Talk:Megavitamin therapy

Is anyone going to add to this article? Right now it should be merged with orthomolecular medicine, which needs some more content. Since my merge/redirect were reverted, I'm adding a merge tag. --CDN99 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think megavitamin therapy should stay separate from orthomolecular medicine. First, megavitamin therapy is but one modality in orthomolecular medicine, albeit probably the part with most name recognition. Hence a separate article, for quick reference and, long term, for separate distinction in more of the public's mind as a piece of OM, *not* synonymous with OM. 69.178.31.177 12:15, 15 January 2006

re: Molecular Disease Linus Pauling was generally recognized for his discovery of molecular disease and molecular medicine with biochemical explanation of sickle cell anemia due to tenth order biopolymer kinetics at the threshhold of oxygen depletion, hence its treatment (mo' oxygen!). This is the foundation of molecular medicine and later, orthomolecular medicine. Academia and the pharmas are spending hundreds of millions of $ pa on molecular medicine. LP won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry shortly (5 yr) afterwards. from Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition: molecular disease - a disease in which the manifestations are due to alterations in molecular structure and function. from Dictionary.com: molecular disease - A disease in which there is an abnormality in or a deficiency of a particular molecule, such as hemoglobin in sickle cell anemia. 03:13, 18 January 2006 69.178.31.177

references need(ed) work

I am removing the QW link here. I allow(ed) it as a counterpoint ref in orthomolecular medicine simply because I haven't seen a more concise position stmt. Once is enough. OM is linked here, so QW is represented, just not directly promoted again. The link is a skillful weave of literary fact, offical political ("scientific") positions, and indirect references to popular "factoids" (see Hoffer) or popular misconceptions without actually restating them. This likely misleads less sophisticated readers. It uses individual facts mixed with ambiguous generalities that may avoid an easily provable "wrong" but mislead ordinarily informed readers to draw erroneous conclusions. For example, I think many ordinary readers likely think that RDAs are around the "physiological needs" or "capacity" nebulously mentioned there but carefuly not elaborated "...as drugs rather than vitamins". The "RDA conservative" faces several tough issues of low limits. An example: large individual biochemical and situational variation such as flat out problems with the actual RDAs used for vitamin D. Is that 200-400-600 IU? or 2000-4000 IU? Apparent deficiencies with other vitamins/nutrients may complicate D'issue (ahem) but it is a critical health issue in northern climes. Also pharmacology professors Hickey and Roberts have carefully dissected the shortcomings of the vitamin C RDA.

Of course some of these things are definitional and conceptual. e.g. QW, if it acknowledged the utility of Cathcart's bowel tolerance vitamin C regimen, say 40-100 g/day for several common illnesses, would presumably call that a drug. Whereas some animals manufacture these peak levels to meet their internal physiological needs during the stress of illness, an orthomolecular view would not be as a (toximolecular) drug. Also the vitamin concept as conventionally promoted misleads with a simple "equivalence" among different molecules with significant impacts for population segments amongst vitamins B's, D, E, K and provitamins for A. 69.178.31. 22:42 15 January 2006

rtg

I cannot see a basis for the "unverified" sign. The article is presented pretty straightforward. As stated in edit notes, it was heavily linked. It has comprehensive references, enough to begin to distract from the article with anymore. Pls state specific objections to any sentence.

The external link section is balanced 1:1, pro/con. As previously stated, the specific qw link is boringly repetitive, slightly off topic, and provocative (as I said once was enough, simply to directly balance reference POV in namesake orthomolecular links, not quality). Qw authors & predecessor forms, spearheading a multi decade, anticompetitive persecution, are now suffering consecutive losses in court. Please try to come with a higher quality link, and more than 1:1 max the section simply becomes anti-V POV, rather than on topic "MV".

POV tag

Megavitamin therapy is generally considered quackery, but the article consists entirely of the minority point of view. -- FRCP11 15:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Generally" seems over overgeneralized, at least in those states with licensed, degreed naturopathic doctors (who may use a "megavitamin therapy") as well as treatments long recognized in conventional medicine or emerging in conventional medical schools. Megavitamin therapy, as described by a number of serious MD/PhD types, is serious if controversial, and sometimes adversarially disputed where modern research on specific vitamers clearly calls current RDA/DRI rationales for preventive nutrition into question [1], much less therapeutic levels such as niacin for mixed dyslipidemias where it is really the #1 (gold standard) treatment molecule (of course it is not exactly advertised that $2-$5/mo of niacin often can do a better job than $200/month of a highly advertised fungal toxin). Oh, yes, there is now a pharma patent on adding niacin to the fungal toxin so that the combined material better addresses the all other dislipidemia measures (triglycerides, IDL, apoB, Lp(a), small dense LDL, HDL_{2b, etc) other than the less atherogenic component of LDL (of 3 LDL related components) effectively controlled by the fungal product. The quackery part is a clear 'tude and pejorative in such cases. The article is descriptive and historical in nature about the subject.--69.178.41.55 21:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)}

