Wikipedia’s Anti-Natural Health Slant

September 7, 2010

wikiWikipedia is the largest and most popular reference site on the Internet. Yet the articles that are pro-health freedom or integrative medicine perspectives are consistently gutted, removed, or vandalized.

Wikipedia’s 16 million articles (over 3.3 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site. But it is also an open platform, one prone to sabotage or editing by people with a particular bias, and natural health entries are often the ones bashed the most. Consequently, millions of people who search for alternative medicine cannot find information that isn’t heavily biased toward conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.
Here are a few cases in point:

  • According to Dr. Ronald Klatz, president of American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M), Wikipedia has repeatedly deleted his postings and those from other A4M doctors trying to provide positive information on anti-aging. In other words, they can’t get their perspectives posted even when writing about their own organization.
  • Positive, science-based information in the article on Orthomolecular Medicine is repeatedly removed, leaving only critical opinions.
  • The entry for Nutritionist states that ADA-registered dieticians are the food and nutrition experts, while mere nutritionists have different (and, it is implied, inferior) training and expertise. This ignores the fact that most dieticians have college degrees only, while many nutritionists have master’s and PhD degrees. The article has more information about dieticians than about nutritionists, who are supposed to be the subject of the article, and its “See Also” section links to the dietician page—though there is no reciprocity of links from the dietician page to this one.
  • The article on Alternative Medicine has a lengthy section on how CAM is perceived by the scientific community, at one point quoting evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who defined alternative medicine as a “set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests,” and said that “if a technique is demonstrated effective in properly performed trials, it ceases to be alternative and simply becomes medicine.” The article also includes inflammatory section headers like, “Danger Can Be Increased When Used as a Complement to Standard Medical Care.”
  • The article on Dr. Julian Whitaker was flagged in December 2007 as lacking neutrality—yet the controversy has not been resolved to this date. Not only does the piece malign Dr. Whitaker, it contains false and certainly libelous information about ANH-USA under our former name: “The American Association for Health Freedom [is] an advocacy organisation that promotes allowing patients and physicians to receive insurance compensation for procedures not supported by scientific evidence.”

While anyone can edit an article, and one can challenge the decisions made by other editors, the debates can become mired in endless argument with little or no satisfactory resolution—and no recourse.
Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001, left the organization in because he was concerned about its integrity: “[There are] many problems afflicting Wikipedia, from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals. While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the view that it is also broken beyond repair.” One example: in 2007 it was revealed that a prominent and long-standing Wikipedia contributor had lied about his identity, having claimed to be a tenured university professor when he was in fact a 24-year-old college drop-out.
Sanger notes that “In some fields and some topics, there are groups who ‘squat’ on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles.”
Despite these problems, Wikipedia remains a huge force on the internet, and supporters of natural health and integrative medicine cannot simply accept the current situation. If every one of our readers with internet and especially Wikipedia skills, took a hand in writing and editing articles, using verified scientific information with suitable citations, the situation could be improved radically.
So please consider this article another call to action, but of a different kind. Please get involved with Wikipedia and help save it from the one-sided critics (and, for all we know drug company ghost writers) who seem to control it now.
Before leaving this topic, we should also mention an alternative to Wikipedia called the “Wiki4CAM,” the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Encyclopedia. It was founded “to provide the Complementary and Alternative Medicine community its own space, where it can build its knowledge base….A wiki is all about community participation. Your active involvement can make this wiki the most exhaustive and authoritative source for complementary and alternative medicine.” We do not endorse this encyclopedia, which is a work in progress, but it too would benefit from some knowledgeable volunteers.

63 responses to “Wikipedia’s Anti-Natural Health Slant”

  1. ann wattersLMT#4867,RPP,RPE says:

    Information on Polarity Therapy which I teach is constantly gutted or changed incorrectly..Annoying

  2. Anita Garvey says:

    Wow, this really got my attention in your article: “The American Association for Health Freedom [is] an advocacy organisation that promotes allowing patients and physicians to receive insurance compensation for procedures not supported by scientific evidence.”
    Based on that criterion, how can psychiatry justify billing anyone’s medical insurance, since not one of their “illnesses” can be proven by any laboratory test?

