Misplaced Pages

Talk:Alternative medicine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:54, 10 October 2004 editIrismeister (talk | contribs)2,047 editsm →Geni← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:30, 28 August 2024 edit undoBlueSkiesRI (talk | contribs)5 edits →Mainstream reflects popularity not a specific medical practice: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{CamNotice}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{controversial}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no}}
{{afd-merged-from|Whole medical systems|Whole medical systems|13 September 2012}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine }}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top|attention=}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | importance=top }}
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Systems |importance=High |field=Systems theory}}
}}
{{Homeopathy/Warning}}
{{Trolling}}


{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Miscellaneous notices |1=
Previous discussions are archived here:


{{mergedfrom|Holistic health}}
*]
{{old move |date=7 March 2013 |destination=Complementary and alternative medicine |result=not moved}}
*]
}}
*]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*]
|maxarchivesize = 250K
*]
|counter = 30
*]
|minthreadsleft = 4
*] (May 17, 2004 - May 28, 2004)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
*]
|algo = old(15d)
*]
|archive = Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=15 |units=days |index=/Archive index |
<center></br>'''Old discussions at ]'''<br />
], ], ]
</center>
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|mask=/Archive <#>
|mask2=Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine/Archive <#>
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Tridosha system) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Tridosha system","appear":{"revid":160773482,"parentid":160566229,"timestamp":"2007-09-27T20:52:23Z","replaced_anchors":{"Tridosha System":"Tridosha system","Ayurvedic Tastes":"Ayurvedic tastes","Panchakarma and Ayurvedic Massage":"Panchakarma and Ayurvedic massage","Current Status":"Current status"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":238652823,"parentid":238614490,"timestamp":"2008-09-15T20:03:07Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


__TOC__
-----
{{clear}}
== Addition of another critique of alt. medicine ==
==Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice==
Can I add a link to Ben Goldacre's often hilarious and very rigorous weekly column for ], "Bad Science" under 'critiques of alt.medicine'? It's very well written, but I suppose its serial nature makes it a less good encyclopedic reference... --] 20:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Global_Poverty_and_Practice_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-01-17 | end_date = 2022-05-15 }}
*Please, what's the link? ] 09:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


== Pseudoscience == == A Biased Perspective? ==
Many branches and practices of alt med meet precisely the definition of ]. When you removed the category tag were you asserting there is no such thing as pseudoscience, that nearly all alt med meets the definition of science, or what? Did you really think no one would challenge this? ] 19:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


This article comes across as sounding very biased. A less biased approach would be to define Alternative Medicines as those that do not yet have sufficient profit-potential to warrant the enormous cost of adequate testing for proof of efficacy and safety. Thus, the supposedly-scientific bases for medicines has been dragged into the realm of economics and patents.
:Likewise the blanket damnation is false and the addition of the tag a breach of ettiquette. Each part must be considered on its own merit. Granted some branches are pseudoscience. Others may be in advance of science. I know that there are scientific, double blind, and all that, tests ongoing now for apitherapy, the one alternative medicine I know a little about. ] 21:35, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


As such, alternative medicines remain in the gray area as "possibly helpful" where the decision to use them needs to be balanced against possible negative effects including safety, cost and discouragement from seeking more reliable alternatives. When the negative effects are low, they often become "worth a try".
How about if we exclude apitherapy? Please, please, ''please'' simply look at the lead-in definitions for pseudoscience and alt med. They are nearly identical descriptions. When novel treatments are investigated scientifically they are not alternative. The stuff that stays alternative for decades is because it won't or can't be tested or it has failed the tests. This applies to most of the things listed as alt med. It doesn't have to apply to every little piece of it (and you have to admit that apitherapy is not exactly what people think of as mainstream alt med). I looked at your user page and concluded you have to be too intelligent to reject that pseudoscience is a valid concept and that most of the longstanding alt med stuff has been "pseudoscience medicine" for generations and probably will be for eternity or they would have some evidence by now. The stuff that gets supported with evidence is no longer alternative. Please be reasonable here. A large enough portion of the therapies listed in the alt med article match the definition of pseudoscience to justify the link. I promise none of us will think of apitherapy when we think of mainstream pseudo medicine. OK?


Another topic that the article fails to address is the inherent variability that exists from person to person with respect to body chemistry. Such variability can mean that there are some alternative medicines that will work for some people but not for others. In taking such medicines, one is essential experimenting on oneself, but if the product is safe, the downside of such a self-efficacy experiment is normally only the cost and time involved. Many vitamins fall into this category.
Also, did you really not think it was discourteous to remove the tag without a discussion? Please convince me.


