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

What about starting a 3rd party validators. For this assist, you create an app that routine check the public data in medical wiki, and validate on each assist that user wrote. As you read along in the medical wiki, you’ll see a 3rd party approved icon on the right side of the comment.

You can look at 3rd party agents, and see who they are, their work history, and such…

The whole thread wants moving to off-topic in my view as the OP is merely a call to stop Wikipedia removing nonsense from its own site and is not about Safe.

1 Like

I sort of get where you’re coming from,I think currently they cite the relevent scholarly articles/authors etc don’t they? The concern I would have with your idea, is that it creates “authority figures” or “experts”, rather than focussing on the facts/evidence. What I mean is…a person can become accustomed to believe because so and so believes something then it must be true, rather than focus on the facts. I think this can maybe be got around somehow though with some kind of reputation system. :smiley:

I wasn’t sure where to put it. You may be right.

No, there are absolutely no authority in the field. These guys are specialized in analysis, and only says what the analysis said. It’s exactly like how 3rd party organic food stamp (whole foods). When you look at the product, and see a stamp like that, it means that it is checked and verified by the said company. You could look it up on their company website for more details. List things that they are prohibited, and list things that are okay to consume. They do much better job than FDA could ever done.

Construction, medicine, gaming, movies, restaurants, everything has 3rd party validators.

I could see no different for this particular case on medical wiki.

1 Like

@Al_Kafir I hope you continue to post on this forum. Even though we have been on different ends of a discussion, I think you often bring a line of reasoning that is shared by many people; most of which probably would never think to spend time on this forum. Your contributions are an asset to this space.

My post in this thread was along the lines of avoiding censorship similar to what @Seneca was saying. This thread is a great example of what can be produced when different types of people/opinions are given a medium to discuss their thoughts. The medication mentioned may not be the best therapeutic option, but you have to admit that it is likely to get people doing a little introspection and possibly get someone in need sent in the direction of healing their self. At least with a pharma it usually will require a person to follow up with a medical professional, like me :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:, to discuss if that medication is right for them. I can tell you I have have heard much crazier ideas from patients on what medication will help with what they have self diagnosed.

With modern day medicine there is a high probability of pharmaceutical based bias and I think any forum that would protect everyone’s voice from censor would be an improvement. If I had time I would dig up all the recent medical literature that shows most “evidence/science based medicine” from the leading medical journals are completely biased and will continue to be way too far separated from true science until we start getting funding/support from more than 6 corporations in the world.

There are lots of different medicine option for alcohol addiction. The one I think of the most off the top of my head would be Buspirone in the treatment of alcoholic patients - PubMed
The flip side of addiction that people should consider is best described by Johann Hari: Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong | TED Talk

2 Likes

Thanks @MrAnderson, I appreciate your reply and also agree with everything else. My issue is .not with the medication Naltrexone (and there is already a wiki page dedicated to it). My issue is with the way the info has been re-packaged as “The Sinclair method”, and false claims made about it in order to sell a book/video promoting Naltrexone as more of a panacea and magic pill that stops people drinking – it isn’t and it doesn’t and the article should be removed or re-written in my opinion…for those reasons. :smiley:
I’ll read the other stuff too…

1 Like

The book is completely not “tied”(I don’t know the speling) with the C Three Foundation. I watched the movie and everything said in the wikipedia page now (after the update) it’s what it said in that movie. I understands there is maybe too mush reference that is completely outside of the subject (I mean linking something that is nothing about the movie) that is a real mess. Yeah the reference for me it’s not relevant about the movie.

The most important thing you should know is they are not there to make profit. Every piece of money they make it’s given to someone that need it related to this treatment.

1 Like

The main thing I just don’t understand is how it is claimed that taking a drug (made by big pharma) for the whole rest of your life, that blocks brain receptors and has potential serious side effects such as liver damage, whilst continuing to drink,without getting any “reward” is in any way preferable to abstinence. Where is the incentive to do this for the drinker…I don’t get it? If the net effect is that there is no “high”, then why drink alcohol given that the drug has supposed to have removed the craving - why not just be abstinent? I’m having major logical issues with the reasoning tbh - the whole argument about how this is some conspiracy by big pharma to not sell its own products makes no sense whatsoever. The claim that the goal of “abstinence” should be replaced by taking this pill literally makes no sense either - what is the point of the pill if not to achieve abstinece and what exactly have you achieved by continuing to drink and take a drug for the rest of your life.
If anything, the whole snake oil exercise is more likely to be orchestrated by big pharma to get people to take the drug in a reverse psychology way…clever…but probably just a conspiracy theory I just made up …lol :smiley:

I’m not sure I understand everything you said and there is a lot of things that doesn’t make sense to you, but I’ll try to answer to some of them.