  3. Johann says:

    Thanks so much for this information. I often have trouble finding info that doesn’t support the big drug companies, and info that supports them usually doesn’t support PEOPLE!
    I need to find out how to edit Wikipedia, because there’s some information I’d like to add to.

  4. Beth Singer says:

    Some of us have access to information about natural health from other sources than Wikipedia, fortunately. We know how important a natural approach to health is after having experienced both and never wanting to look back at traditional medical/pharmaceutical approaches.
    I’m so grateful for natural health approaches, that I am very disconcerted that other people who are not aware of the positive aspects of natural health might go, like many, to Wikipedia to learn what is supposed to be a fair and balanced presentation of the various sides. That people would not get that there and thus may not know the importance of natural treatments is almost criminal!
    Natural approaches have, in essence, practically saved my life. Let it work for others, too.

  5. What can we expect from a nation whose industrial corporations and the Republican, anti-populist Party harbors devious, criminally destructive agents to twist or deface information to serve their pro-money, anti-value purposes?

    • CJ says:

      The Democrats are in the same league as the Republicans on this one for sure. The FDA is not a republican organization. No one except Senator Harkin (D) and a couple others are on the side of natural solutions.

  6. Heath Watts says:

    Many of the causes that your organization supports (i.e. homeopathy) have no scientific evidence supporting them. When you choose to support magic, mythology, and nonsense over double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence, your organization’s credibility is spurious and you should expect criticism. If “natural health” remedies, which assumes that pharmaceuticals are unnatural, work as claimed, then those who make these claims need to provide evidence for those claims.
    Heath

    • Debby says:

      Perhaps if you had taken the time to read the “Double Blind” studies testing Prozac against Omega-3 oils. Which proved that they are More Effective with NO side affects. Or had seen the film clip from China at a NO MEDICINE clinic where in 3 minutes REAL TIME on an Ultrasuede screen you can witness a 3 in bladder tumor, inoperable by Western standards, simply Disappear. When You Yourself are diagnosed with a deadly disease that there are NO KNOWN cures for, As I have, as well as millions of other SANE Desperate people have and thank God for it, then you will turn to Magic and Myth also…Had every Apothecary (Pharmacists of old) not been systematically sought out and murdered by the crusades that scourged Europe for hundreds of years, of ALL the Ancient Healing Arts. We would not be having this conversation. Most Pharmaceuticals are Fractured Man Made POOR examples of what is found in nature in the first place. It takes 20-30 years for the effectiveness of supplements that have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to work to be approved for use. That’s generations dead because of people like yourself. God will laugh if you ever get sick enough and hopeless enough to turn to them yourself. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT MAN CAN CREATE BETTER THAN GOD WHO GAVE US THESE NATURAL CURES? REALLY? I pray for closed minds like yours ever day…

      • Dakota says:

        Ya know, Debby… THAT is why they think we are all crazy, tree hugging, frog licking, pot smoking whack-jobs. Despite the fact that many “Alternative” therapies cannot be proven by the much touted and apparently semi-divine Scientific Method, it’s the way that many practitioners (and users) of “alternative” treatments behave that gives us a bad rap. Well, not to mention the history of snake oil remedies, our culture’s general distrust for foreign or nature-based concepts and the lack of regulation on the supplement industry.
        I have done quite a bit of research into genetically engineered foods (they’re all together in this) and believe me, the industry goes to amazing lengths to demonize us dissenters. I know how time sensitive this kind of stuff is and how integral it is to our health that our current trajectory is readjusted.
        We all know that science is short-sighted and the practitioners are nearly as fanatical as right-wing Christians so keep your nose clean and make coherent arguments when you care about something. Use references. Find peer reviewed science if you can. It’s an uphill battle but we’re getting there and that’s because of groups (and people) like ANH that can keep it professional.

    • openmind says:

      Oh, there’s plenty of evidence out there, you just have to be interested enough to read it. Being sceptical is one thing, but censoring or lying about it does not help anyone.

    • Lou says:

      No scientific evidence
      Lets look at the science of the approved methods of cancer treatment masturbation slow death, cut, burn and poison. These methods have a documented record of a 97.9% overall failure to successfully treat the cancer. Now if we do not treat the average cancer at all about 25% of the time the cancer will spontaneously go into remission and will successfully treat itself.
      The science is clear here. Throw away the whole 150 billion “cancer industry” lock stock and barrel and besides saving 150 billion a year our cancer results will improve by 1000%.

