Content deleted Content added
Line 256:
:I disagree, while it is true that "pseudoscience" and "unscientific" are terms of disparagement, they are also terms that are used by conventional medicine to criticize orthomed. Whether or not proponents such as yourself agree is immaterial as to the '''fact''' that they do characterize orthomed as such. NPOV entails description of both sides and adequate weight given to the majority opinion. These facts are not in dispute: 1) Conventional medicine views orthomed as unscientific and as pseudoscience, 2) Orthomed disputes this, 3)Orthomed is the very small minority in this debate. This accurately reflects the view of conventional medicine, which is the title of the section. Also, your edit eliminated the primary objection (lack of positive studies) and substituted the secondary objection (the presence of negative studies). Also by both characterizing the studies as disputed and explicitly disputing them in the next sentence, you are giving the proponents undue weight. This in essence sets up another straw man argument. Also, the argument that doctors are "unfamiliar" with orthomed implies that familiarity would lend to acceptance, which has not proven true. Conventional medicine's view of orthomed may not be central theme of the OM, but it is the central theme of this section. --[[User:DocJohnny|<small><font color="blue">John</font></small><small><sup><font color="blue">DO</font></sup></small>]]|[[User talk:DocJohnny|<small><font color="blue"><sup>Speak your mind</sup></font></small>]] 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
:I redid the section without using "pseudoscience" or "unscientific" despite the fact that they are terms that accurately reflect the view of critics. --[[User:DocJohnny|<small><font color="blue">John</font></small><small><sup><font color="blue">DO</font></sup></small>]]|[[User talk:DocJohnny|<small><font color="blue"><sup>Speak your mind</sup></font></small>]] 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||