Wikipedia want to remove One Little Pill and The Sinclair Method pages

I received it some days ago in my email box. I think it’s worth to put it here.

Help Save the One Little Pill and TSM
Wikipedia Pages
The moderators of Wikipedia want to delete the One Little Pill and The Sinclair Method pages

Right or wrong, Wikipedia is often one of the first sources of information on the internet. It’s a digital encyclopedia maintained by a community of editors and moderators that pride themselves on providing unbiased, referenced information.

However, there is a group of moderators who want to delete the One Little Pill and The Sinclair Method pages.

If you or someone you know is proficient in understanding Wiki guidelines for articles, and are willing to make the necessary changes so that the pages remain within those guidelines, please let us know. We will be happy to provide you with links to external, third-party resources.

We’re not Wiki experts, or we’d simply do this ourselves. The TSM page pre-dates the C Three Foundation and the OLP page was written by a volunteer who checked his facts with us before publishing the page.

Click here for the OLP deletion discussion link.

Thank you!

EDIT: The link off course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/One_Little_Pill

So weird, I don’t get why they would delete it? Does this happen often? I immediately see the advantage of SAFE hosting wikipedia.

2 Likes

I replied them with this:

I put it in the SafeProject forums Wikipedia want to remove One Little Pill and The Sinclair Method pages I don’t know if it will help but you should look at this project and think about it in the future (https://maidsafe.net). It’s not ready yet, give them some months and follow how well it’s going from time to time.

I follow them for more than a year now, and it’s really promising. The wikipedia kind will be created on it too some time after the release. Maybe it would be useless first because there will not be much people on it but it’s worth looking at the progress and how far they can go. If you think they got far enough, you put your article on it.

Why I read your article on wikipedia? Because I found it somewhere else first. I understand that wikipedia play an important role currently in our societies. Because I may not trust The Sinclair Method if I didn’t find it on wikipedia. (I’m not sure about that, I read the book and even if it’s not on wikipedia the book is pretty clear).

I really would like to help you more with the wikipedia stuff but my english is not perfect (maybe you already noticed it.)

I’m currently using the Sinclair Method now but unfortunately it’s not likely to work on me. I still continue to try it every day.

For the project SAFE (Safe Access For Everone) First it’s for security, you store data on a decentralized network. It is chunked and only you have access to it. It’s encrypted before sended to the network. It’s self authentication so no way to know who you are. The storage node don’t know what they are keeping. So no way to delete it. There 4 copies to the network. 32 chunk and 28 is needed to recover your data. A node close and chunks got replicated immediately by other nodes. Make it public and no one would be able to delete it.

I don’t know how much time it’s going to make to be popular (Or it may fails). But like I said it’s worth to look at it time to time (or 1 time per month). It’s not good now but can be good in the future.

I give you good luck.
Sorry for my english

I’m not sure if it’s correct but hope it is.

2 Likes

Thanks for bringing this up - I will be arguing to have it removed. :smiley:

I immediately see a problem actually - how do you prevent spamming and false information within an Encyclopaedia without relevent moderation? As a medical professional, what if this was the BMJ or something?

Why not do you think…just out of interest? Are you African?

Why remove it? That’s just silly, if it’s a method most of the medical word denounces, just add that to the wiki page. Pretending false information doesn’t exist is not a solution.

1 Like

I immediately see a problem actually - how do you prevent spamming and false information within an Encyclopaedia without relevent moderation? As a medical professional, what if this was the BMJ or something?

I understand what you mean but for this one the information is true. I take care to verify it by myself as much as I can.

Why not do you think

It’s clearly said that it’s not working on 20% of people.

just out of interest? Are you African?

No

Lol…my idea silly! How very dare you… :smiley:
Remove it or completely re-write it…one or the other.

Although this was not really the reason for removal I had in mind…are you seriously saying known false information should not be removed from an Encyclopaedia?

Again, tt wasn’t particularly about the medical information being contentious, raher that I see it more as advertising…though its not immediately obvious - I believe the mod was particularly on the ball.

