Talk:Rope worms

has the page been vandalised?

Has the page been vandalised? It seems to have received a random word salad at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.228.146 (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

More commonly referred to generically as parasites

There are a number of articles, blog posts etc talking about the wrongheaded idea of 'removing paraistes' as a means to curing autism, relatively few specifically name them as rope worms however, making it more of a challenge to find obviously relevant references. JoBrodie (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see these as specifically autism-related. They're a side effect of intestinal trauma from quack cures (taken for any reason, including 'autism cures') and they're explained falsely as 'parasites'. But that only needs the poisoning and the mis-explanation, it doesn't depend on it having been targeted at autism. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, this is awful. It is sourced to Quora, of all things, and uses two incredibly bad self-published sources to claim that the worms are real. On top of that, the only non-self published reference in the article is Vice. If there's no genuine coverage of the topic it would be far better to either merge this into another article or just delete it. - Bilby (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the problem with the two sources claiming that the worms are real? It's not as if this article supports them in the slightest. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to have an article every time someone says something stupid on the internet. Those are two particularly stupid sources. Find decent secondary sources, or let's take this to AFD. - Bilby (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

While it's true that any bleach enema, or drinking the stuff, for any purpose would result in these 'rope worms' it is heavily promoted among closed Facebook groups for parents of children with autism, and there are claims among that community that the 'parasites' are a cause of autism. However, annoyingly, that article doesn't refer to the parasites as worms so I'm not sure how helpful it is as a citation on the main page. There's also a reference about parents giving the same MMS / Chlorine Dioxide bleach as a drink to their children with autism. MMS is widely sold as a miracle cure for all sorts of things but has been heavily promoted in autism circles. Rope worms are 'just' a consequence of using bleach internally and is certainly causing harm to kids with autism.

From the 16-page PDF from the Westminster Commission on Autism's report on 'A Spectrum of Harmful Interventions' https://westminsterautismcommission.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/a-spectrum-of-harmful-interventions-web-version.pdf, page eight.

"Autistic people told us that unsubstantiated and harmful interventions have been offered or suggested to them: We found that autistic people had been offered treatments such as crystal therapy, ear candles, vitamins, spiritual intervention, aromatherapy, chelation, juice plus diet, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, exorcism, stem-cell transplants, exposure therapy (including slapping), rerum, acupuncture, DAN (defeat autism now) therapy, MMS (bleach), turpentine and many more."

There is a range of harmful nonsense being persistently peddled to families with autistic kids.

I'm also happy to see the ArXiv papers referenced, perhaps we could put the quotemarks around 'worms' in this sentence rather than the later one, to further illustrate that it is the papers promoting the idea and not the article. Perhaps the Quora answers could go in the further reading. It's not a reliable source but it's informative and the parasitologist certainly poo-pooed the idea of rope worms as a separate species.JoBrodie (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That's all great, but doesn't constitute secondary sources about this topic. Perhaps this is better merged with MMS. - Bilby (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not averse to a merge... but it seems a shame for it not to have its own page (similar to Morgellons). Currently I'm a bit stymied by the lack of a naming convention. I think there are secondary sources for the topic but they rarely specifically refer to the parasites as rope worms meaning that useful references are a bit thin on the ground. The internet is swimming in references to rope worms but alas they are on very iffy websites and definitely not RS, beyond being evidence of the ubiquity of the term within those autism quackery circles. What to do..? (rhetorical!) :) JoBrodie (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it should stay, but be reworked. This is the page a google entry "rope worms" leads to on wikipedia and it ranks high. It is also the terminology a common person would be exposed to initially by quacks. If your intended audience is cynical scientists, it's perfect, but if it is parents who are considering "cleansing" their autistic child's bowel via a bleach enema...you want it to be approachable to simpleton's like me. It depends on your intentions. I do ignorance well, if you need help...just saying...Jrbwalk (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Jrbwalk

I think this could be an informative article and would not like to see it merged, but I am concerned about the lack of sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• So what do you see as the specific facts here that need better sourcing? We have two main groups of 'facts' to deal with:

