Content deleted Content added
Archived Closed Topic Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Alternative medicine) (bot |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 146:
::::Yes, a very good approach, thank you so much. [[User:Altanner1991|Altanner1991]] ([[User talk:Altanner1991|talk]]) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:I [[WP:APPNOTE]]d [[Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar]] (it's what we're discussing, right?), we may just as well have the discussion here, probably more people watching. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
== Natural course of disease ≠ regression to the mean ==
In the first sentence of paragraph 3, the phrase “Natural course of disease” is linked to the article for “regression to the mean”. I don’t think these topics are at all related as an individual’s health is not a sampling of a random variable, and additionally it is confusing to link to an article with a title much different than the hyperlink text. I would suggest changing this link to point somewhere else, such as [[Natural history of disease]] or [[Acute (medicine)]].
Also don’t think I’ve ever left a talk post so hopefully this is an acceptable way to use this tool! [[User:Erbanb|♭e ♫]] ([[User talk:Erbanb|talk]]) 06:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:An absolutely proper use of the talk page, and an interesting question, thank you.
:This is an off the cuff response, so may be a little rough around the edges, but I'm pretty sure anything I get wrong will be corrected by somebody. The thing is that health outcomes are mostly assessed by the outcomes of a population, rather than individual results. Take the example of "a nasty bruise" and how the course of the same injury may vary in different people. At first it'll hurt, then discolour a bit, turn red, purple, blue and even black in various degrees, and gradually change back through those colours over a period of time. All those effects will vary depending on the individual, and the degree of seriousness of the injury, but sooner or later, things get back to normal. That is the point - the return to normalcy, (the mean), eventually happens without intervention.
:Proponents of Alt-Med often point to their intervention as effective demonstration of their woo of choice when all that has happened is a natural recovery, and in discussion this is often countered by the mention of "regression to mean" and what that entails.
:Of course, I wrote all the above ''before'' looking at the article, and perhaps the link to the article is a little too much, as the article deals with the major statistical meaning. Lets see if anybody else wants to comment, yes? - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the English speaking</small>]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 07:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
: "Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses." - Scott H. Sicherer, Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 1999 Nov;10(4) 226-234
: [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 07:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:Honestly, this probably doesn't need any wikilink at all. The general idea that many diseases resolve naturally, without intervention, isn't terribly complex or implausible. (The wording of the article text might be tweaked for clarity, I suppose—the parenthetical bit seems to exist principally to provide a place to put the wikilink.)
:''Regression to the mean'' is an inappropriate target, certainly; as noted, that article is about sampling outliers, not variables whose values ''genuinely'' change over time. (If I had COVID and a fever of 40°C degrees last week, and my temperature drops back to 37°C today, my temperature measurement last week wasn't an outlier due to an imprecise thermometer or sloppy measurement. My fever going away was not a regression towards the mean; I just got better.) [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 21:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
== Updating and Improving Alternative Medicine Article so it is not rated as C-Class ==
Line 188 ⟶ 203:
:An excellent outcome. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 04:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
== Reducing fluff and matching sources to statements ==
I'd like to notify everyone that I am going to begin editing to reduce the wordiness of the article. I will try to be unbiased as demonstrated by leaving content of sentences the same while instead changing diction and syntax. As everyone is aware, this article also badly paraphrases sources, and cites multiple sources at the end of sentences in a way in which it is unclear what concept is being supported. I'm not sure I'll do anything about that yet beyond flagging, mainly because that's likely to be more controversial editing. [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 02:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
First example:
"Complementary medicine (CM), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrated medicine or integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among the various attempts to capture the combination of alternative practices with those of mainstream medicine."
"Among the various", and "capture the combination" are not meaningful additions of words. This should be simplified as "attempts to combine," which has a more active tone and reduces passive use of verbs. These practices are not "capturing" anything, that is flowery language. Practitioners are attempting to combine practices though.
[[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 02:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
:I recommend rather than tag, you make the copyedits yourself, but one edit at a time would be best. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 05:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Be very careful about edits to the lead. I had to revert some edits. It's safer to discuss proposed changes as [[WP:BOLD]] doesn't work for controversial stuff. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 04:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
:That's not necessarily true. [[WP:BOLD]] applies to controversial subjects, leads, etc. It's less likely to get reverted if it's taken to the Talk Page, but bold definitely still applies. You are of course equally welcome to revert the edits, which you did. But this editor is acting in good faith, and has engaged in discussion on the Talk Page. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 05:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
== Lead is long and not obviously sourced ==
The lead paragraph is long compared to most high quality articles. The lead uses relativistic superlatives (e.g., "Much of") that are not obviously sourced elsewhere in the article. Other high quality wikipedia articles have sources linked in the lead; this has none. I believe this is likely because the original author was ranting more than informing. It has already been discussed that this article uses the poor scholarship technique of citing multiple varied sources after several sentences of loose paraphrasing. [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 04:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
: Your assumption is way off. Every sentence and word in the article and lead are the product of often long and intense discussion and collaboration between many editors of differing persuasions, and no one is allowed to include their own rants or POV.
: We also try to avoid using refs in the lead because the lead is based on sourced content in the body. (Take a look at the lead at [[Donald Trump]].) Any change in the lead should be discussed first as it is very sensitively worded, based on the sources in the body.
: Because this article is about fringe and pseudoscientific ideas, mainstream sources have more weight, so keep that in mind. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 05:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
::I'll concede that I may have been wrong to assume that an early author (wink) had an out sized impact on the content and style of this article. Your reference to the citation format of another controversial article was not as helpful as you may have intended. I don't see a clear formatting standard for avoiding citations in the lead set across Wikipedia. Can you provide a link to lead style guide versus examples of articles? Would your suggested strategy be to start my copy editing and citation review in the sub sections and not the lead? [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 07:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:Example:
: "Much of the perceived effect of an alternative practice arises from a belief that it will be effective..."
: In this case, "much of" adds no indicator of what measured quantity of perceived effects arise from placebo. Whose beliefs? From what sociological survey was this sourced? I don't dispute that a source exists and that a survey found this conclusion, but in such a controversial lead, it ought to be linked. This is no place for appeals to the authority of conventional physicians' opinions or surveys from popular articles. At this point in the article, it can only strictly be ceded that:
:"''A ''perceived effect of an alternative practice ''may'' arise from a belief that ''the practice'' will be effective (placebo)." The original author's diction lends a seeming authoritative personal tone, which should be edited to be more neutral.
:Example:
: "This is further exacerbated by the tendency to turn to alternative therapies upon the failure of medicine, at which point the condition will be at its worst and most likely to spontaneously improve..."
: In this case, "This is further exacerbated by the tendency" reads in a narrative format, and it is unclear what subject or object is being "further exacerbated." This can be most conservatively be simplified to: "There may be the tendency for patients to turn to alternative therapies..."
:This edit ignores of course the erroneous conflation of regression to the mean with the natural course of medicine, but someone (cough) seems unwilling to let that be fixed.
:One of the issues I find with the quality of this article is that it is mostly (but unadmittedly so) critiquing a singular conception of "Alternative Medicine," e.g., that popular fad and cultural push in Western society since the 1970s, but this angle is unclear because the article is too long and digresses to an elitist, philosophical cautionary tale about scientific literacy. It would be improved by being whittled down with a clearer acknowledgment of the process by which practices may become accepted by medical science. The article does a poor job demonstrating which practices and ingredients, according to a lack of studies or negative results, remain outside of what can be accepted as having been proven effective empirically. Is anyone catching my drift? This article reads as if there is a capital "A" Alternative Medicine, which must be publicly debunked in dragging soliloquy lest any of the masses be led astray. I agree that the quack marketing monolith should be acknowledged, but proportionally to the extent to which it actually exists today as a monolith. Otherwise, this article would be more convincing detailing how we know or don't know the effectiveness of the practices (yoga, acupuncture, scar tissue massage, certain cognitive therapies) that may be considered on the fringe of scientific acceptance. [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
::I agree with some of what you're saying. My advice is to pick your battles. There is no hurry. Pick one change, make a case for it, call in a third opinion if you need to, and if you're still not satisfied, an RfC. Despite what you might think, there are other editors who believe this article could be improved. I've had to jump through hoops of RfC to make what I thought were obvious improvements. Sometimes the consensus was ultimately with me. Other times it wasn't. Just pick one thing at a time and don't write walls of text. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 06:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'll keep it short from now on. [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 06:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]], that's excellent advice from [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]]. Make small edits, be very specific, discuss them, provide sources, and seek a consensus version. That method, even in the most contentious circumstances, will often produce an improvement, as no article here is ever "finished" or "perfect," including this one. We welcome civil suggestions for improvement, but strongly resist the "bull in a china shop" approach we so often see here. I think you have skills we will appreciate. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I would like to move forward with the edits suggested above, which would remove the quantitative ambiguity of "much of" and the stylistic "this is exacerbated" from the lead sentences referencing placebo and natural course of disease. The sources from the main article section that discuss perceived effectiveness mechanisms do not conclude "'''''most of''''' " the perceived effect of alternative therapies is placebo, but they do conclude that a mechanism explaining perceived effects is the placebo effect. Similarly, no source in the main article uses the language that states the placebo effect in alternative therapies is "'''''further exacerbated by'''''" the natural course of disease. They do state that the natural course of disease can mistakenly lead patients to believe a therapy has been effective when it had not. [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 00:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] For the ease of other editors, start a '''new section''' on the Talk Page and suggest your proposed rewrite and a brief explanation, just like you did here. Your proposed rewrite could be what you mentioned above: {{tq|"A perceived effect of an alternative practice may arise from a belief that the practice will be effective (placebo)."}} Then we can discuss that one proposal and we can try to come to a consensus one way or another. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, UserSwamp, follow that advice. Take small bites and deal with them individually. When I say "small" I mean single words, phrases, or sentences. Rarely larger when dealing with controversial topics. This one has been edited by so many editors under so much scrutiny that each turn of a phrase is often the result of a long (sometimes weeks or months) discussion and a consensus decision, so don't make any potentially controversial changes without discussion. If you do make a change and it's reverted, then you have touched one of those items and should then discuss it. The archives document all the previous discussions. We don't like to rehash old controversies. It wastes time. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 06:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
== Complementary or integrative medicine section is one sided ==
Title pretty much says it. Equating complementary and integrative labels to alternative is painting with too broad of a brush as other editors have pointed out repeatedly. This ignores effectiveness in favor of things like plausibility which contain inherent bias. [[Special:Contributions/141.157.200.57|141.157.200.57]] ([[User talk:141.157.200.57|talk]]) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:We call these things what our best available sources call them. Not what wikipedia users think is the best name. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 18:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
: We follow what RS say. We also (that is editors, especially those of us who are medically trained) take into account current research, laws, and practices. So far, IM is defined as the combination of AM practices with traditional medical practices. (Some IM practitioners would then like to say "formerly" AM practices, but that's just misleading.) Just because they are combined does not automatically mean the AM practices have been proven effective. When combined, they may provide some comfort to patients not otherwise exposed to the types of AM practices that provide comfort. Great! Who doesn't like a good meditation or relaxation session or smell some nice smells? Whatever. The AM practices are still not curing any serious illness, just providing mental comfort. And they are not providing better outcomes. In fact, with cancer, Norwegian studies show that cancer patients who are ALSO given AM treatments die faster and quicker than those who are not given AM treatment along with their traditional cancer regimens.
: When researched, all AM practices are still deficient on the "effectiveness" side of the equation. When they are proven effective, they will no longer be classified as "alternative," but will become accepted mainstream medical practice and called "medicine." Sometimes the acceptance takes time as most scientists and medical practitioners are justifiably conservative about practices that have a dubious history. They are trained to have a "prove it" attitude. That attitude is completely lacking in the AM community. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 18:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
== Recreate IM article? ==
Hello {{re|Valjean}},
Over ten years ago, I noticed that integrative medicine was equated with complementary and alternative medicine and tried to change that here. As you noted, a consensus was reached at the time to keep them as if they are the same thing.
