Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 16 January 2008

Complementary and alternative medicine was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 12, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Alternative medicine NA‑class

This redirect 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 NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Skepticism NA‑class

This redirect 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 NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Complementary and alternative medicine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Complementary and alternative medicine at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

RfC: Should complementary medicine and alternative medicine be merged with complementary and alternative medicine?

RfC was recently postponed due to the need for further discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. See:

• The RfC is temporarily suspended

Please contribute there instead, not by continued voting, but by preparing a proper RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some dispute as to whether complementary medicine and alternative medicine are the same treatments but with or without the additional but unrelated use of conventional medicine. The question for the RfC is, should the three articles be merged?

There is already some discussion of this topic here: Talk:Complementary_medicine#Scope_of_the_article:_To_merge_or_not_to_merge and there was a previous RfC that was only discussed by two users here Talk:Complementary_and_alternative_medicine/Archive_1#merge_proposal_for_complementary_and_alternative_medicine_articles and closed due to lack of attention. There is also extensive debate over the terms on this page. Would this topic be better served by creating just one complementary and alternative medicine article and creating a section in this article discussing any differences between complementary medicine and alternative medicine or are these fundamentally different concepts?

Comments by involved editors

Proposal for keeping articles separate. I believe that this is worth considering. I think each topic deserves a separate lead. The focus here is on the project and the reader. How do we help them understand these concepts. Separating them will help prevent the reader from conflating the three together. Merging will create a massive article, difficult to read through. My apologies for the lack of development in this proposal.

• CAM - discuss the broad concept, as we are already doing here of CAM, including definitions, comparisions Comp, alt med, conventional, migration, research, and the current evolution of the concept of CAM. Alternative medicine should be briefly covered with a focus on it's current relationship to CAM. No need to rehash alt med in CAM beyond a brief mention of the most predominant forms of alt med, IOW, those that are actively being utilized by CAM practitioners and/or being scientifically researched.
• Alternative Medicine - discuss the history of alt-med up until now, and consider mergeing the History of alternative medicine with the Alternative medicine page. Alternative should focus on systems that are being utilized instead of conventional medicine
• Complimentary Medicine - discuss complimentary medicine today. Examples of how it is being used today, both by conventional practitioners in conjunction with an alt-med practitioner and exclusively by conventional practitioners can be included. For instance, we can discuss consumers self-prescribed use of herbal medicine in conjunction with allopathic therapies, with and without the knowledge of an allopath. Anthon01 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok we'll take the self prescribed herbal medicine example. Is herbal medicine considered part of alternative medicine when it is used instead of taking a conventional drug? If so, how would you suggest that we avoid redundancy when herbal medicine is mentioned in both pages but in different contexts? JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. This is how I would suggests to include both without redundancy. RS that address the main point of each article predominates the decision of whether an item should be included or not.

• Comp Med - herbal gets included only if we find RS discussing the use of herbal remedies in conjunction with conventional medicine by alternative and/or allopathic practitioners . We talk about the prevalence of their use, in what cases they are used, anectodal & scientific research discussing their use etc ... but only if these RS refer to alt-med use with conventional medicine.
• Alt-med - We talk about how herbs are used as a substitute to conventional medicine, again looking to RS. There is no need to talk about comp med side of the issue. Here we discuss general use of herbs in prehaps a few sentences, and can include brief mention of significant studies. Details of any herbs extensively studied could be linked to the appropriate page. Anthon01 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What if one RS shows instances where it is used with conventional medicine and another discussion finds cases where it is used to replace conventional medicine? De we have two discussion for the same herb in two different contexts? JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You would have two different discussions about the same herb, not the same discussion.

• Complementary - conventional therapy + herbal, that is the synergy.
• Alt-med - conventional therapy vs. the herbal, Which is better, (eg. side-effects, cost, duration of treatment, etc) ...

No need for redundancy. Anthon01 (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why the main article needs to be in WP:Summary style. The questions you're addressing here would go in the article about the herb, not in the article about alt-med or complementary med. There's no way all those individual treatment comparisons can be done in the top level article(s). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about a single article or three. I agree that there is no way in a top level article to include all those comparisons. However a brief summary, perhaps 1 sentence, of significant research could be included with a link. Anthon01 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with James that a merged article should stick to the WP:Summary style, and any specific details about particular therapies be done in their own articles. I'm not totally excluding the possibility of inclusion of the type Anthon01 is suggesting, but I think we should plan and intend not to do it. Let's cross that bridge if we come to it at all. Instead we should use lots of wikilinks to specific articles. Categorization (at the bottom of the article) will also help those who want to find every type of therapy classed as alternative or complementary. We need to stick to definitions, history, legal issues, controversies, etc.. -- Fyslee / talk 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - In my opinion, this is nothing, but an attempt to merge these articles. Therefore, either place the required merge banners in the respective articles or kindly remove the word "merged" from this section heading. Furthermore, original research is prohibited in Misplaced Pages. And, what you are attempting to do is to put this original research of yours into articles in Misplaced Pages so that it will compete with authoritative organizations, such as NCCAM. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep articles separate! - It is the best way to put an end to, once and for all, to this issue which keeps on coming up over and over again. There is more than enough material to write a complete article on each topic, without duplicating the other articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I should altert everyone that there is an NCCAM page that differentiates the terms http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/. I'll even quote it for you:

Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other?

* 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.

So according to NCCAM the only difference is whether or not conventional medicine is also used. Who thinks this distinction is enough to support three seperate articles? When the NCCAM discuss the types of CAM they group them together "What are the major types of complementary and alternative medicine?" So how is it OR to follow NCCAM's lead and group CAM together? Also, any other sources you would like me to quote? I wouldn't want to give the impression of trying to compete with authoritative organistations so I think it's only fair I allow the wikipedia community to review all of these sources and let them make up their own minds. JamesStewart7 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See complementary medicine. That article clearly shows that an article bigger than a stub can be written on that topic. Just because NCCAM might not have a better page on it means absolutely nothing. But, I will check to see if NCCAM has a better webpage on this topic. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So first you accuse me of OR and demand me to use the opinion of an authoritative organisation, giving NCCAM as an example and now that I quote it, NCCAM isn't enough? Tell me, what reliable source should I be using? JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering your position on the Energy therapy Classification I rather doubt that quoting any organization would do any good at all. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So is there some reason you are not answering this question "What reliable source should I be using?" JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing at complementary medicine that couldn't be more profitable merged here, or pruned/moved elsewhere for OR/WEIGHT reasons. I don't see the benefit to readers in having separate articles on suhc poorly differentiates topics.--Jim Butler 06:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge. The sooner, the better, so we can again have useful information in one place and avoid POVFORKing. By definition, CAM is a single set of therapies, which in turn may be differentiated into alternative or complementary depending on whether or not they are practiced, respectively, apart from or along with mainstream med. They are two sides of a single coin that flips depending on the individual(s) practicing them. --Jim Butler 10:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but either post the proper merge banners in all of the respective articles or kindly cease with your very private discussion. A very public discussion is required by any motion to merge. -- John Gohde (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok this will be done. JamesStewart7 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The public discussion, officially starts over of this moment. And, the count for conducting a public discussion a reasonable length of time, starts over at the moment that you posted the banners on the respective articles. Happy New Year! -- John Gohde (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is quite obvious to me that the alternative medicine article has a very long history. For that reason alone, it should not be merged. Likewise complementary and alternative medicine has a fairly long history which documents that editors want to see an article on CAM. Hence, in order to avoid a never ending series of edit wars; it is perfectly obvious to me that both articles should exist. The only question to be resolved is whether a separate complementary medicine can exist that is bigger than a stub. The answer is yes, because such an article currently exists.

