Talk:Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article suggests bias by the APA. However, needed verification is not provided. {{verify}} tag added. —ERcheck @ 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the slightly improved detail and references in the orthomolecular psychiatry article better show the APA bias with respect to OM.--TheNautilus 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch

I've removed the disparaging remark about Quackwatch. Obviously the site has its proponents and detractors. Solely quoting the SSE disparagement of Quackwatch and calling it "academic" gives the misleading impression that a) Quackwatch has no serious support and b) SSE is a reliable source, rather than an organization whose primary ideological goal is to oppose sites like Quackwatch. I do agree with linking to the Quackwatch page, which is the appropriate venue for discussing praise/criticism of Quackwatch; note that Quackwatch has been praised by JAMA, U.S. News and World Report, and Forbes... all of which are more "academic" and/or reliable by Wikipedia standards than the SSE. MastCell 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguable. JSE (with a board possessng impressive academic credentials) actually seems to take itself seriously about the academic question how do you address the unmentionable, and then gets stigmatized (play with fire...). The JSE "reliablity" issue gets even more interesting by scientific standards (JAMA, Forbes, USNWR have numerous critics about opinion and pov). QW's fundamental problem with the Kauffmann paper, ^[1], is that it is a classic example of the "Emperor has no clothes". QW would probably do best for its longterm credibility by responding to the paper's merits, and correcting/reforming itself in some areas. But I'm not holding my breath.--66.58.130.56 00:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is appreciated. Quackwatch is controversial. The appropriate place for discussing that controversy is on the Quackwatch page. The appropriate Wikilink is provided. A unilateral disparagement of the site on this page is not appropriate and violates WP:NPOV. MastCell 03:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The references are not my opinion. The DYS reference shows the JOM editors' view & orientation of their work & publication, an allowed method. The Kauffman reference *is* the most relevant, referenced, academic, independent critique about this specific area of alternative medicine with relation to QW. Sorry that QW is so vulnerable in this area. The QW link is very general and self congratulatory (panhandling for contributions in the Intro????). I think the QW "classification" is appropriate for balance but that the QW link is insufficient to balance the QW assertions and references. You also are showing some defensive pov here. We're working on content here, let's let the reader sort the balance out, pls.--66.58.130.56 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the QW article being "self-congratulatory". The article reads remarkably neutral, repeatedly harps on the fact that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed science, and by far the longest section of the article is devoted to Criticism of QW. It is an ongoing work by a number of editors, many of whom are hostile to QW. I agree with your statement that we're working on content, and would prefer to let the reader sort out the balance; that's why I removed your inflammatory description of Quackwatch as an "anti-alternative medicine partisan website" and replaced it with "controversial". MastCell 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to be heads up, descriptive about QW, although I wondered whether it was too straight from the shoulder. Self-congratulatory? Well, let's see. Intro and the next three sections make *no* mention of *any* controversy. The Intro "subtly" advertises books for sale and solicits donations. QW does cite its good works & awards in an uncritical manner (anti-QW'rs could probably add a few), and bashes Pauling one last time. Last I checked, as of the 2005-6 papers, Pauling is in essence back at bat on both cancer^[2][3] and respiratory infections^[4], and Moertel looks more than ever as either very obtuse or, per LP's comment, a fraud. Whether LP was right or not. These last comments are based on reading the reports PNAS, NIH, CMAJ and the Finns re-analysis. And, ah, yes, last of all, admission of criticism in the fifth (last) section.

If you can live with the last sentence of the JOM article, I can too. --66.58.130.56 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Kauffmann JM (2002). Watching the watchdogs at Quackwatch
2. ^ Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. vol. 102, no. 38, p 13604-13609, September 20, 2005
3. ^ Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases CMAJ, 174 (7) March 28, 2006
4. ^ Hemilä H., "Do vitamins C and E affect respiratory infections?" Univ. of Helsinki, Dissertation, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Public Health. 2006.

I can live with the last sentence too; thanks for working with me on it. I do disagree about the QW page. It indicates that QW considers Pauling "non-recommended"; it makes no argument about the scientific validity of LP's work, it just summarizes QW's POV. That seems appropriate for a page on QW. I'd reiterate that the "Criticism" section is by far the longest in the QW article. Yes, it's the last section - this is not bias; it's in keeping with common Wikipedia usage, where controversial topics are first described objectively, and then criticism is summarized. For instance, I note (with approval) a similar layout on the Orthomolecular medicine page. MastCell 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)