I'd like to reopen this discussion and invite others to join in. Ten years ago, the term Integrative Medicine was not yet "codified", so there was some basis, at the time, for calling it the same as alternative medicine. But over the past ten years that has changed - a lot. Integrative Medicine is practiced by all the major medical schools and hospitals and health networks. The practices under Integrative Medicine are ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed. I would like to create a draft Integrative Medicine page and put all of my sources and evidence on it for further discussion, but am not sure about the best way to go about doing that. Can you advise me please? [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
: I like your idea. It will give everyone a chance to see if the result has merit, especially the newer RS you will use.
: I suggest you create the draft at [[User:Cjrhoads/Draft_Integrative_Medicine]]. You can copy material from this article, its archives, and the history at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integrative_Medicine&action=history Integrative Medicine], where it used to be a separate article. Don't try to recreate the article in article space before a discussion here. The current redirect should not be changed without that discussion. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
::That's a good idea. I'll work on it when the University semester is over. Thanks for the encouragement.
::[[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 14:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious about which AM practices fit under "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed." Please list them. As you may well know, any practice which has such evidence is not called "alternative medicine"; it's just called "medicine". IM and CAM are rightly accused of being attempts to sneak/rename AM quackery into medicine. That's a hurdle you'll need to deal with and discuss in your new article as it's a major criticism. IM and CAM are areas which reveal that anyone, especially hospital administrators, will do anything for money, and adding acupuncture, homeopathy, and such like does draw in more patients and makes more money, even when they do nothing more than give comfort. Such decisions are based on financial considerations, not scientific evidence, but they of course obfuscate and attempt to pass off their decisions as scientifically plausible. Unfortunately they cannot provide anything but the weakest of "evidence" while showing an increase in profits. That's how capitalism works. It isn't evidence-based. {{;)}} -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 19:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
:Hi, Valjean,
:I don't plan to get into the "it's all for money" concept because there are too many examples of standard modern western medicine providing therapies of dubious value "just for the money". Let's just agree that both standard western medicine and alternative and complementary medicine each has its share of bad actors who utilize therapies of dubious value because it lines their pockets rather than help the patient. They also both have the MAJORITY of practioners who are just trying to do the best they can for their patients - and sometimes modern western medicine doesn't have the answers while other systems do have the answers.
:
:However, your point - that we don't want quackery to enter into integrative medicine is '''well understood''' and '''agreed upon'''. From the beginning I have been a dogged researcher who will not allow either personal feelings or financial considerations bias my research. And I'm not alone. Most integrative healthcare practitioners are well aware that we must be diligent against fraudulent practices that don't actually benefit the patient. For example - magnets have pretty much be debunked entirely by medical research, while acupunture, medication, tai chi , qigong, yoga, Pilates, and other activities have been supported - some of them strongly - by the medical research that has been done on them. I noticed that you mentione acupuncture as quackery - but I believe you need to reread the medical research on that topic. Even insurance companies now cover that practice, so it is likely considered "medicine" and not "alternative" by most doctors.
:And, of course, here's the info I shared with you on my talk page: [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 14:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::Here is the list:
::Nutritional support such as: botanicals, vitamins and minerals, and probiotics.
::Physical Activities such as: tai chi, yoga, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, art therapy, music therapy, dance, mindfulness-based stress reduction, meditation, breathing exercises and guided imagery, qigong, hypnotherapy, Feldenkrais method, Alexander technique, Pilates, Rolfing Structural Integration, and Trager psychophysical integration.
::Acupuncture
::Cognitive Practices such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Dialectic Behavior Therapy.
::That is based on the NIH ([https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name#:~:text=Integrative%20health%20also%20emphasizes%20multimodal%20interventions%2C%20which%20are,person%20rather%20than%2C%20for%20example%2C%20one%20organ%20system. Whats In A Name]) and on [https://mantracare.org/therapy/therapy-types/integrative-therapy/#:~:text=Types%20of%20Therapies%20In%20Integrative%20Therapy%20These%20are,they%20think%20and%20behave.%20Dialectical%20Behavior%20Therapy%20%28DBT%29 MantraCare]
::Another good source is:[https://imconsortium.org/about/introduction/ Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health].
::Medical Schools with Integrative Medicine are:
::[https://oshercenter.org/ Osher Center For Integrative Medicine at Harvard Medical School]
::[https://www.vanderbilthealth.com/service-line/osher-center-integrative-health Osher Center For Integrative Medicine Vanderbilt Medical School]
::[https://www.mayoclinic.org/departments-centers/integrative-medicine-health/sections/overview/ovc-20464567 Mayo clinic]
::And, of course, all the [https://imconsortium.org/members__trashed/member-listing/ members of the Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health]
::Once I get a chance to create the draft page, I will be able to post extensive high quality systematic reviews of a variety of integrative medicine and health practices. But as I said, I won't have time until May.
::[[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]], I asked you above for a list of those practices that fit "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed" and decided to do a bit of research. I used the [[American Board of Physician Specialties]] link provided above by [[User:FloresTindall|FloresTindall]] and found this page: [https://www.abpsus.org/integrative-medicine-description/ Integrative Medicine Examination Description] There I found two sections:
; Complementary Modalities
* [[manual therapy|Manual Therapies]]
* [[Biofield#Alternative medicine|Biofield Therapies]]
* [[Acupuncture]]
* Movement Therapies
* Expressive Arts
; [[:Category:Whole medical systems|Whole Medical Systems]]
* [[Traditional Chinese Medicine]]
* [[Ayurveda]]
* [[Traditional medicine|Indigenous Medical Systems]]
* [[Homeopathic Medicine]]
* [[Naturopathic Medicine]]
* [[Osteopathic Medicine]]
* [[Chiropractic]]
* [[Functional Medicine]]
Right off the bat we see several fully quackish and unscientific items in the Whole Medical Systems section (which I have wikilinked for convenience), the worst, IMO, being [[Homeopathy]]. Wow! Just study those articles to see what RS say about them. None of them fit the "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed", with the exception of Osteopathic Medicine, which is fully modern mainstream medicine, not AM. What is really meant is [[Osteopathy]], which is AM. We have two articles here to make the difference. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
For convenience I have also included the AM series box we include on many of these articles. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:I think you might be confusing approaches to medicine with actual practices of medicine. Most of the "Whole Medical Systems" are simply non-reductive ways to treat patients. Again, there is some research evidence that treating a patient without considering the "whole" body and mind is not nearly as effective as treating patients considering both the body and the mind.
:You appear to have a ricochet bias against anything that isn't reductionist, and don't appear willing to actually look at the research that decides WHICH of the actual PRACTICES are evidence-based, and which are not.
:Rather than utilizing general lists of modalities and approaches, I prefer to utilize a laser-focused attention on ONLY those practices for which there is medical evidence, and (perhaps) those practices for which we have not YET developed enough evidence but which appear to be helpful without any harmful effects or costs to the patient.
:I wish I had more time right now to discuss this more deeply, but I have to teach a class. I will return in May, create the draft page, and continue this conversation.
:[[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 15:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:: [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]], I look forward to your draft. Feel free to contact me by email. I'd like to know what you teach. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 14:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Valjean}} - I think this is pinging Valjean. Could you please help me on the page you set up for me? [[User:Cjrhoads/Draft Integrative Medicine]] [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads|talk]]) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
{{Alternative medical systems}}{{clear}}
[[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] and [[User:FloresTindall|FloresTindall]] I need at least one good RS which clearly states that Integrative Medicine are ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:I am really looking forward to getting my hand on reliable sources for IM efficacy. ''Baits Breath'' -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the grumpy dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
: {{ping|Valjean}} The problem is that Wikipedia does not follow RS for lumping integrative medicine in with alternative medicine, does it? Can you show me anything other than "skeptic" sources that does? Everything I find on the internet, from sources such as [https://oshercenter.org/about/our-center/#what Harvard here], to [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21683-integrative-medicine Cleveland Clinic] refer to integrative medicine as something either more or different than alternative medicine. You're not going to convince people just by saying "it's true because I said it!" And you're certainly not going to convince anyone because "capitalism" when conventional medicine is also "capitalism". [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 16:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:: ?? Right above, the ABPS (a RS) exam for IM covers many AM practices. When mainstream medical practitioners "integrate" AM practices with their mainstream medicine it's called "Integrative Medicine". If that doesn't define IM, then what does? Do you know of RS that say otherwise? It's really simple and easy to understand. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::That's my whole point. In the lead for the alternative medicine article it says, {{tq|integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings...}} of alternative medicine. But integrated medicine IS NOT a synonym or "rebranding" of alt medicine is it? It's defined by all sources, including yours, as a combination of alt and conventional therapies, and should be defined that way. What part of this is hard to understand? [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::: It's not hard to understand, and I agree that wording should be tweaked. How's this? {{tq|integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings to describe various ways alternative medicine is combined with mainstream medicine.}} I think that small change can resolve the matter without starting huge discussions and edit warring. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for hearing me out. I think that's a lot better yes. Personally, I would tweak that to {{tq|integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are terms used to describe various ways alternative medicine is combined with mainstream medicine.}} But I would personally be fine either way. I just think "rebranding" is an odd word to stick in the lead of an article. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::: {{Done}} Now it reads: {{tq|'''Complementary medicine''' ('''CM'''), '''complementary and alternative medicine''' ('''CAM'''), '''integrated medicine''' or '''integrative medicine''' ('''IM'''), and '''holistic medicine''' are among many [[rebranding]]s that describe various ways alternative medicine is combined with mainstream medicine.}} I hope that is a reasonable solution. Your concern was justified. It was indeed awkwardly written. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 23:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the collaborative spirit (and for enlightening me on the functioning of the industry a bit). I think it reads much better now, and I hope others agree. [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
{{od}}
To illustrate, let's imagine how two construction workers (AM & MM) use their tools on different projects. In this example, each usually works with two completely different types of tools and builds different kinds of buildings for different kinds of customers, although there is overlap; some customers like both, so they make separate work orders from each one.
AM's tools are pretty, esoteric, and really feel good stuff! MM's tools are fairly rigid and boring colors.
MM decides he wants to add AM's pretty tools to his toolbox. When MM uses all those tools together, he is practicing IM because he has "integrated" AM's tools into his construction practice. Now MM snags more of AM's customers who can now get the best of both worlds with one order.
AM + MM = IM. That's how it works. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 18:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:So in your example, would you say that that the IM he is practicing is 100% not effective? Do the AM tools spoil the whole toolbox? Because that's what this article definitively states. That IM is a synonym, or rebranding, of alt medicine, and that alt medicine, and thereffor conventional medicine that integrates it, "is not effective." Simple logical fallacy, you see? [[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:: No. "100% not effective" is an extreme interpretation. That means 0% effective. It just means that the addition is less effective. While the AM may provide some psychological comfort effects (a nice thing), it doesn't seriously contribute to the physiological healing effects of the mainstream methods, and in some cases may actually weaken the overall effect. It also adds to the cost for the patient as many insurance companies will not cover methods that lack strong evidence, so the patient must pay for it. Unfortunately, the provider usually doesn't (never?!) make it clear that the AM methods being used aren't proven effective. If the IM practitioner is being honest and explains to their cancer patient that the addition of massage, aromatherapy, etc. is for comfort and does not have any curative effect on cancer, then I see no problem with it. False marketing is quackery, gives false hope, and literally empties the patient's bank account. Truth in advertising is good, but it's rare for this stuff, as the pretense of effect, a marketing ploy, is why it's done at all. Massage is great for musculoskeletal issues, but not for curing cancer.
