Talk:Anthroposophic medicine

Kategorie

There are several references that support AM being a Whole medical system I'd like to suggest that it should be categorized as such.

References

hgilbert (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Whole medical systems" is a controversial category to start with, and the leading source of the definition (NCCAM) does not include anthroposophy. The sources you cite appear to be anthroposophical sources, so have a vested interest in promoting this particular form of magick. They also appear to be primary sources. It is a term not much used outside the field of quackery promotion, and even within that small ambit does nto appear to be much used in respect of anthroposophy, which is in any case pretty insignificant in terms of reach. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They are peer reviewed sources. Are you suggesting that, by analogy, no material written by Jews, even if in peer-reviewed journals, are competent sources for articles on Judaism? hgilbert (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll suggest that 1 and 3 are not WP:MEDRS and 2 refers to it only generically as a type of complementary medicine.a13ean (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not about whether anthros are a reliable source about anthroposophy (though that is a difficult one since they believe so we have to weigh their opinion against reality); it's about whether their claims to be a thing of class X are acceptable when independent sources, including the canonical source, NCCAM, do not appear to support the claim. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it is not the case that all the many authors of these articles/books are "anthros". Second of all, it doesn't matter who authors are so long as their works are published in peer-reviewed sources (something well established in the arbitration proceedings over this and related articles). Finally, scientific work is not the Catholic Church; NCCAM is not a canonical source (!!!), whatever that would be, and its statement did not pretend to be a complete list of WMSs. The sources are not in conflict, they are various descriptions of a phenomenon.

When my Audobon guide does not include certain birds listed in other bird guides, I do not therefore conclude that the latter are spurious. hgilbert (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The sources are not reliable, independent sources. The canonical source for the term is NCCAM and they do not include this. The term itself is in any case a simple case of new names for old bullshit. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

pov?

Two recent contributions appear to display undue pov, with intent, which detracts from whatever value could otherwise be attached to the comments being made:

1_"the idea that this twaddle is 'an extension to conventional medicine' is distinctly controversial" ( JzG's Revision 23:09, 30 August 2012)

2_"this particular form of magick" (Guy 19:03, 2 September 2012)

Qexigator (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are no edits which violate WP:NPOV as that applies only in article space. To describe anthropsophical "medicine" in such terms in discussions is entirely reasonable and in line with the scientific consensus. It is pseudoscience, as I am sure you are well aware. Which reminds me, someone seems to have removed Category:Pseudoscience from the article, naughty naughty. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

--Thank you, Guy, for making a response. Perhaps it will help if I add that the above two comments quoted (at 22:16, 2 September 2012) belong to a type of discourse which is anti-scientific, and possibly could be categorized as a branch of pseudo-science, lacking the exactitude and rigour of thought which is normally accepted as one of the characteristics of scientific enquiry. They are not expressed in terms which can be regarded as of the quality suited to a worthwhile discussion regarding the "scientific" status of, say, mathematics, epistemology, quantum physics, gravitation, biology or any kind of scientific method or practice as an intellectual pursuit or discipline. They seem to be aimed at winning an argument merely by using a pejorative label. That is not a scientific way of evaluating a bona fide method of practising medicine of any kind. The authors of the comments may be aware that whether or not either violates WP:NPOV is beside the point.Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• That may be your assertion, but it is an established fact that anthroposophic medicine is characterised as pseudoscience by reliable independent sources, and there is absolutely no objectively verifiable support for its distinct features such as "karmic destiny". Anthroposophy does not work within the scientific method. It does not make objectively rtestable claims, and its investigations, like those of homeopathy, are framed in terms designed to confirm, not test, belief. All this is very well documented. Wikipedia, being a reality-based project, will of course reflect these facts. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you become familiar with WP:FRINGE. We don't present pseudoscience as legitimate. Doing so would unduly legitimize it. Edit summaries are just that, edit summaries, NPOV need not apply as they aren't in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Briefly, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV amount to exhorting fair reporting in articles about all topics, including those about science or medicine. This can be especially relevant when giving an account of matters rooted in belief systems of all kinds, with names such as theism, atheism, scienticism, rationalism and so on. It is not the purpose of such reporting to support or attack, to trivialise or persuade. The general purpose is to inform, not instruct. Qexigator (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:FRINGE thoroughly. We keep the mainstream position in perspective at all times; even in these articles dedicated to a fringe subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite spot on maybe (IRWolfie 22:35, 3 September 2012), but still a good cue for reviewing topics such as Mainstream in science and Philosophy of science in connection with John Milton's Areopagitica and Isaac Newton's General Scholium. Certainly "pseudoscience" needs to be carefully reconsidered and its abuse as a pejorative resulting in or from what could be called rigor orthodoxa. And what does "We" denote in "We keep..."? Qexigator (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"We" as in wikipedia. I'm not sure why you are mentioning Milton or Newton. On wikipedia we characterize pseudoscience as pseudoscience. This has been through the Arbitration committee already, see the top of WT:FRINGE for the highlights:

• • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, IRWolfie, for that clarification. Milton was mentioned only as author of Areopagitica and Newton as author of General Scholium; both works were by established authors whose propositions were contorversial in their own time (and to some extent are today), works which are well known to scholars and the subjects of readily accessible Wikipedia articles; and maybe some will comprehend their relevance to the present discussion. Qexigator (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are hinting that one day all pseudoscience will be vindicated and that wikipedia should hold out for that eventuality, sorry but that isn't how wikipedia operates. We report what the reliable sources say; with the mainstream sourcing getting the most weight. If the mainstream sources disparage or dismiss something, we take that into account in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Does IRWolfie's reply of 13:07 4 September 2012 make it look as though s/he is looking for a fight, perhaps in the interest of the pov's displayed at User:IRWolfie- ? Thus:

1_Attributing opinions with no justification, as in "If you are hinting that one day all pseudoscience will be vindicated and that wikipedia should hold out for that eventuality..."

2_...to make a Straw man to be knocked down, as in "... sorry but that isn't how wikipedia operates."

3_Empty attempt at point scoring or self-justification (perhaps injured innocence) under the protective "we" by diverting discussion from what is being proposed or developed, as in "We report what the reliable sources say; with the mainstream sourcing getting the most weight. If the mainstream sources disparage or dismiss something, we take that into account in the article." Qexigator (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a fight, assume good faith. You've brought in examples without clarifying when asked. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: IRWolfie- 16:13, 4 September 2012

1_"I'm not looking for a fight..". Thanks again for this clarification.

2_"... assume good faith." Quite so.

3_ "You've brought in examples without clarifying when asked." I am of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that no party should be making use of the pseudoscience label for whom the two examples are not self-explanatory, either as soon as mentioned or after careful consideration (but I readily acknowledge that a party who does so is not necessarily of bad faith). Further, I object to what looks to me as an attempt to avoid the issue initially raised expressing concern at contributions which appear to display undue pov, with intent. Qexigator (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is self-explanatory. See if you can find the scientific definition of karmic destiny. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be the gradient of the karmic field $\rho _{karma}=\nabla \Phi _{karma}$ although I may be off by a constant =) a13ean (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty good. hgilbert (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What is It... which is self-explanatory? (in Guy's of 20:33, 4 September 2012). Qexigator (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You have already been pointed towards the guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wolfie, let the guidelines be, but I note again what looks to me like an attempt to avoid the issue initially raised expressing concern at contributions which appear to display undue pov, with intent. Perhaps we can leave it there? Qexigator (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The "it" which is self-explanatory is that a field that contains homeopathy, karmic fields and the like is pseudoscientific. The thing that makes anthroposophic "medicine" distinct from medicine is the integration of pseudoscientific concepts. Since its separate identity relies on the use of pseudoscientific concepts, it is characterised as pseudoscientific by reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is well aware that advocates of pseudoscience dislike the term, I am afraid this is a case of "reality being at fault" as Douglas Adams had it. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Guy for explaining what was meant in an intelligible and unemotive way. I happen to hold Douglas Adams's work in some esteem, but may be the shoe is on another foot than the one you have proposed (guidelines apart). Perhaps that is enough said, and we can now let it go at that?Qexigator (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

_Meantime, Revision Scientists, mainstream medical doctors, and other skeptics... (13:12, 10 September IRWolfie) (without discussing in greater detail the merits of their belief systems or of the citations) looks about OK to...Qexigator (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

A previous discussion agreed that this should not be categorized as pseudoscience (see high bar for such categorization in WP:Categories) but that the sources for such a description should be documented in the article. hgilbert (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreement three years ago between 3 editors isn't binding in any way. You've also removed the wording that Homoeopathy and naturopathy are pseudoscience. Your wording in the lead seeks to legitimize Anthroposophical medicine. This is contrary to WP:FRINGE. There is no "western medicine", there is only medicine. If you wish, I can get as many sources as required to say that Homeopathy and naturopathy are pseudoscience; choose how many high quality sources you wish. How many sources do you want that state medicine is called medicine. ("Western medicine" is called medicine, it's why the it redirects to medicine) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest an RfC, on each of the wording, and on the category. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary, there is a well referenced discussion of why anthroposophical "medicine" is a pseudoscience in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. An RfC would mainly serve as an invitation to offsite solicitation. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been substantial discussions about the criteria for inclusion in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Anything that anyone has ever characterized as PS, whether the characterization is true or not, is presently listed there. Did you really not know that?