To resolve this never ending issue once once and for all, all three articles have to independently exist. We have an opportunity to resolve this problem. And, I say KEEP all three articles separate and independent of each other. Just edit them to avoid duplicate content. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. The degree of overlap between the three pages is excessive and difficult to synchronize as new references are added. How would one determine whether a particular therapy is "complementary" or "alternative"? Would we continually monitor the NIH CAM page and when they approve something, move it from alternative to complementary? But they are just one source. What if some doctors start using a treatment that has not been completely proven, how many doctors have to use it before it changes from "alternative" to "complementary"? If the articles attempt that differentiation, there will be a constant churn of modalities and references from article to article. There are also problems with confused talk page discussions where threads get lost between the different articles or multiple discussions occur in parallel, adding effort and diluting effectiveness. The issues of research, scientific method, criticism, legal status, regulation, etc, interconnect for the three topics. By merging the article we can address them in one place. In doing the merge, we could organize the article with sections for each where it's appropriate to separate alternative from complementary, but in situations where information may move from one to the other, the related references will easily move along with the text rather than needing to be moved between articles. Overall, much better to merge them into one clearly sourced summary style page, with an overview and sections common to the whole field, including sociological and legal aspects, and then short sections for individual healing modalities with links to their separate articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree! Criticisms of individual branches of CAM belongs in their respective articles. The overview articles should remain overview articles. And, plain old good hypertext document design dictates that the subject is simply way too big to fit in just one article. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that any merger would involve the removal of redundant information and a summary of similar but slightly different but heavily overlapping information. There is a fair bit of this eg. "Use of alternative medicine alongside conventional medicine" section in alternative medicine and well, half of the complementary medicine page. Also following from what Jack-A-Roe was saying, there are rather large POV differences between the three pages. Compare the rather lengthy criticism section on the alternative medicine pages to the complete lack of such a section on the other pages.JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature? A merger is not a replacement. And, any attempt to merge any material into complementary and alternative medicine can be contested by anyone. Furthermore, a consensus has to be first reached in talk on a section by section basis, at the very least. Any wholesale replacement attempts can be reverted by anybody for failing to first reach a consensus in talk. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS and the WP:RFC process. It might take a while to get enough input from people so we can find the consensus, but once it's found, if it is in favor of for a merge, then the merge can be executed according to the consensus. That's the purpose of the RfC. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Three separate articles, albeit with some inherent overlaps, seem to be the only way forward from the inherent POV pile of partisan bias, pseudoscience, pseudoskepticism, WP:OR, bile and *total* confusion of the previous all-in-one-train-wreck. I would favor Stub or Delete before Merge (again). Although I have been known to be willing to sink time into sorting out technical controversy, I have avoided the all-in-one combined CAM article and its precursors from well over a year ago when I recognized the merged version as a piece of hopeless, insensible, irresolvable dreck. The technical, social and political differences, as well as the resulting different priorities, between complementary and alternative versions of the same CAM areas are notable and important threads to maintain. A single combined article will definitely be too long and too generalized to be understandable to average readers as well as insufficiently accurate. With WP:V, actual GF, and NPOV articles, it might be sorted out this time. If this is a Merger vote, it needs to be formalized.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that this discussion was not created according to the correct procedures (formalizing merger vote) can you please just correct it for me. I have little experience with these types of things. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly favor the merge plan, but I do also relate to your concerns. I was thinking if it was merged as one article it could be done in WP:Summary Style to avoid the long article overload you're describing, with the modality details in separate articles and keeping the legal/regulatory issues in the main article. Whichever way it goes though, many of the issues you brought up will likely continue to need attention. As far as formalizing the merge vote, I don't have experience with that... is there a specific procedure for that? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for TheNautilus: I can certainly relate to your aversion to the massive problems entrained in CAM, CM and AM. At the same time, what is it that could be said in any one of those articles that couldn't be said in the others? Beyond the very basic sphere-of-practice differentiation, or a mention of various CAM definitions, which overlap so much they virtually beg to be put under the big "CAM" umbrella (as the most authoritative source we have, the Institute of Medicine, has done)? I agree with Jack-A-Roe above that however it goes, it will still be (for awhile) a contentious mess, so my inclination has been to at least avoid the POV-forking and have a grand, solitary mess, and then fix that. Then we could work to keep the CAM article as VER and big-picture as possible (per WP:WEIGHT), with links to lists of various CAM's. regards, Jim Butler 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I am in favor of keeping all three articles separate and independent of each other and editing them to avoid duplicate content. -- Vitaminman 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to decide either one of two things here. Either we merge the articles or we come to a consenus as to how exactly we will avoid duplicate content. Vitaminman how would you suggest we avoid duplicate content? JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, the articles need to focus less on health modalities and more on the specific ethos/belief system of each term (i.e. Complementary, Alternative, etc). "Complementary" practitioners - generally speaking - see themselves as complementing the regular healthcare system, whilst "Alternative" practitioners see themselves as an alternative to it. Remember too that the term "Complementary medicine" is a relatively new one, historically speaking, whilst the term "Alternative medicine" has been around for a lot longer. -- Vitaminman 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that is an interesting suggestion but this is the current coverage of that in the complementary medicine article "The term 'complementary' has come into regular usage in the last 15 years, commonly understood as complementing conventional medicine. Practitioners often label complementary medicine as such because they beleive that it complements more of the needs of the patient than conventional medicine" and I see nothing like this in the alternative medicine article or the complementary and alternative medicine article. So do you have enough reliable sources on which to base two seperate articles on? JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that there are indeed enough reliable sources on which to base two separate articles. -- Vitaminman 10:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to offer an example? JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - these are from today's news:

New laws to govern alternative medicine

These treatments may have their place, but we must not be foolhardy

Alternative but exciting!