:: If I had used [[bricklayer]]s as the example above, the IM practitioner is adding nicely colored bricks of dubious strength to his wall. The cool patterns are prettier, good for marketing, and increases profits, thus fooling the patient. It also adds no real strength to the wall and actually weakens it. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Lego bricks. pretty but useless in the real building world. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the grumpy dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Valjean, the addition of one clinically unsubstantiated technique does not inherently decrease the efficacy a the total approach that also includes clinically substantiated treatments. A clinically unsubstantiated treatment is alternative by definition, but a clinically unsubstantiated technique is not ineffective by definition. There are treatments now established with experimental data as effective that were not widely used 20 years ago. In other words, your entire angle misses the temporal aspect of the movement of one technique from "alternative" to "conventional." [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:On wikipedia, your edit is what we call a [[WP:WEASEL]] wording. It waters down the language in order to make [[WP:FRINGE]] ideas seem more plausible. We trust the experts, in this case, medical scientists, to determine what is and is not real. Many such spheres of knowledge are based on [[empiricism]]. If you don't believe in empiricism, wikipedia probably is not the place for you. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 14:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
: [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]], we agree far more than you realize, but until the efficacy of an AM practice is proven, it remains AM. See the edit summary of the edit I just made. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Pulling the weasel wording card allows opponents of an edit to side step the fact that the discussion of wording in cases of fundamental definitions or epistemology are necessarily pedantic. I assure you as a trained plant scientist I appreciate the nuances of the scientific method, as a process, by which we produce data and arrive at conclusions. This is necessarily an epistemological and linguistic question. If something is considered alternative if not proven, then this is different than considering something alternative if it does not work. There is the category in which something may be unproven by a designed experiment and still function. Before experiments were designed to collect data and PROVE whether nitrogen increased plant growth and yield, nitrogen containing fertilizers still functioned to increase growth and yield. This is not a mere game of words, but the entire point. [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]] ([[User talk:UserSwamp|talk]]) 01:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
:Thank you for explaining basic logic to all of us incompetent morons who do not know the difference between "unproven" and "disproven". Also for pointing out that {{tq|opponents of an edit}} are acting in bad faith, "pulling cards" and "sidestepping". I did not know that such villainy was afoot. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
: [[User:UserSwamp|UserSwamp]], you write: "If something is considered alternative if not proven, then this is different than considering something alternative if it does not work. There is the category in which something may be unproven by a designed experiment and still function." Indeed. As explained in this article, that category is mainstream "medicine," which cares not about the origins of a method or potion. If it works, then it will be used. The explanation for "why it works" may come later, but it is still classified as "medicine," no longer "alternative."
::Whoever wrote the below:
::The explanation for "why it works" may come later, but it is still classified as "medicine," no longer "alternative."
::Too bad this isn't the way wiki operates. Most AM articles have to pass a moving target test of plausibility even if the treatments are effective. You have people like Ernst who make blanket statements including many effective therapies along with bunk like homeopathy. [[Special:Contributions/141.157.200.57|141.157.200.57]] ([[User talk:141.157.200.57|talk]]) 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:::On an unrelated note, it's great that we consider [[Edzard Ernst]] an expert on these topics because our best available sources do. We don't rely on the opinions and interpretations of random internet users. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 17:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:::: Yes, as the world's first professor of complementary medicine, he has the scientific and medical background to understand the claims and underpinnings of alternative and complementary medicine. He has received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation. He learned homeopathy, acupuncture and other modalities whilst at a homeopathic hospital in Munich, when he began his medical career.
:::: Otherwise, in response to the IP, any treatment that is proven to work is classified as "medicine," no longer "alternative," regardless of its origins or whether its mechanism is understood. If it works, real doctors will use it. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:::{{tq|even if the treatments are effective}} How can you tell that they are effective? Is your judgment better than that of the reliable sources you disagree with? How come?
:::No need to answer that. The answer to the second question is very likely "no". --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 19:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
== Is there any difference between what would be called pseudomedicine and so called "alternative" medicine? ==
Is there any reason to think that "alternative medicine" is anything but a [[euphemism]] for pseudomedicine? [[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 11:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
:The only time I have ever seen pseudomedicine in use has been on wikipedia, so my answer is not really, why do you ask? - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 13:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
::Seems like bias to let one type of [[pseudoscience]] use its own prefered terminology, [[pseudohistory]] isn't called "alternative history" or [[pseudomathematics]] "alternative mathematics".[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 09:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
:::While I agree with you in principle, we have to rely on our sources to tell us how to describe these things. "pseudomedicine" is perhaps a valid alternate term for alternative medicine, but it probably isn't [[WP:DUE]] enough to be used in the lead. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 11:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
==="Allopathic" as a term===
Alternative medicine is anything not taught traditionally in an allopathic medical school. So, for example, that would include: osteopathy, chiropracty, naturopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine. Most observers would be able to find examples of elements of alternative medicine that are well classified as pseudomedicine. Most observers would be able to find examples of elements of alternative medicine that are not well classified as pseudomedicine. So these terms are not synonyms or euphemisms for each other. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
::Your definition contains the pseudomedical term "allopathic", which is a misrepresentation of real medicine, and fails from the start. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 21:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Um. OK. But that's the technical term that describes most medical schools. I have never really liked that term either, but it is what the English language and common as well as professional usage have given us. See the NIH definition here: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/allopathic-medicine. In short, "A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called biomedicine, conventional medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and Western medicine." [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 21:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Allopathic is a derogatory term, in much the same way as quackery is. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::That claim is simply not true. Or at least does not capture the entirety of the usage. There may indeed be some people that use 'allopathic' in a sentence and intend that term to be derogatory. There may indeed be some people that see 'allopathic' in a sentence and interpret that term to be derogatory. But the term is also in widespread use in a non-derogatory sense. For example, I am an allopathic doctor trained in an allopathic medical school. I use that sentence to differentiate myself from other doctors trained in other categories of medical schools. You can check the non-derogatory and professional usage for yourself. For example, look up articles in PubMed with 'allopathic' in their title. The vast majority — probably all of them — do not have a derogatory redolence. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 18:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::The thing that matters is what our secondary reliable sources say, especially medical and scholarly sources. And many if not most of the most recent uses of "allopathic" in that type of sources describe it as a derogatory term.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Spigarelli |first1=Francesca |last2=Mucelli |first2=Attilio |title=Healthcare Policies And Systems In Europe And China: Comparisons And Synergies |date=2017 |publisher=World Scientific |isbn=9789813231238 |pages=267-277}}</ref><ref name="WEATHERALL1996">{{cite journal | last1 = WEATHERALL | first1 = M. W. | title = Making Medicine Scientific: Empiricism, Rationality, and Quackery in mid-Victorian Britain | journal = Social History of Medicine | date = 1 August 1996 | volume = 9 | issue = 2 | pages = 175–194 | issn = 0951-631X | eissn = 1477-4666 | doi = 10.1093/shm/9.2.175 | pmid = 11613446 | url = }}</ref><ref name=FREEDICT>{{cite web|url=http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/allopathy |website=The Free Dictionary |publisher=Farlex |title=Definition {{ndash}} allopathy |access-date=25 October 2013}} Citing: ''Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine'' (2008) and ''Mosby's Medical Dictionary'', 8th ed. (2009).</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Bhanote |first1=Monisha |title=Allopathic Medicine |url=https://www.healthline.com/health/allopathic-medicine |work=Healthline |date=24 July 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Reporter |first1=Staff |title=‘It is modern medicine, not allopathy’ |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kozhikode/it-is-modern-medicine-not-allopathy/article29612000.ece |work=The Hindu |date=6 October 2019 |language=en-IN}}</ref><ref name="MondalMondal2022">{{cite journal | last1 = Mondal | first1 = Himel | last2 = Mondal | first2 = Shaikat | title = Do we still use Allopathy to indicate Modern medicine? | journal = Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care | date = 2022 | volume = 11 | issue = 3 | page = 1225 | issn = 2249-4863 | doi = 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1147_21 | pmid = 35495825 | pmc = 9051683 | url = }}</ref>{{pb}}
::::::The usage you're describing is, by current standards, outdated. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
[[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]], your POV is not informed by the way the term "allopathic" is commonly used in the fringe world of alternative medicine. There it is used in a pejorative manner in their attacks on evil Big Pharma, evil MDs, and evil “Slash-Poison-Burn” cancer treatments. Keep in mind that alternative practitioners have to demonize modern medicine to gain customers and justify their existence, and they are very nasty. They use "allopathic" in a very derogatory way all the time. The history of the term shows it was originally used that way by the founder of Homeopathy: "The terms were coined in 1810 by the inventor of [[homeopathy]], [[Samuel Hahnemann]].<ref name="Whorton2004">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RU0DndWVSPoC&q=allopathy+allopathic+greek+hahnemann&pg=PA18|title=Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America|author=Whorton JC|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2004|isbn=978-0-19-517162-4|editor=Oxford University Press US|editor-link=Oxford University Press US|edition=illustrated|location=New York|pages=18, 52}}</ref> It was originally used by 19th-century homeopaths as a derogatory term for [[heroic medicine]], the conventional European medicine of the time and a precursor to modern medicine, that did not rely on [[Comparative effectiveness research|evidence of effectiveness]]." (from our [[Allopathy]] article) -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 19:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:Check the references in PubMed. Many of them are from 2023. The references you cite above, are for the most part fairly old or obscure. The one in Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care from 2022 seems to support, at least to some extent, your viewpoint. But please note I am not arguing that your viewpoint is wrong. I am just arguing that it is incomplete. And I think it is a minority viewpoint, at least based on PubMed citations. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 20:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:Just because a word is used by a firebrand in a disparaging passage, it does not mean that word is inherently derogatory. If an anti-urbanist claims that "High-rise development is the work of idiots," that does not make the phrase 'high-rise' derogatory. None of the 26 PubMed articles published in 2022-2023 with 'allopathic' in the title use the word in a derogatory sense. Please note that I am not saying that the viewpoint that the word <u>can</u> be used in a derogatory sense is invalid. But that viewpoint does not capture the use in professional or medical circles. We should not promote the view that the term is derogatory on Wikipedia. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
::You're actually examining the question wrong, by Wikipedia standards. Some salient rules of thumb:
::#The question isn't "''{{!xt|in all of PubMed, how is this word used?}}''" It's "''{{tq|in <u>all reliable sources about alternative medicine</u>, how is this word used?}}''" That is this essence of a good [[WP:RSUW]] source review. '''The scope is the article subject, and the [[WP:BESTSOURCES|highest quality sources]] about that subject dictate how we cover it'''.
::#PubMed is not the only search engine we use. Google Scholar is more comprehensive and tends to include more scholarly narrative reviews in monographs that are secondary and authored by experts, but can also bring in some junk that does need to be sifted through. More discerning but still comprehensive are [[SCOPUS]], [[WebOfScience]], and [[Gale (publisher)|Gale]]. These are golden for our purposes.
::#2022-2023 are not the only publications that qualify as "recent". For actual questions of medical claims (like is this treatment effective e.g. [[WP:BMI]]), 5 years ago and later is a good rule of thumb, and [[WP:MEDRS]] are essential. But for questions like this which are more terminology-based and not actually BMI, the window can stretch farther back as long as much hasn't changed in the time since.
::#[[WP:PRIMARY]] sources (eg non-reviews like primary journal articles) are not really very useful. '''All [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources trump primary sources''', typically. Per [[WP:PARITY]], we often use non scientific journal article sources in FRINGE topic domains like this, especially when addressing non-[[WP:BMI]] claims and terminology. Sources like [[WP:SBM]], ''[https://theconversation.com/us The Conversation]'', ''[https://healthfeedback.org HealthFeedback]'', and [[WP:SNOPES]] are golden for non-BMI stuff.
::#'''Source reviews should disregard so-called "cursory" or "hit-n-run" mentions'''. This is a big one. <u>We're interested in sources which directly address the term itself, not simply use it once and then move on.</u> The former indicates a source which has investigated the term, its meaning, etymology, connotation. The latter indicates a source which just heard it somewhere and repeated it (likely uncritically).
