Talk:Ramanand Jhingade/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 February 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Awesome

awesome, thank you! ħuman 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wherein things turn for the stranger

User Wth claims to be the subject of this article, and should always be watched for peddling his bullshit edits which may show a conflict of interest.

What the hell is this? I DEMAND THAT THIS PAGE BE DELETED AT ONCE. I'm a qualified doctor.-Wth (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted for what? Be more specific. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an attack page full of rubbish. What is the process by which I ask for deletion?-Wth (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You've already begun that process. But you've offered no specific details as to why it should be deleted. So, what specifically is wrong with this article? The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 17:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to compare the article with this description of an RW article and point our deficiencies.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That description doesn't say you can have an attack page. This is a defamatory, attack page & I demand its immediate deletion.-Wth (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It an't defamatory if it's true. Demands will go nowhere. The page will not be deleted. You can, however, have an effect on its content by showing us anything that is wrong, and the evidence that it is wrong. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at your website with its claims: "Get cured of any 'incurable' Disease." and "Be healed of 'surgical' problems without Surgery!" it's difficult to imagine a site which fits better into our mission.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to the words,

shilling his crazy brand of woo, pseudoscience and quack medicine.

in the article. What is your mission? To attack anything/anyone you feel like attacking?-Wth (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Read.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the words on your site: "'Cancer & Homeopathy: Homeopathy can cure Cancer completely & permanently, unlike the Conventional approach, where, whether you do something (Surgery/Chemo-therapy/Radio-therapy) or not, it will spread (metastasis).' - How would you describe this?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent) Indeed. Do you intend to prove here, on this Wiki, that your personal claims are anything but crank nonsense? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 18:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanders, that page doesn't say that you can attack anything/anyone you feel like attacking.

Bob, I don't see why I should be open to a trial by you.

G..punk/S..punk/Punky, if it's nonsense, delete this page.-Wth (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be perfectly straight with you, there is zero chance that this page will be deleted. I suggest you move on to addressing specific content issues. Evidence for why what we say is wrong should be provided, as well as proposed alternative wording. From there we can collaborate on making a better article. Holding your breath and stamping your feet will change nothing at all. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC X 4?) No, if your website and your claims are crank nonsense, then that's all the more reason to keep this page. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys ought to mention that I'm a qualified homeopathic doctor, certified hypnotherapist, Reiki master, Silva method graduate & so on.-Wth (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We call you a quack that seems to about cover it no? You realize that the phrase "qualified homeopathic doctor" is akin to "qualified toddler NASCAR driver?" Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Punk, there's evidence for everything, it ain't

'crank nonsense'

Trent, I can call you names as well, so mind your language.-Wth (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, and we'll believe the evidence as soon as it arrives and is confirmed by the scientific method's reasoning. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you call me names I will turn you into the thought police at citizendium and then where will you be!?! Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent)Punk, Like I said, I don't C Y I shud be tried by you guys. Now tell me how to insert an attack page template if there is one here. Trent, this ain't CZ.-Wth (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're either dealing with a moron or an impersonator. So really, it's put up or shut up time. ^moral 18:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your site implies that | homoeopathy can cure aids! Are you insane?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No but at least one CZ editor has been blocked for saying mean things about another CZ editor here. Anyway, back to the point, there is no such template. You are on trial here because you push an extreme brand of pseudoscience and you peddle it to people in desperate need of real help.That makes you an enemy of reason, and that's our specialty. Finding the obscure promoters of quack medicine that other people can't or won't call out. Welcome to RationalWiki. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the 'quack' medicine I prescribe?-Wth (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I think you about covered it, homeopathy, reiki, and the silva method. Plus hypnotherapy, Past life regression therapy , and I am sure many more. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Other than that you, among other things, claim you can cure AIDS? Are you serious? Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently cancer and aids with water. His Nobel awaits!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Trent, did I ever tell you you're sexy when you're all skeptical and angry? ^moral 19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But if that is the case then how come when I started angrily (and some what drunkenly) ranting in the bar the other night about the history channel and UFO's I didn't get any chicks? Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was a girl just across the table from you... :( *pouts in a corner* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Trent, you guys know nothing of those, so what is the point discussing things with ignorant critics?

