Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XRii (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 6 July 2015 (→Opening Paragraph). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

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. 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 Skepticism 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. Australia Low‑importance Universal Medicine is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Snow keep. .

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Conflicts of interest and single purpose accounts

First, welcome to Misplaced Pages, new friends.

I have received allegations privately regarding conflicts of interest in respect of editors stated to me to be active on this article - this may or may not be correct, I do not make any judgement on that (see below). Several of the people editing this article are what we term single purpose accounts, and are editing with one of two diametrically opposed agendas. This is not evil, it happens all the time, but it leads to some common misunderstandings and incorrect behaviours - not to mention frustrations - which I see coming to the fore by now in the discussions above.

As it happens, the independent sources currently largely support, at least in outline, a point of view which is much closer to one of the competing sides than to the other, but this is a coincidence and should not be taken as an endorsement of conflicted POV edits by any party. We will continue to follow the sources whatever they may say, if you have a problem with the overall tone of the article it's probably not actually our problem to fix: take it up with the sources (pro tip: consider not provoking nerd backlash by trying to suppress negative coverage).

Our policy on conficts of interest is important to maintaining trust and objectivity. If a COI is suspected, an editor may be blocked, topic banned, or banned from the project entirely.

Our policy on outing and privacy does not require you to own up who you are, at least not by name, nor do we permit you to say who you think anyone else is, but that does not override your obligation to acknowledge any conflict of interest. "I work for X" is enough. On your userpage is fine, you only need to put it anywhere once so that people can check. You don't need to wear it like some kind of Judenstern, just don't be coy, please.

Having a conflict of interest - either as advocate for the subject or as critic - means that you should not edit the article directly. However, you are at liberty - indeed are encouraged - to propose useful changes on this talk page. Let me state clearly and unambiguously what the Misplaced Pages community supports as useful changes, if you are vested in one of the two groups.

1. You should not edit the article directly.
2. You must not attack other contributors or impute motives.
3. Do not, under any circumstances, make any legal threats, direct or implicit. Anything that even looks like a legal threat if you turn it sideways and squint, is very, very likely to get you banned outright, there and then, with no questions asked and no quarter given. We really really mean this.
4. You should propose changes on this talk page. The changes should be:
   1. Specific
   2. Supported by reliable independent sources
   3. Verifiably accurate (note: disagreeing with something does not make it inaccurate)
   4. Actionable by an independent editor without spending three months unpicking the back story (e.g. "change sentence from X to Y based on Z source, this is a correction of the misattribution of a quote")
5. Misplaced Pages articles abide by the neutral point of view. That does not mean a sympathetic point of view, it means a point of view which an independent observer in full possession of the facts, should agree is fair and balanced (in the proper meaning, as opposed to Fair And Balanced™).
6. Do not snowstorm with hundreds of requests.
7. Do not stonewall.

We have a range of technical measures in our locker to control abuse. Please don't make us use them, because not only does it annoy us, but it also makes it dramatically harder to get your point across at all. Misplaced Pages genuinely does care about fairness and accuracy.

I am sure some other things will occur. I started this article myself based on a news story I saw, I have no real opinion on the subject other than that the Google search suppression was widely covered as an illiberal act. I'm not Australian, but I have friends Down Under including members of Australian Skeptics. There are other admins watching this page, I'm here as an editor not an admin, but the above is from my experience as an admin of long standing.

