Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel tolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a neologism without sufficient reliable sources. No evidence (as opposed to claims) has been presented that this is a widely recognized concept or widely used term. Whether or not megadoses of vitamin C are effective or not is not relevant. Demonstrably false theories may be covered where reliable sources exist, but here they do not. Eluchil404 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bowel tolerance

Bowel tolerance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete: Per WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:Avoid_neologisms. Article on a non-recognized medical condition whose only citations are to a commercial site with a non-notable author (see WP:SPS) and an old interview without academic reference (see WP:RS#Scholarship). What is left is an article about a phrase used by a narrow community.Djma12 (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete By normal standards, the article is barely referenced and would not easily be deleted. However, we are dealing with the medical profession, which requires precise definitions, and apparently this term is not in wide usage. Shalom Hello 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually we're dealing with rather dangerous psuedoscience here and people advocating taking massive doses of vitamin C to fight cancer etc. This shouldn't be given spurious credibility by appearing on wikipedia. Taking half a pound (read the article) of vitamin C a day is insane. Nick mallory 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though I wouldn't consider it pseudoscience. Dr. Linus Pauling advocated the use of "megadoses" of Vitamin C, though for other reasons than this. Dangerous? Yes. Controversial? Yes. Pseudoscience? Meh. And, going back to reread the article, it doesn't seem like he's advocating megadoses of Vitamin C. This seems to be merely a test to see how much C a person can take before diarrhea sets in. The "half a pound" is about how much cancer or influenza patients can withstand, not about how much one should take to fight cancer. --Sethacus 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Powerfull as your 'meh' argument is, you're begging the question here. Where's the evidence that taking megadoses of vitamin C actually helps a patient fight cancer, as opposed to radio or chemo therapy? The fact that large doses of Vitamin C can't be properly excreted by someone whose digestive system isn't working properly because of illness is a reason NOT to take those doses, not a sign the body needs it. Crackpot ideas like these kill people - look at the case of Katie Wernecke whose parents fought the State of Texas for the "right" to treat her cancer with such dubious methods.
You're missing the point of this article completely, Nick. The reason it's called "bowel tolerance" is because it refers to how much Vitamin C a person can stand before diarrhea. There is nothing in the article about how much Vitamin C is "needed" to fight cancer. The cancer and influenza examples are just that, examples, subsets. What the article is saying is that half a pound is the limit to which cancer or influenza patients can stand before diarrhea. It may infer that you need C to cure cancer, but that's all it is, an inference.--Sethacus 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Crackpot idea? Really? A crackpot idea? You're saying it's a crackpot idea that megadoses of Vitamin C are usually given to cancer patients by mainstream doctors and has been shown to lengthen their lives by up to a factor of four? You're saying all of the mainstream doctors that use megadoses for theraputic help for other illnesses are all crackpot as well? You sir are the crackpot, you and your crackpot reasoning saying how "kidneys don't have enough strength to get rid of the vitamin c" WITHOUT HAVING THE SLIGHTEST CLUE what's going on or what you're talking about. Anonywiki 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
To your questions in order. Yes. Yes, really. Yes. Maybe/yes (no opinion on whether megadoses of Vitamin C are given to cancer patients, but there's no associated live extension.) Yes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Anonywiki, the entire point of this AFD is the lack of citations that fit WP:RS. If you have any sources that we don't know about, especially concerning the cancer claims that you've made, we'd love to see them. Also, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL with your posts. Djma12 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete only ref is self-published paper. No other claim to any notability. As Sethacus notes, the idea of megadoses of vitamin C is proposed by notable persons including Linus Pauling. This fellow isn't notable though. Bigdaddy1981 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and nominate for: Wikipedia:Deleted_articles_with_freaky_titles.Falard 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete From the internet article by Dr. Cathcart: "Copyright (C), 1994 and prior years, Robert F. Cathcart, M.D. Permission granted to distribute via the internet as long as material is distributed in its entirity and not modified." Since this is the heart of the article, it's copyrighted and it's not being used in its entirety, I think that there may be a problem. Mandsford 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, although I disagree with the copyvio claim above as that just applies to material being printed word for word; dissemination is not the same thing. I haven't checked to see if this is word-for-word in which case then copyvio would apply. I will say I've just discovered my catchphrase for the week. 23skidoo 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Robert Cathcart. This is a piece of terminology invented by Cathcart to describe his clinical observation that the amount of ascorbic acid that can be taken by an individual seems to vary in proportion to their general health. The limit at which diarrhea sets in is much higher for those with a wide range of disease than those in good health. Lumos3 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep if not a copyvio. I'm afraid the concept is notable in orthomolecular medicine, although I cannot confirm that the name is used by anyone other than the non-notable Dr. Cathcart. Although I agree with Nick that it's not rational to do it, the term makes sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable sources. Tim Vickers 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Term well known in orthomolecular medicine.--Michael C. Price talk 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Orthomolecular medicine isn't medicine, it's a crack pot idea which takes the obvious notion of a good diet being important for health and extrapolates it into insanity. You might as well say it's been endorsed by homeopaths and therefore it's real medical theory. This article is trying to suggest that such dosing is appropriate and efficient when it's neither of those things. Nick mallory 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: In that case it should not be deleted, but edited so that it is clear that this term is only used in orthomolecular medicine, which is considered pseudoscientific, i.e. a crackpot medicine (assuming that it is). Homeopathy is crackpot as well but sadly it's common enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia and so are terms related to it. Dan Gluck 07:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Notability criteria require independent sources for verification. I am not basing this deletion upon whether orthomolecular medicine folks believe in this or not -- the article's only citation is to a work of self promotion thus violates WP:CITE along with notability. Djma12 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Done This article has independent, notable references.--TheNautilus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait Where? Why are we considering Hemila, the third author on one article, a notable reference? Djma12 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It does generate a lot of hits on google and it is something that the Vitamin C megadose crowd seem to know about and maybe practice when they get a cold. I would remove reference to Robert Cathcart and rewrite it so that it is NPOV and clearly state that there is no scientific evidence that this helps a cold and may be unhealthy. Pocopocopocopoco 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, but none of those hits qualify as independent verification by any stretch of the imagination -- they only cite back to the original self-publication in an non-peer reviewed publication. Also, the hits in questions (sites selling vitamins and health forums) fall far belowWP:V standards. Djma12 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The article isn't about allopathic medicine. It is about a fairly well known altmed concept with a common phenomenon, other phenomena, and a practice common to some parts of alternative medicine, especially considered fundamental in "megadosage" circles. Descriptions of history and practices with this nutrient do not require FDA style dbpRCT, one scientific tool (of many) of limited tractability, use and utility, especially finacially.--TheNautilus 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Cathcart is quoted by the very notable Harri Hemila, the main author of the Cochrane meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold. I quote Hemila:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

we also have notability by association:

In one of his last texts, Albert Szent-Györgyi (1978) mentioned a personal experience: "Last year I collected a rather unfortunate personal experience. I broke down with pneumonia which I could not shake off for months, until I discovered that the quantities of ascorbic acid which I took (one gram daily) had become insufficient at my age (84 years). When I went up from one gram to eight, my troubles were over."

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/dovitami.pdf We could discuss about Hemila's use of "gastric" instead of "intestinal". However, this remains a quote to the article by Cathcart having "BOWEL TOLERANCE" in its title...

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Very weak evidence, at best, that anyone else uses the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment. The Szent-Györgyi quotation is anecdoctal and no where close to WP:V criteria. Furthermore, Cochrane Meta-analyses are comprehensive literature reviews that investigate all claims -- irregardless of study quality. I believe Pierre is referring to [this article.] I would encourage any interested editor take a quick read of the article him/herself to see if it is anywhere close to what Pierre claims it says about bowel tolerance. Djma12 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, it is a common term and concept in some circles, just not at QW. Djma12, the title of Harry Hemila's reference to Cathcart, 1981 is "Vitamin C, titrating to bowel tolerance,...". There is such a thing as incorporation by refrence, you know.--TheNautilus 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Djmla12, we'll see about that later, but for now, I'd like you to respond to the point I made. If you don't, we'll have to assume that you are ok with this, since you only comment on other things. I quote again:
There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I already responded on the section concerning Cochrane meta-analyses, which is where the quote is from. As stated previously, mere mention within a Cochrane analysis does not translate into notability. Djma12 (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what I feared. This quote is NOT from a Cochrane meta-analysis. You did not pay enough attention, and you criticized what you thought I put forward, not what I actually brought to everybody's attention.