Generally, some distinction should be included concerning those alternative medicines which have been shown to be medically safe (as distinct from effective) vs those which have received no such testing and which, therefore, could be physically harmful.
I'm not going to engage in a revert war. I am going to rely on your sense and rationality. ] 23:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Another perspective missing is that most (or all?) of the proven medicines were, at one point, unproven and thus could have been regarded as "alternative medicines" at that time. The tendency to label all alternative medicines as quackery would have blocked these medicines from ever finding their way into the realm of testing and proven efficacy. ] (]) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
: OK, here's rationality. The broad brush application of a pejorative label on such a mixed bag is an attempt to impose one POV and stifle dissent. Frankly, it is unscientific; it is making a religion of science. Science is a tool, and a valuable one, but some people make it more. I am familiar with this, because science was one of my gods in my own younger days. It is inadequate as a god. I have since added a number of years, and a healthy skepticism for those who pontificate in the name of science.


:Thank you for these comments, which are a lot more thoughtful than most of the complaints that show up on this talk page. I think the short answer to all your questions is that we must, by consensus, source the information on this page according to ]. If you or anyone else can provide such sourcing for the points you raise above, that would potentially be appropriate content to add here, for ]. --] (]) 20:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
: Every now and then, someone outside the pale adds a new idea. Closed minds, of course will not allow this, and adding labels is a symptom of closed minds. Let intelligent people read the information and judge POV for themselves. The discourtesy was in adding the label (to do people's thinking for them). ] 17:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed, this article is heavily biased against alternative medicine and does not provide the reader with knowledge useful for making an informed decision. ] (]) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


:What you forget that many therapies from the alternative medicine are not simply "not proven to be effective", but severely lack any biological plausibility.
Your note appears to be accusing me (or the person who added the label) of:
:] was devised based upon alt-med research, but it would not have been possible without the chemical industry.
*making a god of science (I gather that simply asserting that there is such a thing as pseudoscience is enough to warrant that accusation);
:"Negative effects" are not only lack of direct harm from the therapy, but the cost of foregoing effective therapy for serious diseases.
*attempting to stifle dissent (in fact, no one blocked you or wanted to block or will attempt to block your dissent-- however, it would seem to me that your removal of the link is stifling some one else's dissent-- why couldn't you add your dissent without stifling his?);
:"Medicines being invented and getting researched" should not be conflated with those medicines being alt-med. The pharmaceutical industry has to take steps in order to show that an invented medicine is actually effective, and this for a large chunk of the targeted population.
*having a closed mind (this is perilously close to an a simple insult to someone with whom you disagree, unless you think disagreement automatically means a closed mind)
:Vitamins and other supplement are being abused. The dosage of many American vitamins is scarily high. Excess of many vitamins is not harmless. ] (]) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
*pontificating in the name of science (the word pontificate means to speak as a priest, asserting authority rather than evidence, but in fact I offered exactly my evidence in my initial objection, so I hardly think pontificate is an accurate word);
:I agree that the article is not written from a . There are reasonable definitions for alternative medicine as well as complementary and integrative medicine provided from , such as and . An operational definition of complimentary, alternative, and integrative medicine has also recently been determined and .
*attempting to prevent people from thinking by adding a link (the link might have prompted thought; your removal certainly removed any invitation to people to think about that).
:Funding from the , , and has increasingly supported research on the safety and efficacy of complementary and integrative approaches. It is inaccurate to generalize and suggest that complementary, alternative, or integrative approaches are not evidence-based. Here's a systematic review of CAM for the .
:I definitely agree this article should be updated for a more neutral point of view. People can make more informed decisions, and shared-decision making between patient and provider is encouraged when it comes to making medical and health-related decisions. ] (]) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
::The NCCIH is not a reliable source for anything, it is a political body set up to promote altmed whether it works or not. You should have at ], which explains the history. Note also that a neutral point of view does not mean ]. Where the mainstream sources are critical, so too will be the Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 00:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Plenty of reliable sources in addition to NCCIH and the others already provided offer reasonable definitions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine.
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::Professional practice policies, guidelines, positions, and statements for complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine approaches are available.
:::* The that advocates for recognizing and acknowledging integrative medicine, conducting evidence-based evaluations, considering cultural perspectives, and pursuing education on non-conventional healing methods.
:::** with clinical recommendations for exercise, yoga, and meditation in the treatment of depression and anxiety.
:::* The certain complementary and integrative approaches for treating depression.
:::* includes competencies addressing complementary and alternative medicine.
:::* endorses guidelines on the use of complementary and alternative medicine during and after breast cancer treatment.
:::* encourages informed decision-making and acknowledges the interest in CAM approaches and their use in conjunction with conventional medical care.
:::Original research and review studies have been conducted on various CAIM approaches. Thus, there is research that is based on biological plausibility with evidence of effectiveness that can also be considered for this article.
:::* suggesting that nutraceutical supplements, such as vitamins B5 and D, botanical extracts (e.g., green tea), probiotics, and omega-3 fatty acids, could be beneficial in acne treatment, with few adverse effects reported.
:::* published a review study in 2023 suggesting nutritional supplements like zinc, pumpkin seed oil, capsaicin, and omega-3 and 6 fatty acids with antioxidants may help treat hair loss, with rare and mild adverse effects.
:::* on complementary and alternative medicines in the management of heart failure, reporting on the potential benefits of CAM approaches such as CoQ10, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin C, vitamin D, yoga, and tai chi on heart failure, as well as those that may be potentially harmful or with uncertain safety.
:::* on alternative therapies for the treatment of hypertension.
:::* in 2014 which reported that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions in multiple dimensions of psychological stress.
:::* on noninvasive nonpharmacological treatment for chronic pain. The report reviews the safety and effectiveness of various treatments, acknowledging those with potential benefits and those with little evidence of benefit.
:::* stating that acupuncture has a clinically relevant effect on chronic pain compared to control, with effects lasting up to 12 months. Even Medicare covers acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain.
:::* Check out the (Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital). You’ll see 1000 researchers and nearly 2000 publications.
:::Some mainstream sources are critical, but not all. Some maintain a more open, balanced, and neutral framing of the topic of CAIM.
:::*
:::** In this article from 2024, Stanford Medicine's Dr. Sean Mackey, chief of pain medicine, points to a growing body of research validating alternative therapies. He sees this as a positive development, with traditional clinics like Stanford's incorporating more mind-body therapies and other nonpharmaceutical options.
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::*
:::] (]) 20:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