Bob, Punk, Dr.Rastogi, the then head of the Central Council of Homeopathy made that claim and it has been confirmed by others. What's wrong with that?-Wth (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignorant critics, eh? Sounds more to me like we are more familiar with them than you appear to be? You've made not one (NOT ONE!!!) statement that proves to us that you are anything more than our article leads you to be. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that homoeopathy is crap. It's as though you quoted something by Father Christmas to make your case. Read our article and debate that.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Punk, obviously, birds of a feather, flock together.

Bob, I read that article long ago, but know that you guys are not going to accept homeopathy to be rational, despite studies showing it to be effective.-Wth (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please go the the article talk page and refute it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

O! & will U guys put that in the article. U R kidding me?-Wth (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, it is you who is kidding us. You've done nothing but complain and complain and offer shit to back up your complaints. Sorry kid, but your playing with adults now. Either start backing up your statements against our articles, or go outside and do something else. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 19:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is something specific you can show to be wrong in our article which says that homoeopathy is crap please go to the talk page of that article and say where it is wrong. We will certainly consider your comments. If you do not do so we will assume that you cannot do so.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"qualified homeopathic doctor, certified hypnotherapist, Reiki master, Silva method graduate & so on" Qualified? Woo has qualifications? More like quackifications. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should show Mr. Jhingade every courtesy, and be careful that our language is not excessive. This is most definitely not because I sympathize with or even respect him. Rather there are cases when a person's own words or deeds, laid out plainly and dispassionately for all to see, are the most effective testimony against them. This is a textbook example. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. The most damming evidence against Jhingade is his own website - not our article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Streisand Effect and this article

Maybe it's just me, but as far as the appearance of the actual, living Ramanand Jhingade on this Wiki goes, I'd argue that it has very much had a Streisand effect on this article. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks to the marvels of the internet, we have no concrete proof that it is Jhingade, but you're right. Such things aren't uncommon, the last was Dyamiclear - although since they were considerably more productive, the article turned out better. ^moral 14:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the opposite is happening. U guys may actually help my web-site's page rank to improve. Now, like Trent Toulouse, can I add a tag in front of my name (Fun or sumthing)?-Wth (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got some bad news for you. -- Nx / talk 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In a word: NO! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 15:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if this article shows me up as a super goof, but right now it is 'defamatory'. Will U let me make some changes?-Wth (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you can get any changes through at this point. Describe the specific problems on this talk page and maybe somebody will care. --93.106.121.194 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder Y U guys consider all I do 2 B woo. Can U try them B4 criticising them?-Wth (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) While I haven't tried any homeopathetic remedies myself, I know other who have. Guess what? At least half of them got sicker as a result. As for the others, the effects that using the remedies had was so miniscule that one could attribute it placebo. Here in Minneapolis, there is a large swath of homeopathic peddlers (for some reason, alternative medicine is big in parts of this city). All of them have different ways they claim they can treat an illness. But I'll be goddamned if I put my health at risk to give any of them money. This may seem harsh, but I'd rather have treatments that are scientifically and medically proven to work. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So what'll U do if allowpathetic medicine can't help U? Will U try alt. med. or committ suicide?-Wth (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We can turn that question around and ask why everything you have decided to do is evidence free procedures that make outlandish claims? For whatever reason you seem drawn to obviously fallacious procedures, why do you think that is? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Can we remove the woomeister tag?-Wth (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No. ^moral 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Heyyyy.... Why was a talk post removed? ^EXTERMINATE 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added back in so no biggie. ^moral 16:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Aids

While the site seems to be quite confident in respect of most incurable diseases it seems to be a little less forthright in its aids section. So I would like to ask Mr Jhingade - do you claim you can cure aids?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading through the paper the website mentions now. Nothing particularly awesome, but if it shows homeopathy can treat AIDS, I wonder why it wasn't submitted to the BMJ or the Lancet. ^moral 16:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha!