1. The claim that rope worms are parasites. We have the two main original papers for this (I see these as essential, because of their foundational role) and any number of other sources could also be referenced. We do not claim that these are true. We seem to have an adequate number of these, and (even within WP policy) we are able to justify primary and unreliable sourcing here: because we're not interested in the claims of these sources (they're nonsense), we're just using them as primary / self-published sources 'talking about themselves' as is permissible here.
2. Additionally we also need to source both the existence of a 'rope worms' hypothesis (false as it may be, and trivially demonstrated) and also that these are sloughed gut lining, not any sort of parasite. We should be able to provide real RS sources for these, would be required to do so by policy, and have done so. If the fallacy becomes more prominent, no doubt more refutation will be appear. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not that there are a couple of borderline reliable sources on the topic, but that there are only a couple of borderline reliable secondary sources on the topic. - Bilby (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wot Bilby sez. ∯WBG^converse 16:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. We absolutely should not cite the original primary self-published papers by Volinsky and Gubarev. They are superficially sciencey and likely to mislead technically unsophisticated readers. We do nto need to cite them because we can source the facts from the SBM article. I don't see any exception to WP:RS] that would argue for including unreliable self-published scientifically incorrect material published in order to sell dangerous and fraudulent treatments. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• No one is sellng anything. Volinsky isn't here to source or verify anything, it's because it's the founding origin myth of these things. We can also present their context quite correctly, without any question as to their correctness. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Conveniently, the second author, Gubarev, who works for an occupational safety organization in Russia, just happens to hold a Russian patent on a eucalyptus enema concoction for treating various intestinal parasites. But caution is advised because this leaves open wounds in the intestine, causing internal bleeding." Guy (Help!) 23:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with JzG(Guy) that SBM should be used rather than self published non-RS. At this point the article looks acceptably sourced. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Then when Gubarev starts selling his snake-oil here, we might have a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

People are already using his fake research to sell their own. "The group's 8,500 members, who are allegedly charged £60 to join, share images of the so-called 'parasites' leaving their children after treatment while congratulating themselves." Guy (Help!) 00:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• What they do elsewhere is beyond our control. Our job is to produce an encyclopedic, accurate and complete version here. Without those important refs, we would be significantly incomplete. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• What is wrong with using secondary sources when they are available? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Who is saying that we shouldn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Our job is to follow policy. No part of policy says we should link to unreliable primary self-published sources in order to present, rather than document, fringe theories. We lose nothing by not linking to the papers in question. All the encyclopaedic content is covered from secondary sources, which, as it happens, also note that the primary material is both wrong and financially conflicted. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were saying that we should use primary sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Using one doesn't mean that we have to stop using another. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• But if we already have secondary sources for something, why would we want to add primary sources? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Because they're not there as references, i.e. to meet WP:V by addition of WP:RS etc. Their role is more like WP:EL, except that (as usual) it's better to work them into the prose than just listing them at the end. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• So your saying that the currently used sources don't support the text? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

So these links are not sources and should be excluded under LTA 1 and 2. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Which clearly does not cover the situation of ArXiv, which is not presenting any viewpoint. It's the scientific equivalent of Reddit. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Improving the page

Obviously I'd prefer the page to remain as a page, unmerged, if possible. Any help from @Jrbwalk: in making it a bit less high-falutin' would be welcomed :) JoBrodie (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Morgellans has a big historical background, but it looks like it would make a great template, at least as a starting point to fill in with adequate sources. You must have a bit of everyman in you (archaic expression) to use the words "high falutin"! I hope you don't regret it! Rest assured my simplicity is not a put on, but a gift. I don't mind being redirected.Jrbwalk (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)jrbwalk

Title italicized

Why is the title italicized? Is it suggesting that rope worms are the name of an organism? Natureium (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. Has whatever it was since been changed to non-italics? Any italics from me would probably have been emphasis only and not meant to imply anything Linnean :) JoBrodie (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ENGVAR?

