| Revision as of 22:09, 27 November 2006 editMrGalt (talk | contribs)21 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:03, 28 November 2006 edit undoAED (talk | contribs)14,387 edits {{OphthoWikiProject}}Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{OphthoWikiProject}} | |||
| For past talk:<br/> | For past talk:<br/> | ||
Revision as of 00:03, 28 November 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iridology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
For past talk:
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive3 (25 Jan 2004 - 10 Feb 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive4 (10 Jan 2004 - 1 Apr 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive5 (1 Apr 2004 - 7 Apr 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive6 (8 Apr 2004 - 19 May 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive7 (19 May 2004 - 02 June 2006)
Iridology
Two-three years ago I had stone in my ridht kidney. Five years before stone started making a lot of trouble I pass by iridologist. He stop me and told me that I have problem with kidney. I didn't pay attention at that time. So I took medications from urologist to help this stone move out. It did bother me, and bother me again and again for at list 3 month or longer. Thanks on heavy pain killer it was manageble and I was able to work. If stone would not pass it should be procedure to be done. At this piont I went on seminar for aromatherapy and Rain Drop technique. The part of it was little bit of Reflexology. My partner discovered moderate pain on right foot in spot corresponding to kidney and stimulated. Three days later stone pass away. Doctor said later than this size stones-4mm do not pass without prosedure. What was it, just coincidence? 06.10.06 LaCrosse ogkmv@comcast.net—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaCrosse (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC).
- Yes. Or, maybe, no. That's why you have scientific medicine, not anecdotal - to sort out such stuff. - DavidWBrooks 18:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually fairly impressed with this article. It is quite even-handed on a subject that could be rather controvertial. That being said, whose bright idea was it to wander through[REDACTED] and make all sorts of completely irrelevant links? I understand that people want[REDACTED] to be interconnected, but shouldn't the links in an article lead to things that are important for or related to that article? Otherwise, why not just link every word? Is that actually the end goal? There is no reason for the links to various countries or various years, nor to such simple words as "body". Furthermore, I don't know whether putting in information followed by "citation needed" is really beneficial to the accuracy and quality of wikipedia. If the citation isn't there, perhaps the information shouldn't be there either, otherwise I could type in any old thing with a "citation needed" note after it and artificially inflate the percieved accuracy of that "fact". Or are wikipedians in general more concerned with quantity than quality. I am not part of the wikipedian community, nor do I have the time and inclination to be. However, if these issues are being argued elsewhere I think that I'd enjoy following that. Please point the way. I'll make a point of checking back here. In the mean-time, with the wiki spirit in mind, I'm going to edit out all those superfluous links.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.98.203 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
Being Non-Invasive is a benefit?
That first point, that it's non-invasive, isn't it a bit irrelevant? If the diagnostic method doesn't work, so what if we didn't mutilate the iridology victim to diagnose him? I can look at you from across the street and diagnose you with roughly the same accuracy, and that's not only non-invasive, but free as well. MrGalt 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)