Talk:Alternative medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Contents

[edit] Electromagnetic Therapy

Hi. I've started the article Electromagnetic Therapy. I will be placing a link in this article on Thursday September 21st 2006 and would appreciate your feedback and opinion prior to commencing this action. I believe this should be in the "see also" section, nevertheless you may want to add a seperate section all by itself. Please forward your comments no later then Thursday 15h00 EST. Thank you. --CyclePat 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends what the link is for. I've made some comments on the talk page. --apers0n 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complementary and Alternative Medicine

I just spotted a new page Complementary and Alternative Medicine I guess it should be merged here or redirected. --Salix alba (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It got done on Nov. 16. -- Fyslee 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternative medicine describes practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. Complementary medicine describes alternative medicine used in conjunction with conventional medicine.
This seems to be contradictory - complementary medicine can't also be alternative medicine. I'd like to change it, if no one minds? something like Alternative medicine describes practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. Complementary medicine describes practices used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine, to assist the existing process. Lottiotta 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this really reflects actual usage of the term. 'Alternative medicine' is used by many different people to describe a number of different methods and bodies of knowledge. Using these methods and knowledge in conjunction with conventional Western practices doesn't disqualify them from being 'alternative medicine' in many people's minds.--Eloil 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Eloil, I think you're right about "actual usage." In common usage the terms are often used rather loosely, and not in a very precise or technical sense. What we try to do here is sort it out and get more precise. The basic factor in both terms is "alternative medicine" philosophies, professions, techniques, gadgets, "methods and bodies of knowledge," etc.. It's the same thing underlying both terms. The only significant difference is if it is used in conjunction with standard mainstream medical practice, which would normally mean it's being used by (or in direct and open cooperation with) an MD or DO, and not by an unauthorized alt med practitioner on their own.
The content is the same, it's the context that determines which term to use. To illustrate, let's use acupuncture. When used alone as a treatment for cancer (rather foolhardy, IMO!), it's clearly "alternative," but when used in conjunction with standard cancer treatment it's "complementary" to it, but it's still acupuncture. The basics are always the same. (I hope that is understandable!) -- Fyslee/talk 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You make some good points but I think there may be problems with defining the term too precisely. If some English speakers hold to certain precise definitions of the term but the majority use it loosely (as I suspect may be the case), I think it may be a mistake to treat the 'precise' minority definition as the correct one. Personally I think the proven/unproven distinction of EBM is a more useful one to make. A term that's widely used in a vague way will probably continue to be used vaguely.--Eloil 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Basically the situation here at Wikipedia is that we are not allowed to come up with ou~r own definitions. We document the existing ones, including variations when they exist, which is why paraphrasing can be dangerous. It can become WP:OR, and we wouldn't want to do that. It makes no difference if they are critical or not. We just document them from verifiable and reliable sources, according to Wikipedia's definitions of those terms, which are not identical with the common meanings. We document all significant POV without taking sides. We are not seeking truth here, but verifiably documentable opinions. -- Fyslee/talk 21:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that sources are essential but I think the Mirriam-Webster definition currently quoted in the article appears to support the notion that 'alternative medicine' need not be used in place of conventional methods:
any of various systems of healing or treating disease (as chiropractic, homeopathy, or faith healing) not included in the traditional medical curricula taught in the United States and Britain --Eloil 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Eloil, agree that we do need a source in order to differentiate the terms. If the two terms are often used synonymously, we can say that too. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Merriam-Webster online defines complementary medicine[1] as "any of the practices (as acupuncture) of alternative medicine accepted and utilized by mainstream medical practitioners". Medline Plus uses the same definitions. I think it would be OK for us to use those in the lead section here. thx, --Jim Butler(talk) 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement on my unsourced statement, thanks. I think it's great. :) Lottie 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link removed - could someone check if it should be used or not?

[This link] was removed from the article by user Steth, with the justification "Rmv private link seeking donations of highly marginalizing, editorialized, subjective opinion "articles" by ex-psychiatrist not trained in any of the fields criticized". A brief overview on the page, however, shows that for example the Acupuncture article has plentiful references to well-renowned journals. It's tough for me to judge if the information is biased or lacking in any of the respects that Steth mentioned, though. Could anyone check, and re-add the link if justifiable? Narssarssuaq 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The link above doesn't work. I was referring to this website. It looks rather scientific, and they're used in refs 30 and 34. Could someone investigate if we may use them as a source or not? To me it seems OK. Narssarssuaq 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The link was immediately restored after it was deleted. It was a strictly POV deletion since it doesn't violate WP:EL. -- Fyslee 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, that's finally settled then. There seems to be anti-scientific POV involved sometimes. That kind of attitude undermines the whole idea of Wikipedia in my opinion. For instance, Magnet therapy has recently been totally rewritten by someone with a poor knowledge of science. Narssarssuaq 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Alternative" definition of alternative medicine - why?

Despite being bold in trying to make this page more accessable, my edit was reverted. Apparently, I have to achieve consensus before I can alter the page. Well, here's my point:

  1. The intro states that there are proponents of evidence-based medicine who don't distinguish between conventional and alternative medicine.
  2. There is then a rambling section called "Alternative definition" which is centered around Richard Dawkin's quote on alternative medicine, and is substantively the same as what the "proponents of evidence-based medicine" say.

I don't believe we need this "alternative definition" section, as it simply repeats what the lead section has to say. Furthermore, as there are plenty of medical doctors to reference for this position, we don't need a populist non-medical doctor such as Dawkins. Finally, I think such a contentious criticism of alternative medicine should be taken out of the lead section altogether.

So, may I put my edit back?

62.31.67.29 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what you added looked good; I think what got it reverted was deleting so much from the article. I think the article needs a substantial rewrite personally and look forward to seeing some more of your stuff in it. Discussing deletions first is good manners though.
I think the "alternative definition" section contains good material but could have a better name, maybe one that emphasizes controversy around use of the term.--Eloil 12:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Without examining the edits by "62", I'll just mention the part about the lead. It might be helpful to read this: WP:LEAD. The lead should not contain information not contained in the article, and one should not delete from the article that which is mentioned (duplicated) in the lead. There will be a certain type of duplication, and that's the whole idea of the lead. It just duplicates content from the article very shortly in summary form. I personally feel that most anything in the article worthy of a heading deserves mention in the lead. It's just a rule of thumb I use. Of course there are exceptions, so common sense should be used. -- Fyslee/talk 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange, that most of the information on definitions in this section is from opponents to alternative medicine. This section should have instead information about distinguishing alt med from mainstream or allopathic med, with several different takes on the matter.

There should be another section discussing the issues of validity and evidence, as it applies to both CAM and conventional med. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by V.B. (talk • contribs) Feb. 27, 2007.

Agree, the three quotes (Angell, Lundberg, Dawkins) essentially say the same thing and present a bit of an undue weight issue as presented. I'm contemplating retaining the references and trimming the quoted material. Thoughts from other editors? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of the section is basically a critique (or more like, a dismissal) of alternative medicine as invalid. If that's what you want here, then I think it should be so labeled to alert the reader to its nature. But it seems to me, that in an entry on "alternative medicine", sypporters ought to have a right of rebuttal, to say the least. —V.B. 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)V.B.
I think paraphrasing a lot of the quotes is a good idea. I disagree though with the contention that most of this is criticism of alternative medicine practices though. Aside from the Dawkins quote most reads to me as criticizing of 'alternative medicine' as a useless term, not criticizing the actual practices that may be grouped under it.--Eloil 14:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to be careful about paraphrasing. We are documenting, and such quotes are just the stuff we need. We couldn't find better sources, since these are two editors of two of the largest and most respected medical journals, and a top professor and skeptic. -- Fyslee/talk 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree re paraphrasing, though it might be a bit undue weight-ish to devote more space to the "alternative" definition (they are all basically saying the same thing) than to (what I presume is) (ironically) the "mainstream" definition. More at the bottom of the page on related issue with the lead section. ever faithfully, Jim Butler(talk) 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I like how the section looks now personally.--Eloil 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, cf. below discussion, framing it as criticism rather than redefinition makes more sense. Those quotes are all keepers. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A redirect is not a merge

You have removed a merge tag [2], deleted a whole article (without merging the contents here), and left only a redirect. Being bold is one thing, but what you have done can be considered vandalism. Be very careful. Significant edits or large edits, especially deletions, should be discussed first. Please undo what you have done´. -- Fyslee 13:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed every statement in the article under consideration and came to the conclusion that nothing was worth including - either because it was already in this article, or because the material did not meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:V and/or WP:NOR policies. For your edification, here is my reasoning:
The term is very debated within the scientific arena, since it has been mainly used in public health discourse (mostly among physicians and sociologists) only in US and UK during the last decades.
Other continental European scientific communities -- with even a much longer history in traditional medicine or herbal medicine (such us Germany or France)-- do not know this term, neither do they use it.
I agree that "alternative medicine", "complementary medicine" and CAM are recent neologisms to describe a wide range of techniques, many of which are several centuries old and come from around the world. A reference to a dictionary which has tried to find the earliest printed reference would be a good thing. However, the above text is not acceptable for providing such a history section. It doesn't give verifiable facts, nor references. It's just a rant. I've tried to find references to the first usages of the terms, but I've come up blank. I will check with an OED subscriber later today. But until someone can find a verifiable source of the history of the terms, it's not a good idea to put it into the article.
The National Institute of Health in the US defines "Complemntary and Alternative Medicine" (CAM) as "a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine".
Already in the article. It's also wrongly attributed - the NIH themselves don't define CAM like that, their NCCAM division do.
The main problem that most scientists have with this terminology is that the CAM definition is not sufficiently culturally senstive, since what is "alternative" and/or "complementary" towards a pre-existing medical tradition/school can be very different in different cultures of the world. Paradoxically, industrial "pharmaceuticals" could also be seen as CAMs within the context of traditional medicine/traditional healers in Africa or even among Traditional Chinese Medicine.
"Most scientists" is an unattributed claim, or "some argue" by any other name. This paragraph is simply an attack on the definition, not grounded in verifiable references. It reads to me like original research.
Moreover, the list of what is considered to be CAM can change continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge.
Already in the article.
According to the NIH (National Institutes of Health): 1. complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery; 2. alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor. A less extreme example would be choosing an echinacea medicine from a naturopath, for hayfever, rather than an NSAID pharmaceutical or conventional doctor recommendation/prescription.
Not already in the article, but I don't think it needs to be. We could certainly recycle the reference to NCCAM's definition (already in the article) as a citation for our introductory sentences.
NCCAM classifies CAM therapies into five categories, or domains:
It does, and that's what the prominent "NCCAM classifications" link and list in the introductory boxout shows. I don't like the "Terms and concepts" article, as it's not really in the Wikipedia style, but fixing that is a job for another day - unless you'd like to do it. I propose a "NCCAM classifications of alternative medicines" article, with the five classifications and lists of what CAM techniques fall under that. Nethertheless, I don't think the NCCAM classications need to be brought into this article any more than the boxout already provides.
CAM is often erroneously confused in Western countries with traditional medicine.
This is another unattributed claim. I also think it's incorrect. CAM is an umbrella term for anything outside Western medical orthodoxy (or rather, anything which doesn't currently have proven efficacy). "Traditional medicine" is more vaguely defined than CAM. Traditional medicine overlaps with CAM, in that some traditional medicines (by which I'm defining as "invented before the 20th century") are still used today, marketed as CAM because of unproven efficacy - such as acupuncture, herbal remedies - and some traditional medicines are not still used today - such as bloodletting. There are also traditional medicines that are part of medical orthodoxy. Draw yourself a Venn diagram as an exercise. So there is a subset of traditional medicine that is CAM, not an "erroneous confusion".
So, in my opinion, everything of worth has been merged from the article. 62.31.67.29 10:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent explanation. I agree. -- Fyslee 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osteopathic medicine?

Osteopathic medicine, in my opinion, does not belong on this page. OM is actually referred to as not an alternative medicine, but an "evidence based medicine" according to the osteopathic medicine page itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.200.253 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

There is a difference, and here's what the disambiguation page says:Osteopathy may refer to:
* Osteopathy: alternative medicine, as practiced by osteopaths outside the United States
* Osteopathic medicine: as applied by osteopathic physicians in the United States
The European version is not a medical profession on a par with MDs, and is very much alternative, with many different pseudoscientific practices. They have never officially distanced themselves from A.T. Still's weird ideas, while the American osteopaths have done so a long time ago. (Unfortunately there are still American DOs who are no different than European DOs. Joseph Mercola is one notable example of a DO who advocates pseudoscientific ideas, quackery, and anti-medical sentiments. The FDA always has to watch him and has warned him several times for his illegal and unethical marketing practices.) -- Fyslee 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality box

I linked to this article from "essential oils" and was unfortunately only slightly surprised to come to the end of a long page and realize that it said very little about alternative medicine but a lot about its critics. The only unique information in this article is found in the first three paragraphs. Everything after the Table of Contents is just repeat after repeat of the same tired vituperative claptrap that old Dawkins bore has been bleating about for years. Come on, now. One good paragraph would have been plenty about doubts concerning the efficacy of alternative therapies, and to have actually described one or two of these therapies would not have gone amiss, either. Either this article needs drastic revision (i.e., starting from scratch), or it needs to be retitled "Criticisms of Alternative Medicine" or something like that. By the way, I took a look through a few of these talk pages, and while it is true that "allopathic medicine" is often used to describe somewhat deprecatorily what I will delicately call "mainstream medicine as practiced in the majority of healthcare facilities in the United States of America and as featured on such popular television programs as E.R., St. Elsewhere, and Grey's Anatomy, excepting certain episodes" by many practitioners and advocates of alternative therapies, by the same token "alternative medicine" is used in this article as a pejorative description of anything else. I bet when most people come here looking for information on "alternative medicine" they want information on traditional, complementary (or yes, possibly actually alternative) therapies because what is scientifically tested is not always enough - and it would be nice is they found it. Yes, the scientific method is a fantastic tool for discerning the safety and efficacy of a technique/substance/whatever, but using this tool is often costly, beyond the capabilities of most, and most importantly, time-consuming. Not everyone has time to wait.

What all these high-falootin' words are trying to say is: Chill, freaks. We don't all need nurse-maiding.

James P McLanahan

P.S. I NEVER write this kind of thing anywhere to anyone on any sort of board-type thing, ever, and I'm very angry at all of you for making me do it. And I'll never come back to read the replies, so don't bother insulting my mother, 'cause I won't know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.66.69 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Stop complaining about Wikipedia contributors - they're doing the best they can. It's clear that the article needs improvement, do contribute if you have something of encyclopedic value to add. Narssarssuaq 11:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Good intentions do not just brush away bad results. The whole page stinks of supporting Alternative Medicine. The part regarding "support" for it is laughable. Conventional Medicine also recommends having a healthy lifestyle, but it won't go into religion/spirituality. We have yet to prove spirits, souls, gods, etc. exist. That's why Conventional Medicine doesn't embrace unproven thought. Honestly, the track record of Alt med is quite shakey at best. It is nothing but second fiddle to real medicine that does tests, verifies its findings amongst itself, and strives for tight tolerances regarding safety and effectiveness. That has yet to be said of Alt-Med. --Big Mac 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well if the article falls somewhere between McLanahan and Big Mac, it must be about right. I have to say, though, Mac, as someone who has little or no interest in Alt Med, your claim that "Conventional Medicine doesn't embrace unproven thought" is a bit of a stretch! There are countless examples of treatments that were embraced by the Conv Med establishment for years, only to be reversed later. I remember hearing MDs trashing flavinoids, anti-oxidants etc. back in the 60s and 70s. And conventional medicine's embrace of acetominaphen over aspirin tells you all you need to know to understand what drives conventional medicine, er, medi$ine. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue is of the meaning of "proven" in this context. Scientific proof, unlike for example mathematical proof, is not absolute. See Scientific method Thehalfone 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It is just a matter of knowing where to look. You might as well forget Alternative medicine and check out the following.
Glossary of alternative medicine
Category:Alternative medicine stubs
John Gohde 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ghode, you got banned here for a year from April 05 to April 06, in part for this kind of self-promotion. Please go read WP:NOT, and repent, okay? SBHarris 09:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly who is this Ghode?
I was just helping out McLanahan, a person in need of help. If I was self-promoting than I would have pointed out that my site is in the top 10 for my keyword in Google. Or, that my Dictionary of Alternative Medicine has gotten the job done unlike this Alternative medicine article. But clearly, I did no such thing.
Clearly, I just pointed out how the Glossary of alternative medicine and Category:Alternative medicine stubs articles enables people, like McLanahan, to totally ignore the totally useless Alternative medicine article.
Surely, you are NOT the same SB Harris who authored that research paper on Popsicles? -- John Gohde 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if your site is #1 on Google for discount dentures and anal pain cremes, Wikipedia is not the place for YOU to link to it. Get some others to explain this to you if you don't believe me. Popsicles? Cryopreserved embryos and tissues are already a part of medicine and whole organs preserved that way have been demonstated to work in animals. You can call them popsicles if you want to get in touch with your inner-child, I suppose, but it's not very scientific. SBHarris 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I was minding my own business when you rudely butted in my private conversation. Second, I find it funny how a so-called research MD who claims to be interested in nutrition seriously suggests cryogenics as the longevity method of choice. Popsicles [3] just about sums it up.
I have put a lot of work into this joint. A very large number of THE WikiProject on Alternative Medicine InfoBoxes are in fact still on their respective articles. THE WikiProject's Alternative Medicine InfoBox is in fact still on the Alternative medicine article. And, there now is an even bigger Blue Box on the article, designed and implemented by one of your MD Buddies. But, THE WikiProject on Alternative Medicine still has a lot of work to do. And, you have just given me a reason to give Wikipedia a second look since smn is now just a Fat Farm. I have been here longer than you have. And, I have two different user pages. The last time that I was here, I wrote just one article that successfully competed with the Health article. I am planning on writing a NEW proper successful article on STRESS. Quality counts!
Who cares about Alternative medicine when the WikiProject's Glossary of alternative medicine is constantly being edited? -- John Gohde 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You've been here longer than me? Does the year you were banned count in the time? None of these conversations are "private." Have your read the article on cryonics you reference? No, quite obviously not. The idea that I suggest cryonics as the "longevity method of choice" is of course misrepresentation. I'm by no means confident that cryonics will work for anybody, let alone everybody who tries it. Even among cryonicists, dying and being cryopreserved is viewed as the second-worst thing that can possibly happen to you (guess what the worst thing is?). Every other longevity method is preferable to being cryopreserved, and cryonics is an option to consider only after every other method has failed, and you have been pronounced dead and your society is now planning to burn you up, or stick you in a hole in the ground to decay. Which is your privilege if that floats your boat, but in that situation it's hardly your place to crow about your success, and suggest that I'm silly to try something else. All you're really doing is giving up, making a virtue of necessity, and playing at sour grapes. Big deal. SBHarris 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This happens to be my 3rd Tour of Duty, here. Surely, that counts for something? Speaking of self-promotion, you don't see me with a fancy multi-color signature, now do you? Just remember this, I found this place in November of 2003. What took you so long? -- John Gohde 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

<cluestick> Whack! </cluestick> Steve Harris - what are you doing? You don't need to justify yourself to John Gohde! Ignore him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I should, but Gohde raises these issues in public and they need answers for the curious. Of course he's not interested in cryonics, but rather in deflecting attention from his own self-promotion, which is against the rules on Wikipedia. People shouldn't be writing articles which link to their own promotional websites. I don't. Ghode shouldn't. If he continues, I'm doing to do more than give him a verbal smacking-- I'm going to take his butt to ArbCom. Remove those links to your own sites, Gohde, or I will. SBHarris 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need any such self-promotion nonsense. I was helping out a person in need, when SBH started attacking me for absoluetly no reason other than jealousy on his part. My web site is too popular to fool with such nonsense. Can you please fix my signature indention that you messed up above? -- John Gohde 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see where it's messed up. Feel free to fix it yourself, Mr. Experience. Colors in names aren't illegal here (so feel free). Spam links, however, are. SBHarris 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have NEVER posted a spam link, anywhere. Not ever, ... except perhaps your Popsicle article? -- John Gohde 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bad medicine"

From the lead, this could be clearer:

"Bad medicine" is any treatment where the efficacy and safety of which has not been verified through peer-reviewed, double blind placebo controlled studies, regarded as the "gold standard" for determining the efficacy of a compound. ".

I don't think that most EBM proponents regard surgical procedures (most of which are impossible to double-blind) as "bad medicine".... thx, Jim Butler(talk) 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reworded.[4] --Jim Butler(talk) 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What does "EBM" mean?
"good medicine" and "bad medicine" is obviously POV. Also, just because something hasn't (yet) been proven doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work, and doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful. Lack of proof doesn't objectively make something into "bad medicine". I would like these terms either deleted, or presented as quotes by some particular relevant expert, not as something Wikipedia is saying. --Coppertwig 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
EBM is an acronym for evidence-based medicine.
I'm moving the para in question here for now, so we can hammer out appropriate wording. The para is misleading in that clearly not all scientists regard the distinction between CAM and conventional medicine as moot (per ref's in the article, e.g. Ernst, Cochrane, whose statures as EBM proponents are beyond question).
Proponents of evidence-based medicine regard the distinction between conventional and alternative medicine as moot, preferring "good medicine" (with provable efficacy) and "bad medicine" (without it). "Bad medicine" is any treatment where the efficacy and safety of which has not been verified through peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials. It is thus possible for a method to change categories in either direction, based on increased knowledge of its effectiveness or lack thereof.<ref name="Angell">[http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/339/12/839 Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies.] Angell M, Kassirer JP. ''N Engl J Med'' 1998;339:839.</ref>
thx, Jim Butler(talk) 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OK -- how about this, taken from Glossary of alternative medicine?
The list of therapies included under CAM changes gradually. If and when CAM therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care, they gradually cease to be considered CAM, since adoption and acceptance often takes time.
thx, Jim Butler(talk) 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Are proponents of Evidence-Based Medicine against surgery? --Coppertwig 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, definitely not, although some articles about EBM often confuse the issue. The "gold standard" for a compound (multiple randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled studies) obviously isn't an appropriate standard for surgery. The article Evidence-Based Medicine has some good material about levels of evidence. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information from OED

Note to self: This article is approaching a train-wreck and I must find the time to re-write it. Note to others: I intend to re-write this article into something a bit more coherent. I haven't time at present. However, here's a useful tidbit that I was going to use in my rewrite:

The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition) cites the earliest print reference to "alternative medicine" as this:

1983 Brit. Med. Jrnl. 30 July 307/1 One of the few growth industries in contemporary Britain is alternative medicine.
The use of alternative meaning "purporting to represent a preferable or equally acceptable alternative to that in general use or sanctioned by the establishment, as alternative (i.e. non-nuclear) energy, medicine, radio, etc." from 1970 at the earliest.

The OED 2nd ed. doesn't have any citation for "complementary medicine". 81.178.213.18 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great - I look forward to seeing the new version. I would have done it myself, but I don't feel that I know the subject well enough! Lottie 12:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

I added a cleanup tag, and removed the following from the article:

Medicina Alternativa The Alma-Alta declaration defines its strategy as "Health for All by 2000 A.D." through primary health care. This is in pursuance of the aims declared at the WHO/UNICEF sponsored conference at Alma-Alta, USSR[citation needed]. Primary health care has been described as "essential health care based on practical, scientifically sound and socially accepted methods and technology made universally accessible to individuals and the families in the community through their full participation and at a cost that a community and country can afford to maintain at every stage of their development in the spirit of self reliance and self determination". Subsequently, the Alma-Alta declaration outlined that primary health care is based on training and scientific orientation provided to health care workers including physicians, nurses, midwives, auxiliary and community workers and traditional medical practitioners. Therefore, Medicina Alternativa has established guidelines and regulations outlining the code of ethics that healers are expected to follow consequent to their training, certification and membership of Medicina Alternativa.

http://cbs5.com/health/health_story_052150403.html http://cbs5.com/health/health_story_052150403.html http://cbs5.com/health/health_story_052150403.html http://cbs5.com/health/health_story_052150403.html AND http://allafrica.com/stories/200702211138.html http://allafrica.com/stories/200702211138.html http://allafrica.com/stories/200702211138.html http://allafrica.com/stories/200702211138.html Narssarssuaq 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a major problem with the article currently is that a lot of it seems to treat 'alternative medicine' as if it were a single cohesive thing. The 'Public use in the US' section is an example of this.
A bit more could be done to emphasize the fuzziness and cultural specificity of the terms 'alternative medicine' and 'conventional medicine'. For example, aren't traditional forms of medicine such as those from India and China also 'conventional'? Do proponents of those disciplines in their native countries group them under 'alternative medicine' in the same way that this is done in Western countries? Some might be more likely to think of 'alternative medicine' disciplines originating in the west (e.g. Homeopathy, Chiropractic) as being more closely related to conventional Western practice than their own. Anyway, I think this article could benefit from an overview of disciplines that have been described as alternative medicine. Maybe it would be good to group western 'alternative medicine' practices together and address traditional practices from other parts of the world under another heading.--Eloil 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like good ideas, but I don't think anybody will do that big job for you. I suggest you do the changes you proposed, and let the wikipedians out there edit what they don't think fit in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mortsggah (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Mortsggah 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

Second para (in version dated 01:38, 10 April 2007) says:

The list of therapies included under CAM changes gradually. If and when a CAM therapy is proven to be safe and effective, it becomes adopted into conventional health care and gradually ceases to be considered CAM, since adoption and acceptance often take time. If a CAM therapy is proven dangerous and ineffective, it will presumably cease to be advocated by CAM practitioners, although there are no clear instances of this happening.

Do we know the second sentence is true? Where are clear instances of this occurring, given that the term CAM itself is apparently of relatively recent origin? Do we know the third sentence is true? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The terminology may be confusing because it uses the relatively esoteric neologism "CAM". If we just substitute the very commonly understood synonym "unproven", it will make sense and still be true, as that's how medicine and science works. Here's the same sentence, but with "unproven" substituted for "CAM":
  • If and when an unproven therapy is proven to be safe and effective, it becomes adopted into conventional health care and gradually ceases to be considered unproven, since adoption and acceptance often take time.
How's that? If we just make that substitution, problem solved, since common sense doesn't need to be sourced.
The third sentence ends with an easily falsifiable phrase. If instances where this has happened can be produced with V & RS, then the sentence can be removed or reworded. Right now it describes what should happen, but which does not happen, nor never will happen, human nature being what it is. Quacks and frauds will continue to use disproven and even dangerous methods. The history of quackery is filled with evidence of the truth of that matter. Only the most responsible and ethical of alternative practitioners will cease to use such methods, and if they are so responsible and ethical, they will often cease to advocate unproven methods in the first place, since the eventualist position allows what is nearly always later proven false to be promoted. Notable scientists of this caliber are Edzard Ernst and Anthony Campbell, who are considered heretics in alt med circles, since they (as prominent spokesmen for alternative medicine) dare to use the scientific method to debunk it.
We could reword the third sentence thus:
  • If a CAM therapy is proven dangerous and ineffective, it should cease to be advocated by all CAM practitioners, although there are no clear instances of this happening. [Emphasis added.]
I think that is an improvement. -- Fyslee/talk 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fyslee, that is an improvement of the sentence itself. To be honest, and I hate criticizing your work, I question whether this para really belongs in the lead at all. The reason is that "unproven" is not synonymous with "alternative medicine" in the generally-used sense of the latter term (i.e., "non-mainstream"). It fits in the lead quite logically if one defines CAM as Dawkins and others prefer to has ("unproven"), but that's not the main definition the article uses. Not all unproven things are CAM, nor are all CAM things unproven, although the Venn diagram certainly shows more overlap than not.
Also, we should be very careful about non-obvious falsifiable statements, which can manage to violate all three WP content-guiding policies at once. An example would be "No Libertarian is known to have never told a lie". best, Jim Butler(talk) 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't really see the point of this paragraph either. The first sentence is a bit vague, the second needs real examples to back it up and the third seems to be stating the obvious. The same could be said of conventional medicine except that, in that case, there probably are instances of it happening. --QuestingVole 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Now this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine#Danger_reduced_when_used_as_a_complement_to_conventional_medicine

is really problematic! -- Fyslee/talk 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems all OR and should just go unless there's a decent source (single ref is now blank, maybe it's hiding in some prior version). Jim Butler(talk) 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem I see with the CAM stuff in the intro is the stuff about the list. If the list is maintained by a US government agency, I'm not sure we should be representing it as the final authority on what is considered "complementary and alternative medicine".--Eloil 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree regarding authoritativeness, although there is no "official" list that I know of. The usage-based vs evidence-based definitions are not identical, and the former is pretty clearly the dominant one, per dictionaries and encyclopedias (e.g. Brittanica. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, imv, Dawkins et al really aren't as much proposing an alternative "definition" of "alternative medicine" as they are criticizing the term and attempting to reframe the issues. Few people would agree that unproven stuff like off-label prescription of neurontin is or was "alternative medicine". Overpromotion or quackery, sure, those may be reasonable terms to use. But "alternative medicine"? No, that would be absurd. And that's Dawkins' point about anything unproven, that it shouldn't be called "medicine" at all. And it's a fine point to make, and to cite, but I don't think it's meant as a serious definition that ought to be adopted in practice. It's a rhetorical argument against a term that he believes is itself biased, but that nonetheless has caught on. Hence my edit retitling the section as "Other definitions and criticisms of the term". thx, Jim Butler(talk) 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading the quotes, I'd go further and eliminate the term "definition" from the header entirely, and instead call it "criticisms of the term". With one exception—the Dawkins quote from A Devil's Chaplain—none are (re)defining the term, but rather saying it shouldn't be used at all. And that's of course what Dawkins himself says as well in his other quote, so I don't think he's arguing for a dictionary definiton here. Thoughts? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree about changing the header to "criticisms of the term". The Eisenberg quote was the only one that really argued a defininiton of the term, and it's now in the definitions section, which I think makes the most sense.--Eloil 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess Dawkins does propose a definition but he appears to argue against use of the term, suggesting the definition he proposes may not be intended for practical use.--Eloil 13:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool -- do you, Fyslee and others think this is an improvement? thx, Jim Butler(talk) 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks good personally. As a side note Jim, you and others might want to contribute to the discussion higher up on this talk page re the the phrase "used in place of" in the first sentence of the lead section. --Eloil 18:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Done; changed lead to accord with Merriam-Webster definitions[5]. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthroposophical medicine?

How does anthroposophical medicine fit into this page? Should it at least be mentioned? --ScienceApologist 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that topic, but it does sound alt-med-ish. To the extent that this article aspires to list all notable alt-med topics, sure. (This article is really quite a mess and I haven't bothered to look at edit more than little pieces of it.) In any case, sounds like it certainly belongs in both of these:
Steiner is already listed in List of famous people in alternative medicine.
regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ETG technology for evidence based Alternative medicine

A hightech technology, Electro-tridosha-graphy [6] came in existence to test the effects of Alternative medicine treatment in evidence based.It records on the paper and after analysis with the computer software gives the diagnosis and other data of the sick individual. user:debbe, 28 April 2007, 10:55 PM, IST

[edit] self-serving biases and demand characteristics

These were two examples given as "Psychological reasons" in the "Sociologial and psychological explanations for the belief in efficacy":

  • self-serving biases
  • demand characteristics

They probably belong there, but before putting them back, somebody please describe them a little more. I didn't get them, and I think many people out there don't get them as well. A little explanation please. Mortsggah 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. As below. BrightonRock101 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I made the changes. I think there's space for making the section more informative. I will continue to work on it. Do you have any more specific suggestions? BrightonRock101 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] increasing social malaise

"increasing social malaise" was another reason of "Sociologial and psychological explanations for the belief in efficacy". If you want to put it back, please explain a little more in addition to it. Is the social wellfare decreasing?Mortsggah 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Mortsggah. I'll put it together more coherently. BrightonRock101 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I added some links too. Mortsggah 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive dissonance

I agree with User:Fyslee that Cognitive dissonance should be mentioned, and therefore changed the layout of the Beyerstein reference in order to make the list expandable. If you've got a better idea how to put it, feel free to change it. Mortsggah 05:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

In an invited guest editorial for the Canadian Journal of Public Health, Beyerstein lists another reason:

"Why are beliefs in dubious therapies so resistant to counter-arguments? Espousal of alternative medicine tends to be embedded in a larger network of metaphysical beliefs, meaning that an attack at this point threatens the entire worldview. This will be resisted with passion. “Cognitive dissonance” is one mechanism that helps overcome such threats by filtering and distorting information that offends one’s core beliefs and self-esteem."[1]
  1. ^ Beyerstein B. Alternative medicine: Where’s the evidence? (Editorial). Can J Public Health May/June 1997, Vol.88, No.3:149-50.

How's that look? -- Fyslee/talk 07:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to admit that cog dissonance is such a central pillar of belief maintenance, and its used so often as an instrument for inducing repeat buy, I think its worth the detail. I'll look for more supporting refs on this. BrightonRock101 07:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of hits:
Other keywords:
Since we can't use Wikipedia as a self-reference, we need outside sources. -- Fyslee/talk 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rampant Criticism

Shouldn't this entire article be under the title "Criticism of Alternative Medicine"? There isn't a single topic that's been presented in any kind of pleasant or even somewhat supportive fashion. There's a pervasive critical slant that gives the whole article this unnecessarily negative tone. Perhaps someone could lighten it up a little?

Wikipedia tries to collect scientific proven information or, alternatively, information well known to a larger part of the people. This is exactly what alternative medicine is not: There is no scientific proven effect of it (at least no predominantly healthy ones), nor do people trying them report any effect on a larger scale. If any single alternative medicine would fulfil such a criteria, it wouldn't be an alternative medicine anymore (e.g. echinacea). In other words, neither consensus nor credentials support it - therefore I'm not surprised no support of it can be found in Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Mikael, where did you get the idea that "Wikipedia tries to collect scientific proven information or, alternatively, information well known to a larger part of the people." Is this a policy of Wikipedia? A guideline? I don't mean this sarcastically - I'm curious. I'm also curious as to why you criticize alternative medicine for not being scientific, but then fail to acknowledge that it is, to use your own standard, "well known to a larger [sic] part of the people"? 216.141.162.162 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Woops - forgot to sign in. I am Friarslantern 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people believe in Sasquatch, the Bermuda Triangle and alien abductions (and no, I'm no going wikilink that bullshit). Alternative medicine is not science. It really isn't medicine. Yes, it is a policy of Wikipedia, see fringe ideas, undue weight, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and any links from there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:BIAS. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed "Alternative medicine practices are often based in belief systems at odds with the findings of science" to the less biased "Alternative medicine practices are often based on belief systems not derived from modern scientific theory." Don't forget that many therapies that are now standard were once "alternative," and ironically, many therapies that are now called "alternative" were once standard - most drugs were made from herbs until the mid-20th century, when pharmaceutical companies started heavily lobbying doctors to use their synthetic (patentable) products instead of natural (unpatentable) herbs. But that's history... 65.195.227.146 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(I finally registered with Wikipedia - I am C. L. Marquette 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) )

[edit] this is all rampant criticsim

you're wrong. there are many people both in the scinetific community and elswehere who have expressed nothing but support for forms of alternative / completmentary medicine throughout the world. a few dditors Wikipedia has unfortunately a huge bias against anthing that hurts drug company profits so that is probably part of the reason why the article is so negative towards alt / complemtn medicine. I encountered this same mess last year in the KEvin truedeau article and many other alternative therapy physicians were smeared here because of their less popular beliefs. i think that we as a community could try to be a little more accepting and supportive of alternative medicine and stop trying to censor views just because big pharma might take a dip in profits because of it. this is an encyclopedia after all and not an attack page. Smith Jones 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references. ~ Strathmeyer 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No one here is attacking. And the scientific community supports evidence-based medicine. There is no "alternative/complementary" medicine. There is either medicine, or there is unproven. BTW, I edit these articles for scientific and medical accuracy, and I'm not paid to do it by the Pharmaceutical Industry. I don't particularly like the pharmaceutical industry, but at least they use science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Its true that science has been destroying some of the most comforting myths we have. But thats progress. Anyway, I'm sure we'll find some quaint new myths to hang onto - and eventually bust. Again, thats progress! The trick is to explain why such myths are held. This article does a good job of that. Considering the collection of myths on the web and in society in general, I feel such explanations should be far more widespread on related articles. Its not enough to say something is bogus or discredited. We should explain why the myths are held. BrightonRock101 08:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Along with myths to debunk we might want to include propaganda. Some of these scientifically proven medicines can be as bad or worse than the disease. Hence all the disclaimers on side effects and serious side effects of medicines. I noticed one alternative medicine listed is herbalism. Did you know that the majority of all accepted medicines come from plants and other natural sources. Let's not forget some of history's wonder drugs. Such as cocaine, refined from the herb plant coca. One highly addictive and the other not at all addictive. One which is so addictive it is no longer considered a safe medicine and the other still very useful as a natural medicine. I would like to see more research into standardizing chemical strengths of herbs and other medicinal plants. Who knows what useful complementary chemicals are removed from a medicinal plant from the refining down to the one drug they focused on testing? Let's not overlook the medical profession's concentration on single drug therapies. Which have given us such wonderful things like XDR tuberculosis (nearly always lethal and nearly impossible to treat). Perhaps some of the discarded chemicals in natural medicines contribute to prevent such dangerous behavior as creating drug resistant medicines, or perhaps because they are living pharmacy factories are able to evolve to counteract drug resistance. The established medical profession is far from all-knowing or all-understanding. Established medicine is established because it was built on the traditional herbs and medicines discovered over 10,000 plus years of human civilization. CAM exists, simply because, of the lack of objective scientific methodology of the established medical community, and as an extension of the human desire to increase knowledge. Personally, I much prefer a cup of chamomile tea with honey, lemon and rosemary for a sore throat than most of the throat lozenges on the market. There is amble scientific evidence that each of those ingredients are useful for treating sore throats, based on the underlying chemical structures within them, combining them only makes sense, the way multiple layers of security against crackers makes sense. Don't throw out common sense in your desire for scientific "proof". Old traditional remedies survived because they showed some efficacy, the ones that didn't haven't survived. Chicken soup is still good for you when your sick, for lot's of reasons. Celtic hackr 08:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a LOT of room for a third category here (not just proven/unproven). There are therapies that actually work and have shown scientific evidence of being effective but there have not been enough reliable studies (whether because of funding or that we don't yet have the technology to isolate all the variables) to be considered "proven". What's known as therapeutic hypnosis (for pain control and other applications) is one of many examples that many M.D.'s are only now beginning to accept after hundreds of years of use (remember it's not a drug that provides the benefit but our body's reaction to the drug). This is the difference between "integrative medicine" and "alternative medicine". My understanding of "integrative medicine" is that it takes the best therapies often considered "alternative" but not yet accepted by most of conventional medicine and uses them together. There is a good article about this at http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/ART02054 I think as long as this Wikipedia article doesn't reflect this more, it is sorely lacking. Considering all that humans don't know about health/medicine (after all, everyone still dies), this is much more than an either/or issue. Use any other approach and we are just avoiding the real work of wading through the vast jungle of quacks and charlatans out there to find the nuggets of gold. Whether we are comfortable accepting it or not, there are things that work that we don't have the ability or will to prove that they work. As the quote goes "There are two ways to sail through easily in life - require indisputable proof for everything or require indisputable proof for nothing. Both avoid thinking". Plankwalking 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also we need to keep in mind that (particularly in the U.S.), while medical studies themselves are often done scientifically, the method of which studies to do is FAR from scientific. This results in an overall process that is often not scientific and very skewed. Why? It's money. Take nutritional supplements for example. Many of them cannot be given patent protection as with new drugs. Consequently, there is very little incentive for the pharmacutical companies to fund research or promote such supplements by flooding doctors offices with free samples. This is especially true when some supplements like glucosamine are often better the drugs prescribed for such conditions. When "science" is driven by profit as it is, it's very naive to take the view that "there is either medicine or unproven". Plankwalking —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Excellent point! Also, there are other factors for not doing expenisive studies or going through the process of getting a new medicine certified by the FDA. Take BHT for example, it is fairly well documented to cure Herpes Simplex, but you'll never see this turned into a medicine. Why, because it is used as a food preservative. If you took this through the drug certification process, it's cost would skyrocket, and a lot of foods would get fairly expensive. Celtic hackr 07:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed two links

I removed one that no longer worked and the other one was spam. This article needs some major work to make it more NPOV. Right now it is very uneven with WP:POV There are a lot of alternates that are good to use but for some reason this article seems to want to talk about the ones most disagreed with which make no sense to me. I will try to help here after the end of the month as I will be unavailable until next month. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of alternative medicine

I have a new article idea. Lets start an article titled: Criticism of alternative medicine. Any thoughts.  Mr.Guru  talk  22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary. See WP:COAT. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this been unnecessary. Criticism needs to be seen on this page to ensure a balanced representation.Davwillev 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC regarding article status for this article and a dead article

An attempt is being made to revive the dead Complementary and alternative medicine article. A large consensus agreed some time ago to merge it into this article and to leave a redirect. That redirect was removed without any discussion here and the situation needs to be dealt with here. What say ye, honored editors? Please state your arguments for or against a restoration of the dead article. Is it necessary to have several articles? There are no doubt advantages and disadvantages. -- Fyslee / talk 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point us to that RfC? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth merging this article and the stub at Complementary medicine into one article, so, if this was moved to Complementary and alternative medicine.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there an official RfC somewhere? — DIEGO talk 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I happened to notice yesterday, but did not have time to comment on the Complementary and alternative medicine article. Here is what I would have said on the talk page: There is no good reason to have 3 separate articles covering CAM (as a concept). The editor who revived the article wanted an article on Complementary and alternative medicine AND an alternative medicine article AND a complimentary medicine article. This is completely unnecessary, since the treatment modalities don't differ significantly between "complimentary" and "alternative" and one person's "complimentary" is another person's "alternative". For example, is chiropractic complementary or alternative? Well, it could be either depending on how and why the patient is visiting the chiropractor. Some people use chiropractors as their PCP (as an alternative to a traditional MD) and visit their chiro for all their day to day health care needs. Other people use chiropractic adjustment as an adjunctive (i.e., complementary) therapy for back pain (and lots of other things) while also undergoing medication management from an MD, DO, or NP for the same problem. Regardless of how it is being used, as complementary or alternative care, Chiropractic itself is still the same.

Despite some people who would make a hairsplitting distinction, "Complementary" and "Alternative" are basically different approaches to the same set of non-mainstream medical systems. This information does not need to be spread over three separate articles when it could easily be incorporated into one. The term "alternative medicine" seems to be in much wider use than "complementary and alternative medicine", so I don't see the problem with redirecting that page to the "alternative medicine" article, which already includes a discussion of the differing terminology in the "criticisms of the term" section. For the same reason, the Complementary medicine stub can essentially be deleted and the page can be redirected to Alternative medicine. Perhaps a separate "Alternative or Complementary?" heading could be included that specifically references the differences between the two, but a separate, three sentence article does not seem warranted. — DIEGO talk 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, if there is only going to be one article, wouldn't it make more sense to essentially rename this article (move it to) "Complementary and alternative medicine", then have "alternative medicine", "complementary medicine", and the "CAM" disambiguation link redirect to "Complementary and alternative medicine". Why would this not make everyone happy? With only one article and redirects in place, the article would still be easy to find, and the name "complementary and alternative medicine" seems more appropriate for an article addressing both terms and describing how they differ, etc. What was the initial reason for deleting the "complementary and alternative medicine" article in favor of one comprehensive article under "alternative medicine" and a "complementary medicine" stub? — DIEGO talk 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Diego, I think above you do a marvellous job of discussing the differences between Complementary and Alternative. As you say, it is more than a matter of semantics, but rather an entirely different approach to the same set of modalities. Given this difference, shouldn't there at least be two articles: Complementary Medicine and Alternative Medicine. It they were synonomous, then perhaps I could see one article. But since they are distinct in application, practice and scope, two separate articles should remain. As far as the CAM article goes, that should be a brief stub which describes how it is an umbrella term which encompassed two distinct practices into one. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NO MORE ENTRIES HERE. CONTINUES BELOW. -- Fyslee / talk 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Official" Request for Comment (RfC) on proposed separation/merge of Complementary and alternative medicine

Should the article Complementary and alternative medicine: (a) redirect to the Alternative medicine article (the consensus until recently), (b) serve as an umbrella article with links to separate Alternative medicine and Complementary medicine articles, (c) serve as a comprehensive single article on CAM with redirects from Alternative medicine and Complementary medicine, or (d) other suggestions? 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[continued from discussion above under "RfC regarding article status...". I inserted an RFC tag hoping to generate more comments from neutral outside editors]

Option (c). One CAM article. Levine2112, I completely understand your point, but I always prefer to err on the side of simplicity. I think the differences between the two terms could best be discussed (especially as they are so frequently lumped together under CAM, and often used synonymously) in one article: Complementary and alternative medicine. Given the current state of Alternative medicine (relatively comprehensive) and Complementary medicine (a stub), I don't think that uniting them in one single article would present any major problems. In the future, if it started to grow into a giant article, it may be worth considering separate articles then. People obviously disagree over the appropriate terms and particular definitions, and I think readers would be best served by having all the information in one article, with links (like the current CAM template) to direct them to specific CAM articles and related issues. It seems like it would be relatively easy to distinguish the difference between "alternative" and "complementary" early on in an article covering both of them. As two separate articles, information will most likely have to be repeated to indicate what defines one as distinct from the other. In three separate articles, it seems like a lot of information will be repeated among the three, and the current state of Complementary medicine does not look promising. I don't think it should ever be a goal for an article to remain a stub indefinitely, which is what you seem to be suggesting for the Complementary and alternative medicine article. Did I misunderstand you? — DIEGO talk 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this option: As the articles stand, a merge would involve copying one paragraph from Complementary medicine. Unless large amounts of new, important information unique to complementary medicine can be found, it's hard to see the justification for the other options. Adam Cuerden talk 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Option (d). One article (alternative medicine). I support the option of one article, preferably this (alternative medicine) one, since it is the most basic common denominator. The other options are all concerned with the "why" and "how" of how alternative methods are used. The other choices would also involve lots of unnecessary duplication. The differences can be explained in one umbrella article. The "alternative" methods are EXACTLY the same in all cases. Think of the methods as a seasoning. Some people eat chili all by itself, some use it in combination with other spices and some use it in combination with various foods. It's still chili. An article about chili can describe what chili is, and have single paragraphs about how it is used in various combinations because of various differences in tastes and cultures. The same goes for alternative medicine. The methods are exactly the same, but people use them differently for various reasons, which can be explained in individual sections. I prefer the present article, since it is at the basic level - the methods themselves. The various reasons for applying them differently are perfectly logical sections in this article. -- Fyslee / talk 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I just want to clarify. When you say "I support the option of one article, preferably this one", does "this one" refer to this option (i.e., one Complementary and alternative medicine article), or this article (i.e., one Alternative medicine article)? If I had to guess based on your comments, I would think that you support the latter, but your comment is indented under other comments supporting the former? Sorry if I'm making things unnecessarily confusing. Thanks — DIEGO talk 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant this (alternative medicine) article. I'll reword and outdent my comment to make it more clear. -- Fyslee / talk 06:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Option (b). Clearly this is a distinction between the terms "Alternative Medicine" and "Complementary Medicine"; hence the need of "CAM", an umbrella term to group the two distinct terms. Thus, there are more than subtle differences between Alt. Med. and Comp. Med. which need to be clearly noted in each article. The idea of keeping an article (not necessarily a stub) which also discusses the use of the umbrella term CAM (Complementary and Alterative Medicine) is a good one as the term has its own notable life and usage distinct from the two different terms separately out from under the umbrella. Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Let's err on the side of being a complete resource which makes clear the distinctions among Alternative Medicine, Complementary Medicine, and CAM. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: Frankly, it's hard enough to get ONE alternative medicine article NPOV and balanced, and having three on the same topic would be a headache and prone to POV forks. Adam Cuerden talk 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how difficult it may be, we are dealling with three different concepts here. Related? Yes. But each is distinct and each deserves its own article. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we are only dealing with 2 concepts, Comp. Med. & Alt. Med., which can both be addressed in one article titled: Complementary and alternative medicine. The single article could discuss the use of CAM as an umbrella term, as well as covering Alt. Med. and Comp. Med. separately. It could also discuss issues relating equally to both (history, regulation, criticism, evidence-base, systems in use, etc. -this would probably be the majority of the article, as it seems to be in the current Alt. Med article) without needlessly repeating information over three articles. — DIEGO talk 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Diego. There is enough duplication and forking already in WP. The fine differences between the two terms may be very important for those involved, but for anyone coming here to get information it seems to me that a one-stop-shop is a better solution. The differences can be handled in the one article in two different sections if need be. Yes, WP is not a paper encyclopaedia, but neither should it be a rabbit warren where the reader gets lost in a maze of pages with similar, but slightly different emphases. I've had that experience here a few times, and it is frustrating and confusing.MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a fine differecne between Complementary Therapies and Alternative Therapies, there is a specific difference, made very clear with a list of which therapy is in which category at The British Library referenced British Medical Association definitions and list of therapies [[7]]. As a Healer I have never recommended Healing being treated as an alternative therapy for reasons more involved than there is room to go over here. As the author of a new book in which I feature said, Wikipedia is good for an overview but not the detail, though that tends to be more in this type of subject, where pseudosceptic and amateur "knowledge" tend to reign supreme, as opposed to technology and basic science. In contrast I have fifteen years knowledge and experience of my own complementary therapy and engineering, which is considerably more than just science, to post graduate level. Some "knowledgable" contributors insisted on combining Healers and Faith Healers as they were said to be the same; they are not. I am a Healer, have no religion, nor faith, am a Chartered Engineer, with forty years experience a Higher National Diploma, First Degree and Masters Degree, with research and conference papers to my name, technical articles, etc., but I am not a pseudosceptic, so what do I know in comparison. (RichardKingCEng 10:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your input, RichardKingCEng. You seem to know a lot about the subject from a particularly British perspective, and your input is especially welcome since the article(s) seem to focus chiefly on the U.S. medical system at the moment. What, specifically, are you suggesting based on the above Request for Comment on the proposed merge/separation of the Complementary and alternative medicine article (i.e., keep as-is, merge all the articles into one CAM article, maintain three separate articles, etc)? — DIEGO talk 12:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
To my mind what would be sensible would be a CAM overview page, then a page each on Complementary and Alternative Therapies, broadly in line with the BMA definitions. I found the source quoted via a quick search. It is not necessarily the best but I have limited time due to, among other things, helping to promote a book in which I feature and completing my own book, among several other things. I am quite happy to help, when I can, but do not have the time to become a full time Wikipedian, apart from contending with reversions by those who "know better". It would also help if people could do some online research. there is more science in the field than some people would like to admit, or maybe they ignore it; e.g. William Tiller, James Oschman, Konstantin Korotkov and Alexei Levichev. Research papers that show correlation between anomalies in energy fields and human conditions, states, detectable by other means are uncomfortable reading for those of a particular turn of mind, belief system. From what I have read, so far, a higher mathematical analysis of the human energy field has been put to a degree of practical use, at least in the experimental, correlation sense, and in some cases, at least a little more than that. As yet I got around to finishing off my Wikipedia Entry; however, if you enter my "signature" in a Google search with spaces between my first name, surname and CEng status you will find me.(RichardKingCEng 13:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
RichardKingCEng is making the point which in essence shows the need for having separate articles for CM and AM. There is more than just a fine difference between the two. They are two vastly different terms and should be treated as such. The CAM overview page which RichardKingCEng describes is paramount too, because CAM is its own wholly unique term and can provide a space to give sensible comparisons and usage. Again, let's make this encyclopedia more complete with objective, well-sourced information. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For a history of the merge and then redirect to this article, the archives of this article's talk page are helpful. I originally objected but came around. Other editors had no problem with the merge or with leaving a redirect to this article. It has worked fine since then, but now, without any discussion involving editors on this article (where they were all congregated), an editor quietly removed the revert and Levine2112 is attempting to keep it that way. The reason for this RfC is to see if a new consensus has developed to justify removing a long-standing redirect. If a new consensus says so, then fine. Until then it is highly improper to do so. Please check the archives and develop a new consensus before removing long-standing redirect and restoring an article that is outdated and duplicates much material. -- Fyslee / talk 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see any consensus to redirect this article. Please provide a link to the archives where this decision was made. Regardless, consensus can change - and the activity in this article within the past three months shows that there are editors in favor of keeping this article distinct. IOW, there is no consensus to merge/redirect this article now. If you wish to start another RFC, please feel free. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of regular editors here (and on related articles), I'm really surprised at the lack of comments on this RfC. People seem to have such strong opinions on so many seemingly inconsequential things that I can't believe no one seems to care about a significant proposed change. We have five comments spanning three options: Hardly a consensus. While no one seems to strongly support Levine2112's idea, a lack of strenuous objection seems to indicate that no harm can be done by separating the articles and seeing what happens. If, after some time has passed, there is still significant overlap between the CAM article and the Alternative medicine article (and the CM article is still a stub), then someone can propose a merge. I certainly don't feel the need to start another RfC on the matter, and while I disagree with the proposal, Levine2112's reasoning in wanting to separate the articles is sound. — DIEGO talk 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to avoid a repetition of previous wastes of time with precisely this matter. This division, then merging and redirecting, has happened more than once. This engendered discussions many times and finally resulted in the current solution, which has resulted in the most stable situation in a very long time. That is now being threatened for no really good reason. We are talking about the same methods, but different situations and motives for using those same methods, which can easily be explained in 2-4 paragraphs within this article. Using two extra articles is a waste and would create needless repetition. That would then result in any edit war on one article spilling over into the others. It's happened before, and it would be a shame to not learn from history. We have better things to do than create more battlegrounds than necessary. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not contributing to this earlier - have been away. My preference on this issue is to have a 'parent' CAM article, which gives a brief synopsis and definition of CAM, leading to common examples, with links to two seperate articles, 'CM' and 'AM' which allow for very detailed conceptual description (this info exists, even if it has not yet been added to the current articles, but if left for sufficient time, it will be built). If there is a consensus that one article is needed (primarily for practical purposes, reading the previous discussions), then, as DIEGO suggests, this should be the 'parent' CAM article (not one of the two branches, such as AM).Davwillev 08:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If any article should be redirected, Alternative Medicine (AM) should be redirected to the better article on Complementary and alternative medicine. The term "alternative medicine" is dated, while Complementary and alternative medicine is currently the preferred term. Furthermore, the entire style of the Complementary and alternative medicine article is fresher than AM, which over the years has been pretty well hacked to death. It would be a good way to finally ditch all those discussion pages at AM, too. John Gohde 16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 1,550,000 google hits for "complementary and alternative medicine". Seems like it should a major article. --Anthon01 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor point in criticism section