Thank you for your attention. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Judenstern I would be considered to have a conflict of interest as I know the organisation and Serge Benhayon so now that I understand I will not edit but will continue to provide input here as seems to be acceptable. I am pleased to see that now that some experienced editors are on board the biased tone of the article has been adjusted somewhat.Choose12 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To check if you are being flamed for editing this WP UM article see their 'facts' website at universalmedicinefacts dot com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013Ca55 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC) - RevTim0 (talk)

Several accounts who had posted on this talk page (and edited the article) were blocked two days ago as sockpuppets of the same editor, including RevTim0, 2013Ca55, Wokit14, and Rxet. I haven't read through this article or talk page so I don't know what exactly is going on, but I'm leaving this note here so other editors are aware that any apparent "consensus" between these accounts can be ignored. — Jeraphine Gryphon  08:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In January 2015 the first paragraph was edited to “ allegations to the contrary have been documented predominantly by the media” this was then reversed by Wokit, a now known sock puppet, to “ significant evidence to the contrary has been documented”. As there is no reliable source that states any evidence, they only refer to allegations, I have reverted the statement for accuracy. Even the Parliamentary Committee comments, if you look at the actual source, are citing two newspaper articles that are making allegations - there is never any mention of actual evidence. Tribscent08 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

JzG - evidence is a body of facts but there are only, in all quoted sources allegations and personal accounts, which means that at this point there is only allegations, not evidence. Hence my understanding that this statement should be reversed. Even if the media deem it ok to print such unsubstantiated allegations - should an encyclopaedia be calling that evidence? Tribscent08 (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Edits for Discussion

The following is inaccurate - "Benhayon has disclosed that his income is around $2 million dollars a year from courses and retreats offered by Universal Medicine" _ In the television interview that Jane Hansen quotes, Benhayon did not say his income was $2 mil he said that the business Universal Medicine turns over 2mil a year. This is consistent with the Courier Mail article that Josh Robertson wrote. Josh Robertson says the business turns over $2mil per year.http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/new-age-medicine-of-serge-benhayon-leaves-trail-of-broken-families/story-e6freon6-1226467645378. I have made other edits to bring some balance back to this article as has been discussed throughout this talk page, including by senior editors.Tribscent08 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The mention of Serge Benhayons' income as $2 million is incorrect according to both the (Today Tonight) television interview and the Courier Mail, Josh Robertson article. What they both said is that the turnover is $2 million. The Jane Hansen article has misquoted the television interview. As income and turnover are two vastly different things, for accuracy I propose that this should be changed. Tribscent08 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you outline exactly what you want to change or add, and lay out your sources. Ping JzG -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem. --- On this issue I propose to change sentence to:- Benhayon has disclosed that he grosses at least AUD$2million dollars a year from courses and retreats offered by Universal Medicine. --- On another issue in 'Religious Background' section I propose the following simple quote added to this sentence:- Serge Benhayon has claimed to be the reincarnation of “Claimed Son of God” Leonardo da Vinci, as well as Alice A. Bailey, Pythagoras, Imhotep and Saint Peter. --- Rxet (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were going to say Alice B. Toklas for a moment there, which would have explained a lot :-) Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The rewording of the income/gross sentence reads well to me Rxet. I think adding the "Claimed Son of God" quote prior to the sentence of the article that expands on that matter will muddy comprehension. There will also be 2 repetitions off the word "claimed" in one sentence which does not read particularly well. 79616gr (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed "disclosed" from that para as Benhayon's comments are known to be unreliable. Claim is more suitable in this instance because the actual income was likely to be substantially higher. I agree there's a lot of repetition of certain words, though. XRii (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph:- Created by Benhayon and practiced by followers and physiotherapists of Universal Medicine, "esoteric connective tissue therapy'" claims to improve energy flow by "allowing the pulse of the lymphatic system to symbiotically correspond with the body's own ensheathing web". John Dwyer described the claim that a lymphatic pulse exists as "utter nonsense". Rxet (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT...

...post personal attacks against other editors. Period. If you have a problem that cannot be resolved through polite talk page discussion then ask for help from an admin or more experienced editor. If you perceive a serious breach of policy or guidelines you can take the matter to WP:ANI. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

An outsiders opinion of Misplaced Pages entry

1) Having read the majority of available internet literature regarding Universal Medicine, I find it appalling that this Misplaced Pages entry is so obviously and brazenly biased against this organisation. It is verbal poison - a good example of truth distorted to appear evil. 2) Really, the blatant sarcastic use of 'The Student Body' and 'The Teachings' to imply they are somehow not to be trusted. These terms could apply to any number of business, social or teaching organisations. 3) How underhand to call them a 'Religion' but then state it has been refused charitable status in the UK on account of not fitting criteria for a true 'religion'.

