Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:12, 11 February 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle Mineral Supplement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle Mineral Supplement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Objectivity of this article and criticism

I think we have to be very careful how to treat this article. This is an obvious snake oil, even linking to this guy's sites is "promotion" on the part of wikipedia, and giving specific information about the exact procedures of preparation and such is inappropriate. Just because no one has published scientific studies on THIS particular quack medicine, I don't think it means we can not include information pertaining to exactly the same claims, like the link I have added from quackwatch. Vespine (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If care is to be used, perhaps colloquialisms like snake oil should be more properly (and sensitively) rendered as quackery as done later in the above paragraph. Traditional Chinese medicine has long used the oil from the Chinese water snake as relief for arthritis and joint pain, with the claimed active ingredient being eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid. The western counterpart is the New Zealand green-lipped mussel, whose oil serves essentially the same purpose and which you will find being aggressively promoted at some US pharmacies (for example right under the customer's gaze at the counter of the well-run Palo Alto pharmacy I've been using for many years). Is it fair to ridicule the Chinese animal while accepting without protest the curative benefits of its New Zealand counterpart? (Disclaimers: I haven't tried either for my own arthritis, have no vested interests in either, and have no opinions either way on how much of the benefit of either is from the placebo effect.)

While the literature promoting MMS seems based largely (entirely?) on anecdotal evidence, this article spans the gamut from careful studies to drive-by hit jobs like the alleged fatal renal failure in the first paragraph. The article sourcing this claim describes someone who attempted suicide by ingesting 10 g of sodium chlorite, precipitating an acute hemolytic crisis leading to acute renal failure. Recovery can be on the order of weeks but in the case of this suicide attempt renal function reportedly took three months to normalize. The concluding sentence of the article's abstract reads, "To our knowledge, there has been no clinical report of human intoxication with sodium chlorite," which I don't know how to interpret in light of this incident (no prior report perhaps?), though it certainly was not fatal, contrary to the claim in the article.

Conclusion: If care is to be used, the first step might be to weed out the more egregious instances of poorly documented hit jobs like that one, and focus on properly conducted studies and sourced assessments of the quality of the MMS literature and research. A more neutral tone would also be appreciated. (Disclaimer: my own interest in promoted cures like MMS is with a close relative younger than me given only a short time to live, a situation greatly sensitizing one to the gamut of efficacious alternative medicine, wishful thinking, and willful fraud. A promoted cure that is more likely to be fatal than the disease should clearly not be taken, but suggestions to that effect are irresponsible when based on inaccurate reporting.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, you are replying to a post over a year old. Regarding me calling it snake oil, this is a talk page, the term is not used in the article so your first paragraph is completely unwarranted. As for the rest, my conclusion is that MMS is dangerous nonsense that deserves absolutely NO leniency. I've been actively investigating MMS for about 18 months now and NOTHING has changed: The BS excuses are exactly the same, the LACK of any studies or reviews and the complete lack of even a SINGLE corroborated account of MMS actually CURING ANYONE OF ANYTHING; there is absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is. In fact, if it wasn't for the positive public caution message, this kind of nonsense wouldn't even deserves its own article. I dare anyone to approach an actual printed encyclopedia and see if they would even consider if MMS warrants its own article. Vespine (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages has a statute of limitations on replies to comments then my apologies for being unaware of it.

The problem I see with angry-toned defenses of either side of any disagreement is that they tend to undermine the credibility of that side. My point was to strengthen the article by suggesting a more professional sounding ("encyclopedic") tone.

I was also under the impression that Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a civil tone not only in the articles but in the talk pages, which is why I felt my first paragraph was warranted, contrary to your claim. Language like "absolutely NO reason or excuse to NOT treat this crap like the potentially dangerous quack scam that it is" comes across as unprofessional zealotry rather than a considered opinion to be taken seriously.