  7. Good article. I’ve not only found the Wikipedia articles on Alternative Health to be slanted toward conventional medicine and Big Pharma, but other area as well. In areas of Alternative Energy, any real breakthrough is termed “pseudo-science” and certain individuals are maligned.
    So much of Wikipedia is slanted to the “reductionist” viewpoint and any other perspectives are painted as “fringe”, “goofy”, and “fantasies.” I thought it was the Editors of Wikipedia that were doing this. Now, I see it is these special interest groups that wish to censor all views but their own. I can’t point to Richard Dawkins directly, but it sure is the narrow minded philosophy he espouses as “reality” that seems to dominate so much of Wikipedia.
    Thanks for bringing to light just how Wikipedia works.

  8. wrusssr says:

    Here’s your problem folks. Click link below or Google: “Lawrence Solomon’s Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor.”
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
    The boys behind the curtain are on record as saying “. . .we should never have given the public access to the Internet.” Because the Net is outing them. Think a billion flashlights shining on a double handful of bilge rats, a closet with no doors.
    The Web keeps thwarting their scams and hoaxes like swine flu (they pre-sell governments the vaccines, then conjure up the “pandemic”), global warming (accurate climate data distorted to scare the public into not opposing a cap and trade tax to “save the planet”), and genetically modified (GM or GMO) seed/food to save the world from hunger (with a “green revolution”) while their real purpose is to monopolize the world’s agricultural production.
    To try and stifle this, they Wizards of Oz have placed people in key positions at popular Net intersections like Wikipedia to try and divert truthful information pertaining to their schemes.
    Lawrence Solomon’s article explains it.
    This is where your anti-slant is coming from. They (the GM seed boys) have either placed a mole at Wikipedia or assigned ‘writers’ to counter-act pro-natural information and credibility.
    Nothing new.

    • Dr. John says:

      Well put: “Think a billion flashlights shining on a double handful of bilge rats, a closet with no doors.”
      Indeed. Follow the money. Why wouldn’t those (e.g. the Pharmaceuticals) who rake in BILLIONS ensure the mindset that would perpetuate their scams as long as possible. Add to that the “status quo bias” we all have and real positive change has an uphill battle. The Wiki on Chiropractic fails to mention the US Supreme Court decision finding the AMA guilt of restraint of trade by virtue of essentially succeeding in their stated aim to “contain and eliminate” Chiropractic – the natural health profession that doesn’t push drugs. That is more than mere oversight.

  9. Caroline Simmons says:

    I am horrified and disappointed about WIKI’s position regarding postings for alternative medicines and natural health solutions. The “permitted” Wiki garbage I myself have had to endure rehardinsg people and places in AFRICA (the focal point and home base of my Fair Trade business) is equally perverted, unreliable and, for me, a business entrepreneur, totally criminal. To whom do I bring my feelings and experience on WIKI? How might I use such a platform to also better argue for better natural health data?

  10. I wrote a number of articles on herbs, herbalists and herbalism, and when I added a section on Herpes zoster describing natural treatments, it was repeatedly taken down, sentence by sentence by a guy whose profile said he worked for a pharmaceutical company. That was later removed. He had a gang that were taking down information, all referenced, that I and a guy from India with a similar natural health perspective were posting. And then they started going after all the posts we had authored or significantly contributed to. It appears to me that the pharmaceutical companies are hiring so-called “Sceptics” to work full time taking down informatiion that might somehow contradict their world view.

    • PJ says:

      Does this really surprise anyone when the editors of commentaries is supporting big pharma? My god, they’re protecting their jobs, and future and in some respects, their money!! If you think that the medical industry is any less honest then Wikipedia, then you’re fooling yourself my friend!!

      • PJ says:

        oops…If you think that the medical industry is any more honest then big pharma, then guess again…same coin…same face on both sides!!

  11. I quit using wikipedia shortly after I found it because of this bias. Most of the information they lit can be found at other sites with much more credibility.

