Talk:Wilhelm Heinrich Schüßler

Typical Wiki

What a violent and vulgar dismissal of the subject. The cited quote, from C. E. Cook, does not say he actually ran clinical trials, merely that he thought cell salts absurd on their face and so did not even bother. That's not science. That's garbage.

What should be here? Quite simply, a comprehensive overview of the subject itself. First we state what it is, how it was developed, and how it is said to work. We NAME the twelve salts, since that's what the article is actually about: Twelve named salts. We cite others who have used and developed the subject. Which, in this case, are many. All published. It has been shown, for example, that the 12 cell salts are related to the 12 signs of the zodiac (Carey and Perry) - another topic Wiki hates - and in my own private work, I have shown the astonishing presence of the Aquarian cell salt in the story of Lot and his wife. Which is a complete impossibility or an underlying something, revealed by accident, take your pick.

Only after the subject itself has been stated comprehensively can any overall conclusion be made concerning it. As it stands, Wiki has merely proposed a word and then applied expletives to it. Wiki has failed to tell us what it is talking about, so all we know is that "Wiki don't like it." Wiki is eager to label what it does not like as "pseudo" but all it is doing instead is showing its own peevish, amateur nature.

I used to have a Wiki account, but Wiki bans truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.119.52 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

List of 12 Schüßler cell salts

I agree there should be a list of the names of the twelve salts. There was one, it had biased/disapproved/whatever content and was deleted. I created another, with no claims, no controversy, just the various alternative names along with the common numbers assigned to the salts. There was nothing worthy of deletion about that list, then people wanted to add claims to it, and so it was in danger of being deleted. I tried pruning it back to the original encyclopedic intent and (I think) added a comment to the Talk page saying something to the effect that, should it ever get polluted with claims for effectiveness again, please don't over-react by deleting it but trim it back to an impartial list. I didn't know about the deletion process, just found it gone. I cannot keep watching articles and removing nonsense from them.

This seems to be a risk with Wiki articles in general. In listing terms that are the subject of debate, the debate will keep creeping into the article, until it can get deleted. There is no doubt in my mind that names like "Nat Mur" and "Kali Phos" need an entry to explain to anyone coming across them what they mean. At present a search in Wikipedia misses returning anything useful for them generally. What can be done?? I certainly do not want to provide a vehicle for advertising quack cures, but deleting any mention of them is not the answer. They are not too obscure to be listed... looking in all sorts of health shops and books will show they are widespread terms. The only reason seems to be listing their names is imagined to be a short step away from claiming they cure everything. Maitchy (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)