== Add Type: Physical therapy ==
Your follow-up assertion is that "adding a label is a symptom of a closed mind". Why didn't you express this opinion when everybody was setting up the category system? Or should I assume that you really meant to say, "adding a label with which I disagree is a symptom of a closed mind"?


insert this subsection under '''Types'''. Many of these techniques appear on the ] and their articles reference the ] page but there is very little mention of these here.
Finally, I loved your world-weary, "been there, done that" dismissal of science, or was it just a dismissal of the "science as god" weltanschaung?


Besides the above reason, inclusion of this section will add the small amount of nuance about the subgroup of alternative medicine based on anecdotal or placebo based treatments with a lack of direct negative side-effects, as well as "treatments" science is unequiped to extract causality from due to difficulty of blinded trials, as mentioned above in ''A Biased Perspective?''
I am wondering if you always conduct both sides of an argument, where you get to pick our attitudes and arguments and then knock them down? When you combine that with idiosyncratic word use (not a pontification, your use of the term "scientific" in your first paragraph is certainly not recognizable to most people, and most people would think that your removal without comment of someone else's opinion a clearer example of stifling dissent than anything I've said), I bet you win every discussion! Where do we go with this? Any embarrassment yet? ] 21:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
===Physical therapy and related disciplines===


Physical therapy, along with related disciplines like ], ], and ], focuses primarily on the treatment of ] issues and occupies a unique position on the fringe of conventional medicine, largely due to challenges in conducting standardized medical trials for addressing specific problems. These practices, which include manipulative techniques such as ] and ], as well as other methods like ], ], ], ], and ], often lack definitive proof of effect. Nonetheless, they are some of the few alternative medicine practices frequently recommended by healthcare professionals and sometimes funded by healthcare providers<ref name="Eardley2012"/> due to their minimal risk of harm. However, their use in place of established treatments for serious conditions, such as cancer<ref name=acs>{{cite book |publisher=] |title=American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies |edition=2nd |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-944235-71-3 |editor-last=Ades |editor-first=TB |pages= |chapter=Myofascial release |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/americancancerso0000unse/page/226 }}</ref>, can still lead to adverse outcomes. ] (]) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:Nope. You demanded an extensive response, and now you are offended. I am not trying to offend. I didn't pick your attitude; it shows clearly and I responded to it. People who do not travel are usually not capable of looking at their own country with much objectivity. You are so deeply embedded in your own thought system, that you seem unable to comprehend the arrogance of putting on such a POV tag. But others who are not embedded can see it, just as those who've been abroad can better see their own country.
:Within this field there are no doubt some items of pseudoscience. There are some items that are mixed bag or gray areas. And there are some that may well become mainstream "science" some day. My understanding of the meaning of Misplaced Pages is that the facts are presented as clearly and neutrally as possible, and people are "allowed" to think for themselves. Shall we leave it at that?
:I went to see what else you had classified as pseudoscience. I notice that you have perpetual motion listed. I have a machinist kinsman who has pursued the idea for all his working life, and he's invented a number of useful things. All the relatives think he's daft but a genius anyway. I appreciate the fact that he has contributed to society instead of figuring out new ways to kill people. Do you wanna squelch that too? ] 13:52, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)


