Talk:International Emergency Management Organization

Misrepresentation of sources by Zezen

Zezen has added the following:

Controversies

During the Ebola 2014 epidemic, IEMO sent an "experimental homeopathic drug" following two weeks of consultation with Liberian ministers over the efficacy of an "aqueous alternative medicine that promotes homeopathic cure", with more to follow. In return, the Liberian government thanked International Emergency Management Organization, for the timely intervention by the provision of the experimental remedy.

I do not, of course, believe that an "experimental homeopathic drug" is likely to be of much use in combating Ebola. But there is no "controversy" about it according to the sources. Nothing about the context is given: - is this supposed to prove that IEMO supports homeopathy, or is it simply that they have made a homeopathic "remedy" available for patients who want it? The sourcing is clearly designed to portray IEMO as quacks. Well, I don't now if they are or they are not. But this needs to be presented neutrally. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So please present neutrally by editing instead of censoring.

http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2014/09/ebola-in-liberia-homeopathy-to-the-rescue.html This may help...

Zezen (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Paul B, this addition was badly sourced. The ultimate source for the "drug is homeopathy" claim was here and that is a weak source with no reputation for accuracy. The actual drug being described is ZMapp, and I can find no independent source that has ever described it as "homeopathy" either in our article, or here, here, or here. There's no evidence it worked at this point without more study, it is experimental, and it is arguably interesting that they are sending an un-human-tested drug, but reliable sources don't call it "homeopathic" or "homeopathy-based" in any way at all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving a passage to Talk is not "censoring". It's normal practice. You are much more likely to get content you think important into articles if you discuss it and address concerns about the wording and the sources. After all, what difference does it make if it takes five days to get consensus, if the content is going to be there for at least as many years? The edit you created claimed that there was a "controversy", but provided no evidence of it. The sources merely said that a remedy had been provided, describing it as "homeopathic". User:Elaqueate has now said that there is no evidence that these therapies are "homeopathic" at all. Certainly the sourcing is very poor. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, you do minimal research, leaving other editors to check the facts. You appear only to be interested in pursuing some ideological agenda designed to belittle "multicultural" agencies. User:Elaqueate, do you have evidence that the drug referred to is indeed Zmapp? The New Dawn article clearly distinguishes between the "homeopathic" drug and Zmapp. However, this source (which is only a blog) suggests that is was Zmapp. Paul B (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

p.s. You will be thrilled to know that homeopathic cures are indeed being developed [1] [2]. Paul B (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)