Someone who has a deep vested interested in destroying Universal Medicine has written this material - peppering truth with very big lies in order to entirely extinguish an organisation. Magnify the lies, minimise the truth and hey presto! you have a wikipedia article ready to misinform the public.

Is it any wonder that the internet has become a battleground for good versus evil - with google playing a very ill equipped judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.98.27 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have material that you believe should be added to the article and think has been left out, and it is backed by reliable sources (see WP:RS) then by all means contribute. But please refrain from attacking other editors or impugning their motives. This article has been the object of a great deal of work and attention from many editors, including some who are very experienced. Just because an article does not reflect well on its subject does not mean it's biased. We only repeat what exists in RS sources. If the available and reliable source material overwhelming is negative in its treatment of a subject then that's what we go with. Sometimes a person or organization gets negative attention from RS sources because they deserve it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a reality-based encyclopaedia. This is by design. Universal Medicine is a cult, and as a reality based encycloaedia we reflect the views of independent sources which credibly identify it as such. I started this article and I have no vested interest at all. I have been a Misplaced Pages editor for a decade and have tens of thousands of edits, see JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Guy (Help!) 21:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tidying Up

1. In accordance with the below suggestion made some time back by a senior editor, Cullen, I have taken out the unrelated article cited in paragraph Search Results Removed from Google , Phoenix Global now has its own Misplaced Pages page and mention of the company is now linked to that page.Tribscent08 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a real problem with some of the references in that section, which to me, do not meet our standards for reliable sources. One is a profile of the owner of a detective agency which offers internet reputation services. But that source doesn't even mention Universal Medicine. Why do we need to know about the background of the owner of that firm, unless reliable sources discuss his background when also discussing Universal Medicine? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribscent08 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, Trbscent08 you can't sweep away Universal's unhealthy involvement with questionable firms just because authorities revelations may expose the cult soon. I intend to replace the reference you removed and add another reference to satisfy the issue you created. Secondly, I am using a friends computer, so don't do impose that sockspuppet rubbish upon me and get my account suspended as an excuse just cause you dont like my opinion. OK? Mrinfart (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Under Regulatory and Other Issues, there is a random sentence about Serge Benhayon which is not relevant to this section and I propose should be moved somewhere else. The sentence says, Benhayon is a father of four, whose second wife Miranda is 18 years his junior. While this is a cited fact it doesn't seem to fit under any heading in relation to Universal Medicine. Tribscent08 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 To your first point, can you highlight exactly which cites you take issue with, and why, beyond that which you have now removed? 79616gr (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

79616gr From what I can gather the citation removed was a link to an article about Phoenix global Michael Featherstone which contained no mention of UM. See above comment from Cullen in this regard. Since there is a link to Phoenix Global's wiki page there seems to be no reason to have an unrelated article cited. This would seem to be Tribcents08 reason for removing it. They dont seem to be suggesting having an issue with any other citation You will see that they are quoting Cullen who originally made the comment about having a problem with some references Choose12 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So I note that the reference to an article that is not related to UM has been put back by Mrinfart. Please explain your reason since clearly a senior editor has commenters previously that it is inappropriate to include reference to an article that has no information in it about he subject. Phoenix global have their own page and there is a direct link to that page from their mane on this page so what possible reason is there to continue to go against wiki rules? Again here is the comment from Cullen " I have a real problem with some of the references in that section, which to me, do not meet our standards for reliable sources. One is a profile of the owner of a detective agency which offers internet reputation services. But that source doesn't even mention Universal Medicine. Why do we need to know about the background of the owner of that firm, unless reliable sources discuss his background when also discussing Universal Medicine? Cullen328" Please explain why you feel the need for that reference. Also what is your comment about sock puppets about?From what i can gather the sock puppet issue was found by a senior editor not Tribscent 08Choose12 (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the cite as the investigation in to Phoenix Global is irrelevant to this article, and has been recommended to be removed by several editors now. Mrinfart, if you disagree with this, please state on this talk page exactly why you feel it is necessary to include. 79616gr (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Noting that 79616gr changed back my edits, a couple of proposals on two sentences in the Regulatory and Other Issues para. The words 'youthful influence' are not cited and do not have relevance to the citation offered, therefore appearing to be written in order to present some sort of bias. Is this written to be about all the members of the Benhayon family or only the children - as it is, it is not clear one way or the other. I propose the sentence reads as - All members of Benhayon's family hold positions within the organization. OR Benhayon is a father of four children who all hold positions within the organisation (39).