It's hard to take either an article or its talk page seriously when its authors are unable to stick to the facts and have to rely on misleading and arguably false information to make their point, for example the unsupported claim that sodium chlorite can cause fatal renal failure, which the source for the statement explicitly contradicts. The article should focus on real problems and not make up imaginary ones, otherwise readers are no more likely to believe your account of the real problems than the imaginary ones, which undermines the purpose you hope this article will serve. Any medical professional that wrote like that would have no chance of getting their article accepted for publication. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While the desire to give WP:FRINGE theories a neutral pseudobalance, they remain fringe: no demonstrated benefit, demonstrated potential for harm. In general, it is bad form to accuse other editors of sounding unprofessional when you are misinterpreting the abstract of an article you have not read.Novangelis (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if my tone sounds "unprofessional" but understand that it is purely based on my lack of patience, not lack of objectivity. If you look at my posts here from OVER 18 months ago, you'll see that they were a lot more calm and collected. I did the research then and I have done a lot more research since then, I have been active on MMS support websites and other "health" forums, on MMS videos on YouTube, and I've read pretty much all the MMS information I've been able to find, but the MMS supporters position has NOT changed one bit. There are NO new case reports, studies, trials, NOTHING, even the claim about how there are thousands of "testimonials" is a load of rubbish, do yourself a favour try to find ONE testimonial on YouTube. It's a complete joke. Jim and his supporters just tirelessly regurgitate the same tired old claims and every few months, someone obviously fairly new to the subject like you comes along and cries foul. I have actually stopped editing the MMS article a long time ago because I agree I find it very hard to be unemotional about the topic, but I won't refrain from giving my opinion on the talk page as I don't believe I am breaking any guidelines doing so. Vespine (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Vespine, the miracle mineral is not snake oil; it is not quackery. I had a tooth root infection, that spread across the nerve into my brain, which was quite alarming, and an 8 drop dose of the miracle mineral in a pint of water cured the infection in four hours. I would recommend that you acquire the miracle mineral, as it could save your life.

If you notice, the ratings of the miracle mineral article are rather low. If you stop treating the miracle mineral as snake oil, and include the pros and cons from Jim Humble's book (I think this is a valid point of research), perhaps the ratings for the article would eventually increase. Right now they are rather abysmal, with a 1.3 for trustworthiness, and a 1.2 for objectivity. Again, if you treat this as a pro-miracle mineral article, and try to find supporting data for this miracle cure, perhaps the ratings would increase, and the article would no longer be listed as C-class. MoogleONE (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting your time posting garbage like this here. We don't give a rat's arse what you think drinking overpriced bleach did to cure your toothache, and we don't care what the 'trustworthiness' rating of this article is either. Unlike quacks like Jim Humble, we don't lie to people to increase our credibility. Drinking bleach is dangerous, MMS is a con, and you are either a dupe, or more likely one of Humble's many cronies (if you aren't Humble himself). Go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Positive Studies of the Miracle Mineral on Cancer Patients

"3 of the 24 study participants (12.5%) reported a positive result from using MMS, as outlined below:" http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com/MMS_Cancer_Study.html

There are probably more of these. Your quack article is completely biased, and has severely lowered my respect for wikipedia.

Have a nice day. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You delete my messages when I'm winning the argument. What a looser, andy. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTFORUM - and I suggest you read the article you linked: "MMS may slow the progression of cancer, however this has not been established on this study". "may": even quackery-promoting websites don't seem to support claims that it demonstrably does anything other than relieve people of the contents of their bank account. Though from anecdotal evidence (i.e. the nonsense that its promoters spout), I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some secret technique you wikipedia users are using, to ban and oust out non-wikipedia users opinions. I did not vandalize this webpage Drmies; Andythegrump vandalized it by removing my text from the talk page. You say there is no evidence to support that the MMS works, but my own successes with the miracle mineral should point to SOME wiki-friendly PRO-EVIDENCE existing SOMEWHERE! Someone needs to find these 75,000 trials conducted in africa by Jim Humble. 1) The MMS is not quackery. 2) "I suspect that as well as the nausea and diarrhoea side effects reported, significant brain-rotting may be occurring." is a personal attack, and should be deleted. Let's play by the rules, huh? Stop making personal attacks.

