Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
I am removing the following claims, because they are all totally untrue: Mainstream medicine typically relies on expensive Synthetic drugs or surgery to treat illnesses. Alternative approaches look to the whole person and ellimenate the cause of an illness itself by trusting in our bodies own abilities, through thousands of years of genetic adaptation, to heal itself, for example by replacing the ravages of modern diets and degenerative chemicals with natural foods and treatments.
Mainstream science-based medicine typicallydoes not rely on expensive drugs; rather, most of modern day medicine is based on very cheap treatements, including sterilization of medical instruments, and cleaning water supplies, to kill bacteria. The vast majority of people whose lives have been saved by science-based medicine were saved at a very low costs, due to changes caused by the germ theory of disease. Further, most conventional drugs developed using the scientific method are very cheap, including epinephrine inhalers, Albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, penicillin, etc. Also, modern medical science teaches that most people can drastically improve their nuhealth through excercise, and proper nutrition. (The discovery of the role of vitmains and minerals is part of traditional science, not alternative medicin.) Finally, purveyors of alternative medicine most certainly do not preach that the body can health itself; they hold that one needs to undergo certain expensive forms of treatments. The above paragraph is totally untrue; these kinds of things are most often stated by alternative medicine capitalists who spread these stories in order to bring in new customers and increase their profit margin. RK
- It was badly written, anyway. -- goatasaur
Dear RK, Thank you for your note and explination. I write the above which you plead should be deleted. While we can argue about the meaning of terms, I think there is a definate distinction that needs to be drawn out in addition to the "scientific" and "un-scientific" distinction. That distinction is between preventioin and treatment.
Today the money seems to be chasing treatments not prevention. And the pharmeticutical industry plays a major role. My doctor is clueless on prevention. She also has no time to discuss how to stay healthy. She can only make time under our broken system to discuss how to treat acute illnesses. Even certain cronic conditions get second rate attention. Alternative medicine hold the key to solving these problems. Granted not all alternitive medicne is scientific, works or safe. But there is a lot to be learned from others. The American a/k/a "scientific" or "conventional" system is broken; please admit we can do better. Its too expensive and we have rampant heart disease, cancer and degenerative brain diseases that did not exist even a few hundred years ago. The present form of "scientific" medicine does not address the root causes of these difficult to treat diseases which are new. I can drop the part about expensive snenthetic drugs and surgery but I won't drop the dinsinction between prevention and treatment. Conventinal medicine is not focused nearly enough at all on prevention.
I would like to add that your description had VERY LITTLE to do with Alternative Therapy. The title that would have been logical to put your article under would be "Skeptics view of Alternative Health". This is your prejudice, and is not an addition to the development or explanation of alternative medicine to laypeopAn equivalent would be writing under 'The Pope', and article about how Pagans view him. Sorry, that does not educate me about 'the Pope', but about Pagans.
Moved from Alternative medicines (please integrate here):
Alternative medicine refers to health care practices which do not take place under the established controls of conventional medicine. Alternative practitioners may or may not have licenses or special training, whereas conventional health care practitioners, by law, must be trained and licensed.
Alternative medicines may or may not be reviewed and regulated for safety by governments, whereas conventional medications are not released for public use until they have been thoroughly studied, and then, when placed on the market, are subject to government control.
The general term "alternative medicine" may include everything from practices such as acupuncture and homeopathy, which involve study and expertise, to less discliplined practices such as herbal therapy, aromatherapy, and claimed paranormal techniques such as Reiki.
Public interest in alternative medicine, in the industrial world, is signficant. The public's interest in alternative medicine arises from a lack of confidence in traditional medical practice. Since traditional medicine is still in a relatively early stage of development and is not yet able to treat many diseases and injuries, some turn to alternative medicine in the hope that cures which can't be found through traditional medicine might somehow be found in an herb or some sort of mystical practice.
Many people become alternative medical practitioners, on the other hand, because of the relative ease of getting into some of the fields, thereby obtaining the social status and the financial potential associated with the healing arts without going through the difficulty, time and expense of training and getting credentials in traditional medicine.
Alternative treatments may sometimes have a beneficial effect, occasionally by their direct, sometimes inadvertant action on the body - even though this action is rarely accurately understood either by practitioner or patient - and more often by placebo effect. They may also sometimes be harmful, most commonly when they distract a patient from seeking conventional medical care in cases in which conventional care is known to be effective.
See also alternative medicine
A total falsehood!!!