I changed the section titled Delay in seeking conventional medical treatment to Delay in seeking proven medical treatments as I thought this more accurately represented the criticisms detailed in this section. This was reverted for sounding too POV. I'm not going to start an edit war over such a minor point, but I thought I'd see what others thought. 89.240.138.14 11:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism - Explanations section

This section covers only critical explanations for the appeal of alternative medicine, and its title (simply "Explanations for..." is therefore misleading. I realize this is under the section "Criticism..." already, but each segment of of this section is long enough so that that organizational fact can get lost and someone scanning the article could easily take this section to be everything WP has to say about explaining why people use Alt. Med. There should be no hesitation in clarifying the title of this section to "Critics'" (my first choice) or "Critical explanations..." as a matter of stylistic clarity -- for this is what it is. I stand by my edit. Friarslantern 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a good solution. Perhaps if there are supportive explanations for the appeal of alt med, then that can be included somewhere else in the article. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Orangemarlin to discuss multiple reverts of good faith edits

Orangemarlin, you reverted my work on this article three times today within a half-hour or so. If you revert once more, that would be a violation of 3RR.

I requested twice that you discuss your reasons, but instead, you wrote this in your edit summary:

06:55, 4 December 2007 Orangemarlin ... (Reverted to revision 175665171 by Orangemarlin; Science is science. Reverting POV edits of a POV-warrior..using TW)

I found that sort of funny, since you mentioned science, but part of the information I added in the edits you reverted was an exact quote from the National Institutes from Health, with a footnote. You also reverted an edit in which I removed unsourced promotional information.

I'm a rational skeptic and believe that evidence-based science is the best science. I don't use alternative medicine because I haven't seen any proof that it works, but it doesn't bother me that some people do like to use it, I figure that's their choice.

I have no agenda for this article other than making it a better article. To that end, I think the section on legal issues should not be the first thing in the article, because that's not the main topic. It's valid information that should be in the article, but it's not the reason people are reading the article, so it should appear later. That does not imply in any way that I have a desire to obscure that information. If I wanted to obscure it, I would delete it, or change it. But I didn't do those things. What I do want is to make this a better encyclopedia article.

I asked you twice to discuss what you didn't like about my edits on the talk page, instead you reverted again and called me a POV-warrior.

What do you think my POV is? Would you please explain what you found to be a problem with the edits you reverted? I'd be happy to collaborate with you to make this article better. But if you won't discuss what's bothering you, how can that happen? --Jack-A-Roe 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the legislation/regulation bit should come much lower in the article. And I cannot see what the problem is with the other latest edits by Jack-A-Roe. So I have reverted Orangemarlin's changes, and I too would like to see some discussion here. What is the problem with this version? Is it the linking of "mainstream medicine" to allopathic medicine? Is it the inclusion of a section called "Integrative medicine"? Snalwibma 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Regarding the section on "Integrative medicine", I didn't add that section, it was already in the article, though it was in a separate section of its own and I moved it into a subsection that seemed more organized. Then, I thought it seemed overly focused on Dr. Weil, and without a reference, so I removed that part and updated the section with info from the National Institutes of Health website.
Regarding the link to allopathic medicine, when I added that , I didn't realize that word was controversial. After reading your question, I researched it a bit and now I can see how someone might prefer not to link that term to refer to mainstream medical science. I'll re-edit that part to clarify more carefully .
Regarding the link to the scientific method that I replaced with the allopathic medicine link, I did not remove it, I just shifted it to the next paragraph, where I linked it using the term "evidence-based medicine". My intention is to be precise, not to shift attention away from science. Now, I find that there is an article at Evidence-based medicine. I think it would be good to use that link, so I'll make that change too.
Also, I've now noticed that the initial sentence of the article was actually a direct quotation from one particular dictionary definition. I had thought it was a paraphrase, or I would not have changed it, so now I've restored that exact wording. I don't that that's good practice though, in general for encyclopedia articles. I recommend we collect several references that define the term and come up with a good summary (with footnotes) rather than use a word-for word quote from one source as the main lead of the article. --Jack-A-Roe 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful reference

Hello. This article (www.allea.org/pdf/59.pdf) seems to be useful here (I had problems presenting it properly in the article. I am not sure where this specific info is helpful though;

Economic motives. Often pseudo-scientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain. We have already seen the economic manipulation of the credulity of NLP-quarries. Graphologists offer their services to organizations and individuals, and quite a few of them are making a good living. Well known is the financial exploitation of the victims of scientology, avantar and similar movements: mundus vult decipi, even if - or, paradoxically, because - it requires financial sacrifices.

Docleaf (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to be Merged into the Other Articles

The Alternative medicine article should address only alternative medicine, as Wikipedia has articles on both complementary medicine and complementary and alternative medicine.

In order to avoid duplication of sections, the following should be merged into their respective articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gohde (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public use in the US

The NCCAM surveyed the American public on complementary and alternative medicine use in 2002. According to the survey:[1]

  • 50 percent of U.S. adults age 18 years and over used some form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).[2]
  • When prayer specifically for health reasons is included in the definition of CAM, the number of adults using some form of CAM in 2002 rose to 62 percent.
  • The majority of individuals (54.9%) used CAM in conjunction with conventional medicine.
  • Most people use CAM to treat and/or prevent musculoskeletal conditions or other conditions associated with chronic or recurring pain.
  • "The fact that only 14.8% of adults sought care from a licensed or certified CAM practitioner suggests that most individuals who use CAM prefer to treat themselves."
  • "Women were more likely than men to use CAM. The largest sex differential is seen in the use of mind-body therapies including prayer specifically for health reasons".
  • "Except for the groups of therapies that included prayer specifically for health reasons, use of CAM increased as education levels increased".
  • The most common CAM therapies used in the USA in 2002 were prayer (45.2%), herbalism (18.9%), breathing meditation (11.6%), meditation (7.6%), chiropractic medicine (7.5%), yoga (5.1%), body work (5.0%), diet-based therapy (3.5%), progressive relaxation (3.0%), mega-vitamin therapy (2.8%) and Visualization (2.1%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gohde (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of alternative medicine alongside conventional medicine

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

As long as alternative treatments are used alongside conventional treatments, the majority of medical doctors find most forms of complementary medicine acceptable.[citation needed] Consistent with previous studies, the CDC recently reported that the majority of individuals in the United States (i.e., 54.9%) used CAM in conjunction with conventional medicine.[citation needed]

The issue of alternative medicine interfering with conventional medical practices is minimized when it is turned to only after conventional treatments have been exhausted. Many patients feel that alternative medicine may help in coping with chronic illnesses for which conventional medicine offers no cure, only management. Over time, it has become more common for a patient's own MD to suggest alternatives when they cannot offer effective treatment.

[edit] Integrative medicine

Further information: Glossary of alternative medicine terms

According to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, "Integrative medicine combines treatments from conventional medicine and CAM for which there is some high-quality evidence of safety and effectiveness." In May 2007, the National Institutes of Health established an Integrative Medicine Consult Service at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the service is to provide support to Complementary and Alternative Medicine research being performed by the NIH and other health care providers. Among the forms of Alternative Medicine provided and studied by the center are acupuncture, Reiki, hypnosis, guided imagery, and massage therapy, as well as tai chi, qi gong, herbal medications and herb-drug interactions.[3]

[edit] This article should be more focused

Alternative medicine is currently off track. It needs a more narrow focus. I have provided an outlined below, of what should be covered. The reason is simple. Times have changed. Coverage of this topic in Wikipedia is extensive and no longer consists of only one article. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Either we have one complementary and alternative medicine article or we distinguish the articles somehow. Particularly I think this section "Use of alternative medicine alongside conventional medicine" should go. It is sourced better in the complementary medicine article and falls more under the scope of that article.JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics of the respective articles

  • Complementary and alternative medicine -- An extensive set of definitions, contemporary usage of CAM, as well as the branches of CAM per the NCCAM classification system.
    • It is a top-level, umbrella, or parent article. Top-level articles always present a broad overview of the topic without getting bogged down in details that are covered in the sub-topic articles per the rules of good hypertext document design.
      • Article cleanup and development for any specific branch of CAM belongs on the respective articles.
      • Criticism, Effectiveness, etc should be mention if at all by referring to the respective sub-section of the respective articles that covers those sub-topics. Skeptics really need to bone up on how to write a well designed hypertext document.
    • Alternative medicine -- The pro or con debate or everything negative about practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. The practice of alternative medicine is illegal in many jurisdictions.
      • When not inappropriately used as slang, it is a low-level or sub-topic article. World class encyclopedias like Wikipedia always should stress the correct definitions of terms over their slang usage.
      • The professional practice of alternative medicine by non-physicians consists mostly of Alternative Medical Systems. These are the schools of health care that are currently competing with medicine, as a replacement.
    • Complementary medicine -- Everything positive and negative about practices that are are used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine. There is no debate taking place on this article, since by definition complementary medicine is both legal and a recognized branch of medicine per the medical boards of the respective jurisdictions of where it is legally practiced. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Pasting in my comments from Talk:Complementary medicine: favor merge with Complementary medicine and CAM, no question. Any alt-med can become a comp-med the moment it is used in conjunction with mainstream-med. One single article on CAM ought to cover the broad field, linking to lists of the various modalities. Agree that having separate articles is inconvenient, confusing and potentially WP:POVFORK-y. Am technically on Wikibreak, but when I get back I will be happy to support an RfC or whatever. --Jim Butler(talk) 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor separate articles[8] for readability, accuracy, and article size. I am also hopeful that the complementary med and CAM articles will have less of the dismissively prejudical legal/social/political slams associated with fullbore, standalone altmed then heaped together with or upon the complementary practices for one oversize mess.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A few points regarding separation vs. merger.
  • Jim. While it is true that technically speaking, any alt-med can become a comp-med it is not to be included in a comp-med article until RS discuss it. The casual use by a few practitioners doesn't make it noteworthy. The speed at which alt-med would migrate to comp-med via RS is typically very slow. First, it use by practitioners would have to spread, followed by anecdotal commentary from lower level RS, and then some mention in peer-review (perhaps first as a criticism in a letter or editorial), and so on and so on.
  • The therapies that are likely to become included in CM via RS is very limited. The 'therapies' that can be listed under alt-med are unlimited.
  • If we clearly define the scope of each article, we may be able to avoid WP:POVFORK and redundancy.
  • As highlighted by TheNautilus, the legal/social/political aspects of alt-med vs. CM would be more easily addressed in separate articles.
Anthon01 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Times article

Readers maybe interested in this new article published today in the UK [9] showing the UK government's plans to regulate Alt med. It also contains some interesting current data about alt med in the UK. Peter morrell 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The key section, in terms of whether to merge the various alt/comp articles, is this one: Both alternative and complementary approaches to medicine — when a therapy is used as an alternative to conventional medicine and when it is used in conjunction with it — will be covered by the new regulator, although treatment without consideration of mainstream medicine is likely to come under greater scrutiny. Clearly, and as the article recognises, alt med and comp med are not the same thing. Vitaminman 08:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and another! [10] Peter morrell 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boldly merged where no merge has gone before