I agree with IRWolfie's proposal for an RfC. I recognize that there is a risk that one of you will attempt offsite solicitation, but am willing to incur the risk. hgilbert (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please retract the specific bad faith assumptions you have made about me possibly canvassing offwiki. I will prepare text for the RfC with the adequate sourcing etc; if an RfC does occur. Before any RfC we need to discuss all the details; can you please highlight why you don't wish Homeopathy and Naturopathy to be described as pseudoscience. Also highlight what you would require for something to be described as pseudoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Guy: I agree with IRWolfie that we need a retraction here. It was an uncalled for comment. hgilbert (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are of course wrong: I said that an RfC would be an invitation for offsite canvassing, that is a known risk with RfCs on subjects where people have deep personal beliefs that are at odds with objective reality (for example anything to do with creationism). I did not imply that either side would be more or less guilty of this. You then turned that into an accusation directly against those supporting the scientific consensus, i.e. you turned a generic warning into an accusation against people who do not share your POV. If you can't see the difference then you probably have no business here. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hgilbert, You know I was talking to you. Don't do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon?? It was Guy who made the bad faith assumption, not me. I responded to him that I'd be willing to take the chance. hgilbert (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hgilbert, you are aware that Guy's comment was not directed at you. Your comment was directed at me and Guy. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the references for this being considered pseudoscience are sound. Anthroposophical "medicine" distinguishes itself from medicine solely by the inclusion of pseudoscience. It is a pretty unambiguous one. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

The recently removed information about AM's approach to vaccination comes from a peer-reviewed text, a more Reliable source than an editor's personal taste or judgment. I have restored the information. (See WP:Truth for clarity about whether you personally think something is true or not outweighs a reliable source) hgilbert (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Making that revision of 23:45, 7 September 2012 IRWolfie said "That sounds a lot like some bizarre weasely justification for not taking vaccines." But to a reader not wishing to be influenced by partisan polemic either way it sounds like common sense and practical ethics in applied medicine.Qexigator (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The version which I restored states "anthroposophical doctors try to minimize the use of ... vaccinations" which is both more clear and very mild. The AM community also broadly presents itself in these terms: 1 2 3 etc... a13ean (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As I read the 3 links helpfully given by a13ean (21:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC) ), they seem to support the words omitted, viz: while supporting a differentiated individual approach to vaccinations. Would not the article be more usefully informative if those words were included and the links added? Qexigator (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, two of these sources clearly suggest a differentiated approach. Now there are a total of three.

1. 1 "This article does not suggest that one choice is better than another. It does, however, encourage parents to become well informed on the risks and benefits of both the diseases and the vaccines and consult their medi­cal provider to arrive at the best de­cision for their child and their fam­ily."
2. 3 Not a very good source -- more of a blog. Nevertheless, "vaccinations / immunizations [must be] used only after an in depth education regarding the safety and risks, and then only with great care and discernment about the potential impact." hgilbert (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
3. AnthroMed Library publishes the following, as well: "The Medical Group for Differentiated MMR Immunization and the Groupe Medical de Reflexion sur le Vaccin ROR are not against immunization as such. They do, however, advocate a cautious approach, taking account of the individual situation and of the specific problems of each of the three childhood diseases, avoiding fundamental changes to their epidemiology and respecting parents' freedom of decision. " : Hans-Ulrich Albonico, "Swiss Campaign for Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunization" hgilbert (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

These are non-MEDRS compliant sources and amounts to a "teach the controversy" style approach to vaccines. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are adding non-MEDRS compliant sources to justify a fringe position on vaccines. Please don't do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Typos or what?

• Pertussis spells "whooping".
• The link spelt "innoculation" gives redirect to Inoculation. --Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Whooping" and "inoculation" are the correct spellings. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientists and skeptics