  12. Sallie says:

    I’m afraid I have always thought Wikipedia was a dumb idea….NOW let’s look at the almighty Snopes site a little closer……..I’ll do my own investigating on a subject, instead of trusting some Yuppie couple looking to make a fast buck. It really grates me when someone sends me an email with the Snope’s Seal of Approval attached….Give me a break ! PT Barnum lives ! and clones !

  13. Louise says:

    We found this is also happening for the listing on Chiropractic. M we tried to edit it, but our edits kept being removed. One of those who did so, emailed my husband and requested that he stop making changes ( which were done with cited research) as they wouldn’t last & coudl we “please avoid an online arguement”. It was like this guy was a self-appointed final word. And he wasn’t even in the profession.

  14. Dalmazio says:

    Excellent article.
    I personally encountered exactly what the author of this article is referring to during my time editing in the alternative health area for Wikipedia. I heartily concur with the author, and enjoin knowledgeable readers to provide their expert knowledge and intellectual support pertaining to alternative medicine as it relates to Wikipedia.
    Wikipedia has become one of the most widely consulted encyclopedias in the world, used by people from every stratum of society. Wikipedia is unique in that it relies on the wisdom of crowds, as experts and knowledgeable persons, or individuals who have a strong interest in the subject matter, are often those who contribute most to the writing and editing of articles in their respective fields of specialty. All this is based on the principles of consensus, good reasons, and sound arguments, backed by high-quality sources.
    However, as the author states, Wikipedia is in urgent need of alternative health experts and individuals knowledgeable in any branch of alternative medicine to contribute in order to prevent rampant bias from being propagated and ultimately communicated to the general public. We can argue the underlying motivations of these anti-alternative health editors (funded by Big Pharma, or Big Medicine, etc.) but the desired end result is the same: to destroy the credibility and practice of alternative medicine around the world, thereby protecting their interests and the interests of those they represent. And this is frequently done by hijacking the heavily-referenced alternative health-related pages on Wikipedia, supplanting fact with misinformation.
    I enjoin readers to do what they can to contribute to developing these articles. No contribution is too small! The greater the numbers that can contribute even a small amount of their time, the better and more truthfully represented the fields and topics under the broad category of alternative medicine will become. Speaking personally, my colleagues and I have made some small progress in making certain pages much more neutral than they were previously. But we are still overwhelmed by a strong anti-alternative health majority, which makes it difficult to push unbiased and well-researched changes through. There are myriad tactics that are employed to propagate bias and misinformation, but in the end, it’s all about numbers and consensus.
    If you feel compelled to correct this bias and misinformation, some things to keep in mind regarding editing on Wikipedia:
    1. One can edit without a user name, but it is advisable to register with a user name (this is free and simple) and can be done by accessing the registration page on the main page at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
    and entering any name you wish to go by. You will then have your own account and have access to all your history of edits, always anonymously. Most people use a colourful handle in lieu of their real name.
    2. The “talk” pages is where most of the action happens. Every article on Wikipedia has a corresponding talk page accessed at the top of the article in the menu labeled “Discussion.” When changes to an article are not in general agreement, this is where the discussion occurs.
    3. Use sound reasons and good arguments, backed up when possible with good primary or secondary sources. Other unbiased editors will support you.
    4. There are many help pages and tutorials — use them. The following page introduces you to Wikipedia and how to quickly get up to speed editing and contributing to Wikipedia. It also provides links to additional information:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
    5. It is advisable to make edits or contributions to a broad array of alternative medicine pages, in order to convey an interest in not just one or two specific topics, but also the broader Wikipedia project.
    6. Google Scholar is your friend and can be used to provide support for any statements made with peer-reviewed journal publications.
    Good luck!

  15. Marina says:

    Thank you, we have noticed this consistently in passing, but the truth is most experts and practitioners in natural/alternative health have their hands quite full and are extremely busy and don’t have the time (or rather, the paid censors) to correct this. I have noticed a lack of truth, lacking information, and biases on wiki pages that are not in my field of expertise, and have come to feel Wiki is just not worth looking at , at all for important information.
    Will have to check out Wiki cam- but in truth, there is a huge conspiracy to discredit natural health,
    one only has to look at the nearly two decades of “Stephen Barrets” several websites to realize that.