The following statement:
"Because alternative medicine lies outside the purview of traditional medical institutions and funding agencies, practitioners of alternative medicine cannot generally point to randomized controlled trials or double-blind experiments validation their techniques. Proponents of conventional medicine often seize on this lack of experimental validation to dismiss alternative medicine as justified only by placebo effects. This in turn has led some proponents of alternative medicine to attempt to justify it by criticizing traditional medicine; some of the arguments used are reproduced below."
is a total frabrication and clearly violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
Research is being published all the time on Alternative Medicine.
As of a few minutes ago there were at least 360,049 research papers published on alternative medicine since 1966 in the PubMed database. Who classified these papers as Alternative Medicine: The National Library of Medicine.
Just exactly how many citations to alternative medical research do you want me to add to this article? I have been tracking health research for two years. I have plenty on file. :) -- Mr-Natural-Health 09:42, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The conclusion of "Clinical trials of homoeopathy":
- At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
- The conclusion of "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials"
- The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.
- Hardly any 'proof' for homeopathy. My comments on the three other studies:
- "Thermal hydrotherapy improves quality of life and hemodynamic function in patients with chronic heart failure". Fifteen people are not a large sample. Nonetheless this might be valid.
- "Hypnotherapy was proven to be a therapeutic option for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome." While hypnotherapy was shown to improve the subjective life quality, the results was not compared to the effects of conventional treatments.
- "Cognitive behavior therapy, as well as hypnotherapy, was shown to be an effective alternative treatment option to Hormone Replacement Therapy". I would hardly call Cognitive Behavior Therapy for alternative. While it might be misused by uneducated therapists, it was not my impression that it should be labeled alternative. Comments, anyone?
- Rasmus Faber
Perhaps, if you were to concentrate? The subject of this article is Alternative Medicine rather than homeopathy. Personally, I would never go to a homeopath, Further, I am not into alternative medicine other than my interests in natural health which is in fact based on science and solid research. People tell me that natural health is a branch of alternative medicine. What I strongly object to is the science community being allowed to break the Neutral point of view policy.
I shall repeat that this article covers a very broad area called alternative medicine. You want to attack homeopathy? Then attack homeopathy where it belongs, in Homeopathy not Alternative medicine. -- Mr-Natural-Health 19:53, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Despite being suspicious at first, I am starting to see the value of the series of articles you have started, MNH. I hope I don't make (or keep making?) the mistake of defending conventional Western med vs. the "natural" stuff you like to write about. Rather, I want to make sure the articles are neutral about which systems are "better". --Uncle Ed 20:20, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you see my edits as an attack. It was not meant in that way.
- I did not feel, that asserting among other things that "Practitioners of alternative medicine can point to plenty of published research that has proven the effectiveness of various alternative treatments.", was NPOV. I thus reinstated an older piece of text, which I felt treated the subject a bit more NPOV'ish. While it is certainly not perfect, it attributes the opinions to "proponents of alternative medicine", instead of making statements that in my opinion are controversial ("alternative treatments have been proven effective").
- Since I am biased -- I am probably one of these "Proponents of conventional medicine" -- I should probably leave editing the article to people with a more neutral attitude to the subject. Rasmus Faber 21:11, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, let us keep it totally neutral. That goes for the scientific community, too.
Also, Cognitive Behavior Therapy is about as alternative as it gets. The biomedical model of disease used by conventional medicine says that the mind and everything else in the mind-body connection is totally unimportant.
Rasmus Faber's interpretation of my cited research, is but one possible interpretation. In my opinion, he is completely wrong. Mr-Natural-Health 20:51, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It certainly is only my interpretation of the research. Other readers should however note, that the citations from the first two articles were the authors own conclusions.
- I am surprised that CBT is considered 'Alternative Medicine'. I would have thought that a rather well-established branch of psychotherapy. I might be confused about the definition of 'Alternative Medicine', though. I do not consider everything that is not explained by the "biomedical model of disease" to be 'Alternative'. Rasmus Faber 21:40, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Psychotherapy is certainly not conventional medicine. If you are unable to classify research, why were you commenting on the funding of said research?