I don't know how to change the edit summary, so if someone could help me here.. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a talk page for discussing article content. We base article content on published reliable sources - which for topics like this means peer-reviewed mainstream medical journals. We do not use material from unknown websites making 'scientific' claims (not that the site you linked claimed that MMS worked anyway). And neither do we base article content on anecdotal evidence. Jim Humble may well claim to have conducted 75,000 trials. We don't care. They aren't evidence of anything whatsoever, beyond the fact that Jim Humble makes claims and then fails to provide anything to back them up. Per policy, material not directly related to article content may be deleted from talk pages (seeWP:NOTFORUM). Soapboxing about Misplaced Pages 'bias', and suggesting that some random pro-quackery website is in any way relevant to this article is a waste of your time, and ours. If you consider my comments about 'brain-rotting' to be a personal attack, I have to ask whether your combative initial post was anything else? Unless you have suggestions for changes to the article which conform to Misplaced Pages policy, and are based on reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS for what is required), I suggest you stop posting - this isn't a forum for debate on anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences." (from WP:MEDRS) I documented my personal experience of the miracle mineral curing my tooth root infection, in my lower-jaw, that had spread to my brain, travelling across the nerve, in UNDER 4 HOURS, and you DELETED MY POST FROM THIS TALK THREAD, WHICH IS VANDALISM, AND then you said that this was my "point of view", while you adopt the "point of view" that the miracle mineral is evil quackery. I cannot recall my previous post from the history, due to conflicts in intermediate edits, and I DEMAND that an admin place a warning on you, for VANDALISM by DELETING MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE from the talk thread.

Also, Jim Humble has directly participated in a research on 75,000 malaria patients in africa, so he is a primary source for the miracle mineral as well. We have to go by the rules here.

Also, the mms church must have had lots of personal experiences of the curative effects of the miracle mineral, and you guys decry these people as "lackeys" of Jim Humble, and cry "point of view", while YOU HOLD a "point of view" as well! What is this nonsense??? I demand an administrator come here, and allow the primary sources of Jim Humble and his "lackeys" into the main wikipedia article for the miracle mineral. Your bias here is unbelievable! The miracle mineral WORKS! This is undisputable.

You also engage in personal attacks, by referring to the mms church as the "church of bleach-chuggers". Well, that they are, a church of bleach chuggers, except the bleach DOES NOT HARM THE HEALTHY CELLS IN THE BODY, MAKING THIS A MIRACLE CURE. This ****IS***** a miracle cure, and I *****DEMAND***** that the wikipedia article reflect the non-bogus, curative nature of the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now the wikipedia-elite are now bashing and shoving aside the un-skilled wikipedia users, using some ridiculous jargon. The sources are NOT unreliable. They are VERY reliable, and I demand that an administrator punish you Yobol for VANDALISING the article. Then you claim the wikipedia is not a forum, THEN WHY AM I BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED, by Andythegrump whenever I try to make a constructive message? Please undo the hide you did of this discussion, or I will do it for you. Stop hiding all of the positive primary sources of the miracle mineral, while promoting only the erroneous, negative sources. Governments can be incorrect you know. I don't know what they're thinking, the FDA telling people to dispose of the miracle cure for cancer and aids. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just sent a report to the FDA, concerning my tooth root infection that travelled to the brain, and hopefully we will find some "reliable, positive sources" soon for the miracle mineral. 69.143.187.109 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your hide of my text, and I also registered my account, so you won't see my IP 69.143.187.109 anymore. Let's see if you have the balls to continue this edit war with me, deleting and hiding my constructive attempts to rectify the horrible mangling you're doing to the miracle mineral with your insanely-biased article. I went ahead and requested dispute resolution. Let's see you guys hoist yourselves on your own petard, by deleting/hiding my comments. MoogleONE (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the beginning of the history of the miracle mineral supplement article, and it's very obviously a well-calculated smear attempt against Jim Humble. I have lost all of my interest with this article, and probably won't be making anymore edits. I leave it to someone else to clean out the trash. MoogleONE (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will clean out all trash I can find. You can focus your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Minerals?

It strikes me odd that something called Miracle Mineral Supplement does not contain any minerals. Is anyone aware of a source that has commented on this fact? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't contain any miracles, that's for sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I had another look for sources ~10 days ago and didn't come across anything about that. There's not really any coverage beyond the fact that it's quackery. SmartSE (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Upholding Unbiased and Objective Information

This is a wonderful example of how NOT to have a constructive conversation. The rules clearly state that this is NOT a forum, and should NOT be used to discuss personal biases and sling mud at each other. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and so far, none of you have shown that you can objectively consider both sides of the subject. In my opinion, none of those whom have contributed to this "Talk" page, should be allowed to edit or modify the actually MMS page.

In order to provide a truly informative, educational and objective page on MMS, all sides should be shown from a non-biased perspective. Which means that personal opinions and experiences hold no water unless they come from a verified expert in the subject of health and the use of homeopathic remedies, and that expert opinion is also followed up from an equal expert of an opposite opinion. --Bema Self (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this to a new section. The problem is, is that there are no reliable sources which explain the other side of MMS. Whilst I guess it can be said that the article is biased against MMS, that is because all the sources warn against using MMS, and so this is naturally reflected in the article - we only publish what has already been published. If you've got any ideas on how it can be improved, please go ahead. SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bema Self, I have reverted your edits. Blogs are not reliable sources. NPOV does not mean that we give equal weight to all sides of an argument; per WP:VALID, we give greater weight to reliable academic scholarship than fringe theories. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bema Self, Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear on what we see as an objective article: WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE). Everything on Misplaced Pages needs to be verifiable via reliable sources (see Smartse's link), and medical claims are subject to even higher standards. I wonder why someone who's an expert in “the use of homeopathic remedies” would have any more credibility here than my grandmother - the relevant fields here are Toxicology, Epidemiology, Oncology and perhaps (since it's claimed to be a supplement) Dietetics. --Six words (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for the info, I have read all the wiki policies I should have read in the first place and have once more attempted to provide an unbiased page on this subject.

That being said, has anyone considered simply deleting the entire subject of MMS on wikipedia? Clearly, whether you leave it as it, or change it back, it will still violate the NPOV. Not to mention, if it's not academic, and it's not verifiable or deniable from either reputable sources (since no reputable groups have done studies on the medicinal uses of MMS in the terms that humble describes), then it will always be a useless page that is not objective, educational or informative.

Couldn't we just link the search for MMS to the page for Chlorine Dioxide? That page already holds basic information about MSS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 09:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) --Bema Self (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources show harm. Reliable sources do not show any benefit or even preliminary medical safety testing of the preparation. That's the unbiased information.Novangelis (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I partly agree: what you've added under the section “experimental uses” could at most be added to Chlorine dioxide, if there are better sources (used as mouth wash - a study with N=15? That's not good enough! A case report? No way!). This article is about “the supplement” sodium chlorite, and (medical) trials are only relevant for the MMS article if they study one of the purported uses as “alternative” treatment (you know, AIDS, Hepatitis, ...). Since a lot has been written about this product, it is notable as a stand-alone article, so I doubt there'll be a consensus to delete or merge it it; you can try to get it deleted/merged anyway, instructions are here. I'm going to revert your latest rewrite and - again - suggest to discuss any change to the article first, and to gain consensus before editing the article. --Six words (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

The problem with trying to write this page only about MMS (sodium chlorite) in it's unactivated form, is that in order to use it according to the way suggested, it says to activate it with citric acid, which then turns it into Chlorine Dioxide, which is what the "miracle" (not much of a miracle, but w/e) part is. Now, if you want to remove all the information about MMS on it's own, without being activated, then rewrite the page to talk about it just that way. Take out anything that talks about MMS when it's activated, like the parts about it becoming a bleach or about anyone drinking it. And remove any parts about "experts" from poison control centers, because they are only talking about when people drink the activated version of MMS, which is CHLORINE DIOXIDE. You can't have it both ways. Either we are talking only about MMS unactivated as Sodium Chloride, or we are talking about the chemical that people use MMS to make (chlorine dioxide). So which is it?

