Wikipedia controlled by Allopaths

http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html



ROFL... only because they are on to you. You are even part of a Wiki page!
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...accinationists they have on
the table your name with this comment:
"a large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the whale,
illuminati, "weird science" and stuff which is not corrected to reflect
demonstrated mistakes."

"HCN" wrote in message
. ..

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html



ROFL... only because they are on to you. You are even part of a Wiki
page! On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...accinationists they
have on the table your name with this comment:
"a large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the
whale, illuminati, "weird science" and stuff which is not corrected to
reflect demonstrated mistakes."


as I said written by Allopaths! using ad hominem as their main argument!
Note how they wont even link to it.

just like you, an Allopath

"john" wrote in message
...

"HCN" wrote in message
. ..

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html



ROFL... only because they are on to you. You are even part of a Wiki
page! On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...accinationists they
have on the table your name with this comment:
"a large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the
whale, illuminati, "weird science" and stuff which is not corrected to
reflect demonstrated mistakes."


as I said written by Allopaths!

Proof?

using ad hominem as their main argument!
Note how they wont even link to it.

just like you, an Allopath

Proof?

(I'm actually just a modest aerospace engineer... one of those folks who
relied on real science to make sure the wings of airplanes don't fall off or
that the landing gear do not collapse on landing --- I'm sure most of you
would rather real scientists (who are also employed by airplane companies)
and engineers work on those things than lawyers)


Come on! Tell what college or university gives a degree in "allopathy"!

(note to others: Allopath is a derogatory term created by Sam Hahnemann to
describe anything that was not to do with homeopathy. Oh, also...
homeopathy has nothing to do with herb medicine. It is a series of remedies
made up out of a "wild ass guess" after Hahnemann had an allergic reaction
to quinine. Essentially the ingrediant that is believed to create the
symptom it is treated is successed in a solution in greater and greater
dilutions. The "theory" being that the more you dilute and shake the stuff
the "stronger" it gets. When a remedy is ready there is a very slim chance
that the original ingredient is actually in the solvent... which is either
water, alcohol or lactose (sugar tablets))

"HCN" wrote in message
. ..
Essentially the ingrediant that is believed to create the
symptom it is treated is successed in a solution in greater and greater
dilutions. The "theory" being that the more you dilute and shake the
stuff
the "stronger" it gets.

In many countries the water we drink is treated at sewage works and put into
the rivers where it is diluted. Downstream the water company extract water
and after filtration sends it back to the taps - bloody good job homeopathy
doean't work I say.

"HCN" wrote in message
. ..


Come on! Tell what college or university gives a degree in "allopathy"!

(note to others: Allopath is a derogatory term created by Sam Hahnemann
to describe anything that was not to do with homeopathy. Oh, also...
homeopathy has nothing to do with herb medicine. It is a series of
remedies made up out of a "wild ass guess" after Hahnemann had an allergic
reaction to quinine. Essentially the ingrediant that is believed to
create the symptom it is treated is successed in a solution in greater and
greater dilutions. The "theory" being that the more you dilute and shake
the stuff the "stronger" it gets. When a remedy is ready there is a very
slim chance that the original ingredient is actually in the solvent...
which is either water, alcohol or lactose (sugar tablets))




allopathy likes to hide itself, like any good covert monopoly
http://www.whale.to/b/terminology_h.html

In article ,
HCN wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html

ROFL... only because they are on to you. You are even part of a Wiki page!
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...accinationists they have on
the table your name with this comment:
"a large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the whale,
illuminati, "weird science" and stuff which is not corrected to reflect
demonstrated mistakes."

Sounds like a very accurate description to me.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

john wrote:
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html

I believe you are correct. The website still uses the FDA and
quackwatch as a source. nuff said.

External links

It seems like there is a small edit war going on in the External links.
One anonymous user keeps adding http://www.colloidal-silver-about.com
[8] and http://www.silvermedicine.org [9] without explanation, and
other users keep removing them. Perhaps the anon user can suggest why
these links should be included?