Let me be real simple. Psychologists treated a medical condition called functional hypothalamic amenorrhea with cognitive behavior therapy, as well as with hypnotherapy. When a psychologist treats a medical condition in lieu of a physician that is called Alternative medicine, by definition. Physicians would call that quackery because psychologists are competing with physicians. Mr-Natural-Health 10:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: Psychotherapy is Alternative Medicine in your opinion? Rasmus Faber 12:02, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have corrected my original response. :) Mr-Natural-Health 19:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
???? Confused again? I never stated that Psychotherapy is Alternative Medicine. Psychologists treating medical conditions is alternative medicine. Just thought that you would like to know. :) Mr-Natural-Health 19:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Let me clarify. I assume you have read the article discussed, but for other readers let me recap: Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea is a condition in which menstruation stops due to the hypothalamus stopping production of a certain hormone. This condition has previously been linked to stress. The authors of the article now claim to have successfully treated patients with this condition by subjecting them to stress-relieving psychotherapy.
- Am I to understand that the fact that stress can affect the hypothalamus is Alternative Medicine? Or that Psychotherapy treating stress is? In either case I fear your definition of the term differs widely from mine. Rasmus Faber 22:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Psychologists treating medical conditions is alternative medicine. Just thought that you would like to know. :) Mr-Natural-Health 12:59, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- OK, that clears something up. We disagree on definitions. I would define Alternative Medicine as something like this (googling for definitions):
- "Practices not generally recognized by the medical community as standard or conventional." (http://www.phoenix5.org/glossary/ complementary_and_alternative_medicine.html)
- or "A variety of therapeutic or preventive health care practices, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and herbal medicine, that do not follow generally accepted medical methods and may not have a scientific explanation for their effectiveness." (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alternative%20medicine).
- It seems that you define Alternative Medicine as any treatment of medical conditions using other than conventional medicine or surgery. Am I correct in that interpretation? Otherwise please try to give me a exact definition.
- If I am correct in this observation, I will contest that your definition is not the common one and that any claims you make about Alternative Medicine (esp. about proofs of its effectiveness) should be taken in that context.
- Rasmus Faber 13:15, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Everytime I post a comment on this talk page my comments are either edited or removed. Ergo, it is physically impossible for me to reply to your comments due to busy-bodies without a life.--Mr-Natural-Health 11:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- No, there is nothing at all preventing you from replying to Rasmus here. Yes, people have moved several of your recent messages posted here to your Talk page but that is because they felt they weren't relevant to this this article. That is an entirely different matter. -- Viajero 11:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- As fast as I post here, my comments are moved somewhere else even faster, by people like YOU. Anybody up for a fair conversation, can contact me at my website or mailing list. Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks Entertain me, and I will even put up a private comment section at a new AT&T website location.--Mr-Natural-Health 11:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
--- Mr NH,
Please don't insert messages such as (Where is the reference for this assertion?) in the text of articles. It makes our pages look unprofessional. Such comments on the text should be limited to this Talk page. Thanks. -- Viajero 22:19, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia has an article on Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). I'm very interested in the subject, although I confess to not yet having waded through the article. I like less formal, more easily accessible approaches like The Feeling Good Handbook by Dr. David D. Burns. --Uncle Ed 15:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Reversion of false claims
I am reverting a false claim. Most forms of alternative medicine are outside traditional medicine, and have not been proven to work. That is the entire reason that they are considered "alternative". For the vast majority of alternative forms of medicine, their adherents demand that they be accepted as legitimate, despite any reasonable level of proof that all other forms of medicine have always been subject to. Also, contrary to what Mr-Natural-Health claims, it is not true that "It is a common perception that alternative medicine lies outside the purview of traditional medical institutions and funding agencies." This is not a percetpion; this is simply a verifiable fact, and I cannot imagine how anyone could claim otherwise.
- Mainstream medicince certainly has not "always" been subject to higher levels of proof! See History of medicine. -- Toby Bartels 01:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mr-Natural-Health also incorrectly claims that "The scientific community generally believes that practitioners of alternative medicine cannot generally point to randomized controlled trials or double-blind experimental validation of their techniques." This is false. The truth is that the scientific community does admits the existence of, and accepts the validity of, modes of medicine that have been verified in such ways. The problem with the vast majority of "alternative medicine" techniques is that their adherents have not engaged in randomized controlled trials or double-blind experimental validation of their techniques. That is a fact, not an opinion. Unless, of course, Mr. Natural-Health has access to hundreds of such studies (many would be needed for each form of alternative medicine) that mainstream scientists have somehow been denied access to! I fear that Mr-Natural-Health is letting his enthusaism for unproven and dubious technqiues overcome his good judgement. RK 21:44, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
- All valid points. The thing is that once numerous randomized controlled trials and double-blind experiments have shown a treatment to be effective, it is by definition not an alternative medicine anymore. It is therefore quite simply a case of the rigour of science vs. unsubstantiated claims by wonder-healers. --snoyes 21:53, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- This is a false dichotomy. We have (at least):
- Practices that have passed numerous randomized controlled trials and double-blind experiments;
- Practices that have failed numerous randomized controlled trials and double-blind experiments;
- Practices that have not been subjected to numerous randomized controlled trials and double-blind experiments.