Mentioning that Benhayon's second wife Miranda is 18 years his junior is irrelevant to this article and although true adds bias here. Why add personal detail about Mr Benhayon when this article is about Universal Medicine - the age of his wife is irrelevant.Tribscent08 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The second option you suggest seems the most appropriate, as the first does not make note of the number of children. I word it: Benhayon is the father of four children, who all hold positions within the organisation. 79616gr (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The second option is fine. In addition, I'd like the line about Benhayon's wife reinstated, with the addition that (as reported in the Da Vinci Mode article by David Leser) she first moved into his home at the age of 14 against her mother's wishes. Those details are relevant because Benhayon is the founder of UM, the acknowledged source of all its "ageless wisdom" and has devised all its practices - including its range of women's health products and modalities (esoteric breast, ovary & uterus massage and the like) and the associated "Girl to Woman Project" and "Girl to Woman Festival". Most of the group's followers are women, and we have seen from the most recent article the organization's extreme aggression to complainants and those asking critical questions of these dubious enterprises and behaviours. Benhayon's estranged mother in law had eggs smashed on her car for speaking with the journalist. We know Benhayon practices and teaches amateur gynaecology and sexual abuse therapy and encourages group confession and privacy invasion. He also teaches relationship and parenting advice. His wife is on display in a great deal of the companies' marketing. It's relevant. XRii (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've ammeded the sentence and moved it to a more relevant place so there is a natural flow from talking about one of the children, to detailing the number of offspring and their involvement. 79616gr (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask Tribscent08 to declare if they have either a paid role in Universal Medicine organizations or at least if they are a contributor to any of Unimed's 30 websites. XRii (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC

XRii Thanks for your question. I do not have a paid role in Universal Medicine and am not employed by the organisation in any capacity. Obviously given that yours and my and 79616gr accounts all started at around the same time and have focussed primarily on Universal Medicine we all have some sort of knowledge and/or interest in this subject. Since the article went up I have done a lot of extensive reading about Universal Medicine and also have read all the articles written by the media and a lot of the blogs written by the 'students'. Hope this clarifies. Tribscent08 (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the words 'a multi award winning swim coach' in paragraph Regulatory and Other Issues - I added these words with the media references regarding Simone Benhayons occupation as a further indicator of what she does other than be the 'reincarnation of Winston Churchill'. It is a fact that she has won several awards, however 79616gr deleted this stating that the awards were trivial. Probably the awards are not considered trivial in that industry if the local UK paper saw fit to report it, but the main point is that it is giving a wider perspective of who the people are who are running Universal Medicine. Any comments from other editors? Tribscent08 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Local newspapers are not generally considered to be reliable sources. I have looked extensively for notability in the awards you mention, but all seem to be publicly nominated/peoples choice awards which can be easily be manipulation by supporters, hence my description as trivial in encyclopedic terms. I also disagree with you that they are relevant to this article. 79616gr (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the point you're making here, but... "Local newspapers are not generally considered to be reliable sources." -- that's just wrong, entirely wrong. Maybe you meant to say something else (like being mentioned by local media doesn't make something notable). — Jeraphine Gryphon  07:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 used 2 local sources to reference a swimming award - The Blackmore Vale Magazine and The Frome Standard. I don't think either could be considered a well established news outlet, and as such a reliable source. 79616gr (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In that case those sources might have other problems but being "local" is not one of them. — Jeraphine Gryphon  10:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my original comment was too much of a generalization, so I withdraw it. 79616gr (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If the only source you can find for a claim to be an international multi-award winner is a local paper. then you have probably not established the validity of the claim. That's irrelevant anyway as the claim has no bearing on the facts. One might as well say that Charles Manson was good to his mother. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That would encapsulate my point entirely. 79616gr (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The first mention of Serge Benhayon, a living person, in this article opens with him being a former bankrupt. This sets a tone. Is the fact that he was bankrupt in the early nineties of such great relevance here? Lots of people, including celebrities, have been bankrupt prior to being successful. Bankruptcy is not always necessarily a negative thing, but here it is being used to suggest something questionable.