-- Vitaminman 11:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - per discussion above. WE are dealing with distinct (albeit related) subjects. There is enough information to have separate articles which don't overlap too much. Complimentary and Alternative are clearly distinct and CAM has become a popular umbrella term with context unto its own. -- Levine2112 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Though I am not a 'regular editor' my view is to keep them as separate articles primarily for the reasons given above: above all, the two subjects are sufficiently different from each to warrant them being kept separate. Alternative means an alternative to mainstream chemical medicine; complementary often means a rag-bag of stuff with no philosophy just thrown together for use by chemical medicine people pretending to use anything that might work short-term and throwing away the philosophy, while also pandering to fashionable middle-class bourgeois intelligentsia who might like some alt med. Western Acupuncture is a prime example of that approach. It is thus unholistic plundering and a misappropriation of complete systems and their annexation and subordination by devotees of imperialistic chemical medicine. My ten cents FWIW Peter morrell 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is temporarily suspended

Please contribute there instead, not by continued voting, but by preparing a proper RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC responder comments

What is the Difference between Alternative and Complementary Medicine?

The difference is both significant and quite easy to figure out. Also see complementary medicine -- John Gohde (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm the content of that link states the exact same reason as the NCCAM page " And most importantly they are used in an adjunctive fashion along with, not instead of, mainstream therapy." They expanded on it slightly "especially dangerous because they are usually offered as literal alternatives to mainstream care." so maybe we can expanded the definition of complementary medicine to "used with with conventional care or promoted as being adjunctive to conventional care" I still haven't heard anyone point out any differences other than whether or not conventional care is also used. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is a difference. In the US, the most authoritative description, or at least the most often quoted one in these articles, seems to be the one on the NCCAM NIH web page. But there, as James Stewart noted above, the difference is simply whether a treatment is used together with conventional medicine, or separately from it. Many therapies fall within both of those; there is no point at which a great blessing of a particular therapy is made and it becomes complementary rather than alternative. An example is acupuncture and medical acupuncture. Both of those articles refer to the modality as "alternative". But acupuncture is often used along with conventional medicine for pain management, and often the patient's doctor is aware of it or even suggests it, when there is no better solution available. So is acupuncture "alternative" or "complementary"? Who decides that, and when? What kind of reliable source would be used to assure it's listed in the correct article?

This is a gray area; even the NIH has trouble with it. I've read their webpage and their articles about the different modality groups. They do not specify for any of them whether they are alternative or complementary. They group them all together in the combined title of CAM, as we should do here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is totally besides the point. Both AM and CM have different definitions. And, there is enough material to write a complete article on CM. That is the only thing that counts. Criticisms of individual branches of CAM belong on their respective articles. -- 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gohde (talk • contribs)

There are some useful definitions on the University of Pittsburgh's Alternative Medicine homepage. Vitaminman 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The real difference

The real "difference" has nothing to do with the remedies or methods themselves, since they are exactly the same in every way but one - the setting in which they are used, which is also what the definitions are stating.

The statement ((a personal opinion by one MD - Cassileth BR. (see below!) - in a short Q&A)) quoted above by JamesStewart7 that "alternative" methods are "especially dangerous because they are usually offered as literal alternatives to mainstream care," has nothing to do with the methods, but the setting. Keeping people from using EBM care that can save their lives, and instead offering them methods that may be innocuous or worthless, can cost them their lives. That's what happens when alternative methods are used as an "alternative" in the strict sense. When the same methods are used alongside ("complementary") mainstream care, an MD is involved and the person is also receiving care that has some form of proven benefit that has a reasonable chance of helping them, even if the alternative therapy isn't doing anything.

This may sound rather simple, but it's actually more complicated. One of the few research studies that has compared what happens with cancer patients who use mainstream cancer care and those who use it in addition to alternative care (IOW the "complementary" model), showed disastrous results for the complementary model. An excellent and large Norwegian study clearly showed that, of those cancer patients who use alternative treatment methods while undergoing mainstream cancer treatment (radiation and chemotherapy), more of them die, and they do it sooner than those who use mainstream treatment alone. For them, using the complementary approach (IOW using alternative medicine at all in this case) is a clear disadvantage:

• "Does use of alternative medicine predict survival from cancer?" Eur J Cancer 2003 Feb;39(3):372-7

Risberg T, Vickers A, Bremnes RM, Wist EA, Kaasa S, Cassileth BR. (also quoted above)

Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Tromso, Tromso, Norway

This study examines the association between alternative medicines (AM) and cancer survival. A national multicentre study was carried out in Norway in December 1992 to assess the prevalence of AM use among cancer patients. One of the aims of this study was to assess the association between AM and long-time survival. In January 2001, survival data were obtained with a follow-up of 8 years for 515 cancer patients. A total of 112 (22%) assessable patients used AM. During the follow-up period, 350 patients died. Death rates were higher in AM users (79%) than in those who did not use AM (65%). In a Cox regression model adjusted for demographic, disease and treatment factors, the hazard ratio of death for any use of AM compared with no use was 1.30, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.99, 1.70; P=0.056), suggesting that AM use may predict a shorter survival. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the negative association between AM use and survival. AM use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0 (hazard ratio for use=2.32, 95% CI, 1.44, 3.74, P=0.001), when compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher. The use of AM seems to predict a shorter survival from cancer. The effect appears predominantly in patients with a good PS.

PMID: 12565991

• Alternative medicine use by cancer patients associated with shorter survival

POSTED 03.19.2003

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The mortality rate among patients with cancer is higher in those who use alternative medicines than in those who do not, according to a report in the February issue of the European Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Terje Risberg, of the University Hospital of Tromso, Norway, and colleagues examined the use of alternative medicines by cancer patients at multiple centers in Norway, and assessed the effect on long-term survival. The 515 patients in the study were followed for 8 years.

Three hundred fifty patients (68%) died during follow-up, according to the team. Alternative medicines were used by 112 patients (22%). Of these, 88 (79%) died during follow-up, compared with 262 of the 403 patients (65%) who did not use alternative medicine.

In an adjusted Cox regression model, the hazard ratio of death associated with alternative medicine use compared with no use was 1.30 (p = 0.056). The investigators observed no differences between different types of alternative medicine.

"Alternative medicine use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0 (hazard ratio for use = 2.32; p = 0.001), when compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher," Dr. Risberg and colleagues report.

The investigators believe this is the first study to show a negative correlation between alternative medicine use and survival. They express doubt that the effect is causal, since the alternative methods used "seem rather innocuous," and surmise that alternative medicine use may be a marker of some other unrecognized prognostic factor.

Even though the analysis controlled for disease severity, Dr. Risberg and colleagues suggest that alternative medicine use may reflect patients' perceptions of their prognosis. "Indeed," they write, "patients may estimate the gravity of their situation more accurately than their physicians."

This results in a now documented 30% increased death rate among cancer victims who also use alternative medicine, not in those who use alternative medicine alone. The sure way to be more certain of dying, and of doing it quicker, is to use alternative medicine alone. That's what happened to my mother and my mother-in-law. They used alt med and then sought conventional care only after it was too late to save them. The purely "alternative" approach gets the old-fashioned results, a close to 100% death sentence for those cancer patients who use it exclusively. Just look at what happened to nearly all cancer victims 50-60 years ago. They all died of their cancer, with very few exceptions. Nowadays far more live longer with their cancer, and far more are cured and live to die of other diseases or simply of old age.

BTW, the two references above are V & RS and can be used at Misplaced Pages. -- Fyslee / talk 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, and at the risk of being accused of being pedantic, either they all died, or some of them lived. In other words, "They all died, with very few exceptions" is both factually and grammatically incorrect. My point? Simply that it never was - and still isn't - true that anybody who doesn't receive orthodox med. treatments for chronic disease is condemning themselves to death. -- Vitaminman 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're responding to a grammatical issue, though Fyslee's actual point does not hinge on that wording. Antelan 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the clumsy wording. I'll fix my comment above to make clearer what was my obvious meaning. -- Fyslee / talk 09:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

References

This article is being edited on a daily basis

The fact that people are constantly editing this article speaks for the need to keep it independent from the alternative medicine article. And, if you are going to have a separate alternative medicine article, then you are going to have a developed article on complementary medicine. It seem clear enough for me. Misplaced Pages is big enough to support the three separate articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange. I've edited the CAM articles recently and I do not feel my edits "speaks for the need to keep it independent from the alternative medicine article". I'm also of the opinion that I'm of a better authority to speak of what is intended by my own edits than anyone else. Also most of the recent edits have been part of various POV disputes and there have even been disputes involving differing opinions about the scope of the article (John Gohde you were even recently involved in one such dipute about the mind-body medicine section of the complementary medicine article) so I really fail to see how continual editing is really proof of anything. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing of articles on a world class neutral encyclopedia is always a group project. And, I fail to see why this particular article would be any different from let see, the tampon article for example. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How to differentiate the complementary and alternative medicine articles

This seems a necessary discussion that will both influence whether we should do a merger and the appropriate course of action if a merger is not performed. As of now, only one user (Anthon01) has made clear suggestions as to how we may avoid redundancy between the articles. I am creating this section here to avoid clogging up the RfC and to make the discussion more readable. I invite all editors who oppose the merger to provide their own suggests as to how me may differentiate the articles.

Anthon01 states, using herbal medicine as an example: You would have two different discussions about the same herb, not the same discussion.

• Complementary - conventional therapy + herbal, that is the synergy.
• Alt-med - conventional therapy vs. the herbal, Which is better, (eg. side-effects, cost, duration of treatment, etc) ...

No need for redundancy.

Others have countered that this violates WP:Summary style. In response Anthon01 states "However a brief summary, perhaps 1 sentence, of significant research could be included with a link". I contend that such content does not actualy exist in herbal medicine. The term CAM is used throughout the article and there is no discussion of herbal medicine use with conventional treatment as opposed to without conventional treatment. This is the closest the article comes to such a discussion "Herb drug interactions are a concern. In consultation with a physician, usage of herbal remedies should be clarified, as some herbal remedies have the potential to cause adverse drug interactions when used in combination with various prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals." The utility of the herbal medicine example may also be limited here as other alternative medicines eg homeopathy may not produce any interactions with conventional medicine.

I predict major problems with the creation of an article based on combined conventional medicine/complementary medicine use due to a lack of RS in this area. Take a look at the complementary medicine article. Virtually all the RS that refer to complementary medicine only are just defining the term. There is a small section about how comlementary medicine is often used with conventional care but this same section states (with a RS as support) that doctors are often unaware of conventional treatment. Hence, I see no way that the majority of doctors could plan a treatment program around using complementary and conventional medicine together in a constructive way. Furthermore, I see no RS stating that the majority or even a signficiant minority of doctors actually prescribe complementary medicine. The pallative care section discusses combined complementary medicine and conventional medicine use but one of the references (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_06_150903/kel10295_fm-2.html) seems to use the terms complementary medicine and alternative medicine interchangeable, "Palliative care has a working relationship with what has been variously called “alternative”, “complementary” or “traditional” healthcare". The other reference in ths section (http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/105/suppl_5/S15#SEC5) also does this "Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment modalities..." The one reference that uses the complmentary medicine term exclusively (http://www.webmd.com/balance/tc/complementary-medicine-mind-body-interventions) is in the mind body section and I do not consider this a reliable source. It provides no references for any of its assertions. It is a popular science/health magazine type website that includes unscientific quizzes such as this one "http://www.webmd.com/content/tools/1/diet_readiness_quiz" and the article was not written by a doctor although there is a primary medical reviewer who is a doctor. So although Anthon01 makes a reasonable distinction, we do not seem to have enough RS to support such a distinction. If such RS do exist they are not referenced in the current complementary medicine article.

The other suggestion was this "Alt-med - conventional therapy vs. the herbal, Which is better". Phrasing the content of the article as "Which is better?" seems to be an invitation for a POV battleground so I think we should largely avoid such an approach. Nevertheless, this does seem to be the approach the alternative medicine articles has taken. The content of the article is largely splite into a support and criticism section. WP policy states that we should avoid such a layout (Template:Criticism-section), but this seems to be the natural result of defining the article scope as "which is better?". There are other problems with this suggestion. Many of the criticisms listed in the alternative medicine article could be applied to both complementary medicine and alternative medicine. For example, there is no reason that the "lack of proper testing" or the "safety" criticisms would apply to alternative medicine only. These are in fact the largest criticisms of the area. If we restrict these criticism to the alternative medicine article and do not mention them in the complementary medicine article this makes the complementary medicine article a POV fork. There are only two criticisms that would apply to complementary medicine only or alternative medicine only, "Danger can be increased when used as a complement to conventional medicine" and "Delay in seeking conventional medical treatment". Given that the majority of the criticisms apply to both complementary and alternative medicine it seems much simpler to tackle both types of CAM together. The next problem is the length of the support section. Only this is referenced "Advocates of alternative medicine hold that the various alternative treatment methods are effective in treating a wide range of major and minor medical conditions, and contend that recently published research (such as Michalsen, 2003, Gonsalkorale 2003, and Berga 2003) proves the effectiveness of specific alternative treatments. They assert that a PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database. See also Kleijnen 1991, and Linde 1997". That much content is not enough for a whole article and again these claims could apply to both complementary and alternative medicine.

It seems that most suggestions to keep complementary and alternative medicine section have major POV fork issues with the complementary medicine article giving a far more positive review than the alternative medicine article. This seems inappropriate as basically the same treatments are used in each case. Both the complementary and alternative medicine articles state that aromatherapy, chiropracty and osteopathy are part of CAM. Unless someone can establish that these treatments somehow become more effective when used in conjunction with conventional treatment (and it is not just the conventional treatment which is effective) then both the complementary medicine and alternative medicine articles should give similar evaluations of the topic. Even in the articles current form there are POV issues. Why does the crticism section only appear in the alternative medicine article when it may also be applied to complementary medicine?

I invite all editors with suggestions as to how we may differentiate the various CAM articles along with examples of particular RS that fall under the scope of particular articles here. I'd also like to here some suggestion as to how we may avoid POV fork issues if we are to keep all three articles seperate. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have tried to address most of your points in this post. I will have a few more comments later today.

• The CM and AM articles are in need of much work. My point was to present a frame work within which those articles could be edited or rewritten as three separate articles. A "complementary medicine " search on PubMed brought up 1665 articles and a google search on the same, limited to the nytimes.com site showed 2200 hits. A "alternative medicine " search on PubMed brought up 3484 articles and a google search on the same, limited to the nytimes.com site showed 6500 hits. Certainly there will be much overlap but I think we might find enough data to write separate and informative article.

• "Which is better" was 'one' suggestion as to content that could be included in the article. The "which is better" that you are talking of is different then what I proposed. "Which is better" is a valid discussion as I have seen some peer-reviewed (PR) articles that compare the effects of drugs vs. herbs for a particular condition. We wouldn't be including our own judgement but the results of research that compare the two. Comparision of efficacy are appropriate when avaiable and helpful to the reader.

• The AM article is roughly half criticism, 3 printed pages, and most of the criticism could be summarized in a few (3-5) sentences. POV battleground is unnecessary. IMO, the article should discuss the topic and criticisms, in a manner that makes the reading of the article informative and and at the same time, enjoyable to the reader. Criticism of CM and AM may overlap and where they do, we would include them in both using RS of course.

• The review of CM and AM should be based on what RS say about each. Treatments used in CM may differ from treatments used in AM. When then same tx is used in both the results may vary based on synergy, or lack of it, of the AM tx with or without the conventional component.

• I am not certain what this means They assert that a PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database. See also Kleijnen 1991, and Linde 1997". That much content is not enough for a whole article and again these claims could apply to both complementary and alternative medicine. Please clarify. --Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree will the points being raised by Anthon01. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that last point was unclear. The following quote constitutes all of the referenced content of the "support" section of alternative medicine

"Advocates of alternative medicine hold that the various alternative treatment methods are effective in treating a wide range of major and minor medical conditions, and contend that recently published research (such as Michalsen, 2003, Gonsalkorale 2003, and Berga 2003) proves the effectiveness of specific alternative treatments. They assert that a PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database. See also Kleijnen 1991, and Linde 1997"

These same claims could be applied to complementary medicine (just swap the word alternative for complementary and change the relevant numbers). This poses two problems for the split. The length is a problem as if we break up the content and place parts of it on seperate articles then we do not have much information on each article. The applicability to both complementary and alternative medicine is also a problem as it is unclear which article these claims should be placed in.

"Criticism of CM and AM may overlap and where they do, we would include them in both using RS of course." This is half the reason the merger was suggested. We don't want large areas of redundancy.

"Certainly there will be much overlap but I think we might find enough data to write separate and informative article." I don't. We also have an article for each type of CAM eg homeopathy. The vast majority of those hits will have the word alternative mentioned in say an acpuncture article. So such content would go in the respective articles.

"I have seen some peer-reviewed (PR) articles that compare the effects of drugs vs. herbs for a particular condition." And I'm also betting that herbalism is the only area in which this is done. I'm also confident that most of these trials compare the whole herb to a particular extract. You can't take the efficacy of one herb and generalize it to the whole area of alternative medicine or even herbalism either. Also, most of the arguments against CAM are that it has not been adequately tested. Only products that have had at least some testing (but perhaps still not adequate testing) may be admitted into this process. Furthermore, perhaps only even products that have demonstrated some efficacy may be admitted into this process (people tend to do placebo trials before drug comparisons). Therefore, this would really skew the POV of the debate.

"Treatments used in CM may differ from treatments used in AM." I have not seen a RS for this. In fact I haven't seen a reliable source for any of the distinctions mentioned so far. People can go on all day about how AM and CM are really different and how there are all these references out there but until someone can actually point to one of these references, I'm going to continue assuming they don't exist. Btw Vitaminman pointed to a few above but what I gathered from those references is that complementary and alternative medicine are the same thing but in one case conventional medicine is used, which has little bearing on either treatment. I need to see a reference that goes beyond this difference.