- I wouldn't trust #2, but I might well try #3 if it cost less than #1. Of course, I prefer #1 when it's available. -- Toby Bartels 01:54, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work!
I tired of wasting my time here. Any database that works locks out edits while some one is editing. Secondly, the editors on Wikipedia are hopeless biased, busy-bodies, who think their biased personal opinion is more valuable than referencing references. I have backed up everything I have stated. You Geeks have not backed up any of your stupid statements: Not one. The last edit is so patently absurd that you guys deserve your fate. Mr-Natural-Health 22:04, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hello, RK. Have you always suffered from mental illness and perceptual problems?
- Wow, I guess you advocates of alternative medicine have proven me wrong this time! Instead of providing references to published randomized controlled trials, or to double-blind experimental validation of your claimed techniques, you simply slander me. How convincing and mature! RK 03:21, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
- Who ever wrote that Subject Line is 100% Correct. I provided 7 citations. The one I like the best was published in JAMA. You know RK, the one that says that not only is Biofeedback alternative, Biofeedback is one of the most used forms of alternative medicine in the United States. Mr-Natural-Health 04:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Biofeedback, and especially neuro-biofeedback, is right on the borderline in Australia. Many perhaps most doctors are now happily referring patients to practitioners who are qualified in clinical psychology. There are learned conferences and refereed journals (mainly US-based). It's alternative now only it that it provides a welcome and effective alternative to pharmeceuticals, and is not (yet?) universally acknowledged. Andrewa 23:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Some content moved to User talk:Mr-Natural-Health
What kind of Talk Page is this?
The page history of this talk page documents again, that RK has edited my previous comments? The faster I comment here the faster somebody deletes, edits, or moves thems someplace else?--Mr-Natural-Health 18:31, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It seems that personal attacks by editors are encouraged, flaunted, and bragged about by you editors without a life?--Mr-Natural-Health 18:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
RK continues to libel me on the history page.
- Less than 24 hours is a 'long time'? hmm. Morwen 19:07, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- And this is worse than you maintaining your unsupported POV, how exactly? Morwen 19:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I have wasted a lot of my time improving Alternative medicine with facts that I supported by seven citations to research papers with links to the abstracts. The one from AMJ, I referenced the entire text in an online link. I referenced an university maintained web page on sources of health care used in the United States with extensive coverage on how biofeedback is one of the most used forms of alternative medicine in the United States.
- RK has provide zip on his POV.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Well, to use your beloved terminology, maybe he "has a life". -- Viajero 19:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Not on Wikipedia for long. :)--Mr-Natural-Health 19:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am right after all!!!
If RK is not admin, then he has no more right to his strong POV on Alternative medicine than Joe Smith, off the street does. RK is nothing but a busy-body (my original assessment) without a life. None of PK's off the wall assertions have been supported by references of any kind. Perhaps, if RK would try writing an original article once in a while ...?--Mr-Natural-Health 21:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Actually, on wikipedia, administrators have no such rights. But nevermind. Morwen 21:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mr-Natural-Health was correct in removing "(However, nearly none of these are double-blind peer-reviewed experiments.)" which is a POV statement. Alexandros 21:20, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Not really. As far as I can see it is a verifiable statement, not a POV one. It is easy to tell which are DBPR and which are not so you could go through them all counting which are which. If 1% of them are DBPR, the statement is true, if 50% are DBPR, the statement is false. No Point of View is involved since once the count is done everyone knows whether the statement is True or False. Of course if it is False it sould be removed. Contrast this with the POV statement "(However, nearly none of these are convincing.)" which cannot be verified without reference to the person making the statement. -- Derek Ross
- Regarding POV, statements under Science and alternative medicine directly contradict it.
- I must admit that RK had me going! :(
- I will now assume that any revision made to Alternative medicine was made by a busy-body, unless that person clearly identifies himself as an Admin. I will watch this article for POV's on an ongoing basis. For every POV made, I will in the future endevor to improve Wikipedia. I have a right to revise this artile as much as RK does.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. I thought of putting this on your talk page, but I've decided it has more general interest. So we'll try here.