As it is currently, there is not an encyclopaedic balance about Serge Benhayon in this article. The article is written to support what has been alleged in the media, yet no official findings have found Serge Benhayon guilty of any one crime or in breach of any serious misdoings. Whilst the media have reported on complaints that have been made, I note that there has never been any media reports on what the outcomes were. My question then is, as there is no evidence nor media reports, shouldn't the article be taking a more neutral perspective?

I suggest that we take 'bankrupt' out of the first paragraph and I suggest that we change the sentence ' while Benhayon has denied in engaging in unethical practices, significant evidence to the contrary has been documented' to read ' Benhayon has denied in engaging in unethical practices.' Because there is no real evidence as such, there is plenty of supporting material as far as allegation goes, but how I read it - there is no hard evidence of any wrongdoings. Plus there is no citation that says 'significant evidence' - so this is a personal point of view. We need to remember that Serge Benhayon is a living person and to make allegations such as this is misleading. Tribscent08 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 You are recycling issues that have been decided. I believe this to be deliberately disruptive. Benhayon's bankruptcy was decided - in an archived discussion that I believe you were part of - to be relevant because the fact reported by News Ltd contradicts UniMed's publicity about him being financially successful before he started the company. Prior to the inception of Universal Medicine as an organisation that teaches, practises and hence brings true healing and true-wellbeing, Serge spent 20 years in the sports industry. And thus, this background gave Serge insight into the usual and more commonly known understanding, schools of thought, tenets and up-to-date sciences to do with fitness, wellness and health. Personally, he was very fit and healthy, very content and financially successful with little need to change, as one would normally understand ‘change’ or ‘needing to change’ from something that is not working or from being ‘not happy’ or ‘discontent’ and therefore wanting to move on in search of more, etc. https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/about

In addition, much of the material in this Wiki article indicates unethical practices. It is a neutral statement. The trustee conflicts of interest for the UK charity was just one. Making claims to prevent cancer; mass vilifying of a HCCC complainant; health professionals making referrals to quackery...I could continue. Those behaviours are unethical. No one has mentioned criminal behaviour. Your colleague also took issue with my remark about privacy invasion and amateur gynecology as if those outside UM invent such things. The workshop enrolment form currently on the UM Study site asks for medical history and detailed questions about any history of mental illness. I viewed it a couple of months ago and it also asked for HIV status and lists of medications. No one at UM has medical or formal allied health qualifications. Publicity for esoteric breast massage states it can assist reproductive disorders like endometriosis. Members of the Benhayon family are practicing ovary and uterus massage. They have no qualifications, let alone to treat gynecological disorders. To state that these practices are unethical is a neutral fact. You also evaded declaring whether you have made contributions to any of UM's websites via comments or posts. XRii (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles