Talk:Functional medicine

Please provide a useful description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I came here looking for a neutral description (and neutral sources) for functional medicine. There is nothing neutral about this article. This entire article would work well in the "Controversy" section that wikipedia aptly includes in its articles. Most of the sources are from Science-Based Medicine which specializes in medical controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.9.101 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems a single person’s opinions (Gorski) carry more weight than a variety of well established institutions, and even a recent peer-reviewed study in JAMA is removed by an editor calling it ‘vapid content from bad source’?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.40 (talk • contribs)

Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite. And the "bad source" was indeed bad as it was not WP:MEDRS, which would be needed for content on FM's health effects. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSP lists JAMA as follows: "JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.40 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We discard WP:PRIMARY medical studies by default. See WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that is far more useful insight than labeling it 'vapid content from a bad source.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.40 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Except a previous reverter's comment was "needs a WP:MEDRS review". So all this information was to hand. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

SBM actually specialises in analysing quackery. Which this is. Guy (help!) 10:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019

You will find an accurate definition for Functional Medicine here: https://www.ifm.org/functional-medicine/

The accurate definition for Functional Medicine is found here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam Desertphile (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

David Gorski has not disclosed his conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and stands to gain by discrediting and "trolling" other effective approaches to healthcare. Wikipedia needs to get its facts straight. 184.186.225.45 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"... discrediting and 'trolling' other effective approaches to healthcare." Er, this article is about defrauding stupid people, not about healthcare, nor about an "effective approach to healthcare." If you are unsure why people warn others about scams and do so without remuneration of any kind, read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism Desertphile (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus before using this template, per its usage instructions. We are unlikely to use self-serving fringe sources for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be because he doesn't have any material conflicts of interest. Guy (help!) 23:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a medical provider practicing lifestyle and functional medicine. This article depicts a one-sided and biased impression of functional medicine. Functional medicine is a broad term, but there are numerous evidence based practices that are utilized by practitioners like myself within its domain.

For example I am an independent researcher who has conducted peer reviewed clinical research utilizing the principles of functional medicine that can be seen here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6592837/

There was also a recently published retrospective article looking at functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic compared to standard care

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2753520

This current wikipedia article appears to have been constructed solely by individuals of the webpage/organization science based medicine including gorski who have a clear grudge/bias/agenda to paint functional medicine as pseudoscientific.

I humbly ask for the opportunity to provide a thoughtful and balanced perspective for this article.

I have seen individuals practicing "functional medicine" that I do not support and so feel I have a balanced perspective and will be more capable than the current version of this article to educate without creating a bias of favorability or unfavorability as is currently the case.

Best Rob Abbott 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Rda4zf (talk)

 Not done: As the template states, an edit request "must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it", and needs a WP:MEDRS review to support it for verifiable medical content. The article in Cureus was primary research, the journal is not Medline-indexed and appears not to have an impact factor, so would not qualify as a source in the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a request to edit the page because it was semi-protected and I haven't met the qualifying descriptors to edit a semi-protected page. The reasons you provide why something cannot be a source are absolutely preposterous and have no relevance to the veracity of clinical research. You obviously have little understanding of the clinical research process and I find your reasons comical. You clearly are part of this scheme to have an biased page. I am not wasting my time with you guys anymore. So much for unbiased neutral content. This is a joke.

Rda4zf (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

The writings on this sounds like mostly someone's opinion. The first 3 references in fact reference the same auther. I suggest the whole thing be taken down at at least balanced with an opposing opinion if opinions are to be posted on wikipedia.

Proposed definition:

In the functional medicine model, the word function is aligned with the evolving understanding that disease is an endpoint and function is a process. Function can move both forward and backward. The vector of change in function through time is, in part, determined by the unique interaction of an individual’s genome with their environment, diet, and lifestyle. The functional medicine model for health care is concerned less with what we call the dysfunction or disease, and more about the dynamic processes that resulted in the person’s dysfunction. The previous concept of functional somatic syndromes as psychosomatic in origin has now been replaced with a new concept of function that is rooted in the emerging 21st-century understanding of systems network-enabled biology.

ref: Defining Function in the Functional Medicine Model Jeffrey Bland, PhD, FACN, FACB, Associate Editor 2604:3D09:2A83:5B00:3D04:7147:B6D4:A5B9 (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Proposed definition is pseudoscientific babble from fringe source. We need to be using independent secondary sources as the basis of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello we need to include TCM as a inclusion to the ICD by the World Health organisation

Hello we need to include in the lead please that TCM has been added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" Shenqijing (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, TCM is generally speaking very cheap. And very ineffective (when not outright poisonous). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)