- I suggest you leave this particular page alone for a while and contribute to something less controversial instead. This will help you to both understand the Wikipedia project and culture, and to gain some credibility.
- If you find that your interests are confined to controversial issues, then you may wish to review your whole decision to join the project. Without a hard-to-define passion for the promotion of human knowledge for its own sake, you'll just have a hard time here. A symptom of this passion is the willingness to work hard on articles which we don't find all that exciting. Give it a go.
- You could be a great asset if you do have this passion. Current articles have a pro-conventional medicine bias IMO, but the answer to that is not the equally biased material you have posted up until now. You have the knowledge to be a great help, in fact I think some of your material has been very helpful, but only once edited by others.
- Again, if you can't stand others editing your material, then this is not a good place for you. The edit page says this quite clearly. It's true, isn't it?
- They will both challenge you. Describe, do not promote. Do not evaluate. If you can't do this on these pages, I'll try some even less controversial suggestions. Andrewa 23:51, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- My mission on Wikipedia has been accomplished, thank you.
- I am not remotely interested in promoting Alternative medicine, nor do I consider my pet topic, Natural Health, a form of alternative medicine. I have simply been going with the flow and objecting to the obvious POV bias of the scientific community which I removed from my original edit of this article and have once again removed. The current version seems to be an improvement; as both sides of the story have been objectively told.
- But, I have a great deal of confidence that once again, the science community will again destroy this article with their bias.
- Never fear, I will be back even if I have to change my ISP every month.
- My current mission is damange control. :)--22.214.171.124 00:12, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have cleaned up my mess in Talk.
- (Sigh) you're going the right way to eventually get yourself banned. If ever you find a usenet group or any other online community you wish to join, do make it a policy to lurk first and get the feel of the existing culture of the group. You don't seem to have done that here. Your edits to this talk page now make much of it nonsensical, as you've deleted the comments to which others replied. It's not a great problem owing to the ease of viewing past versions, but it does inconvenience and annoy other people. And what have you gained?
Now that I have figured out how the process of editing Alternative medicine works, all my future edits of this article will be 100% business, short, terse, concise, and 100% to the point with zero discussion or comment in Talk. My comments will be tersely recorded in page history only. I will be in and out of here quick as grease lighting. If you want to talk to me, then you can send me email via this website.--Mr-Natural-Health 01:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- My recommendations above still stand. I don't think you understand the process at all, and I see no evidence that you have made any attempt to. Rather, you have tried to impose your own ideas in all areas, not just in alternative medicine, but also in wikiquette and several aspects of Wikipedia administration and article development. There has been a lot of previous discussion about these, but you have seemed surprised that everyone else didn't instantly forget all this to embrace your new and not-so-new ideas. Think about it a little.
- My observation that you have much to contribute also stands. But sadly, the overall effect of your contributions to date has been to discredit alternative medicine, and to reinforce the bias against it that already exists within Wikipedia IMO.
- It's not too late. Give some serious thought to what your mission is, and whether Wikipedia can help. If your mission is to inform, then you will find like minds here. If it is to persuade, then perhaps you can still serve this by providing accurate information (only) here. Please try.
- But if you try to use Wikipedia for any other purpose then you will find nothing but conflict. If you can't see the difference between informing and persuading, then it would be good for you to learn it. Because whichever of these is your mission, it will help you to know which it is in order to better focus on it, not just here but in all areas of your life.
- And of course in striving to providing information we all learn of things we confidently believe that are not accurate when we check. See the history of RJ-XX for just one of my many red-face incidents. If you want to know the truth, I recommend becoming a contributor. If you'd prefer not to, stay right away from us.
- Because despite your fears, Wikipedia does work remarkably well, provided you follow the rules. Of course you do first need to learn them. Andrewa 06:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Aspects of psychology are often considered... Do we mean psychology, or psychiatry? In either case, should psychiatry be mentioned as a discipline which has been "alternative" to varying degrees? Martin 04:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Pulling this out since it seems more appropriate for homeopathy article:
- For example, the technique known as homeopathy is one of the best studied alternative medicine techniques; despite over 150 years of intensive research, not a single peer-reviewed study has found any plausible mechanism for this supposed effect to work, nor has any evidence been found that homepathi treatments have any effect at all, other than the placebo effect. Homeopathy is now generally recognized as quackery and fraud by many medical organizations. See the article on homeopathy for more details.
Populus 16:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)