People that are addict to something are not necessarily happy with that. Like smoking, drugs, alcohol, sex, … We got angry, uncontrollable, get ruined and do things that we never wanted to do and regret for it. We want to exit the wheel that never stop turning. Not everyone are capable to be abstinent and that make us hopeless. I’m myself in that hopeless phase. I’m tired to drink but I can’t seem to be able to stop it. I was able to stop it before, but only a month later it starting again and it is getting worse than before. I still don’t get discouraged and seek to the time I would be able to stop that wheel completely.

The naltrexone do not stop the “high” be itself. It stop the learning path in our brain that learn the pleasure. We still feel the pleasure but the brain no longer record it as a pleasure. So it unlearn that path be reducing the strength of that path so for us it’s getting more and more boring to do that thing that give the pleasure. But we have to do that thing with the naltrexone or else the learning path will not get reduced. Using the naltrexone alone without doing the thing will not reduce the learning path like abstinence. It work with almost everything that give pleasure to the brain. It work with sex too. You love sex, you want sex all the time. Use the naltrexone and have sex, you will still have the pleasure for having sex but you will get bored to do this over time. So you are no longer willing to have sex.

For the liver I take Milk Whistle to protect against the side effect of the naltrexone. But healthy liver the naltrexone damage is pretty negligible to the liver. Tons of medication harm the liver. That’s not new.

The most difficult part is to understand people with the difficulty they should have. The part that you can’t seem to understand. Not everyone are the same and no one are you. You have to open your mind and look farther than yourself. That is without offence off course.

Hi Ghaunt, before I say anything else, could I ask that you accept my apologies for not fully picking up the position you are in and instead waffling on about wikipedia. I completely empathise with you and its good to hear you are not discouraged, though it sounds like you are having some feelings of hopelessness. Please believe me when I say I fully understand where you are at. Firstly, your situation is not hopeless and I absolutely promise you that. I am no longer arguing…just talking OK and if Naltrexone is helping you, then great, but I’m picking up that you may be worried about where things are going with it. You mention that you would like to “stop that wheel completely” - is this a recognition that you’d like to be abstinent eventually, rather than have controlled drinking as a goal? I’m going to be ruthlessly honest here - you need to forget controlled drinking…it will never ever work…trust me. I know the dream of “drinking sociably” “like everyone else” is really enticing but there really is no magic pill that will achieve that.
This drug works in a similar manner to a drug I used to take (calcium acomprosate as I recall) -… essentially I had to take 8 pills a day and they were definitely not little…lol…problem is your sub-conscious primal Amygdala convinces your rational neo cortex to manufacture situations, such as forgetting to take pills or causing an argument etc to create a situation where you drink…it’s mad shit really…2 separate parts of your brain are fighting for authority over you …this is why you probably (hazarding a guess) have a feeling of a duality of mind sensation and can’t figure out why you drank last etc - the decision was not made at a conscious level.
There are not people who can remain abstinent and people who “can’t”…that’s bollocks, though I used to firmly believe it myself too…you just haven’t got there yet but I absolutely know you have the capacity to do so. I’ve waffled enough here, but if you want to talk further anytime about anything, then please do not hesitate to PM me as I’d like to help if I can in any way - :smiley:

2 Likes

@dallyshalla Can you explain me why it’s a feature please?

Certainly, @Ghaunt simply: SAFE can store the Wikipedia article that is set for deletion indefinitely. So I felt it is a feature of the SAFE Network that we can do that. Store the articles for eternity. I hope I think that’s what you’re asking to see happen.

3 Likes

Yeah that’s make sense, I didn’t see that way. Thanks

1 Like

This is an interesting discussion, even though I disagree on the censorship part. Editing the Wikipedia was pretty anarchic until it turned into a democratic space when the mainstream jumped in and users edited content like hell. It is true that most Wikipedia users are readers, not writers. To me that is a problem for decentralization, but many people prefer to stay readers even though they could get into the moderation jungle and build respect within the writer’s community. Today Wikepedia certainly does not give you a right to edit whatever you like. The community prefers it this way. (Actually the main work of moderators is editing swear words and such from the text that have been entered by child-ish users to test what they can do without anyone noting it.)

I personally don´t think the Wikipedia is governed optimally, but it is already much better than every other large encyclopedia that exist on this planet. In most cases a good argument will prevent an article from deletion. It is also a good place to address anarchic intent to abolish moderation, because unlike the struggle on non-duplicable ressources, you can already fork the Wikipedia easily! So if you have a real big problem how things are handled on the WP and don´t want to get into social struggle, fork it! You don´t even need SAFE for that, you can do it right now. Many others did, you wouldn´t be the first and maybe it will be a huge success. But do it, please!

(P.S.: I think you get my point: in comparison to real-world space, in cyberspace you can fork environments - but you can´t fork community, that´s why in the end people need to struggle over content if they decided to be in a community)

2 Likes

Thanks, but no thanks. I give my turn to someone else.