Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

A related discussion is taking place

A related discussion is taking place in Talk:Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints. The twist is that the argument is being made in reverse.

Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia. All supporters of Alternative medicine should vote to delete this article. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:19, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Bmills. This article must be an encyclopaedia article, not a dispute between so called official medecine and Alternative medecine. It must be possible to be NPOV about this too and avoid nasty and void observations. One question which might help "What was 'official medecine' before a scientific base was given to it?" So a sort of continuum exists between official medecine and alternative medecine. Seeing it this way might make it easier to come on common ground.

Vanderesch 15:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy vs. Neutrality

A lot of this discussion is missing the point. It seemns Mr. Natural Health is a an advocate of alternative medicine, based on his website and his Wikipedia contributions.

But Wikipedia is not the place for proving that one's own cherished viewpoint is true -- or that's not it's primary purpose. We're supposed to be making general articles about subjects. Now, these articles often need to discuss the pros and cons of things -- but I don't like to see article development stalled because certain people want their cherished POV to predominate.

Let's go back to writing an article that explains what alternative medicine is:

  • How is it different from other forms of medicine, i.e., what is it an alternative TO?
  • Who is in favor of it, and why?
  • Who opposes it, and for what reasons?
  • What is its current legal status in various countries.

(I hope that you CANNOT TELL MY OPINION of alternative medicine from my comments or edits; I have tried my best to practice what I preach here :-) --Uncle Ed 15:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As ever, Uncle Ed, you talk sense. It seems to me that the problem here is that we have an advocate (or advocates) who cannot let go of their POV and who so need to stand back from the article. Unfortunately, I cannot see that happening, in the short term at least. Bmills 15:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I support Uncle Ed's suggestions. Vanderesch 15:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I support Uncle Ed's suggestionsv as well. theresa knott 20:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I rather like the present format.  :)
Seems to me that you guys simply have not been able to articulate a logical argument about what is so wrong about a very legal practice called alternative medicine. Perhaps, you should simply update your viewpoints or direct your objections to the respective articles on specific branches of alternative medicine, such as homeopathy.
My offer to write a neutral article consisting of minimal text was rejected in mediation.
-- Mr-Natural-Health 16:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello? (tap, tap) Is this thing on?

My dear Mr. NH, I am not interested in arguing that alternative medicine is right or wrong. That is not the purpose of the article or its associated talk page.

You are welcome to your viewpoint. Just recognize that the Wikipedia will neither ENDORSE nor CONDEMN your viewpoint. Okay? --Uncle Ed 17:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then kindly leave my name out of these discussions. See my response to your wrong headed suggestions below. And, by the way I do not advocate in an encyclopedia. So, stop writing about your wrong headed views of my viewpoint. I am totally neutral here, as always. -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:08, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Protection

I unprotected the article again today. Let's write a neutral article, meaning "an article which neither endorses nor condemns alternative medicine or natural medicine". --Uncle Ed 14:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Natural medicine happens to be a branch of Medicine. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:57, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's go back to writing an article that explains what alternative medicine is:

  • How is it different from other forms of medicine, i.e., what is it an alternative TO?
    • It has already been explained how AM differs from other forms of medicine.
    • It is an alternative to toxic prescription drug treatments.
    • It is an alternative to Heroic medicine.
    • It is an alternative to drug treatments!!!
  • Who is in favor of it, and why?
    • That is POV and is not permitted in an encyclopedia.
  • Who opposes it, and for what reasons?
    • That is POV and is not permitted in an encyclopedia.
  • What is its current legal status in various countries.
    • Totally irrelevant and a total waste of bandwidth.

Let's go back to improving the present article! -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:57, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not POV to say who is in favor or against something. It is permitted in the article. Also why is the legal status of alternative medicine in various countries irrelavent in an article about alterantive medicine? theresa knott 16:32, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But, Pontificating on, and writing tirades and diatribes beyond a mere listing is. Do you know how many countries and legal localities exists on planet earth? Need I say more about the impossibility of accurately reporting on legal status locality by locality, branch of alternative medicine by branch? -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:39, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't thank that Ed intended to do that. This is an english language encylopedia, we can restrict ourselves to english as a first language countries. Something along the lines of "Alternative medicine is regulated in country A, illegal in country B, and totally unregulated in country C" that sort of thing. theresa knott
I do not comment on what a user intended to do. I comment on what users did. And, so I have. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:15, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article?

Is the neutrality of this article still in dispute? If so, please state why? How may this article be improved? -- Mr-Natural-Health 16:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added 2 items to the Support section, although they seem more like CM problems than AM support.

Someone might want to go in and clarify (it's kinda spread out and vague right now) that there are quacks and serious professional physicians on both sides of the fence, and that some of the AM fields have problems due to lack of a professional organization to set standards and certify knowledge/ability -- although lack could also be an indication of quackery.

While I believe that some AM is indeed quackery and/or placebo, I do also have concern that CM has problems.

After looking over this article, though, I suspect that NPOV is difficult. My suggestion at present would be to create a Conventional medicine article, and move some of this article over there. The lack of such an article indicates (to me) an NPOV problem. The two items that I added aren't terribly relevant to AM; they are CM problems, not reasons to favor AM over CM. Scott McNay 20:34, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

Could not agree more with you on all counts, Scott McNay! Highly appreciated ! At last we hear the voice of reason ! The people has spoken ! Unfortunately I could not write the relevant parts myself ! Will have to wait and see, being hunted myself out of editing, and searched for under WANTED doctrines, complete with DNA fingerprints and iris scans. For I dared to challenge the local consensus about me not being a crack, as a MD and a five-star irismeister (alternative-towards-conventional bridge builder) :°) That's, I believe, a case study in the limits of Wiki editing. Things get heated once mr NH is in, and freeze to death once he's banned. Not healthy, methinks! Are we, the people, into debating sincerely, and writing truly great Wiki articles, or just into fighting each other's egos ? Look at this page! Judging from the activity (once bursting to the point of page protection only to be less than calm now) it looks as if the purpose here were some witch hunt, not quality hunting! We seem exhausted by edit wars which can barely be named "civil" , let alone conventional. Sincerely, irismeister 00:56, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Ok, I created the Conventional medicine article... Scott McNay 02:39, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully, someone will volunteer for some hard work : ) Sincerely, irismeister 12:54, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Does the term 'conventional medicine' make any sense outside this context? Why isn't this just redundant with medicine? If the stuff in conventional medicine makes no sense outside the context of "alternative medicine", it should go here - David Gerard 09:05, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Sure. Conventional meaning in general, and here in France following an agreement with an accreditation body , and since everybody must have an arrangement with at least some board in order to practice medicine, it surely makes no sense. So, redundant, you are right, it is or at least should be. This is an old issue, methinks. Hippocratic and Knidic medicine. Salernitan and Maimonidean, orthodox vs alternative, official vs underground, quies custodiet ipsos custodes (who certifies the certifiers) etc, etc. Hmm. it's really a hard choice ! Sincerely irismeister 12:54, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
It seems to me a bad precedent. We do not have an article "conventional chemistry" to contrast with "alchemy", for instance, or "conventional geography" to contrast with "flat earth", or "conventional engineering" to contrast with "building bridges out of cheese". Rather, the articles on chemistry and geography and engineering discuss chiefly the main line of scientific knowledge, while making reference to critics of the mainstream, "alternatives", and the like when they exist and have advocates whose positions can be described.
Medical doctors do not do "conventional medicine"; they do medicine -- just as astronomers do astronomy and engineers do engineering. There does, in fact, exist a mainstream of these disciplines, which Wikipedia articles can describe correctly as such. This mainstream is not arbitrary, not simply a matter of "convention", as the term "conventional whatever" implies. There also exist movements outside the mainstream, which Wikipedia articles can also describe -- but must make clear that this is what they are. --FOo 17:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So, if we agree to cut conventional medicine out, we relativize the alternative, by hanging it from the absolute pillar. It's also a dangerous precedent, but has the advantage of avoiding yet another bout of hard work in the conventional stub :-) Hmm, methinks I must still think ! Sincerely, irismeister 18:22, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
"Alternative" is always relative, whether it's medicine or music. The word means, after all, a choice to be different -- which implies the question, Different from what? Different from the usual, the established, the well-understood -- experimental; dissident; revisionist. A new, unproven drug in clinical trials is, in one sense, "alternative medicine" after all -- it is an attempted alternative to whatever is the current standard treatment for an ailment.
Thus, there is no abiding set of "alternative" medicinal practices. Integrated over time, the term is null. However, there are things one can say about categories of medical practices. For instance, it is an attribute of today's "mainstream" medicine that it is considered by its practitioners and the general public to be tested according to the methods of physical science. Thus, with respect to this measure, we may locate: (1) medicinal practices whose advocates attempt to prove them scientifically to the medical community, but which have not been accepted by the medical community as proven yet: experimental medicines; (2) medicinal practices whose advocates consider them scientifically proven despite the opposition of the medical community: dissident medicines; and (3) medicinal practices whose advocates reject the standards of scientific testing, preferring standards such as faith or tradition: non-scientific medicines.
It is, I suspect, the latter two categories and not the former which articles such as this attempt to discuss. However, the categories are not so clear as one might wish. That is a peril of attempting to write on the subject of "alternative medicine". One may consider the case of hypnosis illustrative; a practice which many in the public consider witchy and not scientific, but which appears to have some proven medical uses. --FOo 00:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The above has the obvious gift of clarity. However, I doubt that the main attribute of medicine, even in today's pan-scientific context, is really being scientific. I know I raise more than a few eyebrows and I apologize in advance, in a sort of captatio benevolentiae . But medicine is (although less and less every day, I concede) an art too. A vanishing form of deep interactions which can hardly be described as only a specific difference (definiendum ) of the scientific "thing" (definiens) - this is no doubt an art. This traditionalistic point of view (again, concedo - this is indeed a declaration of bias) is not idealistic either. Stephen Jay Gould aptly named such fringe view on art-science no-man's lands something like, if I recall correctly, magisterii. Science is only the hard core of what we call biomedicine . However, clinical experience, intuition and even feelings in mainstream medicine still spell the difference between good and bad doctors. In the semiology and clinical propaideia I studied decades ago ( a mixture of hippocratic, knidic, salernitan, avicennic and maimonidean approaches to the nuts and bolts of the trade), we were encouraged to taste the patient, something that could bring us in prison these days... The bottomline is that alternative rapidly becomes the common final exit pathway for all these shamanic approaches. I could not possibly stress more my agreement on the idea that there is no such thing as an alternative attribute to medicine. There really is one and only one medicine - that medicine which is best for the patient's interest in a given case. We are heading towards the definition of alternative only as an instantiation of what the french invoke and exhort under the derogative name of la logique comptable. My final view is that perhaps our article here should include Thus, there is no abiding set of "alternative" medicinal practices. Integrated over time, the term is null - an absolutely perfect observation, in the body of text. Kind request for more comments here Sincerely, irismeister 09:51, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

Psychosocial treatment and life expectancy of cancer patients

Vickers (2004) is far from persuasive about the advantage of psychosocial treatment in increasing life expectancy of cancer patients. He notes that "several studies do... appear to show survival advantages" [emphasis is mine], and goes on to say that one oft-cited study which found this result (Spiegel et al. 1982), has not been successfully replicated (Cunningham et al. 1998; Goodwin et al. 2001).

Evidence for the positive mental benefits of reduced pain and improved mood, however, seems far more convincing, and has been successfully replicated. - MykReeve 18:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My interest in that study was that it documented psychosocial treatment as a form of alternative medicine. As you may recall, once upon a time, a bunch of people were claiming that all this psyche stuff was not alternative medicine.
There is plenty of evidence that says that it does effect survival time.
I also like this quote:
"establishment of programs that provide complementary therapies at major cancer centers such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Dana-Farber, University of California at San Francisco, and MD Anderson. Such programs integrate conventional and complementary medicine clinically and academically, and, as such, they can be described as "integrative oncology.""
If the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center uses complementary therapies because they work, what more need I say?
--Mr-Natural-Health 01:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah right. I missed the debate about "psychosocial treatment" as a form of alternative medicine, and hadn't realised that this was why you'd added it at that point in the article. I hope you agree with where I've moved it.
On the subject of evidence that psychosocial treatment affects survival time, I didn't find a great deal of evidence of this in Vickers 2004, though am quite prepared to admit that it is probably not an exhaustive survey of research on the subject. - MykReeve 01:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It depends on what exactly what you are looking for. And, how you like to conduct research. You can either simply search the topic in Medline or start with a good reference like the following one, and simply follow the the cited abstracts and go on from there.
psychosocial treatment
-- Mr-Natural-Health 02:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ghostwriting concerns

"Many people, including conventional and alternative medical practitioners, point out that this funding has led to corruption of the scientific process for approval of drug usage, and that ghostwritten work has appeared in major peer-reviewed respectable journals like NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ have been unable to prevent from being published (Flanagin 1998, Larkin 1999)."