This is an article about a certain type of medical practice. Its practitioners are medical doctors who, like other medical practitioners, have qualified in scientific subjects. They too may be "sceptics". It is not helpful to compose an article such as this with presuppositions about science or scepticism which articles on those topics more honestly show to be unresolved or inconclusive or open to differing positions -- such as Science and Skepticism. The term "scientist" is too often used as if there were something like a magisterium exclusively able to declare what is within the tenets valid for the use of the denomination and what is not. The article Scientist, and the accompanying discussions on Talk:Scientist show that the term is too variously applied to be used with precision, and more often than not its use may be ill-advised. Most informative articles will be clearer if comment, or what is being reported, is expressed in some other way. Qexigator (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And your concrete proposal based on WP policies and guidelines and reliable sources would be... Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Again I suggest you read WP:FRINGE and see exactly what it states. We do not give fringe topics extra validity than they have in terms of the mainstream sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My comment is simply as an ordinary reader looking for a quality of writing which is genuinely npov and not larded with what can be seen as tendentious statements under cover of this or that policy. Such writing looks like an abuse of guidelines and timewasting. I do not propose to make revisions (even in respect of the typos noted above). My expectation is that those responsible for their own edits will correct them, or that others who evidently are more conversant with the finer points of the topic will do. I notice that the rapid responses above (22:48 and 22:54 UTC) fail to answer the concerns raised. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you read the article you will find that the thing that distinguishes anthroposophical "medicine" from medicine is the integration of pseudoscientific concepts including homeopathy, karma and the various occult beliefs of the Steinerist sect. There are things on which reasonable people may disagree (how large is the placebo effect, are purified versions of naturally occurring substances inherently better or worse than the "wild" version and so on) but virtually everything that distinguishes anthroposophical "medicine" from medicine is pseudoscience or simply not scientific at all. A neutral review of anthroposophical "medicine" will be very much like a neutral review of a patisserie that adds cow pie to its apple pie. Adding cow pie to apple pie does not improve the apple pie, unless you are a dung beetle (and even they would probably prefer the native ingredient). I will remind you of the words of Tim Minchin: the name for alternative medicine that can be shown to work, is medicine. Anthroposophical "medicine" is distinguished solely by the inclusion of things that fail - usually spectacularly - to meet the standards of evidence-based medicine. Some of us have spent a lot of time looking at this exact problem, you on the other hand appear to be advocating a particularly naive form of the false balance fallacy. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I note a piece of polemic which reveals no answer to the concerns raised. "Steinerist sect" looks like a neologismic implying bad faith. Time would be better used improving the written quality of the article as a source of npov information. Qexigator (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are unable to recognise that your questions have been answered I question your ability to edit here in a productive way. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Wolfie, for your intervention (09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)). What has been answered is seen very clearly, but "no answer to the concerns raised". Is it being said that expressing such concerns is not acceptable to those who claim to be authoritative spokespersons for "scientists"? Is the use of such terms in the course of discussion as "Steinerist sect" considered constructive? Qexigator (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

lead

The lead now makes little sense: AM "combines elements of medicine, homeopathy, and naturopathy". Homeopathy and naturopathy are medical approaches (whether successful or not is not the point). It would make sense to stay with the cited sources, which explicitly use the term "Western medicine". hgilbert (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The term is only ever used when we need to distinguish it from non-scientific medicine. That being said, I suppose you're right that there might be confusion. Please see my edit summary. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"conventional" works. hgilbert (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Scientists"

To call this group "scientists and other skeptics" is simply misleading. Michael Shermer is a historian of science, Robert Carroll is a philosopher, Atwood is an anesthesiologist.

Worst of all: how does Roger Rawling qualify as a verifiable source for anything whatsover? He has no qualifications whatsoever; at least the others are qualified to speak about science, even if they are not scientists themselves. hgilbert (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Both the Skeptic's Dictionary and Quackwatch are reliable sources for scientific consensus on fringe science and medicine, and Michael Shermer is one of the world's leading experts on pseudoscience. All of these sources clearly meet WP:PARITY. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you challenging the sentence because you think it is not true? If you really think it's not reliable take the issue to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Greetings! There has been some discussion recently over on the Talk page for Waldorf education about what qualifies as a reliable source, especially in the light of an ArbCom ruling that stated "Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation" and that "material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources". I don't believe this article is on probation, but nevertheless on coming here the first note I read (current No. 14) is a reference to work by Matthias Girke, who is president of the Gesellschaft Anthroposophischer Ärzte in Deutschland e. V., which appears to be an advocacy organization for anthroposophic medicine. Is that a reliable source for this article? particularly for a position stated as fact? Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn. That source was published by a non-anthroposophical journal, Komplementäre und Integrative Medizin, and thus falls under the stipulations from the ArbCom, that reliably sourced material even by anthroposophical authors can be used if they appear in a non-anthroposophical publications. This is also consistent with the general rule from WP:RS that the reliability can go with an expert author (even in a non-reliable publication) or with the questionable author if in a reliable publication. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." In this case, the publication is reliable and so this source is reliable. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Heart

I wonder if the bit about the heart not being a pump should just be deleted. I noticed that someone has botched it up a bit, and started to fix it, but wondered if it was worth it. Clearly, the heart IS a pump and any contention that it is not would need to have dramatic scientific justification. Hey hgilbert--do you have a blurb about why Steiner thought the heart was not a pump? The way it is described (Steiner's thoughts) in the article suggested that he thought that it also regulates flow, which, of course, it does but many pumps also regulate flow so it is not an either/or phenomenon.Desoto10 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the section could be struck without loss here.