Arguing that something isn't generally considered quackery by noting that it's approved of by "naturopathic" "doctors" is rather self-defeating, given that "naturopaths" are generally considered quacks graduated by diploma mills. The article is POV, rather than "descriptive and historical", because it lists none of the evidence against, nor the general consensus of quackery. -- FRCP11 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See my respones at | orthomed. You should be aware that the ND licensure states would not be agreeable to "diploma mill" degrees, they want 4-5 years in an accredited school. Also you are ignoring areas that conventional medicine (Europe, Japan, and/or US) is actually in agreement, niacin and vitamin D are examples as above, or the original source. (ditto A, B's, E, K2, Q10, a number of enzymes, Se, Cr), never mind some of the more interesting pharma patents that actually provide biological support. The quackery part is unwelcome where there are real references to real science, and the "generally" part is about 10-20 years too late anyway.--69.178.41.55 00:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

pov, expert tags

You are not scoring factual points yet. This is a factual article that describes the subject of a reasonably rapidly growing, controversial medical-scientific minority. Just because they are a minority doesn't validate red lining the article. Please point to 1 - 2 sentences that you disagree with. Add interesting, *cogent* criticism. Most of this article is simply historical, descriptive and appropriately referenced. I can only see a personal opinion so far wholly unsupported by any factual basis. Actually the previous conventional medicine complaint was that there were too many superscripted references. The Controversy section is plenty of warning that not everyone agrees about everything. Description of the subject is primary, not outside unsupported opinions that have already been covered, as in OM.--69.178.41.55 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the WP:NPOV guidelines already. I've explained the position and the problem. -- FRCP11 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You broadside "skeptical...", "pseudoscience" and "quackery" without foundation here and at orthomolecular medicine[2][3]; this is clearly asserting POV. You accuse me of "sanitizing" an article when I am bending over backwards to try to improve the article over any potential disagreement with merit; this is not "assuming good faith". You refuse to discuss the article or any specifics, where you are clearly discounting it en masse (the pejorative labels). The article is actually constructed with SPOV in mind. The article herein refers to the specific lifework of the following authors:

• Abram Hoffer, PhD U. Minnesota, MD U. Toronto
• William B. Parsons, Jr. MD, Mayo Clinic
• Roger J. Williams, PhD U. Chicago (magna cum laude), vitamin discoverer, professor, founder of Clayton Biochemical Institute at U Texas, National Academy of Sciences, President, American Chemical Society
• Irwin Stone, research biochemist, long industrial patent series on ascorbic acid
• Linus Pauling PhD CalTech, Prof Chemistry CalTech, Stanford, two time solo Nobelist, pioneer in modern organic chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, molecular medicine, coined "orthomolecular"
• Drs. James, Evan, Wilfrid Shute, Canadian pioneers in vitamin E
• Fred R. Klenner MS Biology, doctoral studies in Physiology, MD Duke University
• William Kaufman, MD, PhD, both U Michigan, gme fellow at Yale.

These are hard-to-dismiss qualifications as mere "quacks" with lifetimes of research and literature. Hanging out the NPOV sign is not a permanent roadside sign of convenience. Assuming good faith, and trying to favorably interpret the NPOV sign to you, all I can divine is that means your POV is that "pseudoscience" and "quackery" are still your version of being polite about a crock, fakes or frauds. It would also mean that you have less familiarity with the relevant scientific and medical literature in an industrial segment that is highly controlled and influenced by various rent seeking interests. I might point out that certain popular "antiquack" authors have beaten an involuntary retreat in the face of legal and technical developments. Actually reading some of the literature involved, they still have miles to go on retreat on some subjects.

So far all I see is an uninforming tag attack. If you have a specific complaint, pls show it. There are "Controversy" and "side effect" boxes, edit them. If there is a misstatment of fact, nail it. If you are unhappy with *any* sentence, lets discuss it. I've asked for any improvement or suggestion possible.--69.178.41.55 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir. You greatly misunderstand the point of NPOV. You are arguing that you are correct. I don't believe that you are, but it is irrelevant. The problem is that the majority point of view is not reflected in this article, as WP:NPOV requires. -- FRCP11 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the article is about megavitamin therapy, its referenced facts and history. Opinions are not needed for substitution, majority or not; they are notable primarily in the Controversy part because they are just opinions. This is one of the edit tensions with SPOV. Fair warning, orthomolecular subjects are not just some grab bag of "alt med" beliefs; in proper form they honor scientific principles more closely than the pharma editions' spin on *principles* - which the pharmas have striven to exclude others' legitimate data by re- & overdefinition rather than appropriately analyze and / or (re)test inconvenient data. Also one of the most poisonous ongoing problems in orthomed is the public's lack of access to accurate definitions and sources on the subject as well as non-commercially propelled views (I am speaking very broadly about pervasive commercial influences on popular & professional views).

The position you seem to be advocating overlooks several points:

1. Most "megavitamin critic fans" simply do not know what constitutes the technically based megavitamin therapy regimes - how much, what formulation, how often. The references given in Megavitamin therapy[4] and Orthomolecular medicine[5] attempt to resolve that. The MV article provides the barest intelligible direction to references that should be high quality sources on the subject, its rationale and its practices.