::Some other good sources on the term "allopathic" as derogatory.<ref name="Anastassakis2022">{{cite book | title = Androgenetic Alopecia From A to Z | last1 = Anastassakis | first1 = Konstantinos | chapter = “Alternative Medicine”, Herbs, and Hair Loss | date = 2022 | pages = 417–427 | publisher = Springer International Publishing | doi = 10.1007/978-3-031-08057-9_48 | url = }}</ref><ref name="DGorski2011">{{cite news |last1=Gorski |first1=David |title=The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s muddled draft policy on “non-allopathic” medicine |url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cpsos-muddled-draft-policy-on-non-allopathic-medicine |work=sciencebasedmedicine.org |date=22 August 2011}}</ref><ref name="IjazWelsh_2022">{{cite journal |last1=Ijaz |first1=Nadine |last2=Welsh |first2=Sandy |last3=Boon |first3=Heather |title=Toward a ‘green allopathy’? Naturopathic paradigm and practice in Ontario, Canada |journal=Social Science & Medicine |date=1 December 2022 |volume=315 |pages=115557 |doi=10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115557 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622008632 |language=en |issn=0277-9536}}</ref> — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 10:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::One might consider that anybody who uses the term "allopathy" is a true believer in Alt-Med, as Quacks use it almost routinely to refer to real medicine. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 14:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}
== Alternative Medicine and Complementary Therapy are not the same. ==
Here’s a quote from the article that needs citation:
'''“'''Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on [[pseudoscience]]. [[Traditional medicine|Traditional practices]] become "alternative" when used outside their original settings and without proper scientific explanation and evidence”
Here’s an article from the NCCIH, the federal government’s branch of the NIH, which has a different view on this subject: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name
This source clearly states that a non-mainstream therapy becomes alternative therapy when used INSTEAD of standard care, saying that Complementary therapies are completely distinct from this classification as clients utilize them without stopping their main treatment. Does author of the original quote have a source for their point of view? [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 16:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:You are mistaken, they are the same, as you have been told elsewhere. The NCCIH is an unreliable source when discussing Alt-Med. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::What is your source? “You are mistaken, they are the same, as you have been told elsewhere.” By who? You and your editor friends? Or is there a source backing up your classification of CM and AM? [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 16:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::If it works, it is medicine, if it doesn't, it isn't medicine. Indeed yes, I told you elsewhere. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree! If a therapy has been scientifically proven to work as standard care then it can be defined as traditional medicine. If not, then this said therapy can fall into one of two categories of therapies outside of the umbrella of mainstream care:
::::-Complementary therapies, which are used alongside and not as a replacement for mainstream care, or
::::-Alternative therapies, which are used instead of mainstream care.
::::The categorization of a therapy in practice depends on its decided application by the client, but a therapy is not an alternative therapy if it isn’t used instead of standard care. I know you’re not a fan of my NCCIH source but it still stands to reason that the NCCIH is a branch of a government organization and you have not provided a source backing up your distinction between complementary and alternative therapies other than your own opinion. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Wow!! First you agree, and then in the very same post you go off not agreeing. That's daft. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right, I’m saying we agree that therapies that are not backed by scientific evidence should not be classified as standard medical care, we agree on that. We don’t agree on how these non-standard treatments should then be sorted after that, you want to put all of them under the “alternative” umbrella and my argument is that your decision to do so is your opinion, not based on any legitimate source of systematic categorization. Do you have a source that invalidates my argument? [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 16:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::I just edited the title to better reflect the context of the conversation. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 17:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::... and I returned it to the original title, which I had responded to. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 18:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::There are experimental therapies in mainstream medicine, but all of them are labeled and marketed as "experimental". [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Absolutely! I’m not talking about experimental therapies that are already mainstream though, I’m talking about non-mainstream therapies that people either use in an “alternative” or in a “complementary” way. The US government makes this distinction very clear (see CDC and NCCIH); you may disagree with this distinction and I respect your opinion but I would like to see a source suggesting that complementary therapy is and should be under the umbrella of alternative medicine from a semantics standpoint other than the collective opinions of the editors on this site. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, the umbrella term is SCAM (supplements, complementary and alternative medicine). [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Exactly, and complementary and alternative applications are distinct within that umbrella. I agree. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your tactic here appears to be to act as if you are already correct, and everyone else here doesn't appear to get it. The consensus here is against your changes, and this tactic isn't helping. See [[WP:1AM]]. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I’m only bringing a widely accepted opposing viewpoint into the discussion, we can agree to disagree. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 19:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Alternatively, if you wont look at sources already supplied, you could tell us which of your complementary therapies are ''not'' Alt-Med. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Here’s two sites with the goal of collecting accurate information on complementary therapies.
::::::::::https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/about/#research+standards
::::::::::https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/complementary-therapies-in-medicine/about/aims-and-scope [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 18:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::neither of this sources appear to be [[WP:MEDRS]] compliant. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::To answer the charge, I guess complementary means "used together with" or "and", while alternative means "it replaces" or "either, or". [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Exactly! [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 20:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
; Moved from [[Talk:Alexander Technique]] as it's more appropriate here.
[[User:Murbanek97|Murbanek97]], you write: "complementary and alternative therapies are completely distinct from one another in their application." That is not entirely true. The method is identical. It is the situation that changes. A cancer patient who is getting radiation and chemo from their physician is getting mainstream medical care. The same patient can then be prescribed relaxation therapy or hypnosis, and those therapies are now complementary to the radiation and chemo. In another setting, away from the physician and not being presribed by the physician, those are alternative methods. So the method is the same. The setting makes the difference.
BTW, that situation with the cancer patient is interesting. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12565991/ Research in Norway] showed that cancer patients who used alternative methods together with (complementary) their standard care died faster and more often than those patients who did not use the complementary methods. Standard care has proven and documented effects and side effects. We do not know all the effects and side-effects for most alternative/complementary methods, other than that we know they are unproven or disproven. If they are proven to be effective, they are no longer classified as alternative but are classified as mainstream medicine. The old joke goes: "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." Period. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 08:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:This is Murbanek btw, username switch. “The method is identical. It is the situation that changes.” Yep this is exactly what I meant when I said that the application is distinct. A therapy becomes complementary to someone when used in addition to standard treatment, though I’m waiting for your source explicitly stating that a therapy does not “flip” from alternative to complementary unless it’s prescribed by a healthcare professional. I would love to hear more about this research on cancer patients in Norway though, can you link that as well? [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::: [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]], here's a news report about the [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12565991/ research in Norway]. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::'''Comment :''' Alt-Med and Complementary med are the same. They are 'both' quackery. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 10:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::What is this based on? The NCCIH lists complementary and alternative therapies as being distinctly different in their application. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::NCCIH is not reliable as a source. As I have told you elsewhere. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Yes and no. It is not a [[WP:MEDRS]] if used for claims of effectiveness, but it is a RS for documentation of the official government classification. That is how we are using it here. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::OK, yes, documentation.- [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::You didn’t answer my question. NCCIH is a part of the National Institute of Health. We can disagree on the validity of that source but you still have not provided one to support your own opinion. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 16:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::I did answer your question, You can disagree on the validity of the source, but you'd be wasting your time. The sources you seek are ''already in the article''. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::No you did not answer my question. You said:
:::::::“Alt-Med and Complementary med are the same”
:::::::This was my reply:
:::::::“What is this based on?”
:::::::Please answer this question. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 16:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::::If it works, it is medicine, if it doesn't work it is not. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Once again, that can be true and it still doesn’t change my argument or your lack of a source. Here’s another source from the CDC outlining the differences: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/survivors/patients/complementary-alternative-medicine.htm?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=off Do you have a contrary source? [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 17:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::: Medicine is what's practiced by legally educated and licensed healthcare professionals. Without that education and licensing, a therapy or method is alternative. Physicians have a lot of legal latitude for what they can prescribe, and some will include methods that are not mainstream. Insurance may not pay, but it is being used in a complementary fashion. It may not work either. It may still be quackery, even if a physician is involved. (The "quackery" aspect has to do with how it promotes itself and the claims it makes.) -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::“Medicine is what's practiced by legally educated and licensed healthcare professionals. Without that education and licensing, a therapy or method is alternative.” This specific categorization runs contrary to the opinion of both the NCCIH and the CDC. I am fine with discussing alternate viewpoints on this subject but they need to be evidence-based. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 17:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::: In what way is it contrary? Practicing medicine without a license is illegal. As a healthcare professional, but not a physician, even I am limited in what claims I can make and methods I can use. Those who are not working under a physician are alternative practitioners. Any medically-related claims they make are usually an illegal practice of medicine without a license. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::“Those who are not working under a physician are alternative practitioners. Any medically-related claims they make are usually an illegal practice of medicine without a license.” What about cases where practitioners make it explicitly clear that their practice is not a replacement for medical treatment? Based on official US government designation they would be “complementary” practitioners, not “alternative” practitioners. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 17:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: This gets into how we define "medical" practice. In the modern world, it is what is practiced by properly educated and licensed medical practitioners. This usually (laws vary from country to country) limits the prescription of drugs and the making of diagnoses to licensed physicians. In some jurisdictions, [[Physician Assistant]]s (PA) and [[Physical Therapist]]s/Physiotherapists (PT), who are only allowed to work under the oversight of a licensed physician, are allowed to make certain diagnoses. Anyone else who makes a diagnosis or gives drugs is breaking the law. Anyone else who offers treatment under the guise of treating any medical condition is practicing medicine without a license. Anyone else who makes medically-related claims related to any health/disease condition is breaking the law.
:::::::::::::: You seem to be proposing that it is the unlicensed practitioner, not the law and the licensed practitioner, who decides whether the treatment is "complementary" or not. I do not believe that is the case. It certainly never has been in my practice or to my knowledge. The patient has to be under the care of a licensed physician, who then knowingly prescribes the use of the "non-mainstream approach" (NCCIH). Then it is officially part of the physician's plan of care for that patient and can rightfully be called "complementary" to the mainstream approaches used by that physician as part of their plan of care for that patient, and it is part of the physician's charting in that patient's journal located in that physician's office or hospital. None of that happens in the unlicensed practitioner's office. Whatever they write there is outside of the law. They are on their own and "alternative".
:::::::::::::: This isn't some type of thing where anyone who is not licensed can just decide that their offer of treatment is "complementary" without the physician's knowledge and direct oversight. It must be charted in the physician's patient journal. Just because the patient and this unlicensed <s>therapist</s> practitioner both know that the patient is using some drugs does not make an unapproved and unofficial addition of a "non-mainstream approach" to those drugs an official "complement" to the physician's plan of care. The physician must know and approve. Without that, the care is "alternative" and off-the-books. If the unlicensed <s>therapist</s> practitioner is not working with the physician, they are on their own. (Yes, even the use of the word "therapist" is a protected title reserved only for officially licensed medical practitioners in many places. PTs are such practitioners. Their license allows them to use the word "therapist".)
:::::::::::::: What I am describing is known as Integrative health:
::::::::::::::: "Integrative health brings conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are two or more interventions such as conventional health care approaches (like medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy), and complementary health approaches (like acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than, for example, one organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different providers and institutions by bringing conventional and complementary approaches together to care for the whole person."[https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name]
:::::::::::::: It's a "well-coordinated" thing. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 19:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
[[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]], this is getting off into NOTFORUM territory. We can discuss this on your talk page. Let's keep the focus on your original concern at the beginning of this thread. Are you satisfied with the change I implemented? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:I am thankful for the change you made as it’s a great first step. I would love to know how I can better keep the focus on the topic of the thread. Here’s another source from the CDC I just found:
:https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/survivors/patients/complementary-alternative-medicine.htm?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=off
:This source has the same method of differentiation between complementary and alternative therapies as the NCCIH website. I want to learn more about the thought process behind why Wikipedia does not distinguish them in the same way. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 17:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:: Wikipedia does distinguish them in the same way. The method is the same. It is only the situation that changes. Whether used as alternative or complementary, it is still without good evidence of effectiveness, may still be considered quackery, etc. It isn't suddenly transformed by its association with the mainstream methods it is being used with. It's just more comforting or makes the process nicer, and that's not a bad thing. What is problematic is that many physicians who are into CAM make claims that the addition increases effectiveness, and those claims are wrong and just marketing. It makes the process more expensive for the patient as insurance rarely pays, and it gives the patience a false sense of hope. BTW, I have two mainstream healthcare educations. My wife has three. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:::“It's just more comforting or makes the process nicer, and that's not a bad thing. What is problematic is that many physicians who are into CAM make claims that the addition increases effectiveness, and those claims are wrong and just marketing.”
:::I think this is a great point! I don’t think this justifies lumping all non-mainstream therapies into the alternative therapy umbrella, for the sake of semantics. I respect your opinion though and would love to see a source that supports your claim. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
[[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]], I'm having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make, so let's start with your statement "Alternative Medicine and Complementary Therapy are not the same." That is basically a false statement. Focus on the subject word "therapy". (In this case, we are talking about a specific "alternative therapy" and the same therapy used as a "complementary therapy".) This may all seem like "just semantics", but words are the place we have to start.
Now let's substitute "therapy" with the word "rock" and use it to illustrate. A rock is a rock, no matter how it is used. It's the same rock. How it is classified may vary according to how it's used, but it's still a rock. Now let's use "acupuncture" to illustrate. Acupuncture is acupuncture, no matter how it is used. It's still acupuncture. How it is classified may vary according to how it's used, but it's still acupuncture.
When used alone, apart from any mainstream methods, acupuncture is classified as alternative. When it is used together with mainstream methods, it is classified as complementary. Keep in mind that all complementary methods are identical to the same alternative methods. (Before there was the concept of "complementary", there was "alternative".) It is only the context that determines the classification. The therapy/method remains the same. Does all that make sense to you? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Pinging [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]]. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 20:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:Sorry I was busy with other things, yes I agree with you and that’s actually why I originally changed the title of the conversation before Roxy changed it back. I could’ve done a better job making it clear in the original title that I’m talking about the difference in “complementary” and “alternative” approaches solely in terms of their application and not in terms of the aforementioned therapy itself.
:My disagreement is largely based on how these non-mainstream therapies are categorized and I think our disagreement actually raises an interesting conversation on the topic of medical ethics. I have no doubt that you are incredibly interested in making sure that patient autonomy is upheld in your practice and an important part of that is making sure that your patients are informed so that they CAN make informed decisions about their health.
:My argument is solely that out of concern for this issue medical professionals sometimes (and this is very profession-dependent) put a blanket label of “alternative medicine” on all practices that are not understood or under direct supervision from a physician. If one were to take this distinction literally a doctor could listen to a patient describe how they are using Yoga or Pilates as a complement to help with back pain and still label their efforts as “alternative” therapy, even if it has no effect on or even enhances the main treatment, solely because the medical professional isn’t directly involved or may not understand the therapy and its benefits.
:This, in effect, amounts to an effort to increase patient autonomy which may in practice actually decrease autonomy if the “alternative” label discourages a patient from seeking a therapeutic practice that may help them. In my experience with people treating mental illness, for example, they generally want to build a “toolkit” of different strategies and not throw all of their weight behind one universal alternative therapy supposedly designed to cure all illness without medical treatment. People often look at a therapy not designed to replace modern medicine (as none of them are), but then see the “alternative” label and immediately walk away.
:I think the medical establishment is largely responsible for upholding this state of affairs but I also believe that better semantics could satisfy everyone on all sides of this debate so that we can make sure the patient truly has the agency to make the right decisions about their own health. This is why I believe it would be far more productive to consider complementary and alternative therapies to be identical in practice but completely distinct in application, and that it’s not productive to blanket-label all non-mainstream therapies as “alternative” solely because a doctor isn’t directly involved, rather than listing all non-mainstream therapies under the “CAM” label where the terminology can be used interchangeably. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 21:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:: Maybe you can get this situation changed, but [[WP:RGW|Wikipedia is not the place to do it]]. In my experience, patients don't usually pay much attention to labels and do whatever they want. Few of them understand issues of evidence. They do pay attention to insurance coverage, or lack of same, but most are willing to pay the out-of-pocket expense for using a therapy that appeals to them.
:: There is no danger involved in not using an alternative/complementary method, but there can be great danger in using many of them, so one should also figure that into one's risk-vs-benefit-ratio. Maybe something potentially good will fall through the cracks in that situation, but 99% of the time it's a problem worth risking. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 22:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I understand Wikipedia’s stance on this topic but it’s not like I’m out here on my own making this argument. Everything you just said could be 100% true (probably is honestly) but the reality is that in practice people make decisions for their health outside of the umbrella of primary care every single day. The role of a doctor is extremely valuable to this process and I wholeheartedly agree that people generally don’t consult doctors enough on their health issues. That said, in cases where a doctor is uninformed on a therapy that a patient wants to add as a complement to their already existing toolkit that lack of information should not prevent a patient from being able to find out if that therapy is right for them, especially in cases where conventional medicine may be extremely beneficial for a patient’s symptoms but not completely sufficient on their own. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: Competent medical providers keep up with the literature and continuing education. The issue of dealing with patient compliance and patient use of alternative/complementary therapies is often covered, and providers learn about many of these methods, especially the evidence base and risks. They are also educated to not antagonize patients when they inform them of risks vs benefits whenever that is necessary. Patients do ask about these things. I have often discussed these issues with my patients, and I never criticize a method unless there is real danger. Otherwise, I let patients do whatever rocks their boat. Criticizing alternative therapies has great risks for a provider, including (in my case) sabotage of business and death threats to self and family. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 22:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::That’s awful! Is that common in the medical profession? I’m happy you aren’t outright dismissive of non-mainstream therapies with patients despite that.
:::::When you say you let the patient do whatever floats their boat, what threshold would that other “thing” your patient is doing have to cross in order for you to consider it complementary rather than (or as a subsect of it being) alternative? [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: If the physician has prescribed it, it's complementary. If the patient is just doing it on their own, it's alternative. The complementary approach is safer because there are methods, especially dietary supplements and spinal manipulation, which can cause serious problems the physician must know about in order to protect the patient. If a patient does things on their own, with no coordination with the physician, they can end up in serious trouble because of the lack of coordination. The physician will not fully understand the patient's symptoms.
:::::: I once had a patient with serious neck issues after a traffic accident. His initial patient history included comments about "suing". That was a red flag, so I took the best notes for his patient journal I had ever done. That proved providential. After several treatments, he was improving greatly, and I took my usual vacation from Christmas until the New Year. The next time I saw the patient he was much worse, and I couldn't understand what was going on. I hadn't done anything before vacation that could explain it, and the pause shouldn't have caused such problems. He was angry, in pain, and filed an official complaint against me. In the process of the investigation, my documentation was impeccable, and a piece of information came to light. During my vacation, he had gone to a chiropractor who, of course, manipulated his neck, a procedure that any MD or PT would consider contraindicated in his case. (Manipulation is pretty much mandated for a chiropractor in every case. It's their "hammer" for all diseases.) He immediately got worse, and the chiropractor told him it was my fault. That's why he filed the complaint against me.
:::::: Because of my impeccable charting, I was totally exonerated. Nothing I had done could explain his relapse, but the chiro treatment certainly could. That kind of shit happens, so the "well-coordinated care" mentioned above (for the use of complementary methods) is essential, and that can only happen when the physician prescribes the complementary care option and is knowingly and willingly kept in the loop. My patient sought alternative medicine outside of that loop. It could have caused him quadriplegia or a vertebral artery dissection and stroke. Those were high risks for him with the injuries he had sustained in the car accident. I knew that, and even though I am certified in manual therapies and joint manipulation, I knew not to do it with him. If I had done it, it would have been "complementary" because the patient had been referred to me by his physician. (I had an excellent working relationship with local physicians, and often got referrals from physicians far away whom I didn't know. Unfortunately, some of the local ones trusted me so much that they sometimes sent a referral with no diagnosis written on it (a blank check) and just told the patient "he will know what to do". That was illegal. I then had to phone the doctor and get a verbal diagnosis I could write on the referral with a note. I always covered my ass.) {{;)}} -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 23:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::We can certainly agree to disagree on the complementary/alternative/non-mainstream semantics but based on that story and I’m sure countless others like it that you have I can definitely see why your point of view is different from mine. I still maintain my position of how non-mainstream therapies should be categorized but I think we both share the goal of wanting people to have the best care possible while also having the wherewithal to make informed decisions about their health. [[User:TefCur93|TefCur93]] ([[User talk:TefCur93|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::: Indeed. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 00:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::... and I maintain that my responses here do not conflict ''at all'' with wanting patients to get the best care possible, remembering that many do not have the wherewithall to to make informed decisions about their health, as illustrated by Valjeans anecdote above. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 15:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
== Should we simplify the lead? ==
{{anchor|Lede needs to be simplified}}
Lede needs to be simplified.
My efforts to improve the lede are being reverted. One the one hand, when I add NIH references to the NIH definition, the NIH source is being maligned as unreliable, and my edits are deleted. An effort to add a reference to a peer reviewed review article was also reverted. On the other hand, when I suggest that references are needed for other claims in the lede, these suggestions are being deleted on the grounds that no references are needed because those claims are evident from reading the body of the article. This is frustrating, and seems contradictory. However, these reversions may be constructive in that they point to the greater issue of the lede needing to be cleaned up. The lede is too long and too biased. It needs to be shortened and made more neutral. The bias seems to be that along the claim that 'alternative medicine' is synonymous with 'pseudoscience'. This is clearly a viwwpoint held by some; this viewpoint should be included in the article. It is not the mainstream view in the medical professions (e.g., the NIH); the medical professional point of view should also be represented. My suggestion is to shorted the lede and avoid controversy in the lede. Then shunt the rich discussion with the various viewpoints to the body of the article — much of this is already in the body. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 20:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
: [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]], you must feel frustrated! I understand, and rather than place an "edit warring" warning on your talk page, let's just discuss here. Editing a lead is a tricky and usually very contentious thing, so you should discuss proposed changes here when they are reverted. Following [[WP:BRD]] is just good practice. That lead has been thoroughly hashed out, fought over, and warred over for years, right down to the exact words and punctuation, so ''any'' change, even the smallest, upsets the consensus version apple cart.
: I suggest you start proposing changes here, one at a time, in separate sections, and we can discuss them together. There are many editors, including many of us medical experts, who watch this page. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 20:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
The lead must sum up all the content in the body of the article, so controversies are also mentioned there. That stuff cannot be shunted off to the body. My rule of thumb is discussed in this essay I wrote many years ago: '''[[Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section|How to create and manage a good lead section]]''': "If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its {{em|real}} due weight."
Also, the lead should not be changed unless it reflects changes to the body. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The NIH (and the NCCIH), contrary to popular belief, are actually not a very reliable source on Wikipedia. It's an inherently political organization, e.g. no scientific or expert review panel dictated the formation of the NCCAM. That decision was entirely dictated by act of Congress. On Wikipedia, we trust secondary reviews published in academic journals more to tell us how to cover a topic. This article is the result of many dozens of editors working together, its wording is a delicate balance of the many policies that come into play here. '''If it seems like you're being reverted a lot, it's probably a good indication that you're editing in a controversial high traffic area with lots of editors monitoring the article avoiding POV pushing and vandalism'''. This lead has been stable for a long time. If it seems as though many other editors don't agree with you, I would suggest [[WP:1AM]] as a good read. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
=== "Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience." ===
{{anchor|Let's remove the absolute claim that all alternative medicine is pseudoscience from the lede}}
Let's remove the absolute claim that all alternative medicine is pseudoscience from the lede.
Many or most definitions of alternative medicine include some entities that are not pseudoscience. A claim that <u>all</u> alternative medicine is pseudoscience is inappropriate for the lede of this article. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 20:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
: Please start with an exact quote from the article. Then we can discuss it. We really have to demand precision in discussions to avoid misunderstandings.
: What "entities that are not pseudoscience" are you thinking of? I suspect you mean something like "that do not have pseudoscientific reasoning" behind it. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 20:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
::"Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on [[pseudoscience]]" is too strong. It needs to have a word added that makes it clear that not <u>all</u> alternative therapies are pseudoscience. For example, it could be changed to "Some alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and instead rely on [[pseudoscience]]". [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 00:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::: What "entities that are not pseudoscience" are you thinking of? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 00:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::'''Oppose'''. The lead is written as a summary of body content, based on our best available sources. The status quo still appears to be a valid [[WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY|summary]]. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 08:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm waiting for the reply to Val's question above (in the peanut gallery.) - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 15:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Let us all gather and observe the heat death of the universe, ''together'' {{smiley}} — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:Your question implies that you have thought really hard to come up with an example of alternative medicine that is not pseudoscience, and have failed. Furthermore, your question implies that if you were presented one example of alternative medicine that was not pseudoscience, then you would change your opinion. In the long run, for this argument to be successful, _everything_ practiced under the penumbra of "traditional Chinese medicine" or "osteopathic medicine" must be classified as pseudoscience. This is the current consensus of the two or three Wikipedia editors defending the current status of this article. The utility of such an extreme definition is questionable. There are practices of TCM and osteopathy that overlap with {allopathy; Western medicine; biomedicine; conventional medicine; mainstream medicine; orthodox medicine}. For example, the use of particular medicines backed by extensive research. Dealing with these overlap cases would require considerable ontological contortions. For example, one could claim that any use of a compound with scientific evidence behind it is, by definition, not TCM, and not osteopathy. That approach would preserve the claim that all of TCM is pseudoscience. But that would change the definition of TCM (or osteopathy or any other field encompassed by the phrase "alternative medicine") to mean something different than almost anyone using those phrases would intend. [[User:Jaredroach|Jaredroach]] ([[User talk:Jaredroach|talk]]) 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::Still waiting for answers. Dry roasted, anybody? - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|1=In the long run, for this argument to be successful, _everything_ practiced under the penumbra of "traditional Chinese medicine" or "osteopathic medicine" must be classified as pseudoscience. This is the current consensus of the two or three Wikipedia editors defending the current status of this article}}<br>Please don't attribute statements to others that they did not, themselves, say. ''You'' have brought these definitions and considerations, others have disagreed with your premises and the format of the question. Sources are what matter. Not our personal opinions.{{pb}}Any attempt to argue ontology on Wikipedia is destined to fail, as Wikipedia is not, has not ever been, and will likely never be, logically consistent. it isn't a science. It isn't mathematics. It's a set of contradictory and overlapping policies and guidelines which get us really ''close'' to a good encyclopedia. There's no inherent logic to it that you can argue with and [[WP:WIN]] as in a debate. What is true in one article according to the sources will not always be true in every other article. This is because Wikipedia [[WP:NOTTRUTH|has no single universal "consensus" truth]]. There are, instead, many contradictory local consensuses that are, occasionally, overturned by more global consensus. But you aren't going to get very far if you try and treat Wikipedia like a logic puzzle that you can ''crack open''. Better to look at the sources, see what they say, and go along for the ride. Thus far, I have not seen you link ''even a single source'' to support your position. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Many medical students complain that many facts of medical sciences make no sense, have no apparent logic, and you just have to learn them by rote. A Romanian medicine professor commented thereupon that students coming from linguistics-based high schools are better equipped to study medicine than students coming from natural sciences-based high schools. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::::So so so so very true. I have never heard this but I feel as if I have lived it a thousand times. As a PhD-scientist-turned-3-months-from-MD, I have been frustrated by no end of unscientific and inconsistent eminence-based practices in medicine. Medicine isn't a science, it's an art, that's ''informed'' by science. {{pb}}Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is an art ''informed'' by fairy-magic-dusted horseshit. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
::"Osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare. That is why graduates of its schools, but not those of chiropractic or naturopathy, can train as residents and legitimately identify themselves as primary care physicians or specialists." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140750/ [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I have a proposition for what to do with the sentence/topic of this thread, so I'll start a new thread. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 15:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
== Stuff to move around ==
I would also like to add the [[catch-22]] that defines AM: "If a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine".<ref name=Dawkins2003a/><ref name="Jeffrey2015"/><ref name="Offit2013"/> -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:I like both your proposals, but I have two worries. First, the proposed language would make the first paragraph quite long. Perhaps we could deal with this by moving some of the other names for AM to a later paragraph? Second, the proposed language would duplicate, in part, the beginning of the second paragraph. Would we remove {{tqd|"Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the established science of how the human body works; others resort to the supernatural or superstitious to explain their effect or lack thereof"}} if this proposal is adopted? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:: [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]], really good thoughts. This is exactly why I usually propose potentially controversial changes here. More eyes and all that. A collaborative result has staying power here. We don't want unnecessary duplication, so any modifications are welcome.
:: I like the idea of moving the CAM/Complementary/Integrative mentions to later, maybe as the first sentence of the last paragraph. The first paragraph should be devoted to AM. Those various applications of AM can come later.
:: The other stuff in the second paragraph could be moved to the first paragraph after merging into my proposition, so that needs work, but that can be complicated as there is quite a bit of duplication with the second paragraph. We may even end up merging it and keeping it as part of the second paragraph, depending on how long it gets.
:: So, to simplify things, let's start with the easiest things first:
:# Move the CAM/Complementary/Integrative stuff now. Is that okay? We can always revert later, but let's give it a try.
:# Adding my catch-22 sentence somewhere. That could be an easy thing to do. Where's a good spot? When I look at the current second paragraph, it might work at the end there. I'd add "history has shown", as in "History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine".<ref name=Dawkins2003a/><ref name="Jeffrey2015"/><ref name="Offit2013"/>
:: So that's two things to do before attempting the complicated merging stuff. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm fine with the last paragraph for the alt names. I think it would work well for it to be proximate to the line on "Its marketing often advertises ...". Placement of the catch-22 in what's now paragraph 2 sounds good to me, with the other content on effectiveness. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 03:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: Done. More tomorrow. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 07:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Just wanted to add my support to this as well. A clear and evident improvement which expands our description of the multiple forces underlying the adoption of alternative practices. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks for the support. Lumping all AM under pseudoscience is too simplistic and is actually wrong. It also set us up for a well-deserved straw man attack, as we have just observed. Some practices make no origin or mechanism of action claims that are related to science, and those are essential elements for being considered "pseudoscience". There are myriad types of AM, and there are many other factors than PS that describe some of them better. Putting this right up front makes for a better lead. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we're done with moving the content around. Please comment in the section above this one for the merging discussion. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 03:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
== "Derogatory"? ==
{{done}}
:Thanks for your efforts @[[User:Valjean|Valjean]]. I'm confused about how New age can be considered a derogatory term. The article for [[New Age]] does not say anything about the term being derogatory for medicine, only for music. It might be a good idea to remove new age from the sentence in the first paragraph and tighten it up. [[User:ScienceFlyer|ScienceFlyer]] ([[User talk:ScienceFlyer|talk]]) 22:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:: The word "derogatory" is gone now. You make a good point, and since "New Age" is not mentioned as "derogatory" in the body, there is no reason to say "derogatory" for it in the lead. New Age is kept because it is mentioned in the body as associated with many AM practices. I hope that's a good solution. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes- great work [[User:ScienceFlyer|ScienceFlyer]] ([[User talk:ScienceFlyer|talk]]) 00:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
== Let's use a better third sentence ==
Here is the third sentence in the lead:
: Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience.
There is a sentence in the body that is better suited for use there, as "pseudoscience" isn't the only factor that should be mentioned in the lead:
: Unlike medicine,{{refn|name=Harrisonquote|group=n}} an alternative product or practice does not originate from using scientific methods, but may instead be based on [[testimonial|hearsay]], [[religion]], tradition, [[superstition]], belief in [[supernatural]] energies, [[pseudoscience]], [[fallacy|errors in reasoning]], [[propaganda]], [[fraud]], or other unscientific sources.{{refn|name=Angellquote|group=n}}<ref name="Sampson_6/1995" /><ref name="NSF_2002" /><ref name="Hines_Sampson_Coulter_Sagan" /><ref name="AMCER" />
What think ye? Feel free to tweak. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:Excellent suggestion. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:Make sense; not all alternative medicine justifies itself primarily on pseudoscience. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 18:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:Not an improvement. Seems ignorant of sociology and anthropology, problematic as this article lumps traditional medicine (and integrative medicine) into the alternative frame. Keep it in the body of the article. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 10:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
:Love it, think it's a great improvement as it expands upon what the body should say using great sources. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, here's an attempt to merge them without losing anything of importance:
: Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science{{refn|name=Harrisonquote|group=n}}{{refn |name=WebMD2014quote|group=n}} and do not originate from using the [[scientific method]], but instead rely on [[testimonial]]s, [[anecdote]]s, [[religion]], tradition, [[superstition]], belief in [[supernatural]] energies, [[pseudoscience]], [[fallacy|errors in reasoning]], [[propaganda]], [[fraud]], or other unscientific sources.{{refn|name=Angellquote|group=n}}<ref name="Sampson_6/1995" /><ref name="NSF_2002" /><ref name="Hines_Sampson_Coulter_Sagan" /><ref name="AMCER" />
I have added one more ref/note after "outside of medical science", altered "using scientific methods" to "using the [[scientific method]]", and then added "[[anecdote]]s". -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
We need to change that third sentence before we merge it with the second paragraph. (That would involve a change to both.)
Here is the third sentence in the lead:
: {{talkquote|Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience.}}
Here's a replacement based on the sentence in the body of the article, but adapted for the lead:
: {{talkquote|Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science{{refn|name=Harrisonquote|group=n}}{{refn |name=WebMD2014quote|group=n}} and do not originate from using the [[scientific method]], but instead rely on [[testimonial]]s, [[anecdote]]s, [[religion]], tradition, [[superstition]], belief in [[supernatural]] energies, [[pseudoscience]], [[fallacy|errors in reasoning]], [[propaganda]], [[fraud]], or other unscientific sources.{{refn|name=Angellquote|group=n}}<ref name="Sampson_6/1995" /><ref name="NSF_2002" /><ref name="Hines_Sampson_Coulter_Sagan" /><ref name="AMCER" />}}
How's that? Shall I make the change? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
: I boldly added it. Now we can proceed to the next step we're discussing in the new section below. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Let's resume this merging discussion in the new section. The other stuff in the second paragraph could be moved to the first paragraph after merging into my proposition, so that needs work, but that can be complicated as there is quite a bit of duplication with the second paragraph. We may even end up merging it and keeping it as part of the second paragraph, depending on how long it gets. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
== Strange sentence ==
"Some of the successful practices are only considered alternative under very specific definitions, such as those which include all [[physical activity]] under the umbrella of "alternative medicine"."
That's the last sentence of the lead, and I don't find corresponding content in the body. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. It looks like something someone just dropped there. It also seems false. Exercise is not considered AM, unless it's some weird form making bogus claims. "Exercise" is only mentioned twice, and then in the context of TCM. All other exercise is considered mainstream and not AM.
I'd like to just nuke that sentence. I find it offensive that exercise, which is a major treatment modality of PT, is being mentioned here. It is not AM. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
: No response, so I'll just nuke it. If anyone can find a justification for keeping it, or they can word it better, it can be restored in a better form. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
:100% agree with removing this sentence. It has no correlation in the body, and is not backed up by a source or any source I can find. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
== Usage/prevalence ==
: ''Moved from above. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)''
Angel, in the PBS source, also addresses who uses CAM in the United States and for what reasons, i.e. reasons regarding what they find lacking in their experiences with conventional medicine. Repetitive quotes from skeptics only provide part of the picture for this topic. If demographics show certain groups are using this more than than the general public, this article fails to neutrally address why that is.
This source [https://books.google.com/books?id=Q3QGCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false] is also underutilized in the article. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
: You are touching on a different topic than the subject of merging a small set of specific wordings in the lead. You are talking about the popularity and use of AM. We have a section (or more) in the article on the topic. Are we missing mention of that in the lead? If so, then it should be mentioned, likely in the last paragraph, where we get close.
: That source is only used once, in the "Prevalence of use" section. If you see other relevant places to use it, then do so.
: If you want this subject dealt with properly, then please start a separate section and move this there. Then we can deal with it and help you better. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
== Testing and diagnoses ==
Many alt med sellers rely on pseudoscientific or unvalidated [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0004563218824622 testing] that is used to make pseudoscientific diagnoses. For example, chiropractors claim to detect "subluxations" on X-rays while [[Traditional Chinese medicine|TCM]] practitioners have, for example, tongue and pulse diagnosis. The TCM Wikipedia article describes 8 [[Traditional Chinese medicine#Eight principles of diagnosis|principles of diagnosis]] starting with ''Yin and yang''.
Discredited [https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-library/allergies/igg-food-test IgG food sensitivity tests] may lead to diagnoses of inappropriate food sensitivities. False diagnoses of [[leaky gut]], [[adrenal fatigue]], heavy metals, Lyme, and "[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a7.htm toxic mold]" may also be facilitated. And then there's the alternatively-diagnosed vaccine injury (e.g. the discredited claim that autism is a vaccine injury). The infobox lists alt-diagnoses and anti-vaccination but the text of this article doesn't really mention them. There is a separate [[list of diagnoses characterized as pseudoscience]] and categories for [[:Category:Alternative diagnoses|Alternative diagnoses]] and [[:Category:Alternative medical diagnostic methods|Alternative medical diagnostic methods]].
Where would it be appropriate to discuss these major components of the alt med industry? [[User:ScienceFlyer|ScienceFlyer]] ([[User talk:ScienceFlyer|talk]]) 23:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
: You have listed a group of articles that might logically be placed under one umbrella. Come up with a title. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 02:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
== What needs to be merged so we avoid duplication ==
The replacement for the second sentence:
: {{talkquote|Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science{{refn|name=Harrisonquote|group=n}}{{refn |name=WebMD2014quote|group=n}} and do not originate from using the [[scientific method]], but instead rely on [[testimonial]]s, [[anecdote]]s, [[religion]], tradition, [[superstition]], belief in [[supernatural]] energy, [[pseudoscience]], [[fallacy|errors in reasoning]], [[propaganda]], [[fraud]], or other unscientific sources.{{refn|name=Angellquote|group=n}}<ref name="Sampson_6/1995" /><ref name="NSF_4/2002" /><ref name="Hines_Sampson_Coulter_Sagan" /><ref name="AMCER" />}}
The second paragraph:
: {{talkquote|Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the established science of how the human body works; others resort to the [[supernatural]] or [[Superstition|superstitious]] to explain their effect or lack thereof. In others, the practice has plausibility but lacks a positive [[Risk–benefit ratio|risk–benefit]] outcome probability. Alternative medicine is distinct from scientific medicine, which employs the [[scientific method]] to test plausible therapies by way of [[Guidelines for human subject research|responsible and ethical]] clinical trials, producing repeatable [[evidence]] of either effect or of no effect. Research into alternative therapies often fails to follow proper research protocols (such as [[placebo]]-controlled trials, [[Blinded experiment|blind experiments]] and calculation of [[prior probability]]), providing invalid results. History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine.<ref name=Dawkins2003a/><ref name="Jeffrey2015"/><ref name="Offit2013"/>}}
Now let's merge these by first identifying duplications. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 17:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The first place I notice a similarity (yet a contrast) is here, so maybe we can merge them:
* {{talkquote|Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science{{refn|name=Harrisonquote|group=n}}{{refn |name=WebMD2014quote|group=n}} and do not originate from using the [[scientific method]], but instead rely on [[testimonial]]s, [[anecdote]]s, [[religion]], tradition, [[superstition]], belief in [[supernatural]] energies, [[pseudoscience]], [[fallacy|errors in reasoning]], [[propaganda]], [[fraud]], or other unscientific sources.{{refn|name=Angellquote|group=n}}<ref name="Sampson_6/1995" /><ref name="NSF_4/2002" /><ref name="Hines_Sampson_Coulter_Sagan" /><ref name="AMCER" />}}
* {{talkquote|Alternative medicine is distinct from scientific medicine, which employs the [[scientific method]] to test plausible therapies by way of [[Guidelines for human subject research|responsible and ethical]] clinical trials, producing repeatable [[evidence]] of either effect or of no effect.}}
Merged (by reversing the order and making the sentence a contrast):
: {{talkquote|Unlike [[medicine|modern medicine]], which employs the [[scientific method]] to test plausible therapies by way of [[Guidelines for human subject research|responsible and ethical]] clinical trials, producing repeatable [[evidence]] of either effect or of no effect, alternative therapies reside outside of medical science{{refn|name=Harrisonquote|group=n}}{{refn |name=WebMD2014quote|group=n}} and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on [[testimonial]]s, [[anecdote]]s, [[religion]], tradition, [[superstition]], belief in [[supernatural]] "[[Energy (esotericism)|energies]]", [[pseudoscience]], [[fallacy|errors in reasoning]], [[propaganda]], [[fraud]], or other unscientific sources.{{refn|name=Angellquote|group=n}}<ref name="Sampson_6/1995" /><ref name="NSF_2002" /><ref name="Hines_Sampson_Coulter_Sagan" /><ref name="AMCER" />}}
We could then make that the second sentence in the first paragraph and remove the sentence from the second paragraph. (I replaced "scientific medicine" with "[[medicine|modern medicine]]" and wikilinked "[[Energy (esotericism)|energies]]".) Then the second paragraph would look like this:
: {{talkquote|Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the established science of how the human body works; others resort to the [[supernatural]] or [[Superstition|superstitious]] to explain their effect or lack thereof. In others, the practice has plausibility but lacks a positive [[Risk–benefit ratio|risk–benefit]] outcome probability. Research into alternative therapies often fails to follow proper research protocols (such as [[placebo]]-controlled trials, [[Blinded experiment|blind experiments]] and calculation of [[prior probability]]), providing invalid results. History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine.<ref name=Dawkins2003a/><ref name="Jeffrey2015"/><ref name="Offit2013"/>}}
Because there still may exist some duplication, but be too complicated to do all at once, for the sake of transparency I suggest we install these changes and then move forward with more analysis and removal of duplication of ideas. I suspect the second paragraph will become shorter. What think ye? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
: Oppose merger. The longer passage retains nuance. However, the last sentence only belongs in the body of the article. "History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine." How do we factor into this version of "history" that the WHO has separate definitions for traditional medicine and CAM in various publications? [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I have installed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1146412343 merged versions]. Take a look at the improved lead. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 18:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Now that [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] has reverted my bold addition (a consensus is not required), per BRD, let's discuss this. (Pinging others who have recently been active on this page. [[User:ScienceFlyer|ScienceFlyer]] [[User:Shibbolethink|Shibbolethink]] [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] [[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] )
Cedar777, you did not provide a policy-based edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1146478467 when you deleted] the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1146412343 merged content I installed]. Don't do that. You need policy-based reasons for blocking good-faith additions. Please explain yourself based on policy. I merged two sentences and thus got rid of duplication. What's wrong with that? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|PING me]]''''') 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:Agree this edit is patently a good contribution which improves the summary-style of the lead. There was also pretty evident consensus above to include it per [[WP:CONSENSUS]] — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 05:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:There is not much point in dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the lede when the broader issues are that the article is outdated and the body needs an update to better reflect existing sources and include more current sources, i.e. from the last 10-15 years. While there is a large quantity of relevant and pertinent information here, the scope is too narrow and some content is present that is cringeworthy in its lack of awareness. The reality is that many general resources still differentiate between integrative, complementary, and alternative medicine (CDC [https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/survivors/patients/complementary-alternative-medicine.htm], American Indian Cancer Foundation[https://www.americanindiancancer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/050520_1-TraditionalHeal_D23-1.pdf], Mayo Clinic [https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/complementary-alternative-medicine/about/pac-20393581]) or that simply do not frame it collectively with the language used in the Wikipedia article. Yes, the voices of noteworthy authors and skeptics are certainly relevant and required for the subject but not at the exclusion of all other content and context. It may be helpful for editors to extend curiosity and empathy towards this subject and its users in order to reflect RS more accurately. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 11:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:: Then find and add such content. We are always open for newer information, especially if there are any MEDRS sources that have finally proven a named AM method is actually effective for a real disease, not just a comforting measure. If it's about the increasing popularity of AM, we know about that, and updated numbers might be relevant. There is money to be made on quack medicine, and "modern medicine" isn't exclusively evidence-based medicine. It's also a business, and by adding nostrums, more money is made. That's how business works. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 05:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
:Also see the terminology/framing done in the articles listed in this section: "Recent sources that address usage" listed below. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 12:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
== The entire defining opening of this article is bias and insulting ==
{{atop
| status = [[WP:FORUM]]
| result = This talk page is not for long descriptions of how much you disagree with Wikipedia's policies on [[WP:FRINGESUBJECTS]] and guidelines on how to write about [[WP:FRINGE|pseudoscience and alternative medicine]]. This talk page is for discussion of specific proposed changes to the article, and sources which support those changes. Describing what you dislike about the article itself is also not the purview of this page. Come back with sources, or find another part of the internet in which to [[WP:RGW|right the great wrongs]].— [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 15:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
}}
There isn't a single sentence in this section that isn't horribly insulting to practitioners of alternative medicine but belittling to those who choose to use alternative medicine. I would suggest someone who doesn't feel it's necessary to state that alternative medicine has very little distinction from "quackery" as well as 27 other unverifiable origination practices such as the "belief in supernatural 'energies'"
Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine despite lacking biological plausibility, testability, repeatability, or evidence from clinical trials. Unlike modern medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing repeatable evidence of either effect or of no effect, alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural "energies", pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources. Frequently used terms for relevant practices are New Age medicine, pseudo-medicine, holistic medicine, unorthodox medicine, fringe medicine, and unconventional medicine, with little distinction from quackery. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:AB31:1D80:1C5E:39E0:51CE:CA6E|2600:1700:AB31:1D80:1C5E:39E0:51CE:CA6E]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:AB31:1D80:1C5E:39E0:51CE:CA6E|talk]]) 09:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
:So, what do you want us to do about it? Sweep those facts under the rug just because you do not like them? See [[WP:IDLI]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 10:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
::This is great news. We must be doing something right. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 10:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Claims ==
The small box in the upper right corner of the page states, under "Claims": "Alternatives to reality-based medical treatments". This is an editorial disguised as neutral point of view. It might be more accurate to say: "Alternatives to mainstream modern Western medical practice". [[User:Surakmath|Surakmath]] ([[User talk:Surakmath|talk]]) 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:Agree that the wording could be improved, particularly by following the actual common language used regarding the subject (alternative/complementary/integrative medicine) by major [[WP:MEDORG]]s and by omitting the term “reality-based”. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:We could skip "Claims" in the infobox, since it's a bit complex, and infoboxes aren't good with complex. IMO "modern Western" is worse than "reality-based". [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
::Skipping is a good option. Any good philosopher will tell you "reality" isn't a thing per se, but a view. I see "evidence based" as a common phrase. Since the 1950's at least, the Western world has adopted many traditional Eastern understandings and expanded on them, such that East/West isn't a useful means of distinction between the medicines. Skipping is a good option. <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>[[User:Willondon|Willondon]] ([[User Talk:Willondon|talk]]) 04:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
::I support skipping the claims parameter in the infobox [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 16:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
:I would support keeping it as "alternatives to science-based medicine". As it's important to describe the relationship between "evidence-based" which is the phrase that many doctors know, but is often corrupted by alternative practitioners who perform shoddy studies, and "science-based" which takes into context the low quality of such studies. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 15:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
== Rose Shapiro ==
[[Rose Shapiro]] is a notable writer. Her views are relevant but they should not be stated in Wikivoice as was redone here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1146676462&diffmode=source%7Chere https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1146676462&diffmode=source%7C]. There are many sources that do not share her opinion of the terminoloy. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 12:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
: Seems fine, and not "in Wikivoice". [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:: I've removed the unnecessarily snide intro and tagged the areas where it is unclear who's views some of the statements in that section belong to. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 20:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::: Pinging [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]]. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 22:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::"snide" is an interesting characterization. I don't agree with that perspective. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 22:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Shibbolethink, I don't see why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=next&oldid=1148397060&diffmode=source this] (referring to them vaguely as "experts") is necessary. Both Gorski and Shapiro are very much in the public eye with their views. Each has their own biography page. If we are naming Ernst repeatedly, why not list and wiki link Shapiro and her 2008 book [[Suckers (book)|''Suckers'']] as well? [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 23:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::Sure. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 01:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::I did not mean that we should collapse the entire idea of criticism to just Shapiro. That's bad summary-style. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 12:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Snide due to this bit of wording "''Besides'' the ''usual issues'' with alternative medicine," which comes off as [[WP:EDITORIAL|editorializing]]. That intro doesn't contribute much of anything to a statement about integrative medicine. Mostly it indicates the writer really finds the subject contemptible and rife with "issues".
::::See [[MOS:NOTE]]: "phrases such as of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, and actually '''make presumptions about readers' knowledge,''' may [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|express a viewpoint]], and may call into question the reason for including the information in the first place. Do not ''tell'' readers that something is interesting, ironic, surprising, unexpected, amusing, coincidental, etc. Simply present sourced facts neutrally and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. '''Such constructions can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone''': Note that this was naturally subject to controversy in more conservative newspapers. becomes This was subject to controversy in more conservative newspapers.
::::What are the "usual issues" that readers are expected to have as a reference point?