In answer to your question: as far as I can tell, Steiner never quite came out and says that it is not a pump, just that this is a bad characterization (which is reasonable -- if we had, outside the body, a hunk of muscle not connected to any conventional power source that healed itself from small injuries and kept going for 100 years without maintenance, and that depended on an active circulation system to complete its work, we would probably not just call it a pump either). Here are relevant passages (in German) from two lectures where he goes into this. hgilbert (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone in medicine considers the heart "just a pump". That is just its main function. The heart is not only a pump, but a pump that adapts to changes in blood flow and pressure on its own as well as via input from the autonomic nervous system. My take is that Steiner felt that the blood, itself had some kind of magical forces of propulsion that were intimately involved in the heart's action.

I removed a large amount of text that someone obviously spent some effort on. I apologize for that, but without more background on exactly what Steiner thought and how he thought about these things made the deleted text uninterpretable. The text was also attributed to a single source from a fringe journal.Desoto10 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

{{subst:Anthroposophical medicine|Anthroposophic medicine}} The Medical Section of the Geotheanum and the IVAA have agreed that the official international name for this form of medicine is Anthroposophic medicine (without "al").

• Support: This seems inevitable given the above, subject to usual redirect to allow for continuing current use of "Anthroposophical", and in published works, articles etc. Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. hgilbert (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Volker Siegel (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

FYI, I opened a thread at ANI with regards to my concerns about POV pushing on this page and related ones. a13ean (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Problematic sourcing

The article leans quite heavily (with 11 citations) on this book, whose authors are:

• Gunver Sophia Kienle ("Working to develop the scientific basis for a permanent regulatory framework for anthroposophic medicinal products in Europe")
• Helmut Kiene (spouse? at the same institute)
• Hans Ulrich Albonico ("Homöopath und Vertreter der Anthroposophischen Medizi") ... you'll need to google for this as WP has blacklisted the site it's from

Although this book might be usable to describe how anthroposophical medics think about themselves, it should not be used for independent statements about the topic; its use really needs to be reduced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(add) Rather confirming the problem, I found Ernst had reviewed this book. He says: "The authors are convinced believers in AM, with a long history of defending its principles. Those expecting to find a strong element of critical assessment in this book will be disappointed. The little critical thought that can be identified is unrelated to AM, but is aimed at EBM or any publication that does not praise AM unreservedly. If you asked the Vatican to produce an account of Catholicism, or the pharmaeutical industry of drug treatment, you might get a similarly fair evaluation.". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Update

Okay, after ... some editing we're down to 4 uses of this iffy source. Could it be eradicated entirely? The remaining uses are:

1. To source "In 2006, there were anthroposophic practices in 80 countries." in the lede (shouldn't be there; is this even notable?)
2. To source "According to its proponents, anthroposophic medicine uses a holistic approach ("salutogenesis") that seeks to support the preconditions for health by strengthening the patient's physiology and individuality, as well as addressing the specific factors that cause disease. They say that self-determination, autonomy and dignity of patients is a central theme." in the Methods section.
3. To comment (of mistletoe) "it is now probably the best-known anthroposophic medicine."
4. To say "There are also phytotherapeutic preparations using non-homeopathic doses of mistletoe; these should not be confused with the anthroposophic preparations". A burning issue I am sure for our readers (humour!)

Do any of these uses deserve to be kept? Are there better sources for these things? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

More Problematic sourcing

I have just tried to remove some poorly sourced material. User:Hgilbert has restored some. I am worried about this claim:

Anthroposophic medicine seeks to extend, not replace, mainstream Western medicine, and its practitioners do not regard it as an "alternative", but as an extension, to conventional science-based medicine

which is sourced to four things (already a warning flag, as that signals likely synthesis, or overcitation for special pleading). This would seem to be a fringe claim since (unless we can source it otherwise) the view that AM is an "extension" is something held by AM itself, and would not be entertained my mainstream medicine. Anyway this claim is sourced to:

1. The Kiene et al book mentioned above, an anthroposophical source.
2. A report on alternative medicine originating from a 1992 workshop
3. Something from the fringe journal Komplementäre und Integrative Medizin by Matthias Girke, an anthroposophist
4. Something that looks like a illicit book chapter on the web[1].

Since (2) is the only barely usable source I have re-cast the sentence around that, for now - but would appreciate more input. I have also made Ernst and Singh's views more prominent as they are independent commentators. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious argument: that because multiple citations can be provided in support of a statement, the statement is therefore suspicious. Usually a well-cited argument is regarded as better founded!