2. This is also seems to be a problem with much purported mainstream testing, else how would they keep repeating multiply defective protocols, announcing their own failure as the molecules' failure decade in, decade out, unless of course, it was deliberate? (I have actual experience weeding out scientific error and misconduct by academics) Those familiar with nice oranges kind of look contemptuously at mushy apples. Outside claims that fail to recognize and use correct regimes should be considered irrelevant or low priority at best, especially if they have rejected repeated prior notice by a year or a decade or more.

3. Canards and counterfactual claims, believed by the majority or not, fundamentally fall into a different position and priority. Certain MV & orthomed critics have begun to run afoul of this recognition.

Finally there are legitimate controversies, but they are often not what or where most critics say they are. The current article is an attempt to yield a succinct World Book level article. Constructive comments or edits are welcome.--69.178.41.55 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, you continue to miss the point. NPOV is not just about what an article includes, but what it omits. The mainstream view needs to be included in the introduction. The article consists of a variety of assertions about the therapy that go unrebutted; a segregated section that mentions the mainstream view, but buries it with a lot of qualifications that shade the argument in the minority-view's direction; and a series of links where the legitimate medicine is left undistinguished from the illegitimate. You continue to argue this on the merits, but that fundamentally misunderstands WP:NPOV. Please read the guideline already and stop this arguing in circles about matters entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. -- FRCP11 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be very interested to see your sources, which items you class as mere "assertions" and what you present as "mainstream". As I said before, constructive comments and criticism are welcome, I simply have been very wary since you used three POV trigger words with unfortunate associated histories here at Wiki, lack of response to my basic points, and your claims to NPOV. As for "legitimate medicine...undistinguished from the illegitimate," this is all legit in my state and probably most of the NMD/ND licensure states. I would recommend trying any "views" in Controversy first. This article best serves the general readership as a concise, descriptive, factual article because an accurate, substantial summation is so hard to find. I am not afraid to acknowledge disagreements in an appropriate manner and place. As for NPOV, the health & medical articles have frequently used a format that allows substantial presentation of the basic concepts, subject description and background before the interjected politics are added or farmed out to a more specialized article.--69.178.41.55 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am pitching FRCP11's tagging, see "Dumped for cause" at Orthomed as well as tag Talk at npov tag Orhtomolecular medicine and above, POV tag .--69.178.41.55 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

POV retag

Looking for specific improvements, cogent comments, or at least factual challenges, to justify continuance of the ((NPOV)) & ((expert)) tags.--69.178.41.55 12:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC:Restore the POV tag

Megavitamin therapy is quackery, and widely criticized by leading scientists,[6] but one would not know this at all from this POV-pushing page. -- 70.232.110.230 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki "Orthomolecular medicine" article has long linked the QW page, I put it there myself in January when I redid the OM reference section. Barret is not a leading scientist or even an expert source according to recent court declarations, his dated article qualifies as a *sentiment* and a disputed technical position in science at Wiki. The generalzed statement that "megavitamin therapy is quackery" is an easy to factually contradict statement already heavily counterexampled in the text of the megavitamin article. A megavitamin therapy even long accepted for conventional medicine is vitamin B3 (niacin). Vitamin C is seriously under medicial & scientific study for cancer again, PNAS(2006) because of the previous "errors" and omissions against hard data. Within the med schools themselves, vitamin D is is the slow process of transition of megavitamin, from 200 IU a decade ago to some intermediate value, 1000-4000 IU strongly pushed by the actual medical researchers, well under the sunlit human production values of 10,000 - 50000 IU per day. This is just for starters, read the talk page here and at Orthomolecular medicine. So the quackery statement falls, the QW ref is long referenced at orthomed, and it is incorporated by linked orthomed reference to "Megavitamin therapy". No basis for the tag has been shown.--69.178.41.55 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The basis for the tag is that you persist in censoring relevant information that disagrees with your POV.

WP:LEAD says "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies." The most notable fact about megavitamin theory is that it is dangerous, objected to by leading scientists, and widely criticized. Yet, not only has this been deleted from the lead paragraph by your edit, but it has been deleted from the article all together. -- 70.232.110.230 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your self statements clearly identify you as a very strong believer of "Brother Stephen" and his particular POV. And that's fine. However, here, and at orthomed, contentional or "conventional" medical pov, is not the last word or an automatic genuflect. We have attempted to resolve things logically, with quality references with a substantial nod to generalized scientific priority. It does turn out that some highly contentious editors can't find or at least present references that give precedence to their claims to superior priority but have been simply argumentative (surprise!). Criticized vociferously by *some* of the population, yes. Orthomed megavitamin therapies dangerous ? Which way? With respect to conventional medicine, such apprehensions are discussed in both articles' talk pages, the orthomed article and elsewhere. The orthomed article is actually still being generous in terms of SPOV. Censorship? Show up with howlingly ignorant statements & POV, persist in the face of high quality references and the barest reason, and yes, several editors have worn out their welcome - even from Wikipedia and from other doctors. Reason, references and careful edits *are* welcome.--69.178.41.55 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)