User:Joolsbaker

Conflict of Interest

I spend a long time fighting against those who make wild unsubstantiated claims about CAM or what they do, at the same time fighting those who fail to try and see whaqt it outside of their own field of vision. I try to find out what it is that we do when something works in CAM. Placebo? Medicine is not a science, it is an art. All medicine is therefore placebo to some degree, even surgery.

I am open about my interest and have no intention of making claims that aren't true or suggesting that CAM has a long way to go when it comes to getting its house in order regarding research and answerability. That said I make no claims for who I am or what I do. I want Bowen to be portrayed in a balanced and informative way and the information to be presented in a manner which remains as balanced and neutral as possible. However I do have a level of expertise, which only madness or someone pretending to be a scientist would ignore when it comes to asking about manual therapy, human anatomy and fascia and dissection would ignore.

I am probably going to have to stop looking to Wikipedia to be balanced when it comes across as a boy's club for septics.(sic) Joolsbaker (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My website www.thebowentechnique.com

My book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bowen-Unravelled-Journey-Understanding-Technique/dp/1905367406

Edit Warring by known sceptics risks the objectivity of a given subject especially when belief or personal antipathy are not revealed as conflicts of interest. Any edit should be seen within the context of the expert writing. Accusations of conflict of interest are easy to make by those with no interest or understanding of the material involved. Should a page on physics not be written by someone who knows about the subject?

The study on Bowen and hamstrings for instance is exceedingly relevant because of what the literature review uncovers in that field and therefore the implications of outcomes are important.

The aspect of secondary versus primary sources ends when the primary source is peer reviewed. It ceases to be a primary source. There is no argument or discussion to be had in this regard and editors risk exposing their poor knowledge of subject matter by continuing to dispute this.Joolsbaker (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)