1. The Kiene book is published by a mainstream academic press, which satisfies the requirements both of WP:RS and of the arbitration proceedings for this group of articles.
2. The report was commissioned by the National Institutes of Health
3. The journal is hardly fringe.
4. The "illicit book chapter" is actually available through the author's page on his university website, and this is common practice for professors. HGilbert (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Reports about a pseudoscience published in a journal devoted to pseudoscience are obviously not a valid source for scientific claims. That being said, if such a source is being used to demonstrate what those practitioners believe, I think that's fine. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The point about WP:CITEKILLs is that they impact the readability of the article and make it appear the information is shaky. It is better to have one, or maybe two, strong sources that a string of weak ones. I agree these sources may be RS for what anthroposophists say but the problem is that by using them, rather than independent sources, we are giving a WP:PROFRINGE account. I doubt very much that "conventional science-based medicine" regards AM as some kind of "extension" to it. Ideally we need some independent source that comments on the relationship between AM and mainstream medicine. (As to the book chapter, if it is one we need to cite the book and not point to a bare URL). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the term "extension" in this regard. The point is that mainstream medicine is accepted and used by anthroposophic doctors (thus the requirement from the very beginning that these be conventionally trained as well), and that the AM is then a further set of resources. Mainstream sources regard it as an extension in this sense, without implying that it is a valid extension. HGilbert (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, proponents will promote the view of course that AM is "compatible" with the mainstream (especially since, as we see above, some here are engaged in advocating for a regulatory framework). But what we we need is an independent/mainstream non-fringe commentator giving a view on the relationship. Do you know of any source that gives that? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Many other sources could be found to support the original wording, for example: HGilbert (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter F. Matthiessen, "Anthroposophische Medizin", in K. Kraft and R. Stange, Lehrbuch Naturheilverfahren Georg Thieme Verlag. p. 754.
• [2]
• [3]

what does this apply to? I see the source here is calling AM "a whole system of medicine". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As a layman to medical science or practice of any kind (but one, like so many others today having some critically sceptical responsibility for the medical care of family members) I read the present version of 1 Conceptual basis as, in the main, a fair report about the topic, given the context. For example, this seems to say no more than might be expected of any type of medical practice: According to its proponents, anthroposophic medicine uses a holistic approach that seeks to support the preconditions for health by strengthening the patient's physiology and individuality, as well as addressing the specific factors that cause disease. They say that self-determination, autonomy and dignity of patients is a central theme. In other words, as practitioners who have qualified in "conventional" medicine, their intention is to practice with a view of medicine "that encompasses standard treatment" but takes a larger view than the unduly narrow one which may influence exclusively "mainstream" medical practitioners. This is explained by Ernst and Singh reporting that anthroposophical medicine is an "entirely new school of medicine" based on Steiner's beliefs in which "imagination, inspiration and intuition" play a part (etc). The article also quotes Carroll as an outright opponent from what he claims to be a "science based" standpoint. But the passage from "Steiner believed that vaccination" to "medical property to be discovered" is too feeble for an article such as this. 1_The bald statement "When this was put into practice, it caused a pertussis outbreak in a waldorf school due to a lack of inoculation, causing the school to be temporarily closed" is insufficiently fact based (and the citation is not linked for a reader to check it out as good science, bad science, anecdotal hearsay, misreporting on basis of pov, or what). 2_I have tweaked some of the wording about "character" to let the phrase" is considered" extend more explicitly over the next two sentences. The source could then be as reliable as the text, if the link could be repaired. Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"unconventional" or "alternative"

The terminology "unconventional" medicine is itself rather unconventional, and the citation provided for the term is to a German author who may not know the usual terminology in English. There are a vast array of English-language sources that use either the term "alternative" or "extended". HGilbert (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought alternative was what it didn't want to call itself. But yes the sources do use either that, "complementary" (or not), or "entirely new". I thought "unconventional" was a neutral umbrella term (RS and true) that didn't come down any way, but might be persuaded no adjective at all is better still ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"unconventional medicine" is inapposite for the reason given by Hgilbert; "complementary medicine" (as it was in earlier versions) is redirected to Alternative medicine, where "complementary medicine" is defined as 'alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods, that it "complements" the treatment', while AM is defined as 'any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method'. In the ordinary use of the English language, 'extended' fits the facts reported in this article about anthropsophical medical practice better than the other terms. The practices listed as 'alternative' neither propose themselves nor are regarded by 'conventionally' qualified physicians as having arisen as an extension of conventional medicine, in the way 'conventional' is used in the AM article. Qexigator (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, different sources say different things about how to categorize AM. So picking just one is a kind of misrepresentation and synthesis. Either we need to go with some more abstract umbrella term, find a devastatingly definitive source, or have no adjective. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be no such "abstract umbrella term" currently in general use, so, lacking a definitive source, we default to "no adjective". But looking at the given source, NIH, maybe "augment" could be used, as well as "extend". Given the first two paragraphs of the NIH "Overview" (p.85-6) and the rest of that article, it is difficult to see why anthroposohpic(al) medicine is said to "build on" three pre-existing foundations, namely, naturopathy, homeopathy and Western medical training for MD qualification. It looks as though the basis is modern scientific medicine (as taught in mainstream medical schools) "augmented" (per NIH p.86, col.2 )[4] by the principles expressed in the work Steiner co-authored with (med,) Dr Wegman (published 1925). Qexigator (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is what this source said practitioners did, not what the basis is (the source says modern medicine is the "third foundation" of AM). According to Ernst, the idea that AM "extends" conventional medicine is used for its promotion. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As I read the present version, it has certainly been improved by some of the recent revisions (sources, copyedit, etc), but the question whether "unconventional" is apt is still unresolved. Qexigator (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with the terms "alternative" or "complementary" is that they've both been disputed, while the discourse of "extension" and "augmentation" has been identified by RS as a promotional strategy - and we're not having Wikipedia join in that game! The word "unconventional" has been used by a RS and has been described as a neutral alternative to "complementary" by homeopath P. Fisher here: ("Even the term complementary medicine is not entirely satisfactory, lumping together as it does a wide range of methods with little in common except that they are outside the mainstream of medicine. The most accurate term is perhaps "unconventional therapeutic methods."). The term also has the advantage of being kind-of obvious.

Another option, which is warranted by the fringe nature of this topic, is to term AM a "collection of pseudoscientific ideas" or somesuch. We have RS for that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, a principal criterion for an article is readablity rather than promoting any point of view such as in the game you mention (and seem to engage in, per the last sentence). The main point to report seems to be that it takes a non-standard view of the human body and its anatomy. It is believed that a patient's past lives may influence their illness and that its progress is subject to karmic destiny. That alone is enough to let a reader know that this something "out of the ordinary", without any prompting fom "Skeptics". In fact, and in view of above discussion, the lead would be clearer, "game"-free, and more concise for a reader if some surplus wording were omitted there (which could be in the body), thus:

"Anthroposophical medicine (or anthroposophic medicine) is a form of unconventional medicine that draws on a spiritual philosophy called anthroposophy devised by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925). It builds on naturopathy, homeopathy and conventional medicine. Anthroposophical medicine was founded in the 1920s by Steiner in conjunction with Ita Wegman (1876–1943). Anthroposophical medicine It takes a non-standard view of the human body and its anatomy. It is believed that a patient's past lives may influence their illness and that its progress is subject to karmic destiny. Some anthroposophical physicians maintain an anti-immunization stance.

"Certification as an anthroposophical physician is gained...etc." "Skeptics, including many scientists and mainstream medical doctors...etc".

Qexigator (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We are required by policy to keep the mainstream scientific view to the fore, for the sake of neutrality, so removing "unconventional" would be very naughty (and calling it pseudoscientific prominently is okay). The stuff about naturopathy is sourced, in the body, and is long-standing article content. Have you any reason to believe it is incorrect? (Also starting two sentences with "Anthroposophical medicine ..." and the next one with "It ..." is inelegant; better to have the "It" sentence in the middle). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those comments sidestep what was being proposed in the above draft, which is for improving the lead. 1_It is not acceptable encyclopedically to distort what a reader needs to know by undue emphasis and repetitive comments under the general banner "pseudoscientific". 2_ Naturopathy can properly be mentioned per source in body, but it is not an essential or main feature of anthroposophical medical practice, so far as can be seen, even if it, and homeopathy, can be regarded as part of the historic emergence from "quack" medicine (leeches and the like) from which scientific and anthroposophical medicine emerged. Anthroposophical medicine was introduced when scientific medicine had become established, both in Europe and USA, and as I understand it, was not properly described as having the other two as a first and second foundation. Is that backed up by any other source? It looks like a well-meant misdescription, but inexact writing nonetheless according to the rest of the cited context. 3_Of course, the draft would need tweaking "It"-wise before use. Qexigator (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"it looks like a well-meant misdescription" is not really an argument is it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Another sidestep is neither a reason nor argument nor discussion, but posibly game-play. If it pleases you, let the words be struck. Qexigator (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The most frequent terminology across all sources is "complementary" or "extended", followed by "alternative" and "whole. As far as I can see only one source, written by a non-English speaker, uses the term unconventional. It would make sense to use the most familiar terminology.

Homeopathy is clearly a strong basis. I would put naturopathy as a definite third runner, and also question its appropriateness for the lede, which should focus on what all (or most) sources agree on, except perhaps for a closing paragraph on the controversial nature of the medicine. HGilbert (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I have tried to track down the most common characterizations of AM in mainstream journals. I have removed the controversial adjective from the lede (as per the suggestion above), and it is surprising how (to my eye, at least) little it matters, as long as there is description, which may still need tweaking.

In the characterization section, I have tried to order these according to frequency of use. Ernst's pejorative comment seems unnecessary, as the term "extension" is found throughout the literature, not only in proponents' writings, and it is clear even from the training process that doctors have to first learn conventional medicine, and then add on a training in AM on top of this. This is so radically different from how homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, etc. are trained, that it can hardly be ignored. (I would hope that anyone who knows what a full medical training involves must recognize that.) HGilbert (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

By removing a number of independent views from the lede, you've made it rather skewed in its POV. And - a bit too short, really. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Over use of primary sources

Primary fringe sources should not be relied upon to establish due weight, per WP:FRINGE: "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to reduce this, but there's still a way to go. I note you removed the certification and prevalence figures from the anthro. medical bodies, which I had at least sourced - but I'll not argue with this removal. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Points should be established by independent sourcing of which there is plenty, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lancet source

This content

Most children under the care of anthroposophic physicians are vaccinated only against tetanus and polio, and most vaccinations are given later than recommended by conventional medicine.

is sourced to this article. Some serious problems:

• It's a primary medical source
• It's 14 years old
• The use isn't relaying the study's principal conclusion, but drawing a conclusion based on its raw data
• The claims that this proves something about "most children" cannot be drawn from a study of 295 children in Stockholm. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unneeded. I've swapped it with another source, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"at odds"

Neutrality of "is at odds with medical science" disputed tag-- The respects in which it is said to be "at odds" are there stated or cited: of the heart, of mistletoe, of past lives and karmic destiny; but otherwise physician practitioners are qualified in and use 'conventional' medicine. In other words, it is more accurate to put 'in some respects'. And, as mentioned above, that is enough said to show anyone that, in simple everyday terms, it is 'out of the ordinary'. There is room in the body for more if that is so, but without needless repetition or undue generalities. Qexigator (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the evasive "in some respects". The mainstream views we have say that AM it utter bollocks with no basis in science. We need to state that to be neutral, and not pussyfoot around. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems to have it back to front, and is not much help in resolving questions about the encyclopedic presentation of information for this particular article. No one claiming to speak for "basis in science" should be unaware of fundamental uncertainty, which is actually the source of scientific enquiry, perhaps more in modern scientific theory and practice than ever before; but that is rather remote from what an article such as this is reporting to readers. Given that anthroposophic physicians are qualified and practice "conventional" medicine it would be purblind nonsense to describe that as if it were wholly at odds with scienctific mainstream medical practice: that would be evasion. Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is uncertainty about some things and then there is ignoring the evidence and stupidity. Denying the heart pumps blood is stupidity and the article should make that very clear; the heart pumps blood. Those who don't believe that based on any philosophy or "spirituality" are wrong and their beliefs are wrong. There are things we don't know, and then there are things we do know. The main function of the heart is one of the known quantities. There are qualified doctors who are also homoeopaths and plenty of doctors that believe in lots of nonsense. Just because they can make that work without their mind turning into putty does not mean it is not contradictory or that it somehow makes sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, the idea that anthroposhophic medicine "extends and embraces" mainstream medicine is an arrogant nonsense promoted only by fringe sources; the idea that when an anthroposophic doctor prescribes (say) antibiotics they are engaging in "anthroposophic medicine" is not something that mainstream sources say. Ernst pointed this out somewhere, but strangely this seems to have been removed from the article ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not be non-specific here. Anthroposophy claims that the blood is moved by its own inherent momentum. This contradicts basic physics and basic biology. There is no ambiguity. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for those responses, so frankly exposing (in good faith) the flawed apriority sometimes operating here, as well as for the edits which have helped improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So what actually goes on in AM?

Apart from selling ineffective drugs and promoting vaccination aversion?

I've found it hard to locate sources, which should meet WP:MEDRS and be independent. What for example is "anthroposophic nursing"? Anyone got any pointers? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, we need more concrete description of what it is and does. Probably the best source published by an academic press is Anthroposophic Medicine: Effectiveness, Utility, Costs, Safety, by Gunver Sophia Kienle, Helmut Kiene, Hans Ulrich Albonico. This is an excellent source, certainly for non-controversial questions, such as many aspects of the actual practice are likely to be.

One minor aspect worthy of note: AM tries to use antibiotics only when really necessary. (Incidentally, mainstream medicine considered this as foolish as reducing vaccine use to a minimum until quite recently...but now considers it best practice.) HGilbert (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That book is not usable: it's the one Ernst likened to an account of Catholicism written by the Vatican (and judging by the stuff used from it in the article previously, he's got a point). We really need something independent of anthroposophists. Surely there must be something? Or is this something that is an entirely closed world? ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(add) well this looks possible for art therapy: it's a slightly old primary source so not usable for outcomes, but - with great care - might be mined for a broad description of "what is done". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Accreditation & training

Again, we need some secondary & independent sourcing for this. Pointers? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article text should stay true to the cited sources. Someone's been playing fast and loose with these. HGilbert (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)