Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Accuracy of Medical Information on Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by Craig Payne, May 31, 2014.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    There has been a buzz around a recent study that looked at the accuracy of Wikipedia for medical info (it was bad).

    Steve Novella did a good summary of the research here: Medical Information on Wikipedia

    Having said that, can anyone find any inaccuracy on this Wikipedia page: :empathy:

    Man flu

    Man flu is a phrase that refers to the idea that men, when they have a common cold, experience and self-report symptoms of greater severity, akin to those experienced during the flu. While it is a commonly-used phrase in much of the English-speaking world, there is a continuing discussion over the scientific basis.[1][2]

    1. ^ Alleyne, Richard (24 March 2010). "Man flu is no myth as scientists prove men suffer more from disease". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
    2. ^ "Man Flu: A Man's Illness?". ABC News Medical Unit. Retrieved 24 July 2011.
     
  2. carolethecatlover

    carolethecatlover Active Member

    So true! I tried to correct the article on Dyshidrosis. If you read my stuff on this forum, you will see that dyshidrosis aka pompholyx is a burning interest with me, I research it constantly, I have patients with it, I write a blog on it. (www.dyshidrosis.co.uk) I have a cure for it, when not tinea related (53 patients cured and counting.) but can I correct the Wikipedia page? NO. I complained and found the writer is a software engineer!! and he has had me blocked from editing the page as a vandal. Wikipedia does not want to know.
     
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
  4. daisyboi

    daisyboi Active Member

  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    That is becoming a problem. That is also a problem. What is also a problem is I would trust nothing written by Mercola!
    9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola
    Joe Mercola: Quackery pays
    Joseph Mercola
     
  6. daisyboi

    daisyboi Active Member

    I just did a quick search for Ben goldacre's video on publication bias and posted the link. I have no idea who Mercola is. I guess I'm just another example of poor researching haha.
     
  7. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  8. carolethecatlover

    carolethecatlover Active Member

    Now you have me doubting Science-based medicine website. They are against the registration of Naturopaths. Why? Surely if all Naturopaths were registered, their training would be scrutinized. It could only be a good thing. I am studying Naturopathy. (I was trying to do podiatry via CQU: 2 hours of video streamed lectures, that were interrupted by questions we couldn't hear, and turned off before the lecturer had finished speaking, Versus, 3 hour lectures in live classes of 8 to 12 students plus an hour's tutorial in Naturopathy at ACNT.) It is a much harder course than Podiatry. MUCH! The science is rigorous. The teachers are incredibly enthusiastic, and their breadth of knowledge immense. I found someone's (I do know his name) whole 5 years of med school notes in paper recycle a few months ago. I now know I am studying the same as a medical student, but without surgery but with a far greater knowledge of pharmacy. I have to know chemical pharmacy and plant based pharmacy. I would rather be studying podiatry, as it has status and Naturopathy is for hippies ...right?
    I am still curing people of dyshidrosis. Still can't get my Wikipedia article up thanks to the software engineer. Sorry about the rant. I can't help but think Science in Medicine is funded by Big Pharma or their ilk. Here in Australia, some health funds give rebates on Naturopathic treatments. Some body like the Science in Medicine tried to stop it. I subscribe to Mercola, and have for years. I do think he's gone for the dollar and the more he sells, the lower his credibility sinks. Usually you can find references at the end of every article.
     
  9. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  10. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
Loading...

Share This Page