{{reflist|refs=
::I can't make sense of your example as supporting your argument. His intentions are irrelevant to whether the quest for perpetual motion is pseudoscience - it clearly is and belongs in that category.
<ref name="Eardley2012">{{Cite journal | last1 = Eardley | first1 = Susan | last2 = Bishop | first2 = Felicity L | last3 = Prescott | first3 = Philip | last4 = Cardini | first4 = Francesco | last5 = Brinkhaus | first5 = Benno | last6 = Santos-Rey | first6 = Koldo | last7 = Vas | first7 = Jorge | last8 = von Ammon | first8 = Klaus | last9 = Hegyi | first9 = Gabriella | last10 = Dragan | first10 = Simona | last11 = Uehleke | first11 = Bernard | last12 = Fønnebø | first12 = Vinjar | last13 = Lewith | first13 = George | title = A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU | journal = Forsch Komplementmed | volume = 19 Suppl 2 | pages = 18-28 | year = 2012 | pmid = 23883941 | doi = 10.1159/000342708}}</ref>
}}
: {{not done}}. The sources provided don't support the content. Is it common in the literature that physical therapy is described as alternative medicine? Are there sources that support it holding a "unique position on the fringe"? ] (] / ]) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


== Mainstream reflects popularity not a specific medical practice ==
::The dispute as I see it is that while much of alternative medicine clearly is pseudoscience (e.g. homeopathy), much of it is protoscience instead - rather than being clearly pseudo- or not. I suggest this be solved by adding ] as well (doesn't exist yet) - that both can be applied to the same article should indicate clearly enough to the reader that material in the article fits into both - ] 14:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


The article creates false dichotomies between broadly applied and innovative practices. No critique of pharmaceutical practices is provided (i.e., what works in highly controlled clinical trials may be far less efficacious in the "real world"). A more helpful start to this topic might first parse medical care for acute and chronic physical injury and disease, mental and behavioral trauma and progressive illness, and personalized genetic functionality and dysfunction. This said, indivifual situations might reflect a combination of physical, behavioral, and genetic issues thereby calling for a combinatorial approach. ] (]) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::That's an improvement I can live with. The blanket classification was just over the edge. Thanks, Dave. ] 15:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)


:No. ] (]) 00:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
==Basis of conventional medicine==
:If you think you can improve the article then find useful sources and then make use of the]. Cheers ] (]) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to say or imply that conventional medicine is ''always'' based on a known biochemical mechanism. For example, I think there are several areas of nutrition where suitable double-blind studies have established, to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that a particular nutrient is protective against a particular disorder, but nobody really knows how. I softened the statement to say only that conventional medicine is usually based on known mechanism. ] 03:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Added references will not ballance the bias in the entre. An implicitclaim is made that alternative and complementary care is ineffective. ] (]) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:::There is no ] assumption that CAM is ineffective. But if a CAM approach is shown to be effective, it is no longer CAM, it becomes mainstream medicine. ] (]) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
We don't know the biochemical mechanism for lots of things, but ''scientific medicine'' is characterized by two things: (1) proposed explanations cannot violate our current scientific understanding of chemistry, physics, and biology (all admittedly incomplete), and (2) everything is alway subject to testing and revision or rejection by scientific procedures, not doctrinal criteria.
::::Mainstream likr 5NP acuponcture for managing withdrawal ? An assumption must be made that a treatment may be effective before it is declared to be ineffective. There are areas of treatment where safety and egficacy have been demonstrated under controlled vonditions. Behavioral health is an underserved aspect of mainstream healthcare. ] (]) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
''Conventional medicine'' is a flawed term, but so are most of the approximate synonyms: ''rational medicine'' (the 19th century term for what became scientific medicine) isn't bad, but few people know it. ''Orthodox medicine'' is recognizable but connotes that it is chosen and changed only like church doctrine. The term ''allopathic medicine'' is simultaneously stupid and offensive, akin to classifying all vertebrates as either "bigfoot", "unicorns", "Nessie", or "other critters". Most of us use ''scientific medicine'' with no illusion that we know the biochemical mechanism for all diseases and treatments, but with the expectation that as we understand them they will not violate or be incompatible with our scientific understanding of the material universe.] 03:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::::Acupuncture is neither mainstream nor effective. See ]. --] (])

:::If you cannot improve the article within the framework of Misplaced Pages rules, then you cannot improve the article; you are in the wrong place and should go to a forum instead. --] (]) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
===Least common denominator - "official" - vs all other medicines ===
::::November 30, 2023
There is a very pertinent denomination, which settles the issue: GREED MEDICINE. We aren't allowed to practice medicine OUTSIDE the rules fixed by the BIG PHARMA sharks, now busy in fixing medical curricula as well. Of course these are only greedy fascists who would kill just about any medical system, medical research data, medical views or only effective new drugs - if it isn't theirs to sell ! Not recommended. The history of editing iridology and Alternative Medicine articles, plus the habits of Theresa, Rosie, David Gerard and Co in SUPRESSING reliable alternative medical information in Misplaced Pages did a LOT OF HARM to the cause of health in the general public and the cause of truth in general. Their habits of servile parrots repeating corporate media mantras and consummate mafiots patting the shoulders of corporate criminals, is exposed FOR AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE to be puppets of corporate press and corporate policies. Recommended reading (besides previous articles on conventional medicine and stuff censored here in Wiki but safely guarded for the next legal breakthrough by a trusted third party, include:
::::Efficacy and Safety of Auricular Acupuncture for DepressionA Randomized Clinical Trial

::::Daniel Maurício de Oliveira Rodrigues, PhD1,2,3; Paulo Rossi Menezes, MD, PhD1; Ana Elise Machado Ribeiro Silotto, BSc1,2; et alArtur Heps, BSc1; Nathália Martins Pereira Sanches, MD4; Mariana Cabral Schveitzer, PhD5; Alexandre Faisal-Cury, MD, PhD1
• "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It," by Dr. Marcia Angell.
::::Author Affiliations Article Information

::::JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2345138. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45138 ] (]) 13:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• "On The Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health," by Dr. Jerome Kassirer.
:::::You can find the guidelines for sourcing on medical topics at ]. This paper does not meet that standard. ] (]) 13:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::::: BlueSkiesRI, that's an odd choice. It shows safety but lack of efficacy. It is also not suitable here as it does not pass muster as a MEDRS source. We prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our standards are higher than those used by medical journals. -- ] (]) (PING me) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• "Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs," by Dr. Jerry Avorn.
::::::OK. The rules of evidence preclude. I am through here. ] (]) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Overdo$ed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine," by Dr. John Abramson.

• "Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business - and Bad Medicine," by investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele.

• "The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs," by Merrill Goozner.

Happy AM editing - Sincerely, back here to stay - so better trigger those red alarms and hang on somewhere near the panick button, he he - irismeister :O°)

==Not Proto-science?==
Tim Starling- Your view of alt. medicine as "not new, not speculative, not scientificince" and thus not protoscience is debatable and thus is not NPOV. Since their is no agreement as to whether it is pseudoscience, protoscience, or a mix of both, it was previously agreed that both catagories be applied (see discussion above). Thus I reverted your change. ]



:: (for the record I wold rathe rniether catogry was there but no matter) It was suggested above that much of alt med was protoscience. How many forms of alt med cane you name where this is the case? In the cases I've seen it is very much the exception] 22:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Blatant Bias, Hidden Agendas and Wikipedic Censorship of Alternative Medical Information==
* Criticism of Iridology is Biased, Paternalist and Suppressive
* Just like "Democracy" of Brand New, and Growing NeoCon American Stuff
* Back to the Killing Business as Usual :O)

===FALSE CLAIM===
The majority of ] reject all the claims of all branches of iridology '']'' and label them as ] or even ]. Iridologists are rarely medical doctors; many training centers exist, but iridology is neither taught in mainstream medical schools, nor acknowledged by official medical organizations as a valid medical technique.

===TRUTH OF THE MATTER===
Mainstream medicine is dismissive of iridology largely because published studies have indicated a lack of success for the iridological claims. However, more and more medical institutes, health centers, reaserch organizations and universities staffed by ophthalmologists and certified medical doctors openly profess alternative iridologic opinions against "consensual medicine". For instance, scientific associations composed ''exclusively'' of medical doctors using iridology in their day to day patient care now exist in Germany, Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Ukraine. They certainly would not like to see the information about their daily work being suppressed because of hidden agendas paid for by the Big Pharma Villains.<br>
NOTE : please make sure you will again ban me soon, for your usual ridiculous and spurious reasons. Only at this time I have taken all the necessary precautions... ''' ''We've got what it takes in LEGAL files to take what you've got in censorship habits.'' ''' We'll show you (you know who you are) that you are only CENSORING information. You censors (Theresa, Rosie, David Gerard and Co are now showing the losers looming inside your flattened egos :O) he he) - Happy SINCERE editing ~:O°)] 13:48, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

'''gb2AOL and stop spamming this website with propaganda.'''<br>
Facts which are supressed by Wikipolice are not propaganda. Requests formulated anonymously, in an unsubstantiated, unattributed manner are propaganda. Please apply to yourself what you seem to profess for others! - ] 20:55, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)