“”Any subject with poor compliance and follow-up less than three months, having taken any other therapy, or who developed any life threatening condition or adverse effects of the therapy which required active therapeutic intervention, and women who have conceived subsequent to registration were considered as lost to follow-up and were not considered for final analysis.

So if we ignore all the ones that nearly died during the trial... ^moral 16:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the thrust of the site is clearly designed to give the impression that aids can be treated by homoeopathy. But whereas he clearly claims he can cure cancer or diabetes or whatever he fails to make the explicit claim about aids - he seems to only sort of suggest it. So what would be nice would be for him to here and now to answer the question - does he claim he can cure aids?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That the study was only three months long is significant. Using the standard of medical care, highly active antiretroviral therapy, there have been any number of cases where viral load becomes undetectable, certainly for 3 months and not infrequently for 12. If, however, HAART is stopped, sooner or later, the viral load starts being detectable. Where is HIV hiding? We don't know.

Essentially, the goal of HAART is to turn AIDS into a manageable chronic disease. Someday, we will do better. A 3 month study, however, is not long enough to prove any advantage over conventional therapy. We generally can explain the molecular pharmacology of these drugs, so I become uncomfortable with homeopaths that essentially cannot explain why their remedies should do anything. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Certifications

Mr. WTH would like us to declare him as "a qualified homeopathic doctor, certified hypnotherapist, Reiki master, Silva method graduate & so on." I would like to present this better way than "he says" way, and invite WTH to provide the specific certifications and certifying authorities, and I would be happy to then rework the article to fairly and accurately portray his certifications. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't even know what WTH really is this guy (not 100%, anyway) and tbh, "qualified homeopathic doctor" is pretty meaningless around here. But I agree with the principle that we don't say for sure that he has any qualifications without him confirming it properly. Also, having just thought of the idea of somebody pretending to be a homeopath, maybe we should look at 'double quackery'... ^EXTERMINATE 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The website details the good doctor's qualifications as "Dr. R. JHINGADÉ M.D.(Nat.)'Incurable' Healer, Hypnotherapist, Qualified Doctor and Naturopath.". If that's how he bills himself in public, that's what we should use, assuming WTH is a troll until proven otherwise....P-Foster (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is however no statement of what qualifications those are (beyond the M.D.(Nat.) and absolutely no statement of what the certifying authority is for any of those, including M.D.(Nat.) There are a number of creationists who state having a "Doctorate", however the "certifying authority" for those Doctorates are unaccredited institutes. I'm inclined against indicating any certifications that are not backed up by 3rd party verification (say, like a certifying authority). --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I put "according to his website," and not just "is." P-Foster (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just saying "he says" doesn't add enough criticism about the claims. Is he even a trustworthy source of information in the first place? If he is an editor at CZ, then he has a reference sheet that indicates his qualifications and certifications. Barring verified certifications, I don't see any reason to be anything less than snarkily sarcastic about his qualifications. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you from snarking. P-Foster (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If I could think of some decent snark, I would have added it by now. Even if you were to be stopping me, I'd still be forcing my snark in there. ;) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a recognised credential for Naturopaths anywhere ? I thought they were big in England or Great Britian. Hamster (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to WP: "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND or in Arizona "Naturopathic Medical Doctor" or NMD), in sixteen U.S. states and six Canadian provinces refers exclusively to a complementary medicine degree granted by an accredited naturopathic medical school." There are always credentialing authorities. The authority of the authorities is however open to dispute. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

white wash

Too many punches are getting pulled in the edits, its starting to feel really white washed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't let us hold you back. P-Foster (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine line. As mentioned above I think the guy's own words are the most powerful witness against him. Adding snark, etc., while normally laudable, only gets in the way in this case. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope we haven't stopped calling charlatans charlatans, and pseudoscientists pseudoscientists, and both liars and frauds? ħuman 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

The matter at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards says there should be no personal attacks, but I'm being attacked here. I wonder what guidelines you have for Biographies of Living people, so please tell me. I can send one of you a scanned copy of my registration certificate if you promise not to misuse it. Which country is this Rationalwiki headquartered in?-Wth (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The "personal attacks" recommendation to which your refer is in respect of interactions between editors on talk pages. 2. As far as I am aware we presently have no explicit guidelines in respect of living people. 3 The email address to formally contact the RW foundation can be found here along with other information. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Where does RationalWiki:Community Standards forbid personal attacks?
2. What exactly about the article Ramanand Jhingade is a personal attack? (If it's true, it's not a personal attack, by the way.)
3. You have been asked multiple times whether you claim homeopathy can cure AIDS. Please answer the question:

   Do you claim that homeopathy can cure AIDS?