Note discussion re merge of Complementary and alternative medicine and Complementary medicine, at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine#Boldly merged where no merge has gone before; also, some discussion there about this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "food" for thought

The inclusion of dietary supplements and botanicals within the domain of pharmacology is now so obvious that it seems somewhat patronizing to refer to such agents as "complementary" or "alternative" medicine. As complementary and alternative medicine emerges as a biomedical discipline in its own right,...Molecular Interventions, 2003--TheNautilus (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper use of the word "non-traditional"

As someone who has consulted with and for the World Health Organization, I find it odd that some people, including editors here, make reference to alternative medicine as "non-traditional." According to W.H.O., their definition of "traditional medicine" is what we call "alternative medicine." See [11] I assume that editors here mean to call it "unconventional". DanaUllmanTalk 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WHO correctly terms "traditional medicine" as a subset of "alternative medicine," and I agree that referring to CAM generally as "non-traditional" would be a mistake. There are, though, alternative modalities such as therapeutic touch which are alternative but also non-traditional in any sense of the word. Instances where the alternative is conflated with (non-)traditional should of course be clarified. "Unconventional" or "non-mainstream" in a Western medicine context would seem usually acceptable synonyms for "alternative." - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just look at Traditional medicine. Many of those practices are indeed termed "alternative medicine".-- Fyslee / talk 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
My change was a non-controversial one. I also suggest that we make reference to alt med as a "unconventional belief system of a holistic, ecological, or systems nature"; any comments on these additional descriptors? DanaUllmanTalk 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What notable sources would you use to justify that wording? I'm not questioning the wording, but we need notable sources to help us determine whatever weight should be given to such a change. -- Fyslee / talk 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Unconventional" works, but I am unclear how "ecological" and "systems" are being used in this context. "Holistic" is a weighted term and should be avoided except where context allows clarification; in any case, it would not seem to apply to e.g. Bates Method. Source the descriptors with boundary conditions, and it could be good. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Not every alt med practice maintains a holistic, ecological, and/or systems point of view. I realize that "holistic" has some baggage, but it also is a good word (when used accurately) and it IS the word used in reliable sources (unless you and others would prefer to use "systems"). In light of these issues, I suggest that we should say an "unconventional belief system that tends to have holistic and integrative perspectives" [J. Horstman, The Arthritis Foundation's Guide to Alternative Medicine, Atlanta: Arthritis Foundation, 1999, p. 5].DanaUllmanTalk 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that that depends sensitively on the context of such a statement. WP:Explain jargon would seem to be relevant, as these terms are part of the common parlance of alternative medicine speaking about itself, but do not precisely correspond to the everyday usage. We also must avoid framing the debate to weight it in any particular way. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 14:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If (!) we want to reference "unconventional belief system," then we should provide some type of specificity. Without this, it leaves too much to the reader's imagination. "Holistic" is not jargon in a dictionary/encyclopedia. It has specific meaning, and my recommendations above were correct, notable, and verified. DanaUllmanTalk 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently, alt med is not described by this article as a belief system at all, only in terms of how people regard and what people believe about the various systems and medicine. Do you think that this should be changed?
Jargon terms have a specific meaning, that is not being debated. The problem is that that meaning may differ between the vernacular outsiders use with a generalized meaning - emergent phenomena not reducible to individual parts - and the specialized meaning used by some practitioners and philosophers of alternative medicine - the several bodily systems depend sensitively on each others' states (including emotional/psychological/"spiritual"). The fact that this latter meaning has largely been co-opted by the alternative medicine community and framed as being in opposition to medicine means that we must provide context to retain neutral presentation.
That said, the way and reasons "holistic" is used by the alternative medicine communities are probably wide-spread and consistent enough to warrant mention in this article. Explaining the terminology and philosophies for a lay audience I think better serves our purpose than just using the specialized language and expecting that readers will understand. Perhaps holistic philosophy could be treated in the support section, with a link to holistic health (which could do with a nice thorough makeover, but that is a matter for another day). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple thoughts... Not all (very little) alternative medicine is holistic (even if it claims to be), and not all of it is a complete system. Many types of alt med are individual methods that are just as specific (and non-holistic and "non-system") as some conventional medical treatments. "Holistic" is a claim that - for many types of alt med - fails upon further examination. -- Fyslee / talk 16:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is no more a belief system than physical medicine is belief system. There are many terms and descriptions used improperly about complementary and alternative medicine, largely because much is written by people who have not a clue what they are talking about but, since they bow to the great god science, believe that they do.

Discussion of definitions is odd when many Wikipedia contributors do not seem to know the difference between the words complementary and alternative (clearly not the same thing) though many other words and “definitions” are bent to suit a particular viewpoint anyway. I have never known a Healer, for instance, who has advised anyone to consider what they do as an alternative to physical medicine, usually complementary, though ultimate decisions are with the person concerned.

Physical medicine is rarely holistic and often treats symptoms rather than the problem.

While practitioners of complementary medicine may not treat a person totally holistically, they usually take a more holistic approach than physical medicine because they are more aware of the whole person than a physical medicine practitioner, largely because there is far more to a person than is discernable by the physical senses and physical medicine practitioners rarely have higher sense perception; at least not the general run of those practitioners but I have met several exceptions.

”… we must provide context to retain neutral presentation.” If presentation was neutral there would be an entry under the safety section pointing out that the third highest cause of death in the U.S.A. in 2006 was the medical profession.

"Holistic" is a claim that - for many types of alt med - fails upon further examination. Whose examination? As far as I am aware that would be only those without the capacity, experience, or qualifications to make any such judgement. RichardKingCEng (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point User:Fyslee - how would you compare the "holisticity" of, for instance, chiropractic which claims to treat all manner of illness ("holistic"), but historically traces all causes to vertebral subluxations ("non-holistic")? Or then there is health psychology, which completely confounds the conflation of holistic with CAM, or public health, which does not even deal with individual people, much less reduce them to separate non-interacting systems.
So not all holistic approaches are alternative, and not all alternative therapies are holistic - sounds like a good justification for the current approach of relegating the term to the relevant individual articles. Explaining the specialized terminology might still be relevant if the term is used frequently enough in an AM context, as long as we are careful of the definition and application. We also need to be careful not to present the alternative medicine communities as having one overarching unified philosophy, even if there are specific themes which many systems seem to have in common. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Eldereft, you mentioned above, "Currently, alt med is not described by this article as a belief system at all, only in terms of how people regard and what people believe about the various systems and medicine." And yet, in the 2nd paragraph of the article, there is the statement: "Alternative medicine practices may be based on unconventional belief systems or philosophies;" My point was that either we should eliminate this part of the sentence or provide some specificity to it. The specificity could include: ...on unconventional belief systems or philosophies of a holistic, integrative, and empirical nature. DanaUllmanTalk 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct; for some reason I parsed that sentence in some funny way when I was searching the article for "belief". As for specificity, the sentence preceding describes alternative medicine as not "within the realm of conventional medicine", and the succeeding one lists some specific ways in which the philosophical bases may differ. On the other hand, that sentence is a bit of a camel, and could be more clear in its presentation. Specious overgeneralization and discursion are constant worries with such a heterogeneous topic, but perhaps it would be better to say "Alternative medicines differ in philosophy or practice from conventional medicine. Therapies vary in biological plausibility, and many are claimed to be incompatible with scientific investigation and randomized controlled trials." Followed perhaps by a few defining themes common to the more prevalent alternative modalities. Or perhaps the first sentence alone would suffice for this paragraph. In any case, I would like to allot a few days further discussion before we change anything here. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental problem in the definition of alternative medicine

The definition of alternative medicine seems to be solely based on what 'conventional medicine' is not. A quick Google search of both gives only 500K results for conventional medicine while there are 24.5 million results for alternative medicine. I don't think it is appropriate to define the more commonly used phrase with an obscure and undefined one. What exactly is meant by conventional medicine here? You might want to re-phrase it? 89.100.167.103 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Conventional: That medicine (including vets, dentists,) which is licensed by the state, and for which licenses are regulated by licensing agencies whose standards of practice are set by practitioners with appropriate degrees from appropriate institutions, which ideally include 4-years of post-college graduate, work, at least. Naturopathy is starting to become conventional, as it raises educational standards and begins licensing in conjunction with the state. Conventional means (by definition) exclusive in some way. "Conventional" also largely intersects scientific medicine, but not entirely, being influenced greatly by pharm money and pharm money data in the case of MD's and DO's, and by vitamin-herb-sale money in the case of ND's. To make money in practice you really need to have a procedure or product to sell, so MD's have their procedures, and ND's have their herb and nutrient products, and even OMD's and TCM's have their acupuncture. Chiropractors manipulate. I think perhaps a Venn diagram is needed. Not that unlicensed (unconventional) medicine doesn't have its own set of monetary biases, of course. But the people who push it generally haven't been to school for as long. SBHarris 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allopathic medicine

Under Contemporary use of alternative medicine is the paragraph:

In many developing countries, allopathic medicine is available to few, due to lack of resources and poverty; therefore, traditional remedies may comprise the vast majority of medical treatment offered. Such traditional remedies often closely resemble alternative therapies.

I would like to change the word "allopathic" to "modern". This does not change the intended meaning of the sentence, is more correct, and avoids introducing undefined jargon. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Many people, including many editors here, do not seem to know that the words "allopathy" and "allopathic medicine" are still timely words and are used by leading medical organizations. The Association of American Medical Colleges describes the type of medicine they teach as allopathic, and the American Medical Association refers to MD students as allopathic medical students. It is a good and accurate word to use. DanaUllmanTalk 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
True, and WHO and US National Cancer Institute do as well at times, though the British Medical Association and NHS appear not to. The term is hardly, however, in the common vernacular. Historically, the term was coined as a pejorative for the intellectual antecedent of modern medicine. Etymologically the term does not apply, as many conventional treatments do not use "opposites," nor does science-based medicine seek the use of such as a philosophical basis. "Modern" carries no such baggage and engenders no such confusion.
Also, DanaUllman, do please forgive if due to the limitations of the text-based interface I am misreading your intentions, but your comment above seems to me to adopt a patronizing tone, which is contrary to the proper collaborative environment for building a quality encyclopedia. Please in the future take more careful consideration of possible interpretations of your words given the dearth of available context. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify the exact words that to you imply that Dana Ullman is being uncivil, uncollaborative or patronising? Why should he be more careful when he has said nothing impolite or remotely improper? thank you Peter morrell 08:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of section lacking sources

I have deleted a section tagged as original research/unreferenced for six months. I have no doubt this will make quite a few people unhappy, but surely a large number are also justifiably unhappy about the persistence of a section containing non-obvious unsourced claims for such a long period of time. I have no agenda here about the topic itself - there would be no problem restoring this section with proper references. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Medical Education

The section on Medical Training in the UK is completely unreferenced. It is also highly innacurate with regard to Herbal Medicine (which is cited at the top of the article as an Alternative Medicine). Would anyone have any objections to me changing it to


“In the UK, the training of Medical Herbalists is done by state funded Universities. The University of Central Lancashire, the University of Lincoln, Middlesex University and the University of Westminster offer a 3 year BSc(Hons) degree in Herbal Medicine. Napier University in Edinburgh offers a 4 year BSc(hons) as well as a Masters.

Physical examination of the patient and clinical medicine based on conventional pathophysiology are taught alongside differential diagnosis. The focus of the Materia Medica is on Herbal therapeutics but orthodox medicines and procedures are also taught. Communication with other healthcare professionals, both alternative and mainstream, is a key part of training. In addition to this 500 hours of clinical training are required, some of which are to be undertaken in a clinical setting outwith Herbal Medicine e.g. with a GP.”

My reference for this information is http://www.nimh.org.uk/training.html

Sorry forgot to sign --ClaireMullan (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems fine. Looking at your source, I'm not sure it covers all of the points made in the second paragraph. But in general, I support adding this material (though it would be good to have another source to cover all your points in the second paragraph).
However, I wonder whether it is appropriate simply to replace the existing discussion. Currently, the text tells us that "alternative medicine" is not taught in conventional British medical schools. It seems clear from your source that herbal medicine is taught. But: is this the only kind of alternative medicine taught in conventional British medical schools? If so, then I think it would be appropriate for the article to make the point that only this aspect of alternative medicine appears on the state-funded curriculum in Britain.
I guess what I'm saying is that if the existing text is simply replaced with yours, then it is a very radical change in the information communicated here - but I'm not convinced that such a radical change is justified. In other words, currently the article says that no alternative medicine is taught in conventional UK medical schools. If herbal medicine is taught, fine - but if it is the only type of alternative medicine that is taught, then the current text is only partly inaccurate, instead of completely inaccurate. In that case, a radical change to the current text would not be appropriate. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I see what you're saying. Its just statements like "The student must have graduated and be a qualified doctor" are so way off the mark it seems so obviously wrong. Anyway, I have some further info.