== JamesMLane ==
Thank you for your nice fit cutting of my careful sentence. Now please: <br>
01. read the sentence you want to cut;<br>
02. read it again;<br>
03. think<br>
04. read what you wrote when you reverted, as a "reason"<br>
05. think again!<br>
See? It's '''so simple to add information''' instead of CENSORING it on spurios reasons like "duplication". No one is dull or dumb here! There are PROVEN, CRIMINAL hidden agendas from big pharma sharks. Wiki does not help the people, Wiki serves its corporate masters. But this is wrong! This is greed and censorship, and all this becomes a shame! You know, JamesMLane, FASCIM is characterized and uniquely determined to be what it is, fascism that is, when the following happen in sequence or all of a sudden:<br>
01. people listen ONLY to what SOMEBODY wants us to listen;<br>
02. people SUPRESS whatever they don't want to listen, just like that,<br>
03. people believe in their own lies, and their own fiction. Ah, dude!<br>
Wake up, pal! Let people live! Medical doctors are licensed to practice big pharma intoxications and big pharma sales plans, and look what happens: More and more, they freely choose to specialize in alternative medicine. Because they KNOW, and they THINK - for they are in the FRONT LINE - which you aren't. They took an oath, the Hippocratic stuff. And they want to keep it, no matter how much dole they get under the table from Big Pharma sales reps. Let MEDICAL DOCTORS do what they think is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE PATIENT! Alternative medicine is medicine WHICH HELPS, this is REAL medicine! This is compassionate, passionate ART and SCIENCE which addresses individual needs, which treats people as HUMAN beings, and not as social security numbers and insurance/bank account numbers! Especially since its practiced by LICENSED MDs who have seen it ALL. Alternative medicine STARTS with NOT POISONING people!!! By the Big Pharma Villain's own admissions, 250,000 PEOPLE DIE EACH YEAR IN THE US ONLY, as a consequence of their BRAND INDUSTRIAL drugs that KILL! To halp their sales agenda is to be willing to assisst consummate murderers! Did you know, incidentally, what the oath of that guy, Hippocrates, says ? It says PRIMUM NON NOCERE, fella! '''If you can't help them, don't poison them!'''. Capischi ? Now please don't CENSOR the thing I put there cauz' it's fact, pal, and encyclopedias are all about facts, not fiction! My sentence duplicates nothing except whatever you don't want to listen because you'be been CONDITIONED to RELY on those SHARKS! It simply isn't music for your ears! And it's informational content MADE SIMPLE FOR YOU TO GET IT! Care to interprete without putting your opinion FIRST ? Extract TRUTH of the MATTER. We'll all live longer, sleep better and intoxicate less fish by dumping our toxic urine in the toilets and the planetary ocean as a consequence! Already the tadpoles and the frogs change sex in the US because of this! - ] 18:30, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

==Geni==
(placeholder for his alleged substantiation of his/her/its proven desubstantiation).<br>
Geni, please do one or more of the following:<br>
01. refer to my substantiation of my substantiation above<br>
02. write here in the AM talk page BEFORE you write/revert/cut in the AM page<br>
03. use reason, not deceit and treason, or, if you don't like reason, ban me :O)<br>
Now please don't CENSOR the thing I put in there cauz' it's a fact, pal, and encyclopedias are all about facts, not your fictive definition of medical fiction!




:::Ok lets see. Lets consider what this sentance means. It means there is a greater number of countries where lisenced indicdual are praticing CAM. That flaw in this claim is that it fails to take into account the very very high probabily that at least one doctor on every county on earth pratices some form of alt med or Comp med. As such the figure is almost certianly 100% so cannot be increased.] 19:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<br>

::::Thank you! But pardon me, I can't follow your rasoning. Where is it? Where is your hard data ? Do you have it ?- ] 20:05, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
:::::Do you? ] ] 20:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::::: Shut up, Theresa - go paint another pair of tits for our entertainment. We need it. See you can really do something GREAT in Wiki? We love you for THAT - not for your questions here :O) - ] 21:54, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)


:::::You cliam the number of countries where this is the case has increased. You provide no evidence for this. You fail to give the size of the increase and the length of time over which the increase has taken place. This alone makes that stament meaningless. You fail to back the stament up further rendering it meaningless. if you can explain which bit of my reasoning you can't follow I will of course clarify it. ] 20:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<br>
'''You cliam the number of countries where this is the case has increased.'''
<br>
Facts are not claims, Geni, facts are statements.<br>
'''You fail to give the size of the increase and the length of time over which the increase has taken place.'''
<br>
Have you read above, on this talk page?<br>
'''This alone makes that stament meaningless.'''
<br>
Statements of fact are meaningless only for those who lack the ability to perceive fact and tell fact from conjecture.<br>
'''You fail to back the stament up further rendering it meaningless.''' <br>
No, I don't. Read on this page, above. Or, OK, I see your point - don't :O)
<br>
'''if you can explain which bit of my reasoning you can't follow I will of course clarify it. '''<br>
Now it's OK, thank you. <br>
<br>
<br>

