Talk:American Academy of Environmental Medicine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508025259/http://www.abms.org/who_we_help/physicians/specialties.aspx to http://www.abms.org/Who_We_Help/Physicians/specialties.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing quackwatch? Not MEDRS

Just seeing now that this cites some website called "quackwatch". I don't think that meets the criteria for WP:MEDRS

That line should probably be taken down due to WP:NPOV Sciencebuilder (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Quackwatch is simply the opinion of one Stephen Barrett, who is a psychiatrist that practiced but did not research to any great degree. He doesn't seem qualified count as WP:MEDRS in any discipline outside his psychiatry training. Further his posts on Quackwatch are "self-published", as it were, and not reviewed in their own, which is distinctly against WP:MEDRS policy. The popularity of Quackwatch does not change this. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of legitimacy lacking citations

It's says "They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties." yet there is no reference linking to where this is explicitly stated. As quackwatch is not a MEDRS source and the final sentence has no reference, I propose we remove this entire section. Sciencebuilder (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

[user|Alexbrn] I would really love to have your opinion on this one. Sciencebuilder (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk · contribs) I would really love to have your opinion on this one. Sciencebuilder (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a good source for such things, and the claim is not WP:BMI so would not require WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding a note relevant to this topic: I could verify the information except for mentions of Randolph in Environmental medicine: beginnings and bibliographies of clinical ecology (the criticism is in the book but not the name, it seems). —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

recent unproductive and false edits

I am confused as to why an IP editor is repeatedly editing this page to make false claims about CME accreditation. Also, Quackwatch is part of the Center for Inquiry. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)