Talk:Gemmotherapy

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

Neutrality disputed?

The "npov" tag currently reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2011)" There is no such discussion on this talk page, and according to "View history" there never has been any such discussion here. I'm removing the tag for now; if whoever originally tagged the article wishes to return and discuss the basis for disputing the article's neutrality, please feel free to do so. --Shadow (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look just now, I wouldn’t say neutrality is too much of an issue in the article’s current state, but still, it’s a very low quality, unbalanced alt med article. It could use some solid info from scientific sources. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 20:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with gem therapy

"Gemmotherapy, like many other alternative therapies, lacks an evidential basis and is not accepted as an efficacious treatment by the scientific community.[1]" I am removing this citation as it appears to refer to a paper on gem therapy/crystal healing, which is completely unrelated to gemmotherapy. If there is an appropriate alternative citation, could someone please add it. Nick Churchill (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any scientific sources?

This article seems fringe to me. I cannot find any reliable sources and no scientific sources. Mark Crislip mused about it. [1] This Gemmotherapy thing just seems to be something that homeopaths are into. AfD? Delta13C (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has several of the hallmarks of fringeness. That's rather inconvenient, but fringe does not mean deletable. Some rewrite is needed to correct the voice of the text, accurately attributing the implausible assertions.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture to suggest that it is, in fact, complete bollocks - as one would expect from its genesis in the hands of a homeopath. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the apparently-inactive user:Nick Churchill declared himself as such. I don't suppose anyone has ready access to the cited sources?