In conclusion, Geni, what will convince '''you'''? - ] 21:52, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:30, 28 August 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alternative medicine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
? faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Science Q1: Where does the statement that alternative medicine is not evidence-based or scientific come from? A1: The source for this statement is a report produced by the National Science Foundation, which—while surveying scientific beliefs among the public—used the term "alternative medicine" to refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using the scientific method. The report went on to describe the American Medical Association definition as "neither taught widely in U.S. medical schools nor generally available in U.S. hospitals." The source is different than the definitions used by major medical bodies and its use as a primary source is not consistent with Misplaced Pages's guideline on identifying reliable medical sources, but its inclusion remains important to some and a point of contention to others. Q2: Why don't I see lots of references in the lead? A2: To keep the lead from looking like a jungle with all the references which are actually used, they have been hidden from view, but are visible when in the editing mode. If a reader has a serious question about the sourcing for a statement in the lead, they can start a thread on this talk page and request to see the reference(s). Then, an editor will unhide that reference for them.
Whole medical systems was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 September 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alternative medicine. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDietary Supplements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChiropractic High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSystems: Systems theory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems theory.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
          Miscellaneous notices
The contents of the Holistic health page were merged into Alternative medicine. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
On 7 March 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Complementary and alternative medicine. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Old discussions at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Tridosha system) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 15 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelica.gnlz (article contribs).

A Biased Perspective?

This article comes across as sounding very biased. A less biased approach would be to define Alternative Medicines as those that do not yet have sufficient profit-potential to warrant the enormous cost of adequate testing for proof of efficacy and safety. Thus, the supposedly-scientific bases for medicines has been dragged into the realm of economics and patents.

As such, alternative medicines remain in the gray area as "possibly helpful" where the decision to use them needs to be balanced against possible negative effects including safety, cost and discouragement from seeking more reliable alternatives. When the negative effects are low, they often become "worth a try".

Another topic that the article fails to address is the inherent variability that exists from person to person with respect to body chemistry. Such variability can mean that there are some alternative medicines that will work for some people but not for others. In taking such medicines, one is essential experimenting on oneself, but if the product is safe, the downside of such a self-efficacy experiment is normally only the cost and time involved. Many vitamins fall into this category.

Generally, some distinction should be included concerning those alternative medicines which have been shown to be medically safe (as distinct from effective) vs those which have received no such testing and which, therefore, could be physically harmful.

Another perspective missing is that most (or all?) of the proven medicines were, at one point, unproven and thus could have been regarded as "alternative medicines" at that time. The tendency to label all alternative medicines as quackery would have blocked these medicines from ever finding their way into the realm of testing and proven efficacy. Jetstream423 (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments, which are a lot more thoughtful than most of the complaints that show up on this talk page. I think the short answer to all your questions is that we must, by consensus, source the information on this page according to WP:MEDRS. If you or anyone else can provide such sourcing for the points you raise above, that would potentially be appropriate content to add here, for WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, this article is heavily biased against alternative medicine and does not provide the reader with knowledge useful for making an informed decision. 2603:3018:404:1400:963:1E9B:EFF8:4F84 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
What you forget that many therapies from the alternative medicine are not simply "not proven to be effective", but severely lack any biological plausibility.
Artemisinin was devised based upon alt-med research, but it would not have been possible without the chemical industry.
"Negative effects" are not only lack of direct harm from the therapy, but the cost of foregoing effective therapy for serious diseases.
"Medicines being invented and getting researched" should not be conflated with those medicines being alt-med. The pharmaceutical industry has to take steps in order to show that an invented medicine is actually effective, and this for a large chunk of the targeted population.
Vitamins and other supplement are being abused. The dosage of many American vitamins is scarily high. Excess of many vitamins is not harmless. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the article is not written from a WP:NPOV. There are reasonable definitions for alternative medicine as well as complementary and integrative medicine provided from WP:MEDRS, such as Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name? | NCCIH (nih.gov) and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) - NCI (cancer.gov). An operational definition of complimentary, alternative, and integrative medicine has also recently been determined Ng et al. (2022) and Cochrane Complementary Medicine.
Funding from the NIH, NCCIH, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has increasingly supported research on the safety and efficacy of complementary and integrative approaches. It is inaccurate to generalize and suggest that complementary, alternative, or integrative approaches are not evidence-based. Here's a systematic review of CAM for the treatment of psoriasis published in JAMA Dermatology.
I definitely agree this article should be updated for a more neutral point of view. People can make more informed decisions, and shared-decision making between patient and provider is encouraged when it comes to making medical and health-related decisions. 4whirledpeas (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The NCCIH is not a reliable source for anything, it is a political body set up to promote altmed whether it works or not. You should have at Wikipedias article on it, which explains the history. Note also that a neutral point of view does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Where the mainstream sources are critical, so too will be the Misplaced Pages article. MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources in addition to NCCIH and the others already provided offer reasonable definitions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine.
Professional practice policies, guidelines, positions, and statements for complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine approaches are available.
Original research and review studies have been conducted on various CAIM approaches. Thus, there is research that is based on biological plausibility with evidence of effectiveness that can also be considered for this article.
Some mainstream sources are critical, but not all. Some maintain a more open, balanced, and neutral framing of the topic of CAIM.
4whirledpeas (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Type: Physical therapy

insert this subsection under Types. Many of these techniques appear on the List of forms of alternative medicine and their articles reference the Alternative medicine page but there is very little mention of these here.

