Ok...Kendrick — attacked specifically for questioning the role the cholesterol in heart disease and the efficacy of statins. Read through the discussion and it becomes clear that there are fundamentalists who don't want anyone who, rightly or wrongly, questions a current medical orthodoxy to even be noted. Keeping them off WP in this way is an attempt to write such dissident voices off as loons and not even worth investigating, to make it such that when someone does not appear on WP, it will be a sign that they're not even at the edge of the conversation.
Is the role of chloresterol in heart disease a political topic somewhere I'm not aware of? I'm not here to argue about whether or not other biases exist on Wikipedia.
You specifically claimed political bias and I specifically challenged that claim. If you'd like to retract that claim and walk it back to bias against medical unorthodoxy, that's ok with me.
Can you elaborate on how those examples prove your claim? None of those examples seem to show a political bias.
Ok...Kendrick — attacked specifically for questioning the role the cholesterol in heart disease and the efficacy of statins. Read through the discussion and it becomes clear that there are fundamentalists who don't want anyone who, rightly or wrongly, questions a current medical orthodoxy to even be noted. Keeping them off WP in this way is an attempt to write such dissident voices off as loons and not even worth investigating, to make it such that when someone does not appear on WP, it will be a sign that they're not even at the edge of the conversation.
Is the role of chloresterol in heart disease a political topic somewhere I'm not aware of? I'm not here to argue about whether or not other biases exist on Wikipedia.
You specifically claimed political bias and I specifically challenged that claim. If you'd like to retract that claim and walk it back to bias against medical unorthodoxy, that's ok with me.
5 replies →