Talk:Deepak Chopra

Introduction and reason for this article being here

Whether you love him or hate him, you can't argue that this man isn't a force of nature, and has changed American medicine and healing. He definitely is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Hopefully, that entry will give his whole life a fair hearing and not try to present one viewpoint over another. I feel that the Wikipedia article in 2023 about Dr. Chopra is biased and heavily pushing a scientific reductionist view. This is particularly a problem with dealing with this healer and physician originally from India, who has a long history of infusing spirituality into physical healing, and integrating empirical, medical knowledge with that of spiritual realization...an article on such an individual should not be a purely skeptical science hack job on a doctor that dares to speaks of things beyond mechanistic pharmaceuticals and biochemistry. I have heavily edited the original article. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (CDT)

Wikipedia is extremely narrow-minded about everything including acupuncture, which it immediately labels a "pseudoscience". Which is utterly ridiculous. Millions of people seek acupuncture and Ayurvedic treatments because 1) they often help, and 2) for chronic conditions, pretty much all Western medicine knows to do is prescribe drugs. Pat Palmer (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2023 (CDT)

thank you for weighing in on this, Pat. I wanted to make sure that we are being thoughtful and accurate here. I think certain people on Wikipedia get singled out to be targets of the skeptics. They tend to go after the most successful, but cutting-edge people and concepts. Chopra is an example. Oh my gosh, I can just imagine what Wikipedia says about acupuncture! I'm afraid to look at it. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2023 (CDT)