Thomas Larsen (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As already stated the "no personal attacks" refers to among editors. Also, as noted, the truth is an absolute defense. Next up, we have no policies about BoLP... WP's standard is only out of concern for defamation lawsuits, and out of a noble concern for speaking ill of people who are alive. RW is rife with parody, so we enforce the same rules for all of our other articles. If you're posting fact, then make sure it can be backed up. If you're posting parody, then make sure it's obvious. Nothing in this article violates those considerations. You can send a scanned copy of your credentials to me personally, if you wish. I will treat them neutrally, and ensure that they are fairly represented in the article. (I promise this out of an interest to get raw truth out there.) As my understanding follows, RW is incorporated in the state of New Mexico, in the USA. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Of what is homeopathy a parody? In fairness, conventional medicine of Hahnemann's time deserved parody, but homeopathy appears largely frozen in the 19th century. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Incurable disease - finding a cure

There must have been many diseases considered incurable until some clever person found a cure. I therefore do not have a problem with a claim that something can be cured. I would however expect to find a very well documented case , with lab reports , x-rays or whatever applies to that illness and the tests etc that show a cure. In cancers spontaneous remissions are not allowed to be claimed as a cure, a 5 year follow up would be good for those and several different patients. So, wheres some documented evidence supporting the actual disease existed and that it has been cured ? Hamster (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of research going on, please C http://ccrhindia.org/collaborative.asp -Wth (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

V have 2 B patient.-Wth (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I myself have cured a whole lot of people, of so called 'incurable' diseases and can provide evidence if asked.-Wth (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean like just then when Hamster asked for some documented evidence supporting the actual disease that existed and that is has been cured? SJ ^Debaser 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have investigation reports of people even over the past 10 years.-Wth (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We many not have asked this before - but do you claim you can cure aids?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

as SuperJosh pointed out , yes , I did ask Hamster (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammar and syntax correction

Nx, I made a grammar and syntax correction, can you please tell me what is wrong with it?-Wth (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically it was English before but wasn't after you edited it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Crank magnet of experts doesn't really make sense IMHO. It's a crank magnet that attracts cranks who call themselves "experts" (i.e. expert cranks - probably not the best wording), rather than a crank magnet full of actual experts. -- Nx / talk 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard, I hope U can defend CZ here. I made an edit, making, 'expert crank magnet', 'a crank magnet for experts'. Is there anything wrong with that?-Wth (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Expert is a noun AND an adjective. True story. ^EXTERMINATE 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

CZ is trying to attract experts, right?-Wth (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What it's trying to do and what it actually does are two completely different things. -- Nx / talk 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wth, I have long believed that CZ was too lenient on fringe, so I don't consider crank magnet completely of line. At least three people, who were elected to the Editorial Council, mentioned clamping down on fringe generally and homeopathy specifically in their campaign statements. Even with the battles on the EC, a desire to reduce cranks and fringe is present but won't happen overnight.

Far too many of Ramanand's statements on homeopathy, in my opinion, were completely indefensible and did not belong in the article. Ironically, he'd often cite some study and say he didn't have time to integrate it into the article, would someone else (usually "u" please do it?) [pause for hysterical laughter] CZ still has real problems attracting and keeping experts, but shutting down homeopathy is one step to making it less like my birthplace of Newark, New Jersey.