Andy Dingley ENGVAR doesn't apply here since MOS:DOUBLE is pretty clear that "Enclose most quotations with double quotation marks" (with clearly delineated exceptions that don't apply here). The reason for doing is explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#cite note-12. Galobtter (pingó mió)

Yes, but it's not a quotation, is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Bleach

@Roxy the dog:@JzG: I fail to see the benefit of the phrase "chlorine dioxide bleach enema" shouldn't it just say "chlorine dioxide enema"? Many different chemicals with varying toxicities can be used to bleach things, and I am not sure how relevant ClO2's ability to bleach things is to this article, ClO2 is not what people think of when they think of "bleach", which in everyday language means NaOCl. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's a bleach enema, specifically one made with chlorine dioxide. And yes, ClO₂ is not what most people think of as bleach, which is why it needs to be pointed out that it is. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: And yes, ClO₂ is not what most people think of as bleach, which is why it needs to be pointed out that it is. What does ClO₂'s ability to bleach things have to do with this article? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bleach burns people. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

As Roxy says, everyone is going to realise what a bleach enema is likely to be like for the person subjected to it, and they will readily see that the expulsion of bits of dead intestinal lining is a completely foreseeable outcome. Chemical names are much less widely understood. We don't talk about dihydrogen monoxide enemas, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

False analogy, dihydrogen monoxide is not an accepted name for any chemical, even chemists call it water. The use of the word "bleach" seems to be an attempt to compare chlorine dioxide to sodium hypochlorite, and reminds me of how proponents of fringe claims stoke unwarranted fear of chemicals saying things like "there's embalming fluid and vaginal spermicide in vaccines!". Now obviously chlorine dioxide is a strong irritant and should not be put up anyones butt, but as proponents of fact we can and should make this clear without using the same scare tactics used by the fringe-pushers. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

As proponents of fact we should use technical and common terms. It's chlorine dioxide, it's industrial bleach. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't someone just point out that, yes, ClO2 is not what most people think of as bleach ? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Chlorine dioxide is a type of bleach. Bleach does not refer to one specific chemical. This seems like a reasonable thing to explain in the article. Natureium (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, chlorine dioxide is a used as a bleach, but it is not what most people think of as bleach and it's industrial uses are not really relevant to this article. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We're not explaining it, we're pointing out why it is such a fucking terrible idea. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG I don't understand your comment above. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You also don't understand why it's sensible to point out that chlorine dioxide, a substance with whose chemical properties most people will not be familiar, is a bleaching agent. Despite a lot of people pointing it out. I don't think I can help you with this as the issue appears to be at your end. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You are committing the fallacy of "most chemicals used for X are toxic, this chemical is used for X, so this chemical is toxic" now chorine dioxide is toxic, but we can do better than use the same fallacy the pseudoscientists are using. And 2 vs 2 does not count as WP:1AM. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Close. Most substances used for bleaching are toxic. This is used for bleaching, and is definitely toxic, especially when used in this way. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a fallacy, most substances used to kill weeds are toxic, but acetic acid is used to kill weeds and is also used in salad dressing. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: I must be missing something here, because I don't understand why you are opposed to the word "bleach". Natureium (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Because bleach normally means sodium hypochlorite, and the industrial uses of chlorine dioxide are not really relevant to this article. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think calling it "industrial purposes" is disingenuous. Pretty much all uses of ClO2 come from the bleaching/disinfecting properties. Natureium (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: JzG called it "industrial bleach" [1] I was repeating his wording, but I do not care about the word "industrial", the point is that it is unimportant to this article what else ClO₂ is used for. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not about what it's used for, it's about what it is. It's bleach. Injecting it into your child's rectum to "cure" autism is rather obviously not a good idea, unless you use the technical chemical name and, you know, don't mention that it's bleach. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said before, we shouldn't debunk pseudoscientists using the same fallacies the pseudoscientists use, which is exactly what you are arguing for. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy to categorise a compound with which most people are unfamiliar. This is the difference between poison and toxin. Everything is toxic, but not everything is a poison. This is poison. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources all use the word bleach to describe the enemas or the cure. While they do explain the chemical structure they do not seem to call them Chlorine Dioxide enemas. If there is disagreement we should follow the sources and stick with bleach.AlmostFrancis (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I find TC's edits on this article to be disgustingly bad. Can we not do something about it? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to go to the effort, you can take it to WP:AE. He was warned by TonyBallioni in January.[2] Natureium (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't we work together and find wording we all agree on? or are you just going to file an AE if I make an argument you disagree with on this talk page? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I find preparing reports for AE tedious and don't plan to do so, but if Roxy the dog thinks that something needs to be done, that's where it should happen. Natureium (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