Also Anthon01, suggesting that we greatly reduce the criticisms section (without moving the points elsewhere) isn't really aleviating my (and probably anyone else's) concerns that the CM article is a POV fork of AM. JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is criticism overkill in the AM article. The point of criticisms is to inform the reader. You don't have to list every criticism that you find in every RS in the article, in order to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. On the contrary. The article is more criticism then anything else. Anthon01 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is essential to WP:NPOV which states "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" so I think we do have to take all steps necessary to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. You never actually answered how we would deal with the problems listed in WP:Fork either. Currently the CM article avoids negative facts and the alternative medicne article highlighting them. This is the only way we would avoid a POV fork "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view," yet people are suggesting that CM is not a POV (general philosophy or special term) but an entire medical practice so I don't see how this would apply. JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with specific therapies, that should be done in their respective articles. That will save alot of problems. WEIGHT is important, and since CAM (both sides of the same coin) is by definition fringe and not fully accepted, that automatically means there will be (and there is!) lots of discussion and disagreement between CAM supporters and mainstream medicine. That's an undeniable fact that also underlies the very reason we are even discussing this matter. Let the V & RS speak. The history of CAM is defined by disagreement, controversy, and criticism on both sides. The mainstream side says there isn't enough evidence, that the methods are quackery, and often either dangerous or lacking effect, and the CAM side says that the mainstream is guilty of conspiracies and killing people. There always has been and still is intense competition. That can't be deleted or kept out by claiming "criticism overkill". That's what history and the sources tell us, and we have to tell it like it is. -- Fyslee / talk 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fylsee: I generally agree with what you are saying. My point is that the level of detail in the criticism section of the AM article is overkill. I am not opposed to including criticism just the level of detail and sheer word count. You could say the same thing without turning it into three printed pages of text. Much of the criticism on that page could be summarized. If we were to remove the criticism section of the article and merge all that into the rest of the text of the article, you would have an article that is 3/4 criticism in terms of volume of text. That would come off as an endless stream of criticism. Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I hear you! I have websites (which I hardly ever edit anymore, they just sit there), and I have always tried to stay on-topic and maintain one POV. Other POV don't get equal treatment. In that regard Misplaced Pages is very different, and it has been hard for me and many other webmasters to get used to. We aren't used to accommodating other POV, especially if we consider them to be wrong. Well, here it's very different. Many articles have no criticism at all, simply because they are uncontroversial subjects. Here we are writing articles about some of the most controversial subjects in the health care arena, and that is reflected in the sources and therefore the articles.

If you or I were to make our websites on these subjects, they wouldn't have this type of coverage, but here NPOV and WEIGHT require it. I don't see any way we can avoid it. We are actually writing from the trenches in a well-documented war between the established health care system and those who either want to get "in", or who want no one controlling what they do. It is a war between paradigms too. It is the implementation of Marilyn Ferguson's (read that article here) bestselling classic "The Aquarian Conspiracy" (no secret at all), and it is getting resistance. It can't get anymore controversial than that.

I stated above that we are writing "from the trenches," because as editors here we have to put our own POV aside while writing articles (although talk pages do get seasoned with them...;-). We become neutral "journalists" documenting the bullets and shells flying over our heads from both sides, and we write home about what both sides are doing. The only way to avoid so much criticism in the article would be to create a POV fork, but that is not allowed here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee: The other way is to summarize. The critical POV will still be there only in won't make up 3/4 of the article. For instance Angell commentary

"Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, states that "...since many alternative remedies have recently found their way into the medical mainstream cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted."

could be summarized as

"Angell discounts the alternative and conventional classifications, suggesting the the only classifications should be proven and unproven."

Anthon01 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that we temporarily withdraw RfC

Too many issues remain unresolved. Suggest we withdraw the RfC until we are clear about what are differences are. An RfC should be clear about what is it asking. An uninvolved editor will have a hard time shifting through all this data and making a recommendation; I would think the number of comments would be severely limited by our lack of clarity. We should discuss this issue here first so once the RfC is reposted (if necessary) we can clearly and concisely list our POVs pro vs. con. Assuming we agree I would also recommend that our pre-RfC discussion follow a format where successive comments are posted under the last comment to make it easier for us to follow the discussion, as much as possible. The multiple sub threads in one section makes it very difficult to follow the chronology of this talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anthon01. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok we'll take RfC down and leave merger up. JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's this? Another attempt to bypass an RFC? Will we end up just having to repeat ourselves? -- Fyslee / talk 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that either. The purpose of an RfC is to attract more editors, to break-up logjams when it's just a small group of editors on an article. Seems to me the RfC should stay active until there is a consensus about whether or not to merge the articles. What's the hurry? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention. Do you both think that the RfC as it stands should be reinstated? I suggested postponing it, because as it stands the RfC just states should it be merged or not without providing clear arguments for or against. Arguments for or against seem fractured and are still evolving. Fyslee, you've been here a lot longer than me. If you believe that it should remain active then I will support it.

However, the RfC summary says

There is some dispute as to whether complementary medicine and alternative medicine are the same treatments but with or without the additional but unrelated use of conventional medicine. The question for the RfC is, should the three articles be merged?"

This is not an accurate summary of the situation. We all know that CM and AM treatments are the same except that CM is a small subset of AM. I think the summary should edited to reflect the real difference of opinion we are having. Anthon01 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Another exception to CM = AM is when CM is used in conjunction with conventional medicine (COM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, I assume you mean CAM, rather than COM? In which case it isn't an exception. CM is when AM is used in conjunction with conventional medicine. CAM just includes both settings. -- Fyslee / talk 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading these articles for a while now and don't see the difference between the topics. The articles on CM and CAM are almost identical, and the article on Alt-med is mostly criticism. If the articles were merged, there would be 2/3 the total number of words.

If you don't feel the RfC was stated clearly, it's fine with me if you want to re-state it more precisely. I just didn't understand the idea of removing it, since it seems like more editors with new perspective could be helpful.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well why don't we all try and create a list of questions that we won't the RfC to address so that we may reinstate it. I conceeded that the RfC may be removed because the merger is staying up and the RfC did not attract any outside editors anyway. This may be partly due to a lack of clarity on the talk page. Perhaps asking directly whether AM anc CM should be merged is not desireable as it requires an understanding of many of the issues involved and hence will not be commented on by uninvolved editors. Maybe we should ask a question that, if a positive answer is given, will mean a merger is desirable eg. "Is complementary medicine a POV fork of alternative medicine?" I originally stated this because "There is some dispute as to whether complementary medicine and alternative medicine are the same treatments but with or without the additional but unrelated use of conventional medicine" I thought that was the primary dispute. Anthon01 states otherwise. If this is not the dispute can someone please try to explain to me exactly what the dispute is then? I think the RfC should go back up ASAP but it needs to be rephrased in a way so that outside edtiors can address it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. This is an RfC I wrote that I thought was easy for an uninvolved editor to follow. I present it here as an example. The topic at hand is more involved, but the format makes it easier for the non-involved reader to review. I will write some thoughts about the issues of the RfC a little later. I must concede that I am beginning to lean in the direction of a merger. Anthon01 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The more I look through article and edit histories in preparation for Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2, the more I see of previous discussions related to merging, and who has said what. It's all very interesting and gives a much deeper understanding of why the subject has been discussed so much before, and why various editors have brought it up, including totally uninvolved editors who have simply popped in and commented on the similarities in the articles that made merging a natural solution. -- Fyslee / talk 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC is therefore temporarily suspended

Yes, I do want the RfC to remain active, but since there are doubts about the summary, it should be rephrased. Let's create a mutually agreeable sammary and then use it and start anew. We should probably use the proper template this time - {{RFCsci}} - (I think that's the closest to our topic area) from here: Request comment on articles. Let's do it right this time.