::::It would be better to do away with that framing (Besides the usual issues). [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 02:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
== Recent sources that address usage ==
*2018 "Complementary medicine use in the Australian population: Results of a nationally-representative cross-sectional survey" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35508-y
*2017 "Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in US Adults With Moderate Mental Distress: Results From the 2012 National Health Interview Survey" Journal of Primary Care & Community Health. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2150131916671229
*2011 "Rx for Prevention, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health" http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/wwwfiles/ph/media/media/rx-nov-dec2011-web.pdf
*2011 Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Canada and the United States https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.92.10.1616
*2022 Prevalence of Use of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the General Population: A Systematic Review of National Studies Published from 2010 to 2019 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40264-022-01189-w
*2018 Complementary medicine and the NHS: Experiences of integration with UK primary care https://www.bristol.ac.uk/primaryhealthcare/news/2018/national-cam-survey.html
[[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 12:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:Hmmm . . . not much feedback here on other editors views on the quality of these sources or their content. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:: I suspect you'll get more traction with this after you propose some wording you'd like to include in the article. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 22:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::The difference between backwards editing and forwards editing applies here. (courtesy mention to [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] who recently raised this useful distinction at another unrelated article)
:::'''Backwards editing''': "Here is what the article should say, now let's find sources to support each fact..."
:::'''Forwards editing''': "Here are three good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them..."
:::In this case, here are ''six'' good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them . . .
:::Perhaps editors here at alternative medicine '''A)''' haven't yet had an opportunity to read any of these sources''' B)''' believe that some or all of them are of insufficient quality or '''C)''' have read them but are unwilling or unable to acknowledge or integrate this information with their existing views on the subject. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 23:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::: Not at all. They look like potentially good sources. You found them and have read them, so you are welcome to take the lead in finding a way to use them. We'll be happy to help you get it right. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 03:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::The framing of the topic remains concerning, i.e., the topic as currently described in the article is lacking in neutrality. It broadly implies that practitioners of the conflated alternative/complementary/integrative medicine are quacks and the users are nitwits. Multiple [[WP:MEDORG]]s do not conflate the three terms. A sizable number of the cited sources outside of the history section are over 20 years old!
:::::Per [[WP:MEDDATE]] sources from the last 5 years are preferred.
:::::I hesitate to summarize the above sources covering usage demographics until some of the broader issues in the article are addressed. To proceed at this point would likely amount to participating in finger pointing to the implied "nitwits" rather than being part of an updated assessment of the topic. Editors may detest this subject thoroughly but there is factual evidence that CAM is not dissipating.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Phutrakool P, Pongpirul K |date=January 2022 |title=Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis |journal=Systematic Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |page=10 |doi=10.1186/s13643-021-01882-4 |pmc=8759198 |pmid=35027078}}</ref> [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::It may also prove useful to review these more recent sources simply for the language they use to frame the subject itself. By default, they are differentiating complementary/alternative/integrative medicine usage from the usage of medicine proper as something worthy of study. In order to study it, they must define it. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 01:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
== The Skeptic's Dictionary ==
It is unnecessary to rely on a self-published source and use it in the article. Per [[WP:RSP]] "it's preferable to read and cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary." If those sources still aren't any better, the content is undue. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 12:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
:It's published by Wiley, and [[WP:PARITY]] applies. Nothing can be "per RSP" because it's just an overgrown essay. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 12:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
::RSP provides concise, carefully worded summaries that reflect a consensus of editors. Perhaps by your logic that RSP is "just an overgrown essay" we would also devalue what it states about the non-peer-reviewed blog SBM, right? RSP is in fact useful for understanding what a consensus of editors have agreed about a source. The Skeptics Dictionary just isn't that strong of a source. The points it has raised can better be attributed directly to the best quality sources that it cites or to higher quality alternative sources in general. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 20:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Sounds like an axe being ground! RSP has zero [[WP:PAG]] force (as it helpfully says at the top). In some senses its checkbox approach is antithetical to the correct running of the [[WP:CLUETRAIN]] but it's sometimes useful like the [[Lie-to-children|lies we tell to children]]; that's how I use it anyway. If you want an actual on-point [[WP:PAG]] I recommend [[WP:PARITY]]. For woo, sources like The Skeptic's Dictionary are golden. Of course, if you have better then bring them forth! [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 04:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
: Carroll was a highly respected subject matter expert. The yellow status is just a caution, especially regarding use in a BLP situation, not as we are using it here. Ultimately all yellow sources are used on a case-by-case basis, and this use stands up to examination as a useful source here. Especially on this topic, it is very relevant. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 05:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
::I'm suggesting we can and should do better by limiting this to [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 20:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::: I suggest you find such sources and then propose them as a replacement. Until then, keep ''The Skeptic's Dictionary''. It is written by a highly respected subject matter expert and can be used, even according to RSP. It is only for BLP matters it should not be used. Pinging [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]]. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 22:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:"The Skeptics Dictionary" refers to two things. One is the published work, per Bon courage, which - as a book published by a major publisher - is regarded as fine. The other is a self-published website. As a sef-published website it cannot be used for claims about living people other than the author, but it is still the work of a subject-matter expert, so is potentially ok for other claims even if it may not be the best choice. The problem, though, is that there is cross-over between the two works, which means I normally check the book to see if the same claim is in there before deciding what to do. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 23:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::How 'integrative medicine' is characterized is not a BLP issue. So I'm not sure why it's being raised, Wikipedia editors often link to the website version because they prefer linkable content, it's true. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 03:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't know how it is being used, but I think there was some confusion between the book (unquestionably a reliable source) and the website (a reliable source, but self-published, and therefore has limitations on how it can or should be used). WP:RSP acknowledges both, but the concerns raised there only apply to one. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 05:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Right, and it seems the only mention on this page from the website directly is a quote from Carroll himself. So [[WP:SPS]] would apply and the quotation is arguably justified, given Carroll is an expert. the other mention (skep_dic_comp_med) appears to be verifiable to pages 5,17,75, and 322 of the 2004 book. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you {{u|Bilby}}, the book and website do present a worthwhile distinction. Carroll's 2007 The Skeptic's Dictionary does NOT have a dedicated definition for integrative medicine - there is no listing for it in the book. This statement: "{{tq| Carroll described Integrative medicine as "a synonym for 'alternative' medicine that integrates sense with nonsense. It integrates the scientific with the untested and the discredited."}} comes directly from the Sceptic's Dictionary website, a [[WP:SPS]].
::::Furthermore, what Carroll says on the website shows far more balance and is actually this "Integrative medicine is a synonym for "alternative" medicine that, at its worst, integrates sense with nonsense. At its best, integrative medicine supports both consensus treatments of science-based medicine and treatments that the science, while promising perhaps, does not justify."
::::WP:SPS advises: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."
::::This source should be discarded for something better or at minimum it should be modified to reduce the cherrypicking of Carroll's words. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 22:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::::: You aren't listening. The answer to your proposition is still a big NO. We are dealing with a fringe subject, so [[WP:PARITY]] applies. Carroll (both book and website), Gorski (blogs and anywhere else), Ernst, Barrett, ''et al'' are all good sources for fringe topics like this. They are subject matter experts. When dealing with fringe topics, SPS allows the use of subject matter experts. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 02:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::Right. it's good for woo. Not good for [[WP:BLP]] stuff. So we're good. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 03:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::As stated above, the wording extracted from the published source does not accurately represent what Carroll actually said which was "Integrative medicine is a synonym for "alternative" medicine that, at its worst, integrates sense with nonsense. At its best, integrative medicine supports both consensus treatments of science-based medicine and treatments that the science, while promising perhaps, does not justify." [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 03:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::: Carroll said the same thing with slightly different wordings in different places, in the book and on the website. Both are acceptable sources, and we have chosen this one. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 04:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Per WP P&G, we should use the highest quality one, which is the book. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 03:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I would disagree, I think SBM and Ernst are the highest quality sources we have on this. — [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
== Accuracy of article ==
This is not my opinion per se, just a fact (I am a big supporter of both Science and Folk Medicine, favoring science) - This article is obviously biased against Alternative Medicine, and therefore cannot be taken as accurate. In order for accuracy to occur, the author must take an unbiased viewpoint, and just state the facts. The use of the word "derogatorily" when referring to "Big Pharma", but them blatantly discrediting centuries of Folk Medicine, much of which HAS proven to be effective (fact), as well as the rest of the language used in the article, shows that this article is extremely biased against Alternative Medicine and therefore inaccurate in its findings, and should be re-written, or edited, by someone with an unbiased viewpoint - or at the very least, include a section from an Alternative Medicine point of view, which includes scientific findings of efficacy in the use of herbal medicine. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:75F0:73F0:D03F:480A:44B7:2D5B|2600:6C44:75F0:73F0:D03F:480A:44B7:2D5B]] ([[User talk:2600:6C44:75F0:73F0:D03F:480A:44B7:2D5B|talk]]) 14:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:It's been said many times before and I'll say it again. The article reflects the scientific consensus on alternative medicine. If [[WP:MEDRS | suitable sources]] exist to support the effectiveness of "folk medicine", they can certainly be used to support changes to the article. I recommend reading [[WP:RS | Reliable sources]] and [[WP:MEDRS | Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]]. [[User:pepperbeast|<strong><span style="font-family: 'Segoe Script';"><span style="color: #a10;">Pepper</span><span style="color: #0c1;">Beast</span></span></strong>]] [[User talk:pepperbeast|<span style="color: #200">(talk)</span>]] 14:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::It very clearly does not. "Complementary and Alternative medicine" includes disciplines AS DEFINED BY GOVERNMENT POLICY such as Physiotherapy, Chiropracty, Osteopathy, Acupuncture, Herbalism (which is the basis of 90% of the modern western pharmacopeia). Both public and private health insurance cover these treatments, and therefore being recognised by government and for-profit corporations cannot be considered "fringe" or "untested". As a scientist this so called nebulous, UNCITED, "scientific consensus" not only DOES NOT EXIST it is also counterfactual. Articles like this are why the founder of Wikipedia now describes it as "The most biased encyclopedia to ever exist". [[Special:Contributions/202.53.33.99|202.53.33.99]] ([[User talk:202.53.33.99|talk]]) 08:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::The bias of Wikipedia is very clearly stated at [[WP:PSCI]] and [[WP:MEDRS]].
:::{{quote|Most quacks hate Wikipedia, and homeopaths hate it with a passion. Homeopathy is the second most contested article on Wikipedia, after Jesus, and this spreads across multiple language versions of Wikipedia.|Guy Chapman}}
:::Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160422023551/http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2015/07/homeopaths-to-jimmy-wales-please-rewrite-reality-to-make-us-not-wrong/
:::Wikipedia is very clearly biased for mainstream science and for [[evidence-based medicine]].
:::Pretending that an encyclopedia could be unbiased is just silly.
:::And, frankly, we don't care about the policy of your own government, since your government is not an authority on scientific matters. They're all politicians, you know, and politicians adopt compromise measures and often fall for quackery. Governments decide upon projects of laws (the laws of your country), they never decide upon scientific matters, since that is not the business of politicians. Science gets decided through peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, not by asking politicians to take a vote. See [[Indiana Pi Bill]] for details.
:::Those brands of alternative medicine being legal in your country is a political freedom, it does not mean that scientific evidence would support such quackery. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Alaska_Anchorage/ENGL_A120_Critical_Thinking_(Fall_2023) | assignments = [[User:Isaiah0604|Isaiah0604]] | start_date = 2023-08-28 | end_date = 2023-12-15 }}
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Isaiah0604|Isaiah0604]] ([[User talk:Isaiah0604|talk]]) 08:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)</span>
== Too skeptical ==
This sounds like it was written by the American Medical Association, to disparage anything that isn't big pharma and big corpoate medical profits. [[Special:Contributions/2601:881:8102:97E0:EAB1:1FAA:B3F1:16B4|2601:881:8102:97E0:EAB1:1FAA:B3F1:16B4]] ([[User talk:2601:881:8102:97E0:EAB1:1FAA:B3F1:16B4|talk]]) 03:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans|Lunatic charlatans]]. [[User:JJPMaster|JJP]]<sub>[[User talk:JJPMaster|Mas]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JJPMaster|ter]]</sub></sub> ([[She (pronoun)|she]]/[[Singular they|they]]) 03:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
:If you have a specific change you'd like to make to the article, you may suggest it here. [[User:OverzealousAutocorrect|OverzealousAutocorrect]] ([[User talk:OverzealousAutocorrect|talk]]) 22:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||