From that I would deduce you had an 80% likelihood of it working then… :smiley:

I haven’t fully looked into this, but on the surface it appears there is already a wiki page explaining the use and properties of Naltrexone, the other entry appears to simply hijack the already known facts and re-package it as “The Sinclair Method” - which i expect is similar to the instructions on the box. I may be wrong in this and will research further but the larger issue is that the entry is about a film (if you can call it that - so that particular wiki entry should concern itself with the merits of the film, critic reviews etc, not Naltrexone which has its own page. :smiley:

OK, I’m on the "One Little Pill"website…having followed the advert with the byline “The truth they don’t want you to know” - so my Conspiracy theory/scam spidey senses are already prickling. It doesn’t mention who don’t want me to find out or why - I have to pay to discover the truth of the magic pill (or visit the Naltrexone wiki page :smiley: )

I read the first few lines and it made my head spin:

“Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” is not as true as you think. Nor is the fundamental principle for treating alcoholism that we all take as truth; abstinence.

“Science has shown that abstinence not only doesn’t take away the addiction, but also increases the craving.”

OK, I have a number of issues already, for starters the pill they are talking about only works if you have a particular gene which is present only in about 25% of the white population and almost no Africans - though around 60% of Asians I believe - the “One Little pill” page makes no mention of this, instead choosing to use the misleading statistic that it has a "78% success rate in alcoholics"
I think that if is irresponsible, misleading and dangerous to advocate against the fundamental principle of abstinence with such dishonest claims. At he end of the day, if you aren’t drinking then what the hell does it matter if you are “addicted” to drink? Why replace a logically sound premise?The claim that abstinence doesn’t take away the addiction is of small concern in my view. The further claim that it increases craving is again misleading - the craving is intense for a period, then gradually wanes. I know its only anecdotal evidence but I have been “dry” well over a decade…apart from the first year or two, the craving has gone really. I only put the discomfort level as similar to someone who can’t eat a certain food that they might fancy but know would be very bad for them.

I don’t think I need to read anything further…I stick to my guns and say remove it or re-write it. :smiley:

As noted in the Pharmacogenetics section below, studies since the early 21st century have identified a gene, which is prevalent in roughly 25-30% of the white population, that results in a much more effective response to the use of naltrexone in reducing or ending dependence on alcohol. This gene is rarely present among those of African descent; it is common among 60-70 percent of Asians.

“Is much more effective” doesn’t mean that it’s not at all for the others. Maybe you are true at some point but at that one you completely failed.

Lol…“completely failed”…how very, very dare you! :smiley:
You know what, I don’t know why I bother to post on this forum…it has variously been intimated recently that I may be a Silly, cabbage minded failure…boo hoo :smiley:
.

Nor does it mean that it is, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it is, nor would you expect there to be any, seeing as though they don’t have the gene. The claim that it is 78% effective in alcoholics is clearly unsupported by any evidence and is misleading…therefore not a fail… :a success in fact for the incredibly non silly and unfeasibly immense genius of Al Kafir! … :smiley:

Page 26

http://files.themetaverse.org/The_Cure_for_Alcoholism_Eskapa_2008.pdf

But I can’t find any NIAAA nor WHO about that. So what happened:

  1. it never existed
  2. they censored it.

I read one time that pharmaceucal compagnie want to hide the true about it because they will lose money on the long run.

An updated version of the books exist there (There is an pdf version too).

I have the pdf version, 2012 and it’s still claiming the same thing.

OK, I’ll have a read, but please be aware there is a lot of conspiracy stuff about pharma companies, vaccines etc.

Just thinking about it logically, I don’t even understand how using Naltrexone is in any way superior to abstinence even in the cases it does work. The drug blocks the opioid receptors, which in turn blocks any euphoric feeling from Alcohol, thereby reducing craving. So you appear to have 2 choices – either take the pills for the rest of your life and continue to drink pointlessly (no self- medicating euphoric effect)……or at some point give up drinking, thereby no longer needing the Naltrexone, thereby relying on abstinence alone. This pill can only help a relatively small percentage of the population and only in the early pre-abstinence stages I would hazard a guess.
So, what happens when the Naltrexone is removed and the person then drinks? How effective has the pill been and what would this say about the claim that “Once an alcoholic……” is wrong. Conversely, if the person continues not to drink (remains abstinent), then how can you ascribe this result to the pill? The pill only dulled your reward mechanism for a period of time, then it’s down to remaining abstinent.
Edit:
There is nothing I can read provided, just a link to a book advert – I do not intend to purchase either a book or a film……. The evidence should exist somewhere….or as I say, most likely conspiracy theory book/film selling. Alcoholism is a quite complex problem, usually involving other mental issues……commonly there is an underlying anxiety disorder etc. The treatment involves many other things than medication, usually involving therapies such as CBT etc…….Trust me….there’s no magic pill.

