|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any threads with no replies in 100 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
[edit] Ralph W. Moss (science writer)
Please fix the link to Ralph W. Moss (science writer) instead of the other Moss.
- I'll get it when the page is unprotected if someone doesn't beat me to it. BGortney (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed, unless there were more. You can also use {{editprotected}}. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the laundry list in "scope". Rather than listing every single condition OM has been promoted for, it makes more sense to have a general statement about it being promoted as effective for a variety of conditions while only discussing those it has specifically found to be effective, or ineffective in treating. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Was thinking the same thing. BGortney (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] sources
- Paul M. Insel, R. Elaine Turner, Don Ross Nutrition, Volume 1 [1]
- W. Edward Craighead, Charles B. Nemeroff The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Volume 3 [2]
- John W. Jacobson, Richard M. Foxx, James Anton Mulick Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: fad, fashion, and science in professional practice [3]
- Dónal O'Mathúna Alternative Medicine [4]
- Ventegodt S, Andersen NJ, Merrick J (2003). "Holistic Medicine: Scientific Challenges". The Scientific World (3): 1108-16. doi:10.1100/tsw.2003.96. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.2839&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
This article has some serious "BLP" issues with facts and POV. Like an embarrassment for WP.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Rath bakin' and egged on
This Rath section is a long standing eyesore that violates NPOV, and UNDUE, looks like a diatribe that is also simply redundant or misplaced. Although Rath might now be better classified as a fellow traveler among many flavors of nutritionists, his presence in orthomolecular medicine per se was roughly that of a sky rocket - Pffssst, Bang. Where many doctors and scientists have been larger and longer contributors. Rath was in and out within several years, 20 years ago. His "cellular medicine" dosages typically are a very small fraction of "fullbore orthomolecular" with his own patented additions. Also Rath has an emphatic anti-pharmaceutical position that is different than the "blended medicine" approach often recommended by founders like Pauling and Hoffer. I have not noticed that Rath has a current WP:RS that says he is still orthomolecular. If there is, I would worry that this article has begun a circular feed of opinion into the mainstream articles.--TheNautilus (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Rath's later controversy as a POV vehicle of disparagement
As a matter of historical note I would think that the Orthomolecular Society would be an RS about who is notable, Matthias Rath is not even listed there, much less top 10-20 OMM figures. This article conflates Matthias Rath the young rising Pauling OMM acolyte in 1990-1992 researching a heart risk factor, with Matthias Rath a decade later, long defrocked from the Orthomolecular organization, practicing his version of nutrition under "cellular medicine" for AIDS. It thus gives a minor transient figure UNDUE attention, even more than Pauling and Hoffer in this article, for later methods/quantities not stated as orthomolecular. Sounds like a COATRACK to me. I thought my edit was still overgenerous.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Cassileth's false statement, again
Cassileth, with a PhD in Sociology, doesn't repeat her prior statement from the first edition, which is nakedly false, starting with prescription niacin. It is at best an obsolete statement, since 1955 much less 1999, made by an administrative/political person with non-technical degree credentials.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] still waiting on RS Pss
Still waiting for an RS on Pseudosci, for such an easy categorization.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] vitamin D3
Vitamin D3 is an example of a vitamin that may exceed 5xRDA and 10xRDA definition of OMM, especially for the old 200iu limit. It should be restored for balance.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