Also, dental problems, cavities, gingivitis and oral sores are some of the things that MMS supposedly works on, that's how I found out about it originally. Which is why I put it in for being relevant to this wiki. I'm not going to suggest it does or doesn't work in the way that humble suggests, but I find that the verifiable experiments preformed by notable organizations, are relevant to this page, as they show that there is some potential weight to the boat that MMS users are all trying to float on. And seriously, it isn't a lot of ground to stand on, and far from enough to show any sort of support of the product, but I feel that it's enough to give some balance to page and allow the representation of both views, because it talks about how recognized science has used Chlorine Dioxide to heal some otherwise incurable issues.

Thank you for your suggestions and information Six words, I appreciate your consensus. I am normally the type of person who would prefer to get group consensus before editing anything. Though it's clear through the history of this page and talk page, that there are very few "watching" this page, who actually want to have the page here for information, and not just to show a large distaste for MMS. And believe me, the stuff seems crazy to anyone on the outside looking in, and I think that side is already fairly represented in the page now. Though there's just no point in having a page up that doesn't represent the information in the traditional fashion of wikipedia - and while the NPOV may not "require" a completely unbiased page, it does say that we should give our best efforts to be unbiased, balanced and written in a fashion of disinterest or detachment. The current page doesn't do any of that. If it did, you wouldn't have all these newbies coming on here trying to fix the page.

It makes me wonder if this page isn't left up, not for it's value, but simply as a fish hook to lure in unsuspecting people who have no idea the kind of nonsense they're going to have to deal with in order to try and help out. I mean, I thought that wikipedia was a group project that anyone could edit? So far, you've all refused to allow me to make any tiny edits, big edits or even to just reorganize the information so that the page doesn't look so dreadful, because as a writer, I can tell you the formatting looks horrible. You've even refused to incorporate any of the information I supplied into the article in other ways. It is relevant, though I could see it being worded differently. Yet NONE of you want to do the work. So while I did the work, and am continuing to do it, the only thing you do is sit there behind the mask of your computer screens and click the "revert" button. If you're going to be so hypercritical of the changes I've made, then at very least get into the page and make some serious changes yourself, without just reverting back to the original page. That's redundant, childish, and only going to result in the continuation of problems with this page.

I am going to seek the help of an admin, while I search for relevant studies of the uses of "sodium chlorite". While I do that, it would be helpful if anyone who has reverted the page again and again, to not just complain, but to get out there and do some research to. You need a better argument then the WP:NPOV and relevancy excuses. They don't have any legs to stand on, because according to those same rules, the current page doesn't fit either. And as far as wikipedia keeping the page simply because a lot of people have written about, that sounds pretty darn silly, especially in the form the page is in now. --Bema Self (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Research?" You mean "Drink bleach, if it doesn't kill you, it might kill something else more useful"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what research looks like. I've changed the section from "Safety" to "Safety and legal issues". If the two can be untangled, they might be broken into separate sections.Novangelis (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

reply

Is that the best rebuttal you have andy? Really? lol— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Bite The Newcomers

I would like to cite WB:DBN, because I truly feel that those of you whom have been on this page long term, especially Andy and Novangelis, whom are not benefiting this conversation or the page with insults to the information and zero objectivity.

"Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Misplaced Pages as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Misplaced Pages. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong"." From the WB:DNB page --Bema Self (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop trying to sell toxic snake oil.

I would like to cite WP:NEWCOMERYEAHRIGHTJIMHUMBLESTOOGEMORELIKE. I'll choose biting 'newcomers' over allowing crackpots to push bleach as a cure for AIDS, any day of the week. I have morals, unlike you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles