Talk:Alternative medicine

Discussion of guidelines for editing alternative medicine sections in herb and plant articles

There is a discussion of guidelines for editing alternative medicine content in plant and herb articles here. [1]

Note that numerous editors participated, and there is unanimous consensus on editing Wikipedia articles about use of plants and herbs in alternative medicine. (The high editor participation, by editors who each have stellar content editing histories, and each of whom made thoughtful and detailed comments, indicates that the best place to put such on-point topic discussions might be on project talk pages of the area of science that bears on the particular area of alt med practice.) FloraWilde (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayurvedic Medicine does not advise Suppressing natural urges can be used to heal

Collapse previos section on same topic

- Recent edits by unnamed editor I undid these edits to the lead by an unnamed editor, here, and here. FloraWilde (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC) No need to specify a(n) editor(s) as unnamed, it is customary to refer to an IP editor as an "IP editor" or to cite the IP, but this is not really needed when a diff is provided. Who performed an edit is largely irrelevant in most cases. The refactor of assertion is appreciated. I have usually seen such notices stating "edits that were not an improvement" or specifying why the edits were reverted for example "unsourced", "did not reflect sources" or "made without discussion, consensus needed for such a change" etc. Just making a suggestion for consideration in the future. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayurvedic Medicine does not advise "suppressing natural urges of food intake, sleep, and sexual intercourse" to heal or as a treatment of illness.
On the contrary Ayurveda advise, not to suppress such natural urges and describe in detail in the text book of Ayurveda Charak Samhita, that such practice may lead to disease condition.
Further online reference can be found in online version of Charak Samhita at this link - http://www.charakasamhita.com/2010/10/18-harmful-effects-of-not-attending-to.html
Also note that a link to this online version of Charak Samhita is also given on Charak Samhita's wikipedia page.
Thus I had deleted the concern line in Ayurvedic Medicine section, but it was restored by user:FloraWilde.
On basis of above reference I am again removing the concern line "suppressing natural urges of food intake, sleep, and sexual intercourse" from Ayurvedic Medicine" section.
--Drjaydevbaroda (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Brahmacharya means abstinence from sexual intercourse, but perhaps a better phrasing would be "Controlling and moderating natural urges of food intake, sleep, and sexual intercourse". FloraWilde (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. this phrasing is reasonable to Ayurvedic principles. I know this is not forum of general discussion, but I would like point out that Brahmacharya is not advised anywhere in Ayurveda. In fact among eight branches (sections) of Ayurveda, the eighth branch is Vajikaran, which is about Virilification, Science of Aphrodisiac and Sexology. --Drjaydevbaroda (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Drjaydevbaroda appears to be correct. "Suppression" is the opposite of what the above cited source says, and other sources I foud online. An American promoter of alternative medicine wrote - "According to the Ayurvedic perspective, being 'healthy' is more than the absence of disease - it is a... state of vigor and energy, which is achieved by balance, or moderation, in food intake, sleep, sexual intercourse... "[2] The person who wrote this is not a reliable source for Wikipedia; but he is a notable promoter of alternative medicine. I will add in the content with the qualified wording "An American promoter wrote", but it would be much better to remove the qualification, and have a good secondary source (or even a primary source if no secondary source can be found). Do you know of a reliable source that supports what he wrote? FloraWilde (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all I would like to say sorry for my hasty edits. As I am new to wikipedia editing, I thought it would be as simple as editing wrong information in your own computer. After I get edit warning I learnt three-revert-rule and other guidelines.

• The sentence (it is a... state of vigor and energy, which is achieved by balance, or moderation, in food..) is essence of one of the Ayurvedic principals. And it is very generalized sentence, so it is hard to find reference in most reliable source (Charak Samhita), as a line or a paragraph.
• So I could not find other source which supports the sentence (it is a... state of vigor and energy, which is achieved by balance, or moderation, in food..) in a raw meaning.
• However I found proper source which is reliable and fulfil the the essence of sentence in different phrase. http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/ayurvedic-medicine
• Under subsection "What is the Ayurvedic perspective?"
  

Ayurveda is not a "one-size-fits-all" system. Instead, its regimens are tailored to each person's unique prakriti (Ayurvedic constitution), taking into account his or her needs for nutrition, exercise, personal hygiene, social interaction, and other lifestyle elements.

Daily routines, called Dinacharya, and seasonal regimens, called Ritucharya, are recommended. Following these individualized plans help users of Ayurveda attain robust physical health, as well as mental and spiritual harmony. --Drjaydevbaroda (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A potentially useful source with respect to the history of Ayurvedic medicine in the west is B. Sachs "On Hindoo Medicine" The_proceedings_of_the_Charaka_Club (1902) vol.1 p.1 OL 25612826M LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Its certainly interesting, even if its usefulness might be lessened by more recent scholarly work on the topic. How did you find this? FloraWilde (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

While seeking references to improve the above mentioned Charaka Samhita article, I searched for Charaka on the open library, which is often good for older sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proceeding with the newly revised version

The present version, as newly revised, gives even greater prominence than before to anxiety about fraudulent health products in the USA, the homeland of the expression "snake oil" in this connection, said to stem from the days of the construction of the "Pacific Railroad" in the 1860s. In the context of the rest of the article as a whole, that may be considered acceptable. But the topic is not "Fraudulent health products in the USA"; it is "Alternative medicine", an expression that came into use about a century later, and it is misleading to construct the article as if there is some definite entity world-wide of which it could be said "alternative medicine actually is ". In the earlier version, this was scrupulously explained after the lead in "Background" section: Treatments considered alternative in one location may be considered conventional in another... Some definitions seek to specify alternative medicine in terms of its social and political marginality to mainstream healthcare. How the term "alternative medicine" came into use was explained in the next section "History", followed by "The NCCAM classification system", and "snake oil" was mentioned, with citations. We should consider putting the longstanding structure for the first two sections back in place. Qexigator (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as to snake oil. I removed the unsourced snake oil sentence and corresponding image. FloraWilde (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why delete the link to article? What was "restored"?[3] Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I undid my error. FloraWilde (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the newer organization is better - I would say that a descriptive introductory section is better than one that prominently frames the topic as a definitional issue. That said, the related changes make the article seem much less professional, among other things, so it still needs to be cleaned up. Sunrise (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

May we take that as proposing to let the lead stay more or less as is (subject to minor improving tweaks), but with copyedits (+ moves?) elsewhere? You may recall an acceptable lead resulted from aiming at comprehensive brevity for content to be extended in the article's main body, letting the List of Contents serve readers as an outline synopsis, for them to go to what they are looking for at the time. The format and placing of images has introduced some further complications in relation to the text itself, but these are being sorted out. Cheers to you, Arc! Qexigator (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The images and examples are discussed in sections above. FloraWilde (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Try and resist, FloraWilde, this odd temptation to misattribute to another things that have not been and things which are not intended. It does not promote confidence in your editing. Maybe Sunrise can be allowed to answer for him- her-self. Qexigator (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't making any comment on the lead, only on the ordering of the first two sections (currently "Examples of alternative medicine practices" and "Background"). Did I misread the subject of this talk section? On the lead, I agree with some of the changes, although I think that the previous arrangement for the first paragraph was better. More generally, a lot of the changes are similar or the same as those which were previously endorsed on this page by a banned editor, and have the same issues as before. Sunrise (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sunrise, we seem to agree about the lead, but I remain uncertain whether you are saying that "Background" is better before or after "Examples", which is indeed the subject which started this Talk section. Does "banned editor" refer to the socking IP? Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Inserting my response here since this section has two conversations going on at once.) I meant that I think the section currently named "Examples" is better first, because it is better to open with describing the topic rather than describing definitional disputes, unless the definition section is extremely short. Given the complexity of the topic, describing different types of alternative medicine seems like a reasonable way to start off, although I'm sure there are other possibilities. I would also say that both of the sections should have better titles, e.g. maybe "Types of alternative medicine" and "Definitions." The editor I was thinking of is this one - having checked the account, I see it was a block rather than a ban, but IP socking was involved. Sunrise (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can follow that reasoning. There were good enough reasons at the time of the previous revisions for what then resulted, but, as the heading to this section indicates, there is no need to trail back through the archives for that, and we are now proceeding with the newly revised version, noting that the lead and other parts have lately had a further series of copyedits and tweaks:[4], [5], [6], [7],[8]. Subject to comments from others, these seem to be acceptable. Yes, I recall the difficult period editors endured before the one you mention was blocked. Thanks for clarifying. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Examples with images should be at the top so readers immediately get an understanding of what alternative medicine is. Otherwise the examples will gradually be buried in a mass of technical words as discussed in sections above. This leave readers with no understanding of what alternative medicine is. Placement of the examples section and images is discussed in sections above. Qexigator did not respond above as to why he/she moved the examples sections to the bottom, then deleted these sections entirely, and the sources. Instead, Qexigator keeps starting new sections on multiple topics already being discussed by others. Please stop. FloraWilde (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for putting your position. You have been making some good edits here and elsewhere, and you seem to be heavily committed to your point of view. Now, try and understand that others may see some matters in a different way, but not necessarily opposite or antagonistically. None has a right to claim a monopoly of editorial skill and judgment. Try and accept that you alone are not necessarily always and in every way right about this or anything else, and do not persist in attempting to rubbish others, or, for that matter assume you know what is best for readers of this article. There has been more than enough of that already. That is not helpful for the process of editing Wikipedia. In particular, when another editor starts a fresh discussion, do not seek to claim it as a continuation of something else. Others may have a wider perspective. If you do not wish to participate in the discussion in this section, stay away: it's quite simple. Now, you should also stop moving sections about. What are you really up to? Qexigator (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Qexigator. Starting new sections on topics that are already being discussed on this page, rather than responding in those sections, fragments the discussions. It makes it difficult to see comments by multiple editors on the same topics. It is helpful not to keep starting new sections on the same topics. FloraWilde (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise. The previous arrangement of the first paragraph was better, as you commented. It states that alt med is medicine is medicine that is not based on science, then that there are a wide range of practices not based on science, and cites examples of the wide range. It is returned to that, with the other content moved down the lead. FloraWilde (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Child abuse exemption content moved out of examples into regulation section

I moved this content out of examples section into the regulation section,[9] because it does not really exemplify the practice. If there is a better section for it than regulation, please move it to that section.

In the United States, the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) required states to grant religious exemptions to child neglect and abuse laws in order to receive federal money. Thirty-one states have child-abuse religious exemptions.

FloraWilde (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with this article. Perhaps it was pasted into the wrong article entirely when it was originally added? If it does somehow belong here, the text should be edited to explain how it relates. --Karinpower (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be about regulating the alternative medicine practice called "spiritual healing", where kids are denied access to medications such as antibiotics on religious freedom grounds. The first source is "Spiritual healing, sick kids and the law: inequities in the American healthcare system." - Am J Law Med. 2003;29(2-3):269-99. The article requires payment to read. Perhaps an editor with access can quote from the source on this talk page. Here is a sampling of exemptions in the second source -

A religious healing practitioner is not required to report as neglect of a child the failure to provide medical attention to the child if the child is provided treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by an accredited practitioner of the church or denomination

In any case in which a child is alleged to be dependent on the basis that he or she is in need of medical care, the court, in making that finding, shall give consideration to any treatment being provided to the child by spiritual means through prayer alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by an accredited practitioner thereof

No child who, in lieu of medical treatment, is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with a recognized method of religious healing shall, for that reason only, be considered neglected.

No child who in good faith is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the practices of a recognized church or religious denomination shall for that reason alone be considered neglected.

A child shall not be considered abused or neglected if... The child’s parent relies on spiritual means through prayer for the treatment of disease.

A child shall not be considered to be abused or neglected, in jeopardy of health or welfare, or in danger of serious harm solely because treatment is by spiritual means by an accredited practitioner of a recognized religious organization.

Our article fails to inform the reader as to how one gets one's religious practitioners accredited in the US, and which religions are recognized by the US or state governments, and which are not. Perhaps an editor with expertise on established state religions in the US can find sources and add content on this. FloraWilde (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FloraWilde, thanks for clarifying. I now see the connection, though it seems fairly tangential to the article. Do you think it belongs? If it is to stay, I think it needs to be rewritten or at least a sentence added before it, to explain (very briefly) what you just said above.

It seems that this article attempts to include a wide number of fairly diverse practices.... "Traditional" healing methods which seem strange to other cultures (ex. children arriving at school with bruising from skin "scraping" used for colds and other conditions in Asian cultures) and Amish families deciding not to vaccinate would both seem to have relevance to this legislation. But it seems pretty disconnected from the semi-mainstream practice of common modalities of alternative medicine. I'm not sure how it should be handled differently in this article, but currently it's a bit of a mess. --Karinpower (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing from this article - alternative psychiatry/psychology

Missing from this article is information on the huge fields of alternative psychology and alternative psychiatry, e.g., work of Wilhelm Reich, spiritual psychology, and Psychosynthesis, to name just a few out of hundreds or more. this good faith edit by User:Katecodrington is an example of one of hundreds of such "branches" of alternative medicine of the subcategory alternative psychology or psychiatry. I deleted that edit under WP:Undue, because of its specificity about a single person's "branch", without a source as to it meeting WP:UNDUE for inclusion. But edits like it need to be generalized and put in our article, with reliable secondary sources as to WP:Undue as to which to include and which not. FloraWilde (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Flora, thanks for dealing with that. I have tagged her article submission and notified her of her COI and not to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this article needs to branch out into Alternative Mental Health, but you might find this template helpful:

I would say that these topics have been covered elsewhere nicely. --Karinpower (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just a couple sentences, with a link to the template/category? Just a thought. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with just a couple of sentences is... (I have no source at hand on this, but) all alternative medicines are essentially "psychological". None is based on physical reality. Sitting a person down in a Wilhelm Reich orgone box to treat depression is "alternative psychiatry", because Reich purported to be a psychiatrist. But this has no difference in physical reality from a Reiki hand waver fixing some Chakra misalignment causing the depression, sticking an acupuncture needle at the right point to treat it, aligning a spine for it, or going to church and getting hands laid on, all to the same end of treating the depression problem. But our article puts the former in a different category, (as does NCCAM, but with same the ultimate end of getting funding for "research" or generating insurance billing codes). FloraWilde (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

FloraWilde, I disagree. Your comment uses brush strokes that are too broad. Alt med is a very diverse category, and the modalities within have varying levels of scientific groundedness - from not-plausible to sure-makes-sense-but-scientific-testing-needed-to-prove-it. And they vary quite a bit in whether they are attempting to affect psychology (the mind and the emotions) while some goals that you mentioned about would be more accurately described as "spiritual" or "metaphysical" goals rather than psychological. --Karinpower (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that this article should be broad, and written in broad brush strokes, with links to more specific info. Classifying claims to heal using orgone energy as being psychology, vs. qi, vital energy, Chakras, etc. as physical medicine, makes no sense in objective reality. It should all be touched on in this article. This article is lacking a big chunk of alt med only because NCCAM didn't put much of it on its own list, and this article appears to be mostly written from the NCCAM page. ("Sure-makes-sense-but-scientific-testing-needed-to-prove-it" is called a medical hypothesis waiting to be tested, not alternative medicine.) FloraWilde (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Medscape articles

Here are a couple new articles from Medscape dealing with AM/CAM:

• Mythbusters: Complementary and Alternative Treatments in Cancer, Victoria Stern, September 02, 2014 (Full article on one page.)

• Citation template: <ref name=Stern>{{Citation |last=Stern |first=Victoria |date=02 September 2014 |title=Mythbusters: Complementary and Alternative Treatments in Cancer |publisher=''[[Medscape]]'' |url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830552_print |accessdate=07 September 2014 }}</ref>

• Asking the Experts: Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Cancer, Gabriel Miller, Barrie R. Cassileth, PhD, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, September 02, 2014 (Full article on one page.)

• Citation template: <ref name=Miller>{{Citation |last=Miller |first=Gabriel |date=02 September 2014 |title=Asking the Experts: Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Cancer |publisher=''[[Medscape]]'' |url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830553_print |accessdate=07 September 2014 }}</ref>

Registration is easy and free. Medscape is a good RS, sometimes as a MEDRS, and other times for expert opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Real Medicine and Alternative Medicine

I have not noticed any section that says that some modern day treatments (like salicylic acid) are derived from herbal medicine. We should properly note that some well-studied treatments have been discovered to be false, and some to be shown helpful. For starters, the Pacific Yew berries were eaten in North America by natives, and have now been shown to be potential chemotherapic drugs. :) just a though. Qwed117 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this a valid point. how can it be presented in the article maybe a separate section seems logicalDocsim (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed and resolved by consensus in the section above, Talk:Alternative_medicine#Discussion_of_guidelines_for_editing_alternative_medicine_sections_in_herb_and_plant_articles. Salicylic acid is not "derived from" alternative medicine. Chemist Johann Andreas Buchner in isolated it from Salix alba or a similar plant species in about 1828. When it was scientifically tested using statistical data analysis, the isolated chemical, at the tested dosage level, was found to have therapeutic properties. If some Native American tribe "infused" a preparation from the bark of sufficient concentration, and this was later tested to work at that concentration level, we would say that that tribe discovered this evidence based medicine, not that it is "alternative medicine". If the Native American tribe concentration levels were tested not to be sufficient for an effect, the tribe would not be said to have been discovered it. Either way, it is not relevant to the subject of alternative medicine. FloraWilde (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not so sure about that. seems this other editor made a good point. how does medicinal marijuana play into your logic and points just made.Docsim (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)