Our statement should probably include a disclaimer, IOW what we are already agreed upon, so we don't rehash that matter. Anthon01 summed it up above: "We all know that CM and AM treatments are the same except that CM is a small subset of AM."

Let me try a disclaimer (what we are no longer discussing) and a summary of the dispute, and then everyone comment, agree, disagree, and then let's synthesize a mutually agreeable result before calling in outside opinions. The template will do that by automatically placing the RfC here.

Suggestions for new RfC (do not edit this)

1. Basic agreement: (This is not the subject of this RfC.)

"The term "Complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) is an umbrella term for Complementary medicine (CM) and Alternative medicine (AM), and incorporates Integrative medicine and various subjects such as herbalism, meditation, chiropractic, yoga, body work and diet-based therapies. As such the term CAM is not about a new or different topic than CM or AM. Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments are the same AM treatment methods, except that CM is a small subset of AM. It is the setting in which these methods are used that constitutes any difference, not the treatments themselves."

2. Basic dispute: (Shall we merge these four articles or not? State "Merge" or "Don't merge", and then present your reasoning in a civil manner, following the principles outlined here and here.)

"Are there so many overlaps and similarities in the four articles Complementary medicine, Alternative medicine, Integrative medicine, and Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), that it would be best that they all be merged into one article, leaving redirects at the three blanked articles, or are the differences so great as to warrant four separate articles? (HISTORY: These four articles have previously been merged into the Alternative medicine article.)"

3. Time limits: I suggest one week before the RfC is closed by an admin. It is not a vote, and an admin should make a judgment call based on the quality of the arguments.

4. Format: Similar to an AfD (Articles for deletion).

5. Formalized "canvassing": Instead of risking lots of private canvassing, let's do it properly. We place a formal notice on project spaces, the talk pages of all four articles, and maybe some other talk pages. Please suggest projects and talk pages.

Now let's assume the RfC hasn't restarted yet, and we are making preparations to start it again. What do you good people think of the above? Feel free to suggest better formats, templates, rewording, etc.. -- Fyslee / talk 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not sound reasonable to me at all. Any move to change the rules of voting at this late stage of the motion to merge is not ethical. Any vote, whether for or against, should be counted regardless of the wording used to cast the vote. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John, you seem to be forgetting that we have taken Anthon01's suggestion at the beginning of this very section seriously, and that you backed him up on it too. Just read the back and forth discussion and you will see why we have ended up where we are now. Therefore the RfC actually IS suspended and any votes will need to be repeated when it is opened again. Don't worry, no votes will be "ignored" since they will certainly be repeated. Before reopening the RfC (and we're going to do it properly this time by getting much wider community input), we are trying to make sure we are all on the same page, which is what my comments immediately above are about. Just use the Template for discussion below and let's get on with developing a format for use in the upcoming RfC. To prevent confusion, I'll move your comments (which are improperly interjected above) below and you and others can continue there. Please AGF in this matter as I am not attempting to manipulate anything or anyone by moving your comments. They just need to be placed in the proper spot. -- Fyslee / talk 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my comments above are besides the point now, since John has now been banned for one year. -- Fyslee / talk 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree about the AM/CM and AM+CM wording of any RfC. Fyslee's moving my attempt(s) to discuss this, new section below.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template for discussion (just copy, add your comments, and sign):

1. Basic agreement:

2. Basic dispute:

3. Time limits:

4. Format:

5. Formalized "canvassing":

John has just been banned for one year, so I'm striking this section, which can still be read. -- Fyslee / talk 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by John Gohde:

1. Basic agreement:

2. Basic dispute:

5. Formalized "canvassing":

Disagreement about CM treatments are the same as AM treatment methods

I have to disagree about "Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments are the same AM treatment methods," except that CM is a small subset of AM. In orthomolecular medicine, the most commonly presented complementary orthomed version for cancer (after Hoffer) is radically different than a strict alternative version, although the complementary version could conceivably approach the alternative version loads *if* the conventional chemotherapeutics weren't doing their job (otherwise, too much cytotoxic "success", no matter how selective for just cancer cells, can overload the patient containing significant cancer mass(es) with toxic debris from decay of too many necrosed cells at one time). Hoffer's complementary regimen is likely to be oral vitamin C, say 12-50 grams per day, along with oral B50, espcially niacin and selenium, coQ10, so on. All-out-alternative, one might be talking the complementary version at 100+% plus intravenous vitamin C: 30 - 200 grams/day (2,3,4x/wk) with perhaps 45-120 milligram/d loads of vitamin K₂ (MK-4), tocopheryl succinates + gamma, delta tocotrienols, R-alpha lipoic acid, and other adjuvant extracts among other components.

In many cases, night and day different: complementary mega- versus alternative Mega-doses with more aggressive, advanced orthomed substances. In many cases fullbore orthomed treatment + fullbore favored conventional treatment would *not* be feasible but might still be favorably combined as complementary, lower doses: e.g. for hyperlipidemia: niacin fullbore - ok (conventional too); statin fullbore: conventional ok; statin fullbore + some niacin - ok, newly recognized for conventional pharmaceuticals (new patent); and fullbore niacin + some statin: long proposed *cheaper* alternative for pathological hyperlidiemia (too cheap); but fullbore niacin + fullbore statin is likely asking for percentages of trouble. Ditto complementary vs alternative orthomed and conventional medicine - *complementary orthomed treatments are not, and often absolutely should not be, the same as the alternative orthomed treatments for the same problem.*--TheNautilus (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the comment above to this section as it is a very specialized ("esoteric"?) discussion without much relation to the attempt to prepare for a resumption of the RfC. Even if the above OR is true, then it is an exception to the rule. -- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, Fyslee. These are source based research, not OR. Statins, niacin & combos; Complementary orthomed cancer treatments from Abram Hoffer's books, eg., and the alternative orthomed cancer treatment components, Brightspot, J Orthomolecular Med & TLDP This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.-Jimbo The AM vs CM treatments discussion also appears to apply to naturopathic & orthomolecular modalities in naturopathic medicine and chiropracty too. Perhaps other biologically based AM/CM treatments, too.