AE, ANI, AN3, or ArbCom, I don't care where you report me, what I am asking for is that we work together to improve the article and assume good faith rather than filling reports that suck up time better spent discussing article content. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think everyone else has been working together just fine. Bradv🍁 02:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that "bleach" is sensationalist. Using it here gives an impact - the typical reader will just think "they're putting bleach where?" and rapidly form an opinion about the procedure. However, we also need to consider the reader who will then be told that it isn't bleach - just sodium chlorite - and will risk believing that everything is ok because Wikipedia isn't to be trusted. I'm ok with using bleach, but we need to ensure that both readers are catered for. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Bleach isn't sensationalist, it's a description. And "it isn't bleach - just sodium chlorite" (or actually chlorine dioxide, as the article says) is untrue. Chlorine dioxide is a bleach, as has been mentioned several times above. Natureium (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, bleach is sensationalist. It has impact beyond "Chlorine dioxide". My concern is that someone reads this, goes to those peddling the treatment, and they say "we don't use bleach - Wikipedia isn't to be trusted. We use sodium chlorite". We know that sodium chlorite combined with acetic acid produces chlorine dioxide, and that chlorine dioxide can be described as bleach. I'd just like to ensure that we continue to make this overall picture clear. - 22:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

We could provide a more thorough explanation then. But the sources do say bleach, and there's no point in trying to white-wash that. Bradv🍁 22:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't use "bleach", just that we continue to say more than just "bleach". That said, it is worth noting that the sources are Vice and the Daily Mirror, so the wording isn't surprising. - Bilby (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Less sensationalist sources say the same aout MMS. I think it's sheer incredulity, as much as anything else. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sensationalist is your own opinion. We follow sources. If you have sources that follow you opinion please give them if not these comments are forumy. AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

With respect, I don't see a problem with expressing an opinion about how best to follow sources, and what the best wording should be. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby, sensationalist wording makes people discredit us rather than realize the ClO2 enemas are dangerous, I would accept a compromise where we say it is a type of bleach, but keep calling it "chlorine dioxide" Tornado chaser (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the edit I propose as a compromise[3]. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Compromise. You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. So very much of the moment, too. Guy (Help!) 02:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, my question is would you accept this edit[4] or something similar, and if not, why? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that uses you preferred language?AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that the facts are not in dispute, why are you asking about sources? It is not necessary (or even always desirable) to quote sources verbatim. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So we are agreed then that no one refers to these as "chlorine dioxide enemas" except for yourself? There is a difference between using the correct nomenclature and adding sources verbatim. We should use the nomenclature that sources use which in this case is "bleach".AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The current wording: "bleach enemas (sodium chlorite mixed with citric acid, forming chlorine dioxide and marketed as Miracle Mineral Supplement)" is just confusing, the reader will see "bleach" and incorrectly think NaOCl, but then get confused by the long parenthetical describing the chemical reaction. Would it not be better to just say something like "Enemas of chlorine dioxide (a type of bleach)"? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think the current is fine. We can assume readers are not goldfish and they have enough memory to last through a whole sentence to establish context.