The above does not make grammatical sense. There is no need to list examples of journals - the label "major peer-reviewed medical journals" implies that titles such as these are implicated, and the cited articles provide more information if the reader wants it. - MykReeve 22:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Issues of concern

The edit comment "removing issues of concern from regulation section--There is no conneciton" is disingenuous, since the edit created the "regulation" section.

The general amendment is fine, but the deletion of the sentence regarding concern on the part of conventional medical practitioners:

There is also a concern among conventional medical practitioners that patients may delay seeking conventional medicine that could be more effective, whilst they undergo alternative therapies, potentially resulting in harm.

is not a valid on this basis. I will restore this section to the 'Contemporary use of alternative medicine' section. - MykReeve 23:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disingenuous? I can tell you what disingenuous has been for me. I simply labeled the section for what it was in one operation. -- Mr-Natural-Health 01:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I still feel it was a slightly misleading edit comment - a sentence was lost, which was relevant to that broad section of the article, if not to the created "Issues of regulation" section. - MykReeve 01:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Supporters of evidence-based medicine

Revision as of 23:16, 14 Mar 2004:

Supporters of evidence-based medicine respond that just beause that happened in the past, this does not mean that science might not underpin future medical practice.

This sentence speaks of the opinion of supporters of evidence-based medicine, who do believe that science should underpin future medical practice - not merely that it might. Therefore, I am reverting to the earlier version of the sentence. - MykReeve 23:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But, does it? And, the answer is no. -- Mr-Natural-Health 01:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, you have a point. There is certainly evidence that this isn't the way in which medical research is being conducted, particularly with regard to drug trials. However, supporters of evidence-based medicine do believe that medical research and practice should be underpinned by science, and many are as horrified by the system of drug companies' ghostwritten publications as supporters of alternative medicine. - MykReeve 01:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

defintional issues

Sorry to the anonymous author (you should get a username) whor wrote that definition (using RCTs) but it is inaccurate. Much ‘conventional medicine’ does not have support from RCTs. Also many ‘alternative’ therapies do have support of RCTs. The issues are more subtle I'm afraid (sorry to hit and run gotta study - back next week)--Erich gasboy 05:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection

To stop the edit war between MNH and MykReeve, I have protected the page and rolled it back to the point just before the edit war began.

Please discuss any proposed changes here on the talk page, in terms of how you feel your edits might improve the article. We're looking for accuracy and neutrality.

I'll be happy to add any changes both sides can agree on. --Uncle Ed

I am NOT banned. Most of my changes were ALREADY reviewed by MykReeve, and are clearly documented on this talk page. There is NO Edit War, period. Therefore you just committed vandalism.
I as far as I know, MNH and MykReeve are in perfect agreement. So, kindly revert your vandalism, NOW!!!
I will be contacting both YOU and MykReeve on this issue. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there was an edit war. I have reverted some of the changes that MNH made, for the reasons explained above in this talk page. Otherwise, I feel that his amendments have been to the benefit of the article, and am happy for them to be retained. The section on diagnostic alternative medicine treatments, in particular, is an excellent addition.
In any case, I am going on holiday for three weeks from tomorrow, so I will not be available to offer suggestions for future edits to the article for that period. - MykReeve 16:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I would be content to see the page reverted to the version prior to protection - [1]. - MykReeve 16:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
FYI The page was unprotected at my request. I want to see if we still have the same old stuff and need to revisit the matter of User:Mr-Natural-Health or whether we are back to a normal situation where Mr-Natural-Health is simply editing, occasionally disputing some point, but not getting carried away. Fred Bauder 18:53, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

False claims about Wikipedia policy by Mr-Natural-Health

MNH claims, in edit summary, "ALL reverts, even by RK, are not permitted because I am currently not banned." This claim is false. Nothing in Wikipedia policy limits the reversion of edits to those done illegally by banned users. Reverting is used, by and large, when the harm caused by a given edit significantly exceeds its benefit, well before abuse reaches the point where a ban is necessary. MNH has already been banned once; in this light, making false & misleading claims about Wikipedia policy should be grounds for further action. --FOo 21:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is called an edit summary. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have a different opinion. I have been keeping up with all the latest arbitrations. One editor in particular was singled out for their use of reverts. A discussion of when and where a revert may be used took place. Reverts can only be used on banned users per the commentary in the respective arbitration cited by me. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 21:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I certainly do not hope that you get carried away on a talk page. And, cause this talk page to be protected. Feel free to edit out your personal attacks as you see fit. Otherwise, I will employ refactoring anytime I see a personal attack against me, as it is my right to do so. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please stop altering my comments to misrepresent my position. I have removed the only portion of my comments which might reasonably be considered a "personal attack". The remainder is certainly not intended as such. Rather, I read your claim that reverting edits is "not permitted because [you] are not banned" as a simple claim of fact about Wikipedia policy, and one which is false. The clear documentation on the Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version makes, in fact, no mention of "banned users"; indeed, does not contain the word "banned". That your claim is false is not a personal attack. If you are unprepared to deal with others pointing out when you are simply wrong, you will find Wikipedia a constant source of frustration. --FOo 23:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anytime an editor like User:RK makes a revert of my editing and adds an edit summary like, for example RK (Removinh nonsense from an internet vandal. Mr-Natural-Health is on the verge of being banned for his harassment) I will revert that error of judgement. Anytime, I can edit out a personal attack I will employ refactoring. It is as simple as that. "ALL reverts, even by RK, are not permitted because I am currently not banned," per my above stated opinion, is perfectly correct and is clearly my own opinion. Exactly what don't you understand about the use of edit summaries? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I will also point out that User:RK wiped-out the edits of two other editors when he did his revert, in error. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You have also convinced me to make a list of Wikipedian thought police. You will appear as number one. I have pointed out, above, that you are simply wrong. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just in case that I have not made myself perfectly clear. I will continue to employ in my edit summaries something to the effect of "Reverts are not permitted because I am currently not banned," regardless, of your above comments when the need arises. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 00:00, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point-counterpoint format

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I attempted to fix the crazy, unencylopedic format of the entry, but it still blathers on far too long about responses and rebuttals to this and that and is written in extraordinarily hard-to-follow English. Please, think of the target audience for this article. Ashibaka ✎ 20:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your user page states that "I'm a 16-year-old guy from the United States." I guess that pretty much explains it? I will take a closer look tomorrow morning as to to the finished product. If I don't like it, I will fix it as I see fit to do so. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And probably get banned for a month again a week later. (I bet you still have no comprehension of why you were banned, other than conspiracy.) - David Gerard 07:36, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
BTW, "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum" means that putting point and counterpoint in consecutive sentences all the way through a long article is bad writing. It does not mean you attempt to wish away criticism by excising it to another article which will make no sense except in the original context.
Every other contentious issue on Wikipedia has the criticism section in the article. But I'm sure you have a convincing reason why this one should be different ... - David Gerard 07:48, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
Where there is a criticism section, there is always a corresponding response!I would be happy to restore a recent version of a separate criticism and support section format. I would be all too happy to. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 10:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And I notice, insert typos in the process. Well done!
The problem I have with your edits is that they result in an incredibly badly-written article that grossly pushes your Point Of View. I'm not clear on what sort of encyclopedia you think you're writing, but this probably isn't it.
And please don't edit my talk comments - that's prima facie evidence of your ill will and unwillingness to discuss. Do you understand why you were banned for a month last time? - David Gerard 10:38, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
An incredibly badly-written article? You must be refering to Health Sciences or Medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 11:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for whining about my age rather than addressing my points. I can't change my age for you, but I can point out to you that when an article devolves into a long debate it becomes harder to extract information from it. Ashibaka ✎ 12:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No problem! I have found that young people have consistently wasted my time precisely because of their age. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)