Talk:Daniel Amen: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 71.13.57.18 - "→Amern's credentials: new section" |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I second that. A simple Google search gives a few sites that claim he is overstepping what can be concluded from his technique; links to these must be shown. I don't have the time or inclination to do this, but this indeed comes on as a blatant advertisement, touting his more respectable contributions but failing to disclose how his SPECT treatments are publicized in mainstream media, rather than peer-reviewed journals. Even the APA claims he is going too far. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.212.143.153|76.212.143.153]] ([[User talk:76.212.143.153|talk]]) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I second that. A simple Google search gives a few sites that claim he is overstepping what can be concluded from his technique; links to these must be shown. I don't have the time or inclination to do this, but this indeed comes on as a blatant advertisement, touting his more respectable contributions but failing to disclose how his SPECT treatments are publicized in mainstream media, rather than peer-reviewed journals. Even the APA claims he is going too far. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.212.143.153|76.212.143.153]] ([[User talk:76.212.143.153|talk]]) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Amern's credentials == |
|||
I don't think he is currently on the faculty of UC-Irvine. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.13.57.18|71.13.57.18]] ([[User talk:71.13.57.18|talk]]) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Revision as of 16:40, 28 March 2008
Amen has some great ideas but this page must show the other opinions or be flagged as a blatant advertisement.
I second that. A simple Google search gives a few sites that claim he is overstepping what can be concluded from his technique; links to these must be shown. I don't have the time or inclination to do this, but this indeed comes on as a blatant advertisement, touting his more respectable contributions but failing to disclose how his SPECT treatments are publicized in mainstream media, rather than peer-reviewed journals. Even the APA claims he is going too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.143.153 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)