Also, no-one is using "enemas of chlorine dioxide" (in literal terms). Any copy-editing to improve clarity shouldn't cost accuracy like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cost accuracy? what about "enemas of chlorine dioxide" is inaccurate? Isn't that exactly what is causing the alleged "Rope worms? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Are you aware that chlorine dioxide is a gas? Whilst the enema releases it, that's not how it's adminstered. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely, it is a water-soluble gas that is formed in solution when sodium chlorite solution is mixed with an acidic solution, this produces a solution of ClO2 that is(stupidly) used as an enema, so it actually is administered as chlorine dioxide. Ammonia is also a gas, but solutions of ammonia in water are still called "ammonia". If you would prefer I am fine with being more specific and describing the enemas as "chlorine dioxide solution". Tornado chaser (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's an article of faith with the MMS advocates (at least, some strands of the delusion) that MMS isn't chlorine dioxide (as the evidence for that being harmful is overwhelming) and they contend instead that it's "activated sodium chlorite", thus miraculously beneficial. We shouldn't feed their excuses by mis-describing the form in which it's actually administered: an acidified solution of sodium chlorite, which is proceeding to evolve chlorine dioxide as it goes. But if we claim "chlorine dioxide enema", then they have an obvious rebuttal to that and yet another, "Wikipedia gets it wrong" story. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• But it actually is chlorine dioxide, they have a much stronger rebuttal if we just call it "bleach" and they can point out that it is not sodium hypochlorite, some of the claims I've seen advertise that it is chlorine dioxide and not sodium hypochlorite. Also, the conversion to chlorine dioxide begins as soon as the chemicals are mixed so ClO2 solution is actually the main thing being administered. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is all explained in the Miracle Mineral Supplement article. For the purposes of this article, "bleach" really is good enough, as that is what is used in reliable sources. Bradv🍁 21:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Bleach" is fine. It's less specific, but nor is it incorrect or misleading (it would be a mistake to assume that a generic "bleach" means any one specific compound). I prefer it as it is (detail is good and no-one has given any plausible reason why this needs to be dumbed down).

I'm puzzled as to how Tornado Chaser thinks that this ClO₂ winds up dissolved in solution so quickly though. It'll be gaseous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Anyone who is under the misconception that gases can't dissolve in water very fast needs to watch this 66 second demonstration. Also, since when is more specific considered "dumbed down? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't we say "chlorine dioxide (a type of bleach)"? this way it is clear that it is bleach, and no one can say "but chlorine dioxide is not sodium hypochlorite!" Tornado chaser (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Did you read any of the comments above? No one is administering "chlorine dioxide enemas". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think that? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Me ... me... I can do this one. Sources. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

From the sources we are using:

• '... she recommends giving autistic children "hourly doses" of chlorine dioxide and advocates chlorine dioxide enemas as a way to "kill pathogens in the brain."' [5]
• 'a life of tightly restricted diets, constant oral dosing with chlorine dioxide, and regular, invasive, chlorine dioxide enemas.' [6]
• 'The treatment, known as CD (Chloride Dioxide) or MMS (Master Miracle Solution), is administered orally or via enema and is being sold in the UK by online dealers and in person.' [7]

The sources also describe bleach, coffee, eucalyptus and lemon enemas. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that ClO2 is a form of bleach and I accept the consensus to mention this fact. However, as Bilby points out above, sources clearly state that these are chloride dioxide enemas, and this is the what they should be called in the article (we can still mention that ClO2 is a kind of bleach).

Sorry Bilby, I mistook the edit that you were concerned about. While I don't agree that bleach is that sensational, I didn't have an issue with the language you added. Actually I moved it to the first mention of bleach so that it would be more prominent. I think that is as far as we can push the sources in the article. Explaining it is bleach follows the sources but I have no issue telling the reader what kind of bleach it is.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• @AlmostFrancis: Your right that the solution is impure, this doesn't negate the need to make clear that this isn't sodium hypochlorite. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

To you that is an important point. Its a fine opinion to have I suppose but it is just your opinion. It certainly doesn't outweigh the balance of sourcing which happily puts bleach enema in the article title. It seems our sources are happy to go with bleach then explaining what type of bleach and we should as well. As I said I was content with Bilby's parenthetical but that should be as far as we go. I suppose at this point if you want to change the wording you should probably start a RFCAlmostFrancis (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should be clearer why we are calling it bleach, first stating what it is and then saying that it is a type of bleach, I don't see what the problem with this is, it is still consistent with the sources, and makes our point well while minimizing any appearance of bias that could open us up to criticism. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