I am amused that Ramanand has kept at a Forum thread about -- it's not compleely clear what -- but an appeal to the EC, which, I think, had something to do with alt med "experts" becoming Health Sciences Editors. For some reason, however, he never actually appealed to the EC, although I would find it amusing. I'm actually not opposed to all complementary medicine, but I see no cost-benefit in pursuing the alternative systems. The likelihood of homeopathy being worth research investment...well, no more than a high-potency homeopathic preparation of money.

Does "the pursuit of the inedible by the unspeakable" come to mind? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that thread a couple of days ago. I see that you are doing your best to keep him in line Howard. What is your feeling on our user Wth being the same as your user Jhingade? I ask because you have had more to do with him in the past. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't say with certainty, but if it's an impostor, it's a smart one. Applying Occam's Electric Razor, why would anyone want to impersonate him? I'd think his web page speaks for itself, although it would be a good subject for snarky annotation.

It is ironic, given the real concerns about fringe, that there have been more EC motions to discipline and micromanage me than to deal with the entire topic of fringe, not homeopathy alone. Some Citizens, whom I do respect, have a different vision of fringe than I do. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is amusing that someone that addresses me as "U" is concerned about getting the diacritic marks correct in his name -- somehow, I don't find myself terribly assisted by it. The Pranic Healing article, at least, seems to be nipped in the bud as soon as it was noticed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that, at least from my point of view, you seem to be doing your best to keep the lid on this type of thing over there.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Impersonator

I'm starting to think that this user is an impersonator. He calls "Trent" "Trent" from very early on. His objections are always vague and never specific. When asked a very specific question about his views on aids he is unable to answer. Not conclusive but I think we may be being trolled.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Trent" thing threw me a bit, too. ħuman 06:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

MC? Him (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Now every troll is MC? Whatever happened to "every new user is Human" for Goat's sake? ħuman 06:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Aah yes - but very new user was Human! Him (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No no no, everyone is either TK or one of the two people that hate him. Thunderkatz^Ho! 06:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm split. He'd have to be a dedicated troll to have been pretending to be this guy for so long, at WP, CZ and RW. But we certainly haven't seen any evidence at all. ^EXTERMINATE 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Trent posted on CZ a couple of months ago and Howard told us about it - no big deal.-Wth (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I accept that Ramanand Jhingade is active under that name at sites. My doubt is that our "Wth" is Ramanand Jhingade.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then, it's as easy as registering an account at CZ and asking him... oh wait. -- Nx / talk 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's real. Aside from the childish spelling, someone who's really into homeopathy would at least get their own jargon right and not produce (intentionally?) hilarious misspellings like this one. Röstigraben (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That was in response 2 Goonie's misspelling.-Wth (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The odd spelling (SMS-speak and the like) isn't necessarily indicative. My experience is that this is fairly common in India even among educated people. Someone at an Indian journal asked me to serve on their editorial board and he kept using "U" for "you" and so forth. To save him future embarrassment I tried to tactfully let him know that this didn't create the best impression. Doctor Dark (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but someone who's been in the homeopathy business for a while would hardly misspell "allopathic" as "allowpathetic", regardless of his native language. That's like a physicist talking about "Kwanzaa mechanics". Röstigraben (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling is mostly irrelevant, Bob's point about question skirting is the stronger evidence. ^moral 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Allowpathetic"?? I'd say that's the work of an anarchist. RW has been conned. FreeThought (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody call for an anarchist? I no longer am one, but I used to be so I'll help out if I can. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 00:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance at RJ's posts at CZ show some stylistic similarities to Wth's such as using what the hell and use of abbreviations, though the abbreviations don't appear to happen nearly as often at CZ, which leads to the possibility that this is a parodist who did some of the research (i.e., saw use of abbreviations but overused it), or just that JR views this as much less formal than CZ. General style of writing seems somewhat similar on the other hand. Though, naming his accout as an acronym of What The Hell seems fishy. Verdict being still not sure. Thunderkatz^Ho! 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought "Wth" stood for "water that heals." Could be "what the hell" though. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of names, it is amusing that the our article title is apparently now more correcter that than his name on the website , there it is only Dr. R. JHINGADÉ - so we have one more diacritic mark. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Apropos quack

Oscillococcinum, the world's best selling commercial homeopathic remedy, is derived from the heart and liver of ducks. I might suggest that by definition, it is a quack, or perhaps quacker, remedy. On the other hand, it is sufficiently dilute as not to contain any duck molecules. Does that make it non-quack? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the idea of quack. No actual quack is left, but the idea is powerful. The only thing more powerful than an idea is no-idea, it created this whole show. At least that's an idea. Ideas are neither true nor false, they are only stories that have this or that effect on us, and through us, on life.