This kind of behaviour distracts readers. You also distracted readers by stating, right at the beginning, that "bowel tolerance" is a "non-recognized medical condition", to which I responded, because I know what we're talking about, that "It is not a "medical condition"!" Aren't we wasting time?
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, Pierre. I would suggest you actually READ the Cochrane meta-analysis, given that you cited it? The quote (sans the "much evidence" part), is verbatim inside of it. For your convenience, here is the link to the article [1].Djma12 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Djma12 Please look closely and carefully. Pierre specified (re-linked) Hemila's 2006 thesis for her third doctorate as containing several direct references to Cathcart, 1981. Additionally, the Luberoff, 1978 reference in Hemila's 2006 thesis is the American Chem Society's published interview with Cathcart, "Symptomectomy", describing Cathcart's experience and background with the bowel tolerance vitamin C protocol. Pierre *did not* specify Hemila's 2004 Cochrane review. However you can see Hemila taking note of Cathcart in her 2006 PhD thesis, after this stinging exchange in 2005 over her 2004 Cochrane review, with Bill Sardi and Steve Hickey. Apparently Cathcart is still notable to Hemila, in her 2007 Cochrane review on vitamin C and pneumonia (more favorable), because she again cites Cathcart, 1981 and Luberoff, 1978. I would say that's pretty notable considering the degree of heresy involved.--TheNautilus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Nautilus. I looked at that article originally and noticed that it was merely a graduate thesis of some sort, so I concentrated on the Cochrane meta instead. As the thesis doesn't exactly meet WP:RS, we should devote most of our energies on the qualifications of the meta-anaylsis instead. I agree with Gordonofcartoon's comment on the Robert Cathcart deletion page that the use of the meta-analysis violates WP:SYNTH. Trying to define notability off of association with a notable article is analogous to defining a person's notability off of knowing someone notable. Both fail wiki criteria. Djma12 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article needs to be better referenced and cleaned up. The concept has been notable for some time in various ways, sniggering in the press included (~30 yrs?), and the phrase directly noted by Linus Pauling. It is not for Wikipedia to comment or advocate but to describe accurately. Some writings in altmed become confusing to readers without some knowledge of what is even being discussed. This AfD appears to me to be a dubious use of WP process, since there were no prior ({cn}} or discussions at Talk. Various comments "medical condition", "dangerous pseudoscience" etc clearly indicate to me a certain level of ignorance and pseudoskeptical, nonscientific POV (the aforementioned practice doesn't have to be proven, or even, "right" for that to stick) that floats around WP. What would be dangerous is a medical practioner that doesn't even understand what is being discussed when directly requested by patients for information and options, much less have a knowledgable (nutrients are *big* "if" in medical education - I get this from friendly MDs themselves all the time), informative, well thought reponse that truly honors the patients' inquiries. Btw, where I live, conventional MD oncologists and 5 yr NDs actually work as complementary practices and, in some private clinics, MD and NDs practice together.--TheNautilus 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - A Factiva search for bowel tolerance and vitamin C reveals 31 hits in the main stream press including such publications as The Australian, The Toronto Star, and The Denver Post. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V; needs cleanup and better references not deletion! Ccscott 11:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Maybe someone can help me out a bit, but I ran the same Factiva search and it reveals no hits. Here is the link if someone would like to verify. [2]. If you search for bowel tolerance without quotes, you obtain 31 hits, but to unrelated articles. (Basically, without the quotes, you pull up anything with "bowel" or "tolerance" anywhere within the article.) Djma12 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keeping or deleting this article should not be conditional on whether we keep Robert Cathcart as it's questionable whether Cathcart came up with this and it may have been Linus Pauling. See the Vitamin C section here. Pocopocopocopoco 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Note.I am unaware of any published materials that would support either Pauling or Stone (who informed Pauling about vitamin C) predating Cathcart on the bowel tolerance technique, and I know of correspondences that clearly suggest Stone quickly adopted or disseminated Cathcart's initiative. Also Cathcart inverted the treatement concept (taking AA to bowel tolerance) to roughly infer the severity of the disease in terms of grams per day as a rough measure from bowel tolerance.--TheNautilus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I ran the search with quotes (the exact search is was: "bowel tolerance" and "vitamin C"). In fact, reading the articles I can confirm that they indeed are discussing bowel tolerance as described by this wikipedia entry. Here are several examples of articles which discuss bowel tolerance:
  • A shot of good health, Sunday Telegraph, 17 July 2005, 793 words, Carla Oates, (English)
  • Nature's Way, Sun Herald, 6 June 1999, 450 words, Mim Beim, (English)