A further reference for the second paragraph

http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/home/courses/shsc/undergraduate/herbalmedicine/index.asp

and a list of State-funded higher education establishments offering a range of different complementary therapies

http://search.ucas.co.uk/cgi-bin/hsrun/search/search/StateId/RkDrYGFyXEaaSLEBt-bVD3C0TJz1u-3T5B/HAHTpage/search.HsKeywordSearch.whereNext?query=5382&word=COMPLEMENTARY+MEDICINE

I'm unsure how to proceed in editing the original text. Any help would be appreciated. Perhaps i could highlight the bits I'm having trouble with?

"In Britain, no conventional medical schools"

What is meant by this? Does it mean, for example, Glasgow University Faculty of Medicine? It makes no difference to the accuracy of the info i suppose but a little clarity would be useful.

"offer courses that teach the clinical practice of alternative medicine.[citation needed] However, alternative medicine is taught in several unconventional schools"

again, what does this mean?

"as part of their curriculum.[citation needed] Teaching is based mostly on theory and understanding of alternative medicine"

This seems to be a superfluous piece on information as a course teaching alternative medicine would obviously be based on that theory. Its inclusion serves to imply that this is a bad thing.

"with emphasis on being able to communicate with alternative medicine specialists.[citation needed]"

neither relevant nor true

"To obtain competence in practicing clinical alternative medicine, qualifications must be obtained from individual medical societies.[citation needed]"

again I'm unsure what an individual medical society is. Is this related to the two examples given below? If it is then maybe the sentences just need to be linked and tidied up a wee bit

"The student must have graduated and be a qualified doctor.[citation needed]"

not true

"The British Medical Acupuncture Society, which offers medical acupuncture certificates to doctors, is one such example, as is the College of Naturopathic Medicine UK and Ireland."


Any advice on how to proceed welcomed. Thank you. --ClaireMullan (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with the existing version. I'm not enough of an expert on the topic to know how to advise on revising it. One problem with Wikipedia is that it is difficult to determine who added a particular section, so one doesn't know whom to ask about particular issues. Anyway, I see that the "citation needed" tags have been there for a few months, so perhaps it would be okay to go ahead with your original place for wholesale replacement after all. Perhaps someone else will then want to modify it subsequently with a properly sourced discussion showing that only herbal medicine is taught in conventional UK medical schools. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two new RS by two authorities on this subject

An article:

A soon to be released book:

-- Fyslee / talk 00:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Simon Singh, as a physicist who has written popular books on mathematics and physics is, suddenly, an "authority" on complementary and alternative therapies. Interesting. Well, at least he has the courage to make comments under his real name. I will have to get the book from Amazon and see how good the "science" really is, at least I will once I have finshed my own; should be with the publisher next month. RichardKingCEng (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He has written and been active dealing with these subjects for some time, but regardless of his status (he's certainly a "notable" commentator), Edzard Ernst is certainly an authority on the subject, both as a patient, practitioner, researcher, the first professor of complementary medicine, and the editor-in-chief of two medical journals. He started as a believer, and when he brought the scientific method to alternative medicine he hoped to see good evidence for it, but was sorely disappointed. He has been courageous enough to continue to apply the scientific method to the subject, and to report his findings, for which he (naturally) receives nothing but criticism from true believers. -- Fyslee / talk 14:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some coverage from today's Times Higher on the book. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The book is published in the UK as

  • Simon Singh, Edzard Ernst (2008). Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial. Bantam Press, ISBN 0593061292.

There have been a rash of books recently on alternative medicine, such at Shapiro's Suckers, but this looks like the most definitive. Twiga Kali (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

This is not an article about Alternative Medicine, this is an article against it. more than two-thirds of the article contains criticisms of the subject. I will be cutting the critique down to a reasonable percentage with a fairly ungentle hand, so if there are comments that you think need to be retained, please note them here so that I can try to work them in. --Ludwigs2 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

if you know of any other cases where Alternative Medicine is getting unfair treatment from editors - particularly if they are using excessive wp:FRINGE arguments - please leave links and diffs on User:Ludwigs2/AltMed. thanks. --Ludwigs2 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you feel as if alternative medicine is getting unfair treatment? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
well, this article, for one. as I said, this article has become a grandstand for criticizing AltMed. further, I have seen too many cases lately of editors trying to exclude any positive discussion of alternative medicine (usually through wp:FRINGE arguments). it's beginning to annoy me, both on methodological and fairness grounds. so I'm going to look around. perhaps I'm mistaken, and there's no significant anti-altmed bias in WP articles. but the evidence I have seen so far does not give a lot of credence to that viewpoint. --Ludwigs2 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a section that had remained unsourced (citation requested) for several months. Apart from that, however, I don't agree with the notion that anything here is fair game for deletion unless one speaks up to defend it in advance; that doesn't sound like a normal mode of editing. I don't think it's possible to make a reasonable judgment that, because an article contains a large amount of criticism, it is unduly critical. It depends on the nature of the topic: articles on some subjects contain a lot of criticism because in the real world many people are critical of the subject. Scientology seems like a good comparison in that regard. Most of the criticism section here is well-sourced, and I disagree with the notion that there is a problem in this article with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the sourcing (which I haven't as yet checked); I'm concerned that the article is over-burdened with criticisms. I'm simply going to re-establish fair weight as I see it re: undo weight. that seems like perfectly appropriate editing behavior, yes? and I didn't post this to ask permission; I posted it to open a discussion on the matter, so that I don't unintentionally remove things that really ought to be here.
as I see it, wikipedia articles should be about their subjects, not for them or against them. if you'd like to argue that this article presents a balanced presentation about AM, please do so - it looks very against to me. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist - please compare these versions of the end of the lead:
mine:

If orthodox scientific investigations show that an alternative medical approach is safe and effective it may be adopted by conventional practitioners. such accepted practices are often licensed and regulated in the same way as conventional medical practices.

yours:

Often, the claims made by alternative medicine practitioners are not based on rigorous scientific investigation. However, if scientific investigation shows that an alternative medical approach is safe and effective, it may be adopted by conventional practitioners. Even if there is no evidence showing efficacy, many alternative practices are often licensed and regulated in ways similar to conventional medical practices.

I'm objecting to the use of weasel words, and phrasing designed to discredit AM in advance. can you comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The only weasel word I see in the two versions is the word "orthodox". There is, indeed, no such thing as an "orthodox" scientific investigation. Either an investigation is scientific or it isn't. Aside from that, I see my version as being more accurate. Even if there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy of an alternative medicine (e.g. homeopathy) it is still regulated in similar ways (e.g. one must get a prescription for homeopathic remedies claimed to cure cancer). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article ought to devote a fair amount of space to criticisms of alternative medicines, because alternative medicine relies on a series of claims that are outside the usual scientific consensus. However, a look through other articles in the same class--creationism, baraminology, energy medicine, Flat Earth Society--suggests to me that we have disproportionately more criticism. In particular, it seems like the subsection "Safety" is way too long.
I'm not concerned about "balance," in that I don't think that pseudoscience needs to be balanced against science. But I do agree that the criticism section could be tightened up a bit. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as the criticism isn't marginalized or ameliorated, making the wording more concise and easier to read is a laudable goal. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry, gave the wrong WP cite. I meant to use this one: wp:Words_to_avoid#However.2C_although.2C_whereas.2C_despite. the words 'often' is clearly a weasel word (except from the perspective of someone who already believes the evidence-based approach); further, the negative conditional phrasings 'often ... are not based on...' and 'even if there is no...' are poor grammar, and bad usage in that they implicitly cast doubt on alternative medicine practices (rather like saying "your husband is probably not a serial killer...'). simple affirmative statements are better where possible. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Science apologist. please do not revert large constructive edits without comment. I removed very little information from the article; I simple restructured it into footnotes. --Ludwigs2 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can say "generally". It is pretty much an undeniable fact that proponents rarely use reliable interpretations of scientific investigations to validate their claims. The clauses you mention are actually very good grammar, so I'm not sure where you are coming from that regard. What's more, your large edit was hardly "constructive". It removed a great deal of scientific information in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. I'm happy to discuss rewording the section, but removing facts and citations is beyond the pale. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Zimbardo - if you are not concerned about balance on the page, than I respectfully suggest you stop editing, and stop complaining. go somewhere and write OR monographs, and then we will incorporate your opinions when you become famous. --Ludwigs2 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an uncivil personal attack. I suggest you refactor the comment. I'm also going to place a warning on your user talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel attacked, but I do feel a bit confused. I haven't complained at all. I was agreeing with Ludwigs2 that the criticism section was out of whack when compared to other pseudoscience pages. I'm not sure what this is all about.
In any case, I think we need to make sure that, as Ludwigs2 says, we don't make the page a page about how alternative medicine is wrong. But there isn't any sort of balance to be had between facts and non-facts. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
looking back at my comment, I will confess that it sounds harsher than I intended, and I apologize for that (to both you and SA). my bad, and I'll do better in the future. :-)
to your other point... well, I'm not interested in removing any facts from the article. I'm not sure about your phrase 'balancing facts and non-facts,' though. what do you consider to be 'non-facts' in this case? tell you the truth, I'm more interested in balancing impressions. my concern with this article is that it feels like a lot of effort has gone into 'giving the impression' that AltMed is dangerous, untrustworthy, and unsafe - that's what I'm trying to address. --Ludwigs2 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think you know how this works: get consensus for changes, when it is clear that your edits are going to be controversial. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist,
  1. if you think that suggesting to someone that they refrain from editing when they have admitted that their viewpoint is biased, then I don't know what to tell you. place all the warnings that you like, and we'll deal with things as they come.
  2. I removed none of the facts and none of the scientific information; I simple restructured everything so that it took up a lot less space (1 paragraph vs. the 6 or 7 that were there). this brings it into an appropriate size with respect to the actual discussion about alternative medicine.
  3. where you say "It is pretty much an undeniable fact that proponents rarely use reliable interpretations of scientific investigations to validate their claims," you are not anywhere near NPOV. you have adopted the evidence-based perspective whole-hog. I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that you're speaking from within a perspective.
  4. please examine this [diff] and tell me what is wrong with the changes I made here.
  5. I have no idea why you are referring to WP:FRINGE, which seems not to apply here at all. or are you suggesting that AM is to be considered a fringe group in its own article? that seems patently bizarre.
  6. you have not even tried to address my comments about negative conditionals, and I can not accept your viewpoint as neutral until you do.
I will now go and restore my edits, and I think that will exhaust the changes we can make today under 3RR. I'm very easy-going, really, and I'm more than willing to talk about things. please answer my objections, and I'm sure we'll reach a reasonable compromise.
Nomoskedasticity: I see nothing in these edits that is controversial; in fact, I'm not adding or subtracting from the content, I'm just rearranging to bring the article in balance. if you disagree with specific changes, I'm more than willing to discuss the matter, but I do not believe the status quo of the article is acceptable, and I have very good reasons for that belief. and remember pillar number 1: Be bold!  ;-) --Ludwigs2 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have compressed the critique section in another big change. mostly this was removing redundancies and pushing things off into footnotes; I tried not to remove anything vital. I did remove some things, though, listed here:

  • the section titled 'Critics' explanations for the appeal of alternative medicine' - this sounded a bit too much like a 'why idiots do idiotic things' section. if we want an 'appeals' section (which wouldn't be a bad idea) it should be from the perspective of people who use AM, with critics opinions added for flavor.
  • I've warped the 'issues of regulation' section into the regulation section higher up. I think that whole section needs work, though.
  • I've cut the Alastair MacLennan quote because it seemed too anecdotal.

--Ludwigs2 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed removals from the "criticism" section

Since this has been a pretty tense discussion, I thought I'd suggest some ways of cleaning up the Criticism section. (Written before Ludwig's latest changes)

  • "They advocate a classification based on evidence-based medicine, i.e., scientifically proven evidence of efficacy (or lack thereof). According to them it is possible for a method to change categories (proven vs. unproven) in either direction, based on increased knowledge of its effectiveness or lack thereof." Does this last sentence add anything? Obviously if we're going to categorize things into things that have been proven effective and things that have not, we believe that things can be proven effective.
  • The paragraph that begins "Some argue that less research is carried out on alternative medicine because many alternative medicine techniques cannot be patented" is a mess. First, that initial claim is unsourced. Second, if we want to present the argument that research hasn't been done on alternative techniques because they aren't lucrative, then the fact that drug companies have ghostwritten studies isn't relevant. The lines about the NCCAM and the German Federal Institute are responding to the complaint that alternative research isn't being done, which seems like it ought to be considered separately.
  • The paragraph on the placebo effect under "Efficacy" seems like overkill. The first sentence of it seems sufficient, and can be merged into the first paragraph about double-blind trials.
  • The example of grapefruit seed extract has nothing to do with safety and ought to be removed.
  • The ABC Online anecdote about delay in treatment seems like overkill.
  • "Nevertheless, attempts to refute this fact with regard to alternative treatments sometimes use the appeal to nature fallacy, i.e. "that which is natural cannot be harmful"." Unsourced crowing.
  • The reference to Homeopathy seems simply like an excuse to point out that Homeopathy doesn't work, and doesn't seem related to Safety.
sorry... wish I'd seen this before I made my edit, it would have helped. I'll have to go back and look over what I did to see how it fits with your suggestions. --Ludwigs2 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] All specious argumentation and special pleading

I reject wholesale every last one of Ludwigs2 arguments as special pleading and an attempt to mitigate the well-sourced criticism of alternative medicine included in this article. I have reason to believe that Ludwig2 has a special interest in this subject in promoting the subject and also have reason to believe that Ludwig2 derives income from hawking alternative medicine (a violation of WP:COI). As it is, I recommend starting from this version and moving forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

wow, for someone who advocates the scientific method, you do reach for the ad hominems quickly.
if you would care to be reassured that none of the accusation you just made are even remotely valid, then please tell me how we can accomplish that, and I will happily comply. you are correct that I am trying to mitigate the well-sourced criticism that is in this article, but the reason that I am doing that is that it is entirely and unfairly excessive. I would happily talk about that, as well
ranting is not going to help, here. please discuss instead.
p.s. - I'm going to leave a note on your user page about incivility... --Ludwigs2 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
And it was promptly removed, and you were left a warning for personal attacks. Your do yourself no favors by engaging in this type of activity. SA's comments were valid, and a review of your edits indicate SA is completely correct.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry OrangeMarlin. when ScienceApologist left that exact same warning on my talk page, I assumed that that was acceptable behavior for editors. I see know that it is only acceptable for editors that you happen to get along with.
as for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is incorrect.  ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
But it is correct. ;-) Since alt med is fringe and it is classified as "alternative" until it becomes mainstream (that happens when it becomes proven using good research), criticism should actually be the major content and thus your attempts to "mitigate" the "well-sourced criticism" are uncalled for. It would probably be advisable to just leave well enough alone, unless you want well enough to be improved to comply with WP:WEIGHT, IOW to make the article mostly criticism. Even I would rather leave it pretty much as is. Please don't make such large changes of a relatively stable article. The changes you made undid months and years of hard work by many editors who collaborated to make that version. -- Fyslee / talk 05:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Fyslee. I'm too beat fighting other battles to explain it to Ludwigs. This should suffice. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Fyslee, that argument doesn't hold any water. your reasoning is the definition of evidence-based medicine as given in the article, and evidence-based medicine is a perspective that certain American (or at least western) physicians have on the proper classification of medicines. it can not, therefore, be taken as an unbiased deciding factor in this debate, since (of course) western medical doctors are already predisposed to western medical practices. this would be equivalent to citing Catholic priests as the dominant authorities in an article about, say, Wicca... you have created a construction in which the evidenced-based perspective is implicitly assumed to be correct, with little or no basis for that claim. of course, I may be mistaken, and am willing to listen to whatever bases you can offer.
with regards to your other statements: I respect the previous work of other editors, and have tried my best to accommodate it. I really am trying to improve this article, you know, not unglue it. however, I can only respect that work on the basis of rational discussion. I'd ask you not to introduce social factors except where absolutely necessary. --Ludwigs2 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
as an afterthought: by what criteria are you referring to AM as 'Fringe'? several of the systems that self-classify as alternative medicine are used in major hospitals; others are used by huge numbers of people world-wide who don't have access to modern medicine. are you making the assumption that *all* alternative medicine is quackery by default? because if you're not making that assumption, then you're criticism is over-applied, and ought to go on the articles about medicines that are fraudulent, not be attached to alt-med as a whole. --Ludwigs2 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm basing my criteria on definitions of AM (that which is not fully accepted as mainstream medicine - at least not yet), and by definitions that are based on objectively verifable and repeatable evidence of efficacy or lack thereof. (Most methods currently classed as AM having little or no chance of ever becoming fully accepted as they are disproven and often nonsensical methods.) Once a method (that was previously categorized as AM) is shown to be efficacious, then it becomes classified as mainstream and is universally accepted, no longer being considered "alternative" medicine. This has nothing to do with the number of believers or users, or even if some methods are practiced in some mainstream hospitals (keep in mind that hospitals are in it for the money and often couldn't give a flying f*** about efficacy). When acceptance is pretty much universal, you will discover that skeptics will long since have ceased to criticize the method, since they are often on the forefront of watching the research and comparing it with actual practice. Long before that they will have changed their position and been backing up inclusion and acceptance. They criticize anyone (especially licensed MDs) who make big claims about methods, when those claims aren't backed up by good research that has been duplicated successfully, and especially if they make claims for methods that have actually been disproven. "Disproven" needs to be understood loosely, since the scientific method includes a fundamental clause that opinions must be changed according to the latest evidence, if that evidence is very strong. Even then, most methods currently classified as AM have little chance of ever making it and can safely be discarded and criticized.
Such criticisms will often include charges of quackery or even outright fraud. The approach used by scientific skeptics towards the scientific method is basically identical with Wikipedia's NOR policy - we don't like or allow it. Wikipedia and scientific medicine are agreed: Wikipedia forbids the inclusion of crystal ball OR (content that isn't backed up by good sources), and scientific medicine considers it unethical to advocate and sell methods that aren't backed up by good research. At Wikipedia we call editors who do that fringe POV pushers, and in science we call such persons quacks and sometimes frauds. The FDA, FTC, FBI, BBB, etc. agree with quackbusters on those issues. That's why you will usually find that editors who support mainstream science and medicine will be on the winning side of discussions with pushers of fringe ideas - the pushers of those ideas simply have Wikipedia policy against them and should learn and adopt the scientific method as their guiding light. They need to learn critical thinking.
MastCell puts it well:
-- Fyslee / talk 00:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

pardon me for re-indenting, but the right sides of my eyes were starting to ache.  :-)

first, I do not believe it is wikipedia policy to call people 'fringe POV-pushers;' I don't think Wikipedia encourages placing editors into category types, or lumping them under names of any sort. if you choose to do that on your own you won't find me complaining, but please do not act as though this is the "Wikipedia Way". that would be a gross misrepresentation.

second, I will point out (again) that you have used the definition of evidence-based research as though that were the universally accepted norm of scientific research, rather than a particular perspective advocated by a coterie of scientists. you either don't realize or haven't fully considered that the particular model of medicine you are advocating makes perfect sense within its own specific context, but fails miserably in any situation where tightly controlled experimentation is impossible. note, for instance, that by those standards we would have to reject all epidemiological findings (those that look at the transmission patterns of diseases through regions and societies): statements like 'safe sex prevents the transmission of AIDS' could only be taken as anecdotal.

third, dismissing the behavior of hospitals as self-serving does not do your argument any favors. you open the door for me to dismiss the opinions of all medical doctors because they are in financial competition with AM providers. I don't think either of us wants to go that route.

all that aside, I am concerned that your approach divides the medicine world into two groups: practices accepted by the AMA, and dirty, fraudulent, scoundrel-ish, evil practices. I don't think the majority of doctors in the world hold that kind of absolute distinction - I think most recognize that there is a vast gray area of practices that have not been, and maybe cannot be, studied, which may in fact have a perfectly valid place in the therapeutic universe. in fact, your approach seems to violate wp:crystal ball since you broadly criticizing current 'alternative medicines' when when you have no idea which of those might eventually end up as mainstream.

with all due respect to MastCell, a serious encyclopedia is not supposed to engage in efforts to dictate the meaning or understanding of a topic. it is simply supposed to explain it. I have no interest in removing the criticisms that you've put in this article, since I think they are an essential part of the topic at hand. but I do want to tone them down to the point where the article gives a clear and unbiased presentation of AM, good points as well as bad. --Ludwigs2 02:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Things are not so black and white as you make it out ("... and dirty, fraudulent, scoundrel-ish, evil practices.") Far from it. You apparently don't know much about me or my knowledge of alternative medicine, both as a former practitioner and user, including multiple deaths in my family and having treated terminal patients with worthless methods. I've "been there and done that," and can see things from both sides. No, most believers and practitioners are basically honest people who just don't understand the importance of proper testing and the difference between real evidence and anecdotes. That's of course putting it rather simply ;-) If you want to have any success here, I'm giving you an opportunity to learn, and MastCell is also one who can do it well. Since you seem averse to learning, I fear for your future here. There is a culture here and it's best to learn it as quickly as possible. -- Fyslee / talk 06:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
well, I am glad to hear that things are not that black and white, because it's really hard to pick up on that by reading the article. admittedly, I was hyperbolizing a bit... :-)
I am sorry to hear that you've had poor experiences with alternative medicine; my heart goes out to you. and really, sad to say, I don't know very much about you at all. that's maybe the worst side of the internet. it leaves us stuck in our own heads, making assumptions about the people we encounter that are almost invariably wrong. hard to get past that.
so look: I understand that there's a culture here, and if you think that I'm averse to learning you are dead wrong (unbelievably wrong - learning is my life). but I am also very honest, and very smart, and very principled, and I am not at all the kind of person who bows to culture just because it's bigger than me. If you, or MastCell, or whomever else want to try to educate me, ok. I enjoy those kinds of conversations and love getting down to the meat of things and figuring them out. but you're going to have to be open to the thought that I might very well know more about these issues than you do, and that regardless this conversation is certainly going to be a two-way street. --Ludwigs2 07:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pp and RfC

I've requested page protection to stop your collective edit war, and I am going to request an RfC on this topic. apparently that is the only effective way of communicating with you.--Ludwigs2 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, SA and OM, I've filed for an RfC (hopefully I did it correctly). I'll make a section for it below. I've also files a wikiquette request wp:Wikiquette_alerts#alternative_medicine because of your bad behavior. I'll make a section for that as well. I'll leave notices of the last on your talk pages as well.
no worries, I'm patient, and I trust that the community consensus will bear me out.  :-) --Ludwigs2 05:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that you are a relatively new user who is edit warring and destabilizing an article that has arrived at its present position (before you arrived) after long months and years of warring and collaborations. Don't make big changes, especially if it means deletions of well-sourced material. Better to be an inclusionist than a deletionist. You would do well to slow down and listen to more experienced users (among them SA and OM). This article is a powder keg and meddlesome fingers can easily start another long series of edit wars that are fruitless wastes of time. Just back off and take it easy. Learn to collaborate with editors who hold opposing POV. That results in the best articles. A combative attitude will only cause you unnecessary trouble. -- Fyslee / talk 05:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Fyslee, I thought this was supposed to be about the article rather than about me. if that's not correct, please let me know. at any rate, I always recognize my mistakes, and I usually learn from them. I hope you can forgive me a one-time indiscretion.  :-)
with respect to the article, if you would take a look at my changes [here], you will note that I removed very little from the version I found. the majority of my changes were restructuring sections (basic cleanup, really) and compressing information in the criticism section by moving text into footnotes and combining redundancies. everything is still there, it's just in a more compact format. I did this because in the original version of the article more than 50% of the article was dedicated to criticisms of alternative medicine. while I understand the need for critique, the overall impression was that the article was dedicated to condemning AM rather than discussing it. my version reduced the criticism visually to about 1/3 of the article without losing any essential critical information.
I guess I'm confused about why my version got rejected so strongly, since it was clearly in good faith, and seems to bring the article back to a more neutral presentation of the subject. I'm more than willing to go through my changes (and why I thought they were needed) point by point, if you'd like to discuss it. --Ludwigs2 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're still confused about why others have rejected/reverted what you have done, then I'm not sure how hard you're "listening" to what others are saying here. For instance, you claim your edits are uncontroversial, but the mere fact that others disagree makes that claim incorrect. On "difficult" articles, change happens quite slowly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity - thanks, I'm listening quite carefully. unfortunately, no one has really tried to explain what's wrong with my edits. the responses I've gotten so far (if I remember correctly) are:
  • it's too massive a change, I should use the talk page first: probably true, but doesn't get to content issues at all.
  • it removes vital material: not true - I made an effort to preserve everything I could when I made my changes.
  • it's pov-pushing: I don't think this is true - my intent was to bring the article to a more neutral perspective. regardless, no one has actually pointed out how my changes represent a particular pov rather than a neutral perspective. if someone could, that would go a long way to settling this.
I haven't even gotten feedback on simple, direct questions, like where I asked about the use of conditional negatives in the intro.
I'd really like it if someone would spell out specifically what was wrong with my edits (in terms of their content, mind you), so that at least we have some talking points to start with. --Ludwigs2 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
edit: add 'doesn't conform to understandings of 'evidence-based' medicine to the list above. I've responded to Fyslee on this point in the previous section. --Ludwigs2 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the onus is on the one wanting to make the change to justify the changes in talk. So, let's do a trial run, Ludwigs. You propose a change to a sentence or a paragraph and offer your justification for the change. If it is truly uncontroversial, then I'm sure people will agree that you should change it. I can see already a number of different problems with your edits, more than enough to justify wholesale reversion. The problem is I don't have the time to go through and selectively revert and since I don't see your version as being a significant improvement, there's really no justification for me not to revert back to the previous version. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

well, if you read above, you'll see that I have justified the changes I made. I did it on each step as I made changes, and in each case the changes were reverted without a whole lot of substantive discussion. and now, no one seems much interested in discussing my changes, even though I'm actively trying to get feedback. interesting pickle, no?
If you can "already see a number of problems" with my edits, why don't you tell me what those problems are, so that I can respond to them. you don't need to go through and selectively revert; you simply need to communicate, and I'll work with you on the issues. if I may be frank, right now I'm thinking that the reversions of my edits were more of a reaction (based in the historical problems this page has had) than an actual rejection of my edits. if that's not true, and there actually are substantive problems with my edits, I would really like to know what they are.
I don't think either you or I want this page to sit in dispute limbo for an extended period. I'm not particularly attached to my version as given, but I do have some concerns with the current version that need to be quelled. that can only happen through discussion. --Ludwigs2 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alert comments

[edit] RfC comments