Seriously, if homeopathy works at all -- and it seems to, sometimes -- it has to be through the mind. That might be called placebo effect, but there are more effective placebos and less effective ones. What makes the difference?

The person who appeared here claiming to be, or to advocate for, Jhingade may not be, I'm far less than impressed by his knowledge, he didn't seem to have a clue as to the problem, so all he can do is rant and wave credentials that any truly knowledgeable homeopath would know would not be impressive here. So if he is a homeopath, he's an ignorant one. Too bad, boring. Unless you enjoy kicking mangy puppies. --Abd (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ther person "claiming to be" Jhingade was, by all accounts and his threats to the RWF, actually Jhingade. To this day, it seems, he's still pissed at us for calling him out. How pathetic and, to me at least, it's further proof that he knows he's a crank. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, homeopathy is a widely-accepted profession in India, so his response is from within his culture, he's defending his professional reputation, not a big surprise. He may not "know he's a crank." Our problem is with the whole field, not so much him. I think of dieticians here, who learned in school, and advised clients for years, that Fat is Bad for you. The research that supported that was utterly inadequate, and there is lots of contrary evidence, but getting established dieticians to notice this is about like trying to convince Jinghade that everything he's worked for, all that effort, for years, was a Big Mistake. Indeed, if homeopathy works through the placebo effect, his loss of faith in it might harm his patients! It depends on many factors. If a homeopath operates with humility, it might be a good thing. The same is true for "allopathic physicians." For anyone, really. --Abd (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So.... let me see if I got this right..... Don't judge him because it's his profession we're after, not him..... Even though he claims, as stated in our article, to be able to cure AIDS (a truely scientific breakthrough if I ever heard one), amongst other things? Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 09:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The second and third lines on website read:

• Get cured of any 'incurable' Disease.

  Be healed of 'surgical' problems without Surgery!

But you are suggesting that we shouldn't be too hard on him because "homeopathy is a widely-accepted profession in India"? So even though he's taking people's money for providing nothing we shouldn't be too critical for some social reason? And I'm not seeing too much humility. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget he can also find your missing car keys for ya too! It's a one shop stop! Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you know that he can't? How?

Jhingade is claiming many things that are common claims among people practicing in certain areas. There might be many thousands of such people in India, easily, and many more around the world. What this article is actually accomplishing is increased publicity for him, while preaching to the choir.

Can he find lost keys? My guess is, more often than not. However, his theories about how it would be done, or what he says about it, are not necessarily accurate! The mechanism for finding lost keys may be similar to the mechanism behind his alleged cures. There is an important principle here: people want keys or cures, and don't necessarily care how the finding or cure is accomplished.

It's obvious how keys could be found through techniques that open up avenues of mental process that might otherwise be inaccessible. Jhingade is also a hypnotist, which is a clue. I'm guessing that he does know some techniques that work, sometimes. More often than alternatives, sometimes. This isn't science, it's art. It is difficult to do double-blind tests with anything involving mental process. (It's possible to compare treatment modalities, though, but it can also raise ethical issues.)

What is actually debunked in double-blind studies of homeopathy is the theory that it is the actual substances themselves which are a curative agent. Homeopathy was originally a kind of science, based on a theory that was accepted at the time. Chiropractic may be the same. So is dietetics, today, often. We actually know very little about diet, and a lot of what we think we know is not well-established, and some "common knowledge" is almost certainly wrong.

In any case, my summary of the article here is "Someone is wrong on the internet." How many such articles are you going to create? Why Jhingade? Headline: Homeopath is Involved in Woo. That's news?

Okay, okay, I find the claim about lost keys amusing myself, even he's good at it!