  16. Amy Parent says:

    I feel that those who want to find authentic true information regarding natural health will hopefully seek out more reputable sources than that of Wikipedia, the lazy person’s site for superficial information. College professors no longer accept Wikipedia as a valid source because of its lack of credible sources, and there is a wealth of valid properly cited fact-based onformation all over the internet. And I find it interesting that even the ADA, as in this article, cannot spell the word “dietitian” correctly. That alone removes the credibility of the very important news being conveyed.

  17. DR KAREN POPE says:

    As a doctor I protest the anti health status of Wikpedia. I will from now on not use Wikipedia.

  18. sid norris says:

    why is anyone surprised re wikipedia when any idiot can get on there and write whatever they want? re the trashing of alternative health articles i wouldn’t be surprised if the ama or the fda, the drug industry or any other anti-natural health ideas were behind it.

  19. Mary says:

    Funny. I use to be able to type, let’s say, “herbal remedies for the common cold” in my search box. All kinds of herbal sites would be listed, I’d pick one and go from there. Now when I enter the same words in my search box, I get the names of medical doctors, advertisements of prescription and non prescription drugs. Really makes me mad.

  20. Brenda Vargas says:

    As a person who suffers from chronic allergies and who has tried everything under the sun that western medicines have to offer. I have found no relief. I am 45 years old now and my health has greatly deteriorated . I have found a NAET practitioner and boy what a difference oriental medicines have made. My energy is up I have lost 10 pounds so far and I have already reduced the amount of allergy meds I have to take and I’m not even through the basic 15 yet. I will continue to take the herbal supplements that she gave me to treat my health problems.

  21. doni mae says:

    What a coincidence! I have recently been thinking about my frustration with not knowing the sources of its information and therefore not knowing whqt to believe unless I get similar information from a better known source. It seems to me that wikipedia should include the source (the author or authors’ verifiable identity(ies) for the main article and any updates. This is consistent with other publications and is minimal for enabling readers to evaluate their content. We all know errors and attermpts at deception abound: to pretend otherwise sends a damaging message.

  22. Wendy says:

    It maybe someone hired to sabotage Alternative medicine or a person who loves Conventional medicine that would try to destroy Alternative medicine on Wiki. I was black listed for liking Alternative medicine which saved my life. I have MS. I needed heavy metals removed and Celiac help, LDN, Vitamins/good oils, LDN and more. Conventional doctors maybe untrained in Celiac, or refuse to diagnose it. Tests to diagnose Celiac don’t work, but it can be diagnosed by symptoms… and doctors may not want to rebuild the body/brain/cells and really heal it. Doctors may rather give a $1000 a month drug…but that slowly lets MS people do downhill and suppress/withhold what works. The doctors mocked/laughed/tried to hurt me as much as they could in their doctor notes. I did not do anything to hurt them. Wiki maybe hurt by people who hate that Alternative medicine which is awesome…. works!! Really heals! Saves lives! Medicine is political…big business…Like Democrat/Republican… I love Alternative medicine…it is cheap/works and saves lives and stops pain/suffering. I pray they can repair the damage to the Wiki site and find a new way to accept changes to the site… that are only helpful. To have what is of value destroyed and what doesn’t work promoted is sad. The cure for cancer/MS etc is already here…it is due to Celiac/heavy metals…need detoxing etc.. Fundraisers don’t want the answer to be known…it would elminate the need for them. Pray that Alternative medicine is protected always.

  23. Petr Gustey says:

    these words are part of our country, right ?–
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    then again, the meaning of liberty-
    lib·er·ty   /ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled[lib-er-tee] Show IPA
    –noun, plural -ties.
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
    3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
    4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
    5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
    6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
    7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
    8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
    —Idiom
    9. at liberty,
    a. free from captivity or restraint.
    b. unemployed; out of work.
    c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.
    though wikipedia is a very liberated site, if such actions that have been said about wikipedia have been done then does this not violate the meaning of Liberty?

  24. Wendy Frederick says:

    I’m sick of allopathic medicine trying to quash alternative therapies and information. The so-called alternatives are often centuries old while allopathic medicine is a relative newcomer to the game.

  25. diana brendan says:

    Perhaps the FDA and drug companies hire employees to go through Wikipedia and delete information regarding natural health? It would not surprise me.