  • Natural treatments for hives, The Toronto Star, 22 February 1998, 416 words, By Dr. Zoltan P. Rona, (English)
  • What's the alternative? - Lifestyle., The Sunday Times, 27 July 1997, 1539 words, By Hazel Courtney, Health Journalist of the Year., (English)
  • Massive lack of vitamin C blamed for heart disease, Kitchener-Waterloo Record, 17 September 1992, 642 words, W. Gifford-Jones, (English)
  • Can vitamin C save millions of lives? The Financial Post, 14 September 1992, 613 words, Dr. W. Gifford-Jones, (English)
  • Keep an open mind about vitamin C, Denver Post, 4 March 1991, 667 words, Diane Eicher, (English)
Plus there are many more from lesser known publications or health magazines. I have no idea why your search is not picking them up, but they definitely exist. Those who disagree with the validity of this subject as a medical technique should address their concerns in the article, not by deleting the article completely, which subject has been discussed multiple times in the independent media and thus meets the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Ccscott 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Request. Do you mind including a link to your citations? I'm still having trouble finding the sources you mention on Factiva, and I'm having trouble finding the article titles you included on Google. This could simply be a function of me entering something different than you. Djma12 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am accessing Factiva through my university's library so any links would not work for you. I was able to find some of the above through google news (such as: here). In fact, I get 52 hits with "bowel tolerance" and "vitamin C" on google news search. Ccscott 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ccscott, I've had a chance to look at the Google hits. (Alas, still can't get the Factiva hits, but from your description, they seem pretty similar.) I don't think they fit WP:RS standards for articles, specifically WP:RS#Scholarship, as most of them are minor newspaper clippings. If this was a AFD for notability for an individual, this would be different, as it demonstrates public recognition, but I think the standard for articles on medical topics is more stringent. Djma12 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course they don't meet WP:RS#Scholarship as they are both from search engines of the popular media, not pubmed. But, they easily meet WP:RS, and as clearly stated (in bold even) in the WP:RS guidelines, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." Several of these news stories (in known, fact-checked publicatons, therefore reliable secondary sources) refer to and comment on bowel tolerance in a non-trivial way, and therefore this article should not be deleted. The fact that there is a protocol called "bowel tolerance" that has been widely discussed is not in dispute and this means the article merits inclusion. It is the primary sources (the scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals) or lack of them that should be discussed within the article to present a balanced prevailing view of medical opinion of the topic. Medical topics should enjoy no special privilege; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of accepted medical practices. Ccscott 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that academic articles, especially those making medical claims, fall specifically under the purvue of WP:RS#Scholarship. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Rather, academic articles should go through at least some level of academic scrutiny. Djma12 (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Scrutiny - yes, deletion - no. My scientific opinion is that "bowel tolerance" is a load of bunk, however, I would much rather have someone who reads about this concept in their Sunday paper to come to this page and learn that there is little evidence to support it and it is not recognized by the majority of the medical profession than to pretend it doesn't exist. In my opinion, a rewrite and incorporation of the above citations will satisfy WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS so I still see no grounds to delete it, but if need be redirect and merge it into Vitamin C megadosage as suggested below. Ccscott 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:NOR and WP:V (or rather the distinct lack thereof), regardless of comments, Policy is Policy. Shot info 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep': Bowel Tolerance is a well-known and useful term. It's used for magnesium as well as vitamin c.Anonywiki 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: a known medical term. Terse 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, that's incorrect. I !voted "keep", but it's a known orthomolecular medicine term, not a medical term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
well broadly speaking, its medical term. Terse 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If its a medical term, then it should fall under the jurisdiction of WP:RS#Scholarship, of which it fails miserably. Djma12 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Vitamin C megadosage - a brief section within that article would be appropriate as it would then be discussed in context. As a stand alone this will be a target for future AfDs because it is essentially a subtext of vitamin C megadosage and reveals itself as something minor. SilkTork 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Week Delete seems to be more OR. Harlowraman 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.