I have tried to clarify my statements, above. At orthomolecular medicine, I have a lot of flak with less informed others' mischaracterizations from their not recognizing orthomed (OMM) conventional trmts, OMM complementary trmts vs fully alternative OMM. (1) many think orthomolecular medicine is definitionally alternative medicine where, in fact, conventional, molecular medicine slowly absorbs the orthomolecular position, often when forced by events to do so - the debate would how many treatments are both orthomed and conventional are there (more than most think). (2) orthomolecular medicine draws upon mainstream research, or vice versa without acknowledgement. (3) there are significant differences between complementary and alternative uses of orthomed. (4) Orthomed is often fundamentally misrepresented, unwitting or not, by its opponents who constantly try to redefine OMM to suit their POV, ignorance & criticism and ignore decades of opportunity to improve the accuracy of their discussion & reportage, (4) overgeneralized statements by opponents who mistake various sources on deliberate overdoses and earlier megadosage medical treatements with (long known ~25-60+ years) less or non-orthomolecular versions of nutrients. (5) even some wannabe proponents & reviewers may be too eager to label (or agree to) everything orthomed being "alternative" when that is clearly not the case on a number of nutrient uses, as mentioned by editors of Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine , and its pioneers (e.g. Hoffer, Pauling).--TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar arguments may apply to complementary vs alternative uses of the herbal, and perhaps nutritional, parts of naturopathic medicine (naturopathy appears less aggressive on purified nutrients than alternative orthomed but more aggresive on herbal extracts). Also, remember some of the chiropractors are interested in parts of naturopathy and/or orthomed (eg. David G Williams). --TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is still a branch of orthomolecular medicine (and may therefore be more suited to the orthomolecular medcine article) but this is interesting none the less. Anyway do you have a reference for this? How about we replace this "Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments are the same AM treatment methods, except that CM is a small subset of AM" with "Complementary medicine and Alternative medicine treatments involve the same AM treatment domains (eg acupuncture, orthomolecular medicine), except that CM is a small subset of AM"? JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my edits and comments above help, a short OMM book online.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked, CAM is just tautology!

It is just a term that the medical science uses in order to try to quantify non-scientific and non-medical medicine. This page should be written from the POV of the field because that's the best tool for explaining the topic. Large portions are problematic for science to deal with. Thus the scientific perspective of the field should be treated with care and perhaps seperately. If there is a claim that something is a pseudoscience it should be verifiable and not just a statement of a critic. If falsification is not provided it is just an opinion and not definitive science. The definitions are wide since it is a flexible term because it depends on the context and culture. The field is criticized by many, so if certain ideas are falsified or there are verifiable science on this it should be provided. The view of the different sciences on any subject is welcome. To me CAM seems to be the scientific venture into assessing CAM, and can perhaps become an article about exactly that; the science of understanding CAM. Currently it is black-white and this polarizes the language to treat it as if there is just one scientific perspective that has the right to give a subjective statement on any subject. This perspective is that alternative sciences and treatment has a lot of quacks. That is true, but not all CAM is quack. Hence, it should be treated due. Sorry, but I feel this debate is polarized by radical skeptics. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you voted on the merge proposal, above? -- John Gohde (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My study of basic logic tells me that when somebody makes the statement that all of complementary and alternative medicine can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be a total fraud. Statements of that type are automatically false based on pure logic alone. The problem is that that is precisely the kind of statement some of the current crop of editors have recently made.

Unfortunately, one can not make these type of shocking statements without getting stomped on by these same editors. Tons of research has proven many kinds of CAM to be effective. Unfortunately, these articles will never be allowed to reflect what modern research has shown time and time again. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you say that aspects of CAM has been falsified by science? And is there a higher degree of mistreatment (or whatever the term is for treatment that makes people more ill) in aspects of CAM than there is in medical sciences?--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read a lot of research studies. The closest that I have seen would come under the category of vitamin research. Here, is one example. And, my letter to the editor. At one point, I was tracking new research for about 6 months. Nutritional supplements can certainly can be used to effectively treat a very large number of specific health conditions.

Over at complementary medicine I was prevented by one editor whose name starts with James from adding a clearly favorable study that cited two separate research studies to support their conclusion that mind-body therapies produced favorable results in a large number of different medical diseases. Totally without justifications as far as I was concerned. Then there was the nonsense about banning cancer research because I suppose the favorable results were way too impressive for that dude to handle. If complementary medicine is not about treating cancer patients in need of pain management, then what is?

In my opinion, a big part of the problem is that you have editors editing here who know absolutely nothing about the topic that they are attempting to edit. But, they know all about stomping on people who do. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone is stating CAM is pseudoscience doesn't that make them a critic so it seems impossible to give a statement that it is pseudoscience that is not "just a statement of a critic". As this article is about all of CAM and not the specific domains I think comments directed at the whole field are necessary so I don't see how we can discuss each topic invidually. We are required to make statements of all CAM for this article. It is simply not practical to consider every field individually, that is a job for the articles on each field. Non-medical medicine is somewhat of an oxymoron and we're not going to rewrite the page from someone in the field. Both POV's should be presented with appropriate weight given in proporition to the number of RS. JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we are dealing with CAM, AM, and CM in general, per WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, it would be a violation to characterize these general terms as pseudoscience. Being that as a whole group, CAM, AM, and CM are more along the lines of medical theories which have a substantial following, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, they seem to fall under the "questionable science" section of the guideline and thus the binding ArbCom ruling supports that these should not be regarded as examples of pseudoscience nor should they contain information to that effect. For that reason, I removed they reference to the pseudoscience articles in each of these articles "See Also" section. Perhaps there are some individual practices and methodology within CAM, AM, and CM which are obvious pseudosciences or generally considered pseudoscience, but - as JamesStewart7 alludes to above - we should deal with those on the individual article level rather that this general category level. IOW, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch. -- Levine2112 03:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That should be done on individual articles with references that justify it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A question to everybody

Yes, I feel that criticizing fringe science is a special case of the "what colour the bikeshed should have". Basically it is easy to have an opinion on fringe science because it generates friction against the established sciences. I would prefer that the energy that some people put into this could be put into becoming informed skeptics instead of acting as radical skeptics. However you didn't answer my questions. This is a question to everybody. I would love if the article was written from the POV of those established in the science of CAM, whilst the scientific view on the subject is treated by itself. CAM is ultimately incompatible with hard sciences and using the POV of science is like using the POV of Republicans (since it is mainstream) in the Green Party article (which is fringe). And I think the researchers within CAM is probably the most informed skeptics of the field. At last, yes I am concerned for misinformation, but I feel that uninformed skeptics are removing verifiable content in a high speed. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble as to what the question is. Does Misplaced Pages currently have any experienced / published medical research editors? Yes, there happens to be at least one (ie, User:Sbharris). Does Misplaced Pages have any researchers who either specialize in or treat the topic of CAM research fairly? I am not familiar with any. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• NA-Class Alternative medicine pages
• NA-Class Skepticism pages
• NA-importance Skepticism pages
• WikiProject Skepticism articles