說法是,這個理論是「具爭議性的」,因為「水有記憶」的證據確實存在,這兩者在以上研究中已被證實,經過順勢療法加能法處理過的水,存在剩餘的納米粒子,法國病毒學家呂克.蒙塔尼博士(他是發現愛滋病毒的,並因此而獲得諾貝爾獎)。蒙塔尼博士不但發表了「水有記憶」的研究證據,權威雜誌《科學》也曾經訪問過他,法國政府公營電視台在201475日,也播放過一個長達一小時的紀錄片,題目為《我們發現水有記憶》(On a retrouvé la mémoire de l'eau)

What is shocking about Wikipedia's article of homeopathy is thatthere is NO reference to this Nobel Prize winner or to his interview in one ofthe most respected scientific journals in the world today or any reference toFrench government's documentary on this very subject. Obviously, the people whoare editing the homeopathy article have a profound bias.

Numerous people have sought to improve Wikipedia's article onhomeopathy, but they have been blocked or prohibited from editing the article.In my case, homeopaths was blocked from editing any article to do withhomeopathy because they were deemed to have a "conflict of interest"due to the fact that they are homeopaths. Ironically, no medical doctor isprohibited from editing on any medical subject just because she or he is amedical doctor! Further, the bias against homeopathy and against any positiveevidence for homeopathy is so strong that the vast majority of the articlesfrom the high impact medical and scientific journals are not referenced ordescribed in the Wikipedia article on homeopathy, while there are numerouslow-level references to websites and to non-peer review magazines that populateWikipedia's article.

 樓主| admin 發表於 2015-12-15 17:29:10 | 顯示全部樓層
3. PathologicalSkepticism 病態的懷疑論
Brian Josephson, Ph.D., won a Nobel Prize in 1973 when he was only23 years old and is presently professor emeritus at Cambridge University.Josephson contends that many scientists today suffer from "pathologicaldisbelief" -- that is, an unscientific attitude that is typified by thestatement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" (Josephson,1997).
  布賴恩.約瑟夫森博士 (Brian Josephson, Ph.D.),在只得23歲時就贏得1973年的諾貝爾獎,他目前是劍橋大學的名譽教授。他認為,很多現今的科學家都患有「病態的不相信」——由這一句 「即使這是真的,我也不會相信」,足以代表那種不科學的態度。

Josephson asserts that skeptics of homeopathy suffer from a chronicignorance of this subject, and he maintains that their criticisms of homeopathyare easily refuted, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readilyrefuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."

Dr. Luc Montagnier won a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering theAIDS virus, and in an interview in Science (Dec. 24, 2010), he similarlyexpressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently existson certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told thatsome people have reproduced Benveniste's results (showing effects fromhomeopathic doses), but they are afraid to publish it because of theintellectual terror from people who don't understand it."
  呂克.蒙塔尼博士由於發現了愛滋病病毒而在2008年獲得諾貝爾獎,並在《科學》(20101224) 接受記者採訪時表示,他同樣非常關注一些現存於非主流議題(例如順勢療法)的不科學氣氛。他說:「據我所知,有好些人都分別成功複製本維尼斯特 (Benveniste) 的結果(展示順勢療法劑量效力),但是,他們都因為擔心人們無法理解,而產生知識恐怖 (intellectual terror) 而不敢公佈。」

Montagnier concluded this interview when asked if he is concernedthat he is drifting into pseudoscience. He responded adamantly: “No, becauseit’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deservefurther study.

Ultimately, at Wikipedia there is a certain substantial body ofeditors who embody "pathological skepticism" and who do not allowgood evidence from high-quality studies and meta-analyses published inhigh-impact journals to be included into the body of evidence for homeopathyjust because they provide a positive spin to the subject. On the other hand,these same editors allow references to non-peer review sources, such as popularmagazine and websites, when the information in these questionably valid sourcesis offensive to homeopathy. Today, Wikipedia's article on homeopathy is aclassic example of a biased, off-balance, and non-encyclopedic review of thesubject.

 樓主| admin 發表於 2015-12-15 17:30:19 | 顯示全部樓層
4. PracticalSolutions... 可行的解決方案
Jimmy, I assume that you want your website to be the most reliableresource possible, but it can and will never become one unless you, as thefounder of Wikipedia, provide some guidance and guidelines so that informationfor OR against a subject are fair and accurate. In 2009, at a TED talk, youclaimed that Wikipedia's most important virtue is its objective reporting ofinformation; you asserted, "the biggest and the most important thing(about Wikipedia) is our neutral point-of-view policy."


Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, quit the organizationseveral years ago due to serious concerns about its integrity. He maintained:

"In some fields and some topics, there are groups who"squat" on articles and insist on making them reflect their ownspecific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions ofarticles...The people with the most influence in the community are the ones whohave the most time on their hands--not necessarily the most knowledgeable--andwho manipulate Wikipedia's eminently gameable system."

One solution to dealing with Wikipedia's article is to have twoseparate sections in the article that present the "skeptics' point ofview" and the "homeopaths' point of view." Although one couldhave hoped that the article would have evolved into this multi-viewperspective, there are simply too many anti-homeopathy fundamentalists who havesquatted on this article and have made it literally impossible to have anypositive or even any slightly positive assertions about homeopathy.

Because this letter proves that Skeptics are incapable of presentinginformation on homeopathy with even a modicum of objectivity, perhaps the bestsolution is to enable both viewpoints to be able to express themselves. Somepeople claim that debate is the best way to understand complex subjects, andtherefore, allowing and even encouraging a multi-perspective viewpoint inarticles at Wikipedia may be an important and worthwhile change in yourwebsite's policies.

This letter was also signed by:

Michael Frass, MD, Professor of Medicine, Medical University ofVienna (Austria)
Paolo Bellavite, MD, Professor, Università of Verona (Italy),Department of Pathology and Diagnostics
Paolo Roberti di Sarsina, MD, Observatory and Methods for Health,University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy; Charity for Person Centered Medicine-MoralEntity, Bologna, Italy; Expert for Non-Conventional Medicine (2006-2013), HighCouncil for Health, Ministry of Health, Italy
Dr Clare Relton, Senior Research Fellow (Public Health), School ofHealth & Related Research, University of Sheffield (UK)
Stephan Baumgartner, PhD, Institute of Complementary Medicine,University of Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Integrative Medicine, Universityof Witten-Herdecke, Germany
Lex Rutten MD, homeopathic physician, independent researcher.

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 註冊 register


小黑屋|手機版|Archiver|順勢療法討論區 Homeopathy Discuss!  

GMT+8, 2020-6-4 18:59 , Processed in 0.120487 second(s), 17 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.1

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表