順勢療法討論區 Homeopathy Discuss!

 找回密碼
 註冊 register
搜索
查看: 1984|回復: 3

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

[複製鏈接]
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.
  大眾期望維基百科是一個可信賴的資訊來源,然而,維基百科水平正在下滑至不符合標準。而事實上,維基百科發表有關順勢療法的文章,所提供資訊存在著強烈偏差及不正確之處。這種強烈偏見是一種徵兆,揭示維基在探討挑戰主流醫療及綜觀世界的科學文章時,潛藏著一些問題。
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:
  對順勢療法持著強烈偏見的證據,及其違反百科全書的客觀書寫方式,明顯地存在於整篇文章中。我會首先把焦點放文章的第一段第二句,以及那些聲稱能夠證明這些說法的六項參考資料。
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":
維基百科在談論「順勢療法」時引用的參考資料:
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."
維基百科斷言︰「偽科學是一種主張、信念或實際應用,以科學化方式呈現,但卻不是依遁一種有根據的科學方法,缺乏證據或可信性,亦無法以可靠(或其他)方式測試,總之欠缺科學地位」。
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?
  你能說出另外一個「偽科學」體系,具有隨機、雙盲、以及安慰劑對照臨床試驗,更能在舉足輕重的醫學期刊上展示治療效力嗎?
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.
  順勢療法懷疑論者通常會說,刊登於高影響力醫學期刊上的高品質研究,都只是以「採櫻桃」方式(cherry-picking),專門挑選對自己有利的正面結果,可是現在,他們開始以此種「採櫻桃」方式去挑選呈負面結果的研究。然而,順勢療法懷疑論者無法區分,哪些是以具尊祟的順勢療法方法進行優秀科學調查,而哪些不是。一份用隨機、雙盲和安慰劑對照方法進行的研究,並不意味著該研究能正確地給予適合的順勢療法療劑,來處理每一位甚至是每一組病人。這種愚昧就好像有人在未能正確區分細菌感染、病毒感染或真菌感染的情況下,就聲稱抗生素對「傳染病」無效。諷刺的是,順勢療法懷疑論者對於科學調查,一直展現出非常草率的態度。

What the Most Comprehensive Review of Homeopathic Research Found...
最完善的順勢療法研究評審發現

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.
懷疑論者通常宣稱,各式各樣的薈萃分析都證實順勢療法起不了甚麼作用,順勢療法療劑作用等同於安慰劑效應。這些懷疑論者會典型地選擇對那些刊載於備受推崇的醫學期刊中,展示順勢療法療劑帶來正面效益的多份薈萃分析視而不見,同時,他們也會忽視由瑞士政府資助進行的最大型及最全面研究評審。
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.
需要知道的是,尚文/艾格的薈萃分析,同樣是由瑞士政府的輔助醫療評估計劃資助進行的,這項計劃也資助了一個更加詳細和全面的臨床研究評審、臨床前研究(物理性及化學性基礎研究、植物研究、動物研究、人體細胞的體外研究)、流行病學證據研究、以及成本效益研究。
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.
  這個由瑞士政府資助的更全面報告中發現,有強力證據支持順勢療法治療於上呼吸道感染和呼吸道過敏有效。報告指出:在29項研究之中,有24項得出療劑對「上呼吸道感染或呼吸道過敏」帶來正面結果。在7項對照研究(比較順勢療法治療與主流藥物治療)之中,有6項顯示順勢療法療劑比主流藥物更為有效。當研究人員單單就安慰劑隨機對照試驗作評,16項研究中有12項得出順勢療法療劑帶來正面結果。
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:
事實上,雖然某些薈萃分析產生一種「負面」結果,然而,同時有相當大量薈萃分析產生出正面結果,包括這部分列表:
    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.
維基百科在文章的第三段落繼續展示出對順勢療法的強烈偏見,同時亦提供不正確資訊︰
Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility[10] and the axioms ofhomeopathy 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."
  同樣,維基百科的編輯們不恰當地將順勢療法評斷為「偽科學」,他們亦不恰當地認為順勢療法欠缺「合理性」。合理性的定義是︰「具有真實性及合理性的表面跡象;看似值得被贊同或接受;可靠的;可信的。」
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.
最後,無論二次蒸餾水中的藥性物質為何,這種增加的水壓會逼使它進入矽之內,而每種物質會根據其本身特有的方式與矽產生相互作用。然後,當90%的水被傾倒出來之後,可預期矽碎片仍然依附在玻璃瓶上。
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.
當順勢療法懷疑論者引用阿伏加德羅常數作為「證據」,說明順勢療法療劑在超越24X12C稀釋度後,就「沒有任何分子留存」,這說法只是證明了他們對阿伏加德羅常數的無知,因為這個在化學領域廣泛受到認同的原理,是無法解釋矽碎片的複雜性、氣泡(或納米氣泡)、以及水壓上升的複雜問題。事實上,任何斷言順勢療法療劑是「超出阿伏加德羅常數範圍之外」的嚴肅科學家或學者,現在都沒有甚麼有力論點了。然而,在維基百科談論順勢療法的文章,阿伏加德羅常數是其中一個被著重的部分。
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.
  儘管維基百科敘述順勢療法的整篇文章都令人混淆困惑,事實上,順勢療法製藥程序中的「加能法則」,是一個聰明、甚至是出色的方法,把原本置於玻璃小瓶內的任何物質製成納米結構。令人信服的是,大量及越來越多證據指出,藥性物質的納米劑量比相同物質的未加工劑量,具有更大效益,包括增強的生物利用度、吸附能力、細胞間之可親性、增加的穿透細胞膜(甚至是血腦屏障)能力,以及當然,還有更佳的安全性。
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.
  納米劑量的產生,實際上增強了物質屬性的各種特點。一旦物質具有非常小的尺寸,以及很大的表面積與體積比,納米劑量的屬性就會增加化學及生物反應度、電磁、光學、熱學和量子效應。再者,納米醫學的特有性質,會以數量級減少所需劑量,同時也可預期毒性降低。
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.
  有見及此,維基百科上關於「納米醫學」的文章並沒有提到順勢療法,這是令人震驚的,因為順勢療法就正正是納米醫學及納米藥劑學的起源。在現今醫學和科學歷程上,納米醫學已日漸被接受和受到尊崇,維基百科似乎仍然停留在20世紀,甚至是18世紀。如意料之中,有一份國際性及跨學科的期刊專注研究極小劑量在不同生物系統的力量,並不僅限於醫學範圍。
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).
  就以上可見,認為順勢療法劑量是「不合情理」的說法已不再正確。維基百科談論順勢療法的文章卻反而斷言:順勢療法是「在生物學上是不合情理的」(引用一本名為《懷疑論的探究者》的非同行評審雜誌,它沒有被列名於任何科學索引內),是「一場騙局」(引用自一個網站),並且是「違反化學和物理定律」(有趣的是,此處引用的文章參考了一本名為《順勢療法》的期刊,不過,當同一雜誌上有正面結論、或臨床測試、或基礎科學試驗的任何發表,維基百科的編輯們都聲稱這期刊是不值得引用的)。
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.
令人震驚的是,維基百科上談論順勢療法的文章中,完全沒有引述這位諾貝爾獎得獎者的事,也沒有提及過他被當今權威科學期刊訪問,更沒有提及過法國政府官方紀錄片,就這個題目而製作的任何資料。很明顯,維基百科負責編輯順勢療法文章的人,對順勢療法帶著深厚偏見。
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.
很多人力求改善維基百科談論順勢療法的文章,但是他們都被欄截下來,或是被禁止編輯文章。就我本人而言,順勢療法醫生都因為他們的身份而被認為有「利益衝突」,所以被禁止編輯文章。諷刺的是,沒有其他醫學的醫生會因為他(或她)的醫生身份,而被禁止編輯任何醫學主題!此外,對順勢療法、或任何證實順勢療法的正面證據,維基百科都會持著偏見地反對,這個情況非常激烈。程度是,維基百科談論順勢療法的文章中,絕大多數高影響力的期刊完全沒有被引用作為參考,反而引用了很多低水平參考資料,範圍由網站以至於非同行評審的雜誌都有。