It’s easier to stop with the naltrexone after you finally unlearn the behavior.

After you stop drinking on naltrexone, you stop using the naltrexone. But you always have to keep some on you in case you want drink on an event or in any occasion. That will prevent to relearn the behavior. Yes you will have naltrexone for the whole life but you take it only 1 hour before drinking.

If it happen you drink a one time without the naltrexone the relearn behavior is faster than when you first learned. That’s the consequence. The habit to drink is faster if you continue without the naltrexone.

There are tons of pages on wikipedia about misconceptions and false beliefs and theories. On that page the existence of that movie and method and the controversy around it can be documented. Presenting all arguments from all relevant parties on it as objectively as possible. If the information is false, it will be obvious from the listed facts.

Removing the page and pretending the movie and method never existed is censorship. If that road is taken, people who hear about it in their daily lives cannot inform themselves. If the page is currently biased and not objective, it should be rewritten, not removed.

1 Like

My first idea when I created this thread was to think how with MaidSafe can’t prevent such thing when we publish something online or on wikipedia. Even if it’s true or not it’s the responsible to each person to decide. Everyone have is each point of view.

It was not intended to start a war with if the Sinclair method work or not with that thread.

2 Likes

OK…think about this…what is the craving for, yes I know it’s the alcohol, but I mean it’s the feeling…the reward as you say…but it is assumed this is happening at a conscious level…that one is consciously thinking “I want a euphoric reward” therefore I’ll have a drink - it is a more primal sub-conscious part of the brain (Amygdala I believe) more associated with the urge for sex or hunger, thirst etc - it is this part wanting the reward, at a rational, conscious level, the craving is of this kind of intensity and need and all the drinker knows is they desperately need a drink but don’t know why and that “euphoric” feeling is not really euphoric for an alcoholic
What I’m saying is an alcoholic is about as likely to take a pill one hour before drinking as they are to choose a non-alcoholic beer.I don’t get why you would even drink and take a pill to negate the effects…it doesn’t make sense :smiley:

Sorry is that a yes? These would be portrayed as such I expect under “false beliefs, misconceptions and theories” then.

That’s what’s going on now, here and on wikipedia about whether the article should be removed or re-written.

No, it wouldn’t be. I don’t have the right to request that wikipedia host my own advertisement page about the crappy film I made of myself spouting my latest conspiracy theory do I? Are you saying Wikipedia should host everybody’s everything, otherwise it’s censorship?
It’s always the same with this stuff, come up with a conspiracy theory, something “they” don’t want you to know, write a book, make a film then claim censorship to boost sales…lol

I said either, but I’m comfortable with both… :smiley:

It’s not uncommon for them to fall under the religion category. :wink: The page shouldn’t state whether it’s false or not, just what those beliefs are and probably who agrees and disagrees and their arguments for their positions.

I already said the page should be as objective and unbiased as possible and should include the different views of all relevant parties. I think that if wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the existence of the views of a particular group of people, it is a form of censorship. It’s irrelevant how ridiculous their views are.

If wikipedia would’ve existed in the 16th century, on that wikipedia I would have wanted to see both Copernicus’ and the status quo views on the movements of the sun and planets. Copernicus’ views shouldn’t have been excluded just because everyone thought they were insane.

2 Likes

Is that another yes? …lol :smiley:

As you say, this stuff does generally come under Religion…lol… but the thing is it would be clearly labelled as such…Jews believe so and so etc- it is actual information suitable for an Encyclopaedia - the only questions are to my mind are “Does one little pill” merit an entry in the 1st place and if it does then re-write it so that it is about the film, not the dodgy science and misleading info. This is definitely not a censorship issue as far as I can see.

All of this will be on wikipedia…it will tell you all about Copernicus I’m sure. I think you are conflating 2 different things really. :smiley:

I’m talking about a hypothetical 16th century wikipedia, not today’s. Anyway, I’ve said what I wanted to say and don’t see this discussion going anywhere interesting in my view, so I’m off.