User talk:NightHeron/sandbox

Good start

You're really fast off the starting blocks! Good for you. You have written quite a bit and have a goodly number of sources. BTW, just to ensure you don't get into any problems, if any of this is copied from websites or other sources, bots here may catch it and flag it as WP:Copyvio. If that happens, it may get deleted without warning, so be very careful. Even keeping very long quotes in your workspace can cause problems. I made that mistake once and a whole page got completely deleted. No history; nothing left.

Here are a few thoughts:

The lead... should be a summary of the key points in the article. I have a rule of thumb: if it's notable enough to have a section heading, it should be mentioned in the lead. I have written an essay about this: WP:How to create and manage a good lead section.

What about cost of medical care, diagnostic and laboratory services, and pharmaceuticals? Price gouging? These are especially critical factors in the USA, unlike many other places. There health care is considered a human right, but not in America. A journalist research costs and found that some hospitals charge much more than others. One hospital charged the patient $40 for each of those little paper cups that are used to dispense pills. It probably cost the hospital one cent! They were billed as a "medicine delivery device". This is from memory, but that was the gist of the story. You may be able to find some articles on that subject.

"Conflict of interest and faulty methodology". This will need to include the balancing argument (per NPOV) that faulty research is still better than the zero research for alternative medicine. Ioannidis is also exaggerating pretty wildly. It's not as bad as he makes it seem. What is true is that many have a blind and unquestioning allegiance to mainstream medicine, and don't pay enough attention to some downsides. Others make the opposite mistake, and think that they, without the high education and experience of medical personnel and physicians are in a position to second guess them using armchair diagnosis gained from Google searches and quack websites. Just something to think about.

BTW, are you going to write this as purely a critique of mainstream medicine, or will you be contrasting it to alternative medicine all the way through? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Thank you very much. I've revised the article based on your very helpful suggestions. There are a few references to CAM, but I hadn't been planning on referring to CAM throughout the article.NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Not all of medicine's failings have connection to altmed... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Scandals

Remember to include Andrew Wakefield. That he was even allowed to publish such a small and poor study. He is rated one of the greatest scientific frauds of the 20th century. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Most notable medical frauds are MDs-gone-bad. You could make a nice list.

Also most health insurance fraud is committed by licensed professionals, not patients, with chiropractors accounting for the largest share, at least in relation to their numbers. They also have the highest student loan default rate, highest amount of fraud and quackery, and lowest consumer confidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I've added the Andrew Wakefield fraud. That's obviously an important one, but if I make a more extensive list of medical frauds it might look like WP:UNDUE to some editors. Also, I'm not including chiropractors, since they probably fall outside "mainstream" medicine (depending on the definition used), and this article is concerned just with critiques of mainstream medicine. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: As you probably noticed, the article was proposed for deletion and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of medicine. I'd appreciate your help with this. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed. Thanks. This happens if a draft is put into mainspace too early. It's best to make it airtight first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: What does "split and redirect to Medicine" mean? I don't really follow the discussion. Why do they call it an "essay"? It gives opinions of a wide assortment of sources, not the opinions of an editor. Several say it's "too broad". Other Wikipedia articles (such as Alternative medicine) cover a broad area. What's wrong with a broad topic? As you see, I'm unsure of what to make of this discussion. Am I expected to respond? I'm not particularly eager to get into a protracted debate with editors who know the Wikipedia system better than I do. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)