By the way, the most serious thing about all these claims is that he might actually find your lost keys, and then you think that he's got serious psychic powers, and trust him in other areas, where he might not be so skilled, or even might be harmful. It's a powerful sales technique, and, realize this: it doesn't work if he can't actually find your keys. As a sales technique, though, it only has to work part of the time. All sales people know that! He's not trying to sell his stuff to skeptics or pseudoskeptics, that's obvious. He doesn't really care what you think. He's preaching to a different choir. Right?

What's the purpose of the article on this minor practitioner? Do you imagine that anyone considering seeing him will be dissuaded from doing so by the article? It might actually backfire, if they read this talk page. They might think, "Hey, I've got some lost keys. I'll see him and if he can find my keys, then I'll trust him." In fact, though, the chances of anyone actually considering using Jhingade also seeing this article are close to zero.

If he could find my lost keys over the internet, now, that would be seriously amazing. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking about cranks on is one of our mission objectives. He's a crank. We talk about him.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what are the qualifications of "crank" to justify a page here? The internet is full of cranks. You are going to be awfully busy. Look, he's not a notable homeopath; on Talk:Homeopathy I point out that you have pages on less notable homeopaths (two, Jhingade, who is really not notable, and another, who is marginally notable), and no pages on more notable homeopaths. Perhaps you can then more effectively ridicule homeopathy, by choosing the least competent advocates? Or perhaps the least likely to successfully defend themselves? What's the purpose? --Abd (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jhingade's quackery is not mostly harmless. No, it may prevent people from getting actual treatment for serious issues. He claims to be able to cure terminal illnesses like AIDs and Cancer. That is life or death right there. In addition, the whole paradigm that he operates under is a detriment to rationality and reality based thinking. It is not really "free publicity" since anyone finding this article knows who he is. Why not have the article? If it only makes one person decide to go see a real doctor its "paid for itself many times over." Also we have a lot a of article about fairly small time con-artist and quacks that you could say the same thing about. But I see the server logs, and there are many many examples in various corners of the internet where someone posts a blog post or article by a crank, and in the comments people link to our articles on them. Without us someone trying to google something their friend posted on facebook would likely find no critical information.

I am not really following your critique of research into homoeopathy. You seem to be arguing that "real" research shouldn't try and control for a placebo effect? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I claimed that the quackery was "mostly harmless." I see some sign, by the way, on the Jhingade web site that he works with standard physicians. I don't know about that. I don't know if he suggests substituting homeopathic treatment for standard medical treatment in areas where standard medical treatment is known to work; much comment here has been based on his claims of "cures" for "uncurable diseases." That probably means "if standard medicine can't help you, we can." And the reality behind that might be "we will tell you we can help, we will exude confidence, because that will increase the probability that we can, because your belief about your health has a major effect on your health." If he actually does discourage medical treatment when it would be effective, that's truly dangerous. My understanding is, though, that the homeopathic associations consider that unethical. Given how many people are practicing, on the other hand, I'm sure it happens, so you can find anecdotes.

My sense from my own internet searches is that this article increases Jhingade's visibility. I could be wrong.

No, I do not argue or believe that "real research" should not try to control for the placebo effect. Not all research should, however, because it might be controlling the treatment modality out of existence, where the placebo effect might be an element in the effectiveness of the treatment. Hypnosis, is it effective? Rather obviously, if it is, it would openly be operating through the effect of suggestion, the power of language and communication. You can't double-blind that away without removing or altering it! More interesting would be the question of differing effectiveness through different hypnotic approaches. Jhingade, by the way, claims to be trained in hypnosis. That might, indeed, be how he works.

(What would be shown by double-blind homeopathic test results, if the placebo effect is critical, is that the placebo and remedy were equally effective, within statistical variation. Yet what is not being tested by this is the effect of the patient-practitioner interaction, because that was not an experimental variable. Hypnosis is entirely patient-practitioner interaction, without the pseudoscience, at least not modern hypnosis.)