 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."
  約瑟夫森斷言:順勢療法懷疑論者對於這個議題患有慢性無知,約瑟夫森認為他們對順勢療法的批評很容易被反駁,因為他們說:「水有記憶的概念,隨便說出一個常識都能把它駁倒,不值得爭議。」
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.
蒙塔尼博士在結束訪問時,被問到他會否因被牽涉到偽科學而擔心,他堅決地回答:「不會,因為它不是偽科學。這不是騙術,而是值得被進一步研究的真實現象。」
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.
最後,在維基百科中有一批體現「病態不相信」的編輯,從不承認高品質順勢療法研究的論據,也不承認高影響力期刊的薈萃分析作為順勢療法證據,那是因為這些證據都為順勢療法提供正面觀點。另一方面,同一批編輯卻承認非同行評審的資料來源,例如流行雜誌及網站,而這些可疑的資料都是在針對順勢療法。今日,維基百科上談論順勢療法的文章,確實是一個存有偏見、失衡、以及不符合百科全書規格的典型例子。
 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."
2009年的TED(科技、娛樂及設計)演說中,維基百科的主管占美(Jimmy)提及到維基百科的最重要美德,就是對資訊提供客觀報道;他說︰「對於維基百科來說,最宏大及最重要的東西,就是我們的中立政策。」
Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, quit the organizationseveral years ago due to serious concerns about its integrity. He maintained:
  拉里.桑格,維基百科的共同創始人之一,幾年前就因不滿維基百科的中肯度而退出了組織。他這樣說:
"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."
「在某些領域及議題上,有些人會「佔據」這些文章,並堅稱他們反映著獨有的見解。現時沒有可靠機制可以用來核准各個版本的文章…最有影響力的人,往往是在社群中擁有很多時間的人——他們不一定是最有學識的——但卻是能夠將維基百科這玩樂系統操控得極好。」
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.
  解決維基百科文章的方案,可劃分兩個部分,它們分別論述「懷疑論者觀點」,以及「順勢療法醫生的觀點」。雖然有人希望文章最終會進展成多角度分析,但現時實在是有太多反順勢療法主義者一直佔據文章篇幅,並使之容不下任何對順勢療法的正面訊息,哪怕是少許的正面維護。
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.
  這封信證明了懷疑論者不能客觀地描述關於順勢療法的資訊,哪怕只是帶點客觀,或許,最好的解決方案就是讓雙方各自表述。有些人說辯論是辨明複雜主題的最好方法,因此,如果維基百科可以容許、甚至是鼓勵不同意見的文章,可能就是在網站政策上最重要及最值得的一項轉變。
This letter was also signed by:
此信函是由下列人士連署:
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

本版積分規則

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

GMT+8, 2017-11-19 12:35 , Processed in 0.107146 second(s), 19 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.1

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表