I'm of the opinion that the colloidal-sliver-about.com link should not
be included, just because there's not much information there. And the
silvermedicine.org site seems to be commercial, and might be linkspam.
If there is useful information at either of these sites, perhaps it
should be included in the article, and they can cited. eaolson 14:44, 3
June 2006 (UTC)

I think both links should be included as they offer extended
information in comparison to the information which is available at
wikipedia. this article about cs is terribly short. the readers need to
be provided with additional information and if not wp provides it,
there must be links to external sites which provide it.

as for the concrete websites i think that they both offer
information which extends the content at wp. about-c-s seems to be
objective and should therefore remain. silbermedicine.org seems to be a
commercial site, but nevertheless offers a lot of interesting
information about cs. it should also stay here. sebastian -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.75.236.10 (talk ·
contribs) 03:05, June 4, 2006.

The objectiveness of a site is not a criteria for listing it as
an external link. The about-c-s site does not cite its sources, and
there really is very little information there, most of which is already
in the article. It looks to me to be more a site built around AdSense
than anything else.
As for silvermedicine, well, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources,
one criteria for considering a source is, "Do they have an agenda or
conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their
report?" Clearly, that's true in this case. SM does list a number of
references in the article buried in their site. (It seems to me that
they misrepresent and overstate what their references say, though.) SM
might be a useful source as a link-mine for additional information and
sources for this article, though. eaolson 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is questionable.
Particularly the link section, is now entirely anti-colloidal silver
POV links. This link, provides substantial scientific discussion on
colloidal silver [10]. I will include in link section for balance.
Intersofia 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...External_links

"BrentB" wrote in message
oups.com...

john wrote:
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html

I believe you are correct. The website still uses the FDA and
quackwatch as a source. nuff said.

Yes, the allopaths put quackwatch in at every opportunity


It seems like there is a small edit war going on in the External links.
One anonymous user keeps adding http://www.colloidal-silver-about.com
[8] and http://www.silvermedicine.org [9] without explanation, and
other users keep removing them. Perhaps the anon user can suggest why
these links should be included?

You can see which editor is removing links
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

The allopaths hate colloidal silver, so I can imagine they will make the
article biased, and delete any positive external links.

They delete most external links I put in, and as you say, put in quackwatch
links if they can as a spoiler.

This is an allopath text "The ingestion of colloidal silver in large
quantities or over a long period of time may cause argyria, a condition in
which the skin turns blue-gray."

This is their favourite link
http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/index.html

I collected some stuff http://www.whale.to/a/colloidal_silver.html

BrentB wrote:
john wrote:
http://www.whale.to/a/wikipedia.html

I believe you are correct. The website still uses the FDA and
quackwatch as a source. nuff said.

John is not happy. He had a definition site there for his whale.to
bull**** site. They removed it.


External links

It seems like there is a small edit war going on in the External links.
One anonymous user keeps adding http://www.colloidal-silver-about.com
[8] and http://www.silvermedicine.org [9] without explanation, and
other users keep removing them. Perhaps the anon user can suggest why
these links should be included?

I'm of the opinion that the colloidal-sliver-about.com link should not
be included, just because there's not much information there. And the
silvermedicine.org site seems to be commercial, and might be linkspam.
If there is useful information at either of these sites, perhaps it
should be included in the article, and they can cited. eaolson 14:44, 3
June 2006 (UTC)

I think both links should be included as they offer extended
information in comparison to the information which is available at
wikipedia. this article about cs is terribly short. the readers need to
be provided with additional information and if not wp provides it,
there must be links to external sites which provide it.

as for the concrete websites i think that they both offer
information which extends the content at wp. about-c-s seems to be
objective and should therefore remain. silbermedicine.org seems to be a
commercial site, but nevertheless offers a lot of interesting
information about cs. it should also stay here. sebastian -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.75.236.10 (talk ·
contribs) 03:05, June 4, 2006.

The objectiveness of a site is not a criteria for listing it as
an external link. The about-c-s site does not cite its sources, and
there really is very little information there, most of which is already
in the article. It looks to me to be more a site built around AdSense
than anything else.
As for silvermedicine, well, from Wikipedia:Reliable sources,
one criteria for considering a source is, "Do they have an agenda or
conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their
report?" Clearly, that's true in this case. SM does list a number of
references in the article buried in their site. (It seems to me that
they misrepresent and overstate what their references say, though.) SM
might be a useful source as a link-mine for additional information and
sources for this article, though. eaolson 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is questionable.
Particularly the link section, is now entirely anti-colloidal silver
POV links. This link, provides substantial scientific discussion on
colloidal silver [10]. I will include in link section for balance.
Intersofia 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...External_links