Besides the above reason, inclusion of this section will add the small amount of nuance about the subgroup of alternative medicine based on anecdotal or placebo based treatments with a lack of direct negative side-effects, as well as "treatments" science is unequiped to extract causality from due to difficulty of blinded trials, as mentioned above in A Biased Perspective?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Physical therapy and related disciplines

Physical therapy, along with related disciplines like Pilates, Yoga as therapy, and Tai chi, focuses primarily on the treatment of musculoskeletal issues and occupies a unique position on the fringe of conventional medicine, largely due to challenges in conducting standardized medical trials for addressing specific problems. These practices, which include manipulative techniques such as osteopathy and massage, as well as other methods like foam-rolling, manual lymphatic drainage, acupressure, taping, and sauna, often lack definitive proof of effect. Nonetheless, they are some of the few alternative medicine practices frequently recommended by healthcare professionals and sometimes funded by healthcare providers due to their minimal risk of harm. However, their use in place of established treatments for serious conditions, such as cancer, can still lead to adverse outcomes. Elkir (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. Eardley, Susan; Bishop, Felicity L; Prescott, Philip; Cardini, Francesco; Brinkhaus, Benno; Santos-Rey, Koldo; Vas, Jorge; von Ammon, Klaus; Hegyi, Gabriella; Dragan, Simona; Uehleke, Bernard; Fønnebø, Vinjar; Lewith, George (2012). "A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU". Forsch Komplementmed. 19 Suppl 2: 18–28. doi:10.1159/000342708. PMID 23883941.
  2. Ades, TB, ed. (2009). "Myofascial release". American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.). American Cancer Society. pp. 226–228. ISBN 978-0-944235-71-3.
 Not done. The sources provided don't support the content. Is it common in the literature that physical therapy is described as alternative medicine? Are there sources that support it holding a "unique position on the fringe"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mainstream reflects popularity not a specific medical practice

The article creates false dichotomies between broadly applied and innovative practices. No critique of pharmaceutical practices is provided (i.e., what works in highly controlled clinical trials may be far less efficacious in the "real world"). A more helpful start to this topic might first parse medical care for acute and chronic physical injury and disease, mental and behavioral trauma and progressive illness, and personalized genetic functionality and dysfunction. This said, indivifual situations might reflect a combination of physical, behavioral, and genetic issues thereby calling for a combinatorial approach. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If you think you can improve the article then find useful sources and then make use of theMisplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cheers 22FatCats (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Added references will not ballance the bias in the entre. An implicitclaim is made that alternative and complementary care is ineffective. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no a priori assumption that CAM is ineffective. But if a CAM approach is shown to be effective, it is no longer CAM, it becomes mainstream medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Mainstream likr 5NP acuponcture for managing withdrawal ? An assumption must be made that a treatment may be effective before it is declared to be ineffective. There are areas of treatment where safety and egficacy have been demonstrated under controlled vonditions. Behavioral health is an underserved aspect of mainstream healthcare. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Acupuncture is neither mainstream nor effective. See Acupuncture. --Hob Gadling (talk)
If you cannot improve the article within the framework of Misplaced Pages rules, then you cannot improve the article; you are in the wrong place and should go to a forum instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
November 30, 2023
Efficacy and Safety of Auricular Acupuncture for DepressionA Randomized Clinical Trial
Daniel Maurício de Oliveira Rodrigues, PhD1,2,3; Paulo Rossi Menezes, MD, PhD1; Ana Elise Machado Ribeiro Silotto, BSc1,2; et alArtur Heps, BSc1; Nathália Martins Pereira Sanches, MD4; Mariana Cabral Schveitzer, PhD5; Alexandre Faisal-Cury, MD, PhD1
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2345138. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45138 BlueSkiesRI (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
You can find the guidelines for sourcing on medical topics at WP:MEDRS. This paper does not meet that standard. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
BlueSkiesRI, that's an odd choice. It shows safety but lack of efficacy. It is also not suitable here as it does not pass muster as a MEDRS source. We prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our standards are higher than those used by medical journals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
OK. The rules of evidence preclude. I am through here. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: