Talk:Phytotherapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Clincical trials placebo etc
The section on non-inert placebos was removed due to its highly misleading nature. This is what wikipedia says about the inerntess of placebos "Although placebos are generally characterized as pharmacologically inert substances or formulations, sham treatments, or inactive procedures, they are only inert, sham, ineffective, or inactive in the particular sense that they have no known cause and effect relationship with any of the pre-designated, biochemical, physiological, behavioural, emotional and/or cognitive outcomes of the pharmacologically active and known-to-be-efficacious intervention that might have otherwise been applied" The inertness of placebo section in the placebo article covers everything on placebos more than adequately. There is no need to repeat here. Placing it here only works suggests that all controlled scientific trials on herbs are invalid.
Why is the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials section included under the heading of "Issues in clincial trials". It seems to imply that many trials don't meet these requirements. The section has such, been moved and retitled. The last section of this sentence was removed as it is a recommendation given by a group unaffiliated with CONSORT that appears to be one of their recommendations in that context. The "Issues in clincial trials" has also been removed as it would only cover one section. The last section of this sentence was removed as it is a recommendation given by a group unaffiliated with CONSORT that appears to be one of their recommendations in that context.JamesStewart7 —Preceding comment was added at 08:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV Tag
The Safety section talk asserts the safety of Pytotherapy by trying to establish that conventional medicine is unsafe. It fails to note that a "drug" that is not active will be safe by default either. Since there are questions as to whether some herbal treatments do anything, this really needs stating. The clincal trials section is about why Clincal trials are unreliable and reports nothing about negative efficacy results. This leaves the article highly POV, hence the tag.JamesStewart7 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Pharmacognosy or Herbalism?
On review of this article I've noticed the content of it is very similar to both the pharmacognosy and herbalism articles. I propose that unless these articles are differentiated in some way they, this article should be merged with pharmacognosy.JamesStewart7 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
