Revision as of 07:40, 23 November 2020 editM99MO (talk | contribs)34 editsNo edit summaryTag: Reverted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:12, 17 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,677,251 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Jamusheen|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low}} |
|
|class=C |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Low}} |
|
|listas=Jamusheen |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Australia|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=C}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Spirituality|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=C|importance=Low|auto=inherit}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== New publication: Critical evaluation of Jasmuheen case == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear article editors/authors, |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015 |
|
|
It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6). |
|
|
|
|
|
I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research. |
|
|
|
|
|
You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field. |
|
|
|
|
|
Best regards, |
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus H. Mast |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi, looks like a good paper its a shame you went for that journal. Unfortunately the journal is a bit dodgy. The ] is an alternative medicine and paranormal journal. It is not considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages and most scientists don't take the journal seriously. Have a look at ]. ] (]) 14:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@]: When you publish on such a controversial issue, you will find it practically impossible to get your article published in a mainstream journal. Certain topics are basically banned. I suggest you give it a try ;). Explore journal isn't dodgy. It's open-minded. It is a proper scientific outlet for topics outside of the mainstream. The best you can aim for as an author writing on this. Think about it. What would you do as an author? Publish a book instead? Then everyone would go "Oh, it's not peer-reviewed!" Not publish at all? If that's where we're at, then goodbye knowledge. ] (]) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to promote your paper as advertisement on different talk pages, which you now do on another . Unfortunately ''Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing'' fails ] and that is why it is not used on any articles on Misplaced Pages. It's basically a pseudoscience journal and its editorial team consist of a faith healer ] and a man who thinks magic (people can levitate) is real ]. It seems the ''Explore'' journal likes magical thinking even publishing a paper claiming the Brazilian medium ] was genuine (!). Crazy. This seems to be a journal working as an apologist for the paranormal. It reminds me of creation "scientists" trying to get their creationism published. I look forward to reading your review but the journal is not a reliable science journal by Misplaced Pages standards or any scientist for that matter. Others may disagree of course but there is nothing else I can add here. But useful information about Jasmuheen can be found in Tucker, S. D. (2018). ''Quacks!: Dodgy Doctors and Foolish Fads Throughout History''. Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-7181-9 , so yes books are a good source of information. I will get round to adding this. ] (]) 16:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ]. --] (]) 06:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I just wanted to point out the article on the relevant pages as it relates to their content. I think that's an appropriate thing to do and not "spamming". Other than that, I'm not here to argue or discuss. You think what you think and do what you want to do with this information. ] (]) 10:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015
It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6).
I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research.
You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field.
Marcus H. Mast