  26. Brenda T Tedders says:

    I tried to use their “CREATE A BOOK” feature on Nutrition, whey protein, amino acids and I workied for hours and several days, etc arranging it and every time I went back into the site, the book was delleted or stollen by someone else. I have not heard from the person I was corresponding with through the email about this problem. He stated there was a Save book feature but when I go onto the pages to create a book, there is no feature listed and they are refusing to correc tthe problem or find out what happened to the book I was organizing from their articles.
    Brenda

  27. william worrell says:

    Great idea to promote CAM. Only one thing name is not sexy enough or memorable enough. How about Healthapedia?

  28. Wrusssr says:

    Here’s your problem. Click link below or Google: “Lawrence Solomon’s Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor.”
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
    The boys behind the curtain are on record as saying “. . .we should never have given the public access to the Internet.” Because the Net is outing them. Think a billion flashlights shining on a double handful of bilge rats, a closet with no doors.
    The Web keeps thwarting their scams and hoaxes like swine flu (they pre-sell governments the vaccines, then conjure up the “pandemic”), global warming (accurate climate data distorted to scare the public into not opposing a cap and trade tax to “save the planet”), and genetically modified (GM or GMO) seed/food to save the world from hunger (with a “green revolution”) while their real purpose is to monopolize the world’s agricultural production.
    To try and stifle this, they Wizards of Oz have placed people in key positions at popular Net intersections like Wikipedia to try and divert truthful information pertaining to their schemes.
    Lawrence Solomon’s article explains it.
    This is where your anti-slant is coming from. They (the GM seed boys) have either placed a mole at Wikipedia or assigned ‘writers’ to counter-act pro-natural information and credibility.
    Nothing new.

  29. Karen Barkman says:

    Is it possible to make a submitted alternative medicine article impossible to edit or copy? At least then the original article could be viewed and we could make our own judgments etc.

  30. Wendy says:

    Pray for peace/harmony…Bless the enemy and they will flee. Give it to God….let him take care of it.

  31. I’ll see what I can do.

  32. SchaOn says:

    Honestly… I have to say, even if all the CAM practitioners in the world worked on writing articles on Wiki, I highly doubt it would help change the one-sided arguments that happen on there. I have tried multiple times with several other practitioners to nail down a non-bias, scientifically based article in the past, and it doesn’t work. Finally, we gave up as we need to be focusing our energies on more productive means of educating the mainstream. (Also, keep in mind, many university professors are not allowing Wiki to be quoted in papers…)

  33. Danica Penn says:

    Have noticed this too. I’ve contributed financially to Wikpedia in the past, and have decided they will not receive another penny from me until it fixes its problems. By the way, have a look at colonic irrigation…apparently, “compacted waste” does not exist…which would indicate that “constipation” doesn’t either. How weird.

  34. Danica Penn says:

    Mayo Clinic offers a far better, open-minded, and reliable source of information for all kinds of therapies, both pharmaceutical and natural, than Wikpedia. Wikpedia is a complete (and potentially dangerous) waste of time for anyone searching for serious information about medical issues.

  35. J Green says:

    “Wiki4CAM” will never work as long as there is no tightly controlled screening process giving access to editing capabilities. Not to mention preventing those in Wiki itself (the Wiki-stapo) that have issues with many articles over references to outside websites that have gone out of existence over time.

  36. Bill says:

    I tried to register as an editor with Wiki4CAM, but the link doesn’t work and there’s no obvious means of contacting them.

  37. -jodi says:

    it is unfortunate that natural health information is being deleted and vandalized. however, it is more important to note, maybe, that wiki is NOT to be used for reference in schools. and so, i would not rely on it for my own information. i go to the actual sites, such as this one for reliable information. then, i pass on as much as i have to others through my facebook account and of course, word of mouth. that’s the real way to get information out. i’ve seen a local newspaper post articles from natural healt sources only to be slammed by a conventional health source. you know what, we, the natural health followers, win in the end. we’re the healthy ones! so, support the people who have websites, books, publications and pass on the information one to one to one…

  38. Kevin Reynolds says:

    It’s the oldest trick in the book: Information is power.