To you that is an important point. Its a fine opinion to have I suppose but it is just your opinion. It certainly doesn't outweigh the balance of sourcing which happily puts bleach enema in the article title. It seems our sources are happy to go with bleach then explaining what type of bleach and we should as well. As I said I was content with Bilby's parenthetical but that should be as far as we go. I suppose at this point if you want to change the wording you should probably start a RFC.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

...the balance of sourcing which happily puts bleach enema in the article title. The title of the article being used as a source is irrelevant, we source content to the article itself, not the title, as titles may be sensationalized, simplistic, or inaccurate. Also, we don't need sources to support the order that we state facts in, we just need the facts to be well sourced. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems our sources are happy to go with bleach then explaining what type of bleach and we should as well. As I said I was content with Bilby's parenthetical but that should be as far as we go. I suppose at this point if you want to change the wording you should probably start a RFC.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

colostomy

I can find several (non-MEDRS) sources that mention a case of a child needing a colostomy doe to ClO2 enema induced damage, not sure I have enough sourcing to put it in the article, but If we find good enough sources, this could be relevant to show the severity of damage that can result from this. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be careful. We have only the word of an Autism activist that a child has received a colostomy. I don't doubt her, but we shouldn't take a person's word alone as proof. We need to find the story of a child that has been treated for MMS "treatment", ideally. Jrbwalk (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Jrbwalk

I agree, so far I haven't been able to find it, but I will look some more. I just posted this incase anyone else knew of a source Tornado chaser (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No MEDRS sources for this at all, nor would it be required if good independent news sources existed. It's plausible, but the only primary source is Emma Dalmayne's infiltration of a bleach cult Facebook group, albeit reported in multiple news organisations (e.g. the Irish Independent). The bleach cult is pretty secretive. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding links to refs

@Andy Dingley: what is wrong, why undo my edit? Wikisaurus (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• I got it, you probably do not like my commentary about the articles. But refs are for reliable sources, not for some pseudo-scientific articles, so they should be either explicitly marked as non-sources, or deleted. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It fails WP:NPOV. You're describing them as amateurs, and you're doing so in WP's voice. We can't do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley:, have you took a look into articles' first page? Although you would probably point to WP:OR or something. Is "Self-published articles that misidentified rope worms" ok? Exactly the text that is written already in the article. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I am very concerned

For the person who wrote this article. People that twist the truth and make foolish remarks might be dealing with toxoplasmosis and its controlling their brain. I have been dealing with ropeworms for about 3 months and I did not put bleach or anything toxic for that matter in my enema bag. Just pure distilled water. I promise you this is real. I wish I could post a picture just for the author of this article. SMH!! I suggest that the article be rewritten and stick to the subject that's in the title. 107.123.37.34 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with tape worms, of course. Toxoplasmosis cannot "control your brain". If that is not a joke, you should really consult (and not a cleansing quackery clinic). Water enemas can cause damage and also disrupts the gut microbiota which can lead to complications. Wikipedia's purpose is not consultation or to be a howto, but to document using reliable sources, without giving undue weight to extraordinary claims. —PaleoNeonate – 13:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Intestinal rope worms are real.

intestinal parasites are a subject of joke in medical industry in the deep south and a very real concern and problem.These Worms can be expelled and killed with one treatment of Abendezole.

rope worms can live with you for up to 10 years.

they Normally are not in large quantity,they’re very hard to diagnose other than a lab exam.

and they use your own DNA to disguise themselves from the hosts body to prevent natural ejection in the host body.

More study's must be done on this single cell organism.

oh and heres a joke !! Its not a worm if it doesn't want to identify as one .

-md Matthew Jennings. 2600:6C58:7F:BBE1:2C2C:CC75:D9B0:9CEA (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You need a source for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)