What I've been seeing with much skepticism about homeopathy is this: the theory is bunk, and pseudoscience is being raised to explain it (invoking quantum theory, for example), therefore the treatment is useless. It's a non sequitur. --Abd (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually most people would say "therefore the treatment offers no efficacy beyond placebo." Placebo is not some how unique to homoeopathic treatment, science and reality based medical treatments offer as much "placebo effect" as homoeopathy plus offer increased efficacy for being able to actually treat the underlying disease. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If I assume that "reality based" means based in reality, i.e., in actual practice, homeopathic medicine is probably more effective at creating or enhancing the placebo effect than standard medical practice, but that, I assume, varies greatly with the practitioner. Some MDs talk with me, actually touch me -- imagine! -- and some don't. --Abd (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

extended comment with recent personal experience. --Abd (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure there are plenty of people looking at the power of placebo and how it might relate to the distribution and mechanism of medical care. The thing is this has nothing to do with homoeopathy as a medical system. If for the sake of this discussion we grant that practitioners of homoeopathy produce more effective "placebo effects" because of how they administer their tap water, the take home message is not that we need to somehow embrace homoeopathy but rather change elements of how modern medicine is practised. This gets us into a range of issues with insurance companies, for-profit hospitals, managed care, etc. But none of this is about the efficacy of homoeopathy itself. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tmtoulouse, I appreciate your comment. I wrote about this, but I've been adding a lot lately. Instead of deleting it unposted, which is only other practical option, I'll archive it to history and link it, for anyone interested. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended comment. --Abd (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Its becoming difficult to understand what point your trying to make. If you could just summarize as succinctly as possible your position on this the conversation could advance more easily. I will try and do the same with my point. "Homoeopathy as a system of medicine violates all known principles of physics and chemistry and has been shown repeatedly in quality scientific experiments to have no efficacy beyond placebo. Because of the managed care system of most modern hospitals it is likely that some homoeopathic practitioners have a style of engaging the patient (more time, more sympathetic, more touchy feely warm and fuzzy) that may increase the placebo effect. The value or lesson from this is not that there is something too homoeopathy but rather changes to the nuts and bolts of patient-doctor interaction may improve quality of care for patients." Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be brief. I agree with the statement, in part. I disagree, in part. I would agree with this, with a caveat:

The theory of homeopathic remedies violates well-known chemistry and physics and they have been shown to have no significant efficacy beyond placebo. However, the practice of homeopathy, and particularly deeper engagement with the patient, may enhance the placebo effect, and the theory might play a role in that. It is unknown whether or not such enhanced effects, if they exist, could be obtained or incorporated into standard medicine.

The caveat is that I don't know that the level of conclusiveness of the "quality scientific experiments" is as you have represented. That "I don't know" means that I don't know, not that I'm challenging the statement. Accordingly, I left out "quality" as largely fluff, and if they were conclusive, I'd use that term, not "quality." This really doesn't matter for the article here, about Dr. Jhingade. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics in the name

I invite WTH to post the full name of Ramanand Jhingade in the original script. I will handle properly transliterating it into proper Latin characters with full diacritic marks. Until such time as we have the original ("true") name, there is no reason to indicate his name as anything other than what his own webpage states it to be. Note: this means it's also likely Ramānand, since at least one page indicates his name to be "Ramaanand", as a common solution to the macron for indicating long vowels is to double the letter instead. However, since neither Kannada nor Hindi use the circumflex in transliteration, the purposed version with circumflexes is almost definitively wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Include Telugu and Tamil to that list of languages spoken widely in Bangalore that do not use the circumflex diacritic. As well, the accent on the "e" does not appear to be canonical with any transliteration scheme of any of those languages either. Can WTH please post the name in the original, so we can settle this matter? It's not like we can "gain anything" by giving his proper name in the original script. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I reverted it back to plain English sometime ago. User:Wth's edits are suspicious - it could be either Jhingade trying to mask his real name in this article or someone playing a prank. FreeThought (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The seeming inability to transliterate from Hindi/Kannada/Tegulu/Tamil/Konkori/whatever he was properly named in does seem to raise my bullshit meter. Hopefully, we can resolve this with WTH providing the original version of the name. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)