  39. Jacob Dijkstra, M.D. says:

    I warn my patients to be extremely careful when searching the internet. Many websites, including Wikipedia, are extremely biased and are under control of big business which has the funds to employ people who have nothing else to do but publish misinformation that helps the bottom line of their companies.

  40. Cassie says:

    As soon as I found out Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, I never even started to use the site. I don’t really understand why anyone would IF THEY KNOW ANYONE CAN EDIT IT. But maybe that’s the bigger problem…

  41. Charles J, says:

    The more I learn about Wikipedia the less respect I have for it. It’s nothing but another op-ed blogger website with crooked contributors.

  42. truther says:

    Wikipedia is clearly allopathic-controlled. This goes to the very top, and very little could be done about it. The only real solution is build an alternative. An althealth Wiki is clearly needed. Wiki4CAM is a very poor effort (the ads don’t help).

  43. Dlighted says:

    I find Wikipedia amazingly accurate and unbiased. And no you are not allowed to advertise your own products and services in the guise of “fact”. The two examples of “bias” seem to me to be about people that are as or more focused on trying to commercialize ($) everything “Natural medicine” as they are in defining and validating it. This doomed path is exactly the one taken by our current pharm companies and docs.

  44. CJ says:

    Many things on the internet are bogus!

  45. F.M.Dusek says:

    I am a Nutrition teacher and always tell my College students that Wikapedia is not a valid source of information and explain why—-no one should use it for valid information on anything. If anyone can get in and change it—–it is common sense to avoid the site.

  46. Lou says:

    Sadly Wiki is but a disinformation source.
    Of course 99% of their articles are no doubt correct. HOWEVER key articles are but an echo of the politically correct political myths. When it comes to health if it ain’t toxic it ain’t good.
    Who needs the false myths of politically correct America repeated? Not I.

  47. jAMES YOUNG says:

    There is nothing about alternative medicine in the dictionary….so how can they write anything.
    One more time, Doctor’s do not know anything so how can the real truth be told.

  48. Anna N says:

    In 2006, when I became a Wikipedia editor, I was trying to add some alternative health information. Not change anything – just add a little clause and some links, that I got from alternative professionals with extensive experience. It was removed immediately by somebody anonymous. I tried over & over, in different ways – it was always removed the next day. Finally I got tired of it, & avoided Wikipedia.
    Two other examples: Natural Hygiene had an extensive page in 2006 – today it all has been removed, except for a few lines, about being an oxymoron. Gerson Therapy & Charlotte Gerson are non-existent today in Wikipedia, even though Max Gerson exists. Dr. Herbert Shelton’s page has been cleaned of most its material. Interestingly, there are many dozens of watching eyes, of WIkipedia “editors”, watching these butchered pages.

  49. Kelli says:

    Of course, the Cult of Scientism doesn’t want to hear the truth outside their reductionist-materialist paradigm. They still believe humans are nothing more than parts. And this view has caused untold suffering and death. GMOs, toxic drugs, barbaric surgeries, and technology that humans don’t even understand. Drugs never cured anyone. Big Pharma probably controls wikipedia though I never liekd that website.
    Scientism is the new dogma.

  50. cipher1111 says:

    I guess I “vandalized” the Wikipedia page on Alternative Medicine… I added my 2cents about Big Pharm, AMA disinformation and I deleted many statements that criticized “CAM”.
    I squeezed my opinions as to WHY they are criticizing, in between statements & quotes.
    Checking to see how soon it will be deleted :-)) Anyone can alter the info, I’ve always found that strange. Never thought to do this until I read today about Orthomolecular Medicine and saw that Wiki had questionable info. I was confused since I’m an all-natural gal & I ended up here.
    Glad to know about Wiki4Cam. **Although I think it would be even better if it was just an entire new Wiki altogether (not just for CAM) with the open-public Edit option closed until proof of validity is obtained.
    Hoping someone smarter than I will create a NEW WIKIPEDIA with a piece that points to Facts Only-No Bias

  51. Lina Simien says:

    American Health Journal is interested in content based partnerships with blog owners in the medical field. AmericanHealthJournal is a medicine website which contains a significant library of high quality health videos. We are seeking bloggers to write guest blog articles to our website. Contact us at our contact page on our site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *