h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes that's better. However I've still got issues with the word 'little' in respect to scientific evidence. To be honest if you can't point to some, then you can't justify putting it in.

I have to say at this point that I am at least in part in the Felonious Monk camp, that these sorts of therapies are a load of old tosh. But at the same time I am prepared to accept that for some people the placebo effect etc will be of a positive benefit to them, so why should I criticise etc etc. Taking this all the way up to my days as an NHS service commissioner who was prepared to pay £10,000 a year of good public money to some homeopathists based in Burgess Hill to rub unctions over a select group of the county's patients.

Reworded again.

I fully understand scepticism with such subjects, I'm quite the sceptic myself , till i see something actually work. Aromatherapy ive seen real results with, but not crystals yet.

Yep, that works fine for me. Thank you

Thank you too

A few typos have crept in since I last commented in previous Peer Review thread (or I just didn't notice them )

...placebo effect definately > definitely

Quartz is classified as crystalline, it may be coloured or colourless, lear, translucent or opaque and is available in many shapes and sizes from small clusters to large geodes. It is easily obtainable worldwide.
> that should be "clear" not "lear"

Rose Quartz - Associated stronlgy > strongly
...name would suggest.It is believed ... > space needed between sentences
Though some maty class ... > may

I won't repeat my previous comments (I only picked up on this because of the recent posting made on the old thread) but the claim made about radiation protection made me raise an eyebrow:

"believed by some to protect from radiation"? What, you hang a bit on a necklace and you have an effective sunscreen, or maybe it'll stop you getting too warm when sitting near a three-bar fire, or does it deflect harmful rays when juggling uranium? What kind of protection are you suggesting these believers have faith in?

Do the second two paragraphs of the Therapeutic Benefits section deserve a different section (as they discuss aspects not related to therapy), or maybe the header could be changed to apply to all three paragraphs? Possibly move the third sentence to the start as an introduction, and change the header to "Faith uses of Quartz" (for Faith you could substitute "Superstitious"), to distinguish these uses from decorative or empirically proven scientific uses.

Pimms

Noted and Amended

<< Although there is currently no scientific evidence to prove these ideas >>

Prove means 'test' - scientific evidence doesn't _prove_ ideas... it either supports or casts doubt on an idea

How about...

>>Although there is currently no scientific evidence to support these claims

or maybe

>>Although there have been no scientific trials to test these claims



Considering the absence of any 'supporting evidence', I feel the word 'believe' is a tad strong ... how about 'claimed' instead?

E.g.

<< in most conditions it is believed to have an effect on the immune >>

could be

>> in most conditions it is claimed to have an effect on the immune <<


One question: where did you find out that "Quartz was considered sacred by the aboriginal peoples of Australia, who used it in the initiation of their Shamen and healers"?

I'll get onto those correction

I'm pretty sure it was something someone suggested I add in , it was a quite a while ago, but I think it was Venus.

For quick reference: A7576897

I'd add a couple of commas into this sentence to clarify the clauses: Although there is currently no scientific evidence to prove these ideas as with other alternative therapies such as homeopathy, the belief that it will work, known as the placebo effect definitely comes into its own here.

How about:
Although there is currently no scientific evidence to support these ideas, as is also true of other alternative therapies such as homeopathy, the belief that it will work, known as the placebo effect, definitely comes into its own here.

a couple more typos:
amomg > among (Reiki reference)
recieve > receive (sunlight on crushed quartz reference)

As mentioned earlier by another researcher Amethyst *is* a type of quartz - see http://www.gemstone.org/gem-by-gem/english/quartz.html. The myth for the formation of Amethyst (and alleged associated properties) is quite interesting. You could rephrase your sentence:

Amethyst, (note spelling) a purple variety of quartz, is usually classified in its own right by crystal therapy practitioners, and has quite individual properties ascribed to it - such as preventing drunkenness.

As you have amended the section title to "Therapeutic and other uses" would it not be appropriate to mention the more common uses of quartz, and indeed how very common quartz (of one form or another) is? See http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/quartz/quartz.htm

For instance quartz crystals are used in timepieces see http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/quartz-watch2.htm - there is genuine vibration associated with quartz crystals, even if it is absolute tosh about the body's "energy fields"

What a cracking article you provide a link to A954740 - Homeopathy, A Sceptical View

I'm actually quite a sceptical person

Off out for a meal soon but will fix these later.

I'm not happy with this at all.

Despite the brief disclaimer at the start, this Entry really gives the impression that the use of quartz crystals for healing is something that has some basis in fact.

For example:

"Crystals allegedly operate on different vibrational levels which allows them to bring the body's energy fields back into balance and ease problems."

This gives the impression that there are such things as the body's energy fields and vibrational levels, and that it is alleged that this is how crystals do the healing.

In fact, there are no such things as the body's energy fields - they are just a pseudo scientific term invented to make the whole practice seem legitimate. The term vibrational levels doesn't mean much at all, and the fact that crystals allegedly use all this rubbish is not worth reporting. WOuld it be better if you said:

"Although studies have repeatedly shown that crystals do not in fact help in healing, gullible people continue to use them, and practitioners invent pseudo-scientific explanations to justify their continued extortion of the ignorant public".

You can see the problem I have with the entry. I can't see any way that it can be made into a valid balanced discussion of the whole crystal phenomenon without a complete rewrite.

I was just on my way here to remove this Gnomon

Serephina, it should be possible to write an entry that keeps everybody happy. But I don't know whether you want to bother.

It's really not a case of whether I can be bothered. I'm actualy very ill at the moment and it's more a case of having the energy , mentally more than anything to put it the work just now, so if its ok with you i'll remove it for now and come back to it as i can?

I'm sorry to hear that you are ill , and I hope none of my comments are making you feel any worse. It really is nothing personal, as I hope you understand.

I haven't taken you personally at all

Gnomon puts his finger on the nub of the difficulty several sceptics have tried to express with this entry

Serephina I appreciate you have made numerous changes to accommodate the strength of feeling against the pseudo science, but without presenting a balanced factual view you are not going to satisfy the critics.

I hope you recover your health soon

Thanks