Talk:Orthomolecular medicine

Notable supporters

WLU's point above is good: are the "notable supporters" and others mentioned in the article actually proponents of orthomolecular, or are they simply people the orthomolecular groups like to think would have agreed with their ideas? For example, Albert S-G: does he endorse orthomolecularism anywhere in his writings, or is he claimed because he worked with vitamin C? If the latter, he shouldn't be on the list. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) That is, it's my opinion that being inducted into an interest group "hall of fame" posthumously and an assertion by Hoffer that S-G "agreed with" Pauling are insufficient to make him a verifiable supporter of orthomolecularism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

S-G is a real scientist, and there isn't a single publication that indicates he supported orthomolecular junk science. Unless there is some self-proclamation, he or the others cannot be posthumously baptized into the religion of pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So we can't describe Newton as a scientist because it wasn't a term current in 1727? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked into this. Albert Szent-Györgyi, like Linus Pauling, was indeed a real scientist. He was also almost certainly an explicit supporter of orthomolecular medicine, and he took an interest in cancer and vitamins in the 70s. Way back in the 30s he was talking about optimal nutrition [1]. If one was to read some of his books around that time like Electronic Biology and Cancer: A New Theory of Cancer (1976) or The living state (1972), you'd probably see him mention the term explicitly. The only sources we have [2] on that are self-published, however, and it's fair to keep him out until someone finds a reliably sourced note of his connection since it's a bit self-serving. Ralph Moss's biography [3] of him would suffice if it said there was a connection. Ralph Moss, incidentally, is today most known for being an altmed cancer guru, and yet the two were friends. Albert S-G was a openminded guy. II | (t - c) 00:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there are NO reliable publications anywhere by S-G that he actually believed in this pseudoscience.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant. We can report the opinions of others that he was an OMM researcher. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

@Price: Websites of orthomolecular organisations are reliable sources only for the opinions of orthomolecularists about themselves and their theories, not their interpretations of who thought what and when about a theory that has no traction in mainstream medicine and didn't exist until the 1960s. "Orthomolecular medicine" is a term not used by medically reliable sources, so it's difficult to apply it to people who do not or did not specifically embrace it. In contrast, "scientist" is a commonly-used term and can probably be applied to Newton, just as "boat" can be applied to a trireme, even though it was built long before the English term appeared.

@II: Being a prominent supporter of a theory involves more than "probably" mentioning the term, being a friend of an alternative medicine proponent, or being, in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, an "openminded guy". Not everyone who says a balanced diet is good, or who performed research with one of the molecules favoured by orthomolecularists, can be called an orthomolecularist. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lay summary for WHI

Would anyone object to adding a |laysummary= to the WHI study (Neuhouser ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Thomson C, et al (February 2009). "Multivitamin use and risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the Women's Health Initiative cohorts". Arch. Intern. Med. 169 (3): 294–304. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.540. PMID 19204221., currently ref. 25)? MedPageToday looks to me like the best balance between informative and accessible, assuming that the site is reliable (they say they are, but I am not familiar with them). Treatment by Neuhouser's home institution or NYT, are also options, though the latter is pretty short. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, MedPageToday looks the best. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with any "lay" analysis of medical articles, since they are highly POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Cancer Society

The Canadian Cancer Society fits the description of an nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies as described in Wikipedia:MEDRS and its support of high doses of Vitamin D within the OM model deserves to be included in the article. Lumos3 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does, but try getting that past the cabal that operates here .... --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither section nor reference mention OMM. If you have a ref from the CCS supporting OMM which meets WP:MEDRS then please bring it here, and we can work on reintegrating this section, suitably supported. Also, please take a look at WP:BRD. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a source to talk about OMM. If an OMM source says OMM implies taking loads of vitamin D is beneficial then we can mention also studies about the effects of taking loads of vitamin D -- and leave it to the reader to form any conclusions (if any). --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Cancer Society is not a really a reliable source since it's far beyond a tertiary source, more like quartenary, but still, let's look at what they actually stated. First, no one argues that Vitamin D helps prevent certain types of cancer. Vitamin D is produced by the body, and those in northern latitudes (Canada being a northern Latitude country) require supplements of Vitamin D. The Canadian Cancer Society recommends 400IU of Vitamin D per day, hardly OMM levels. Moreover, they specifically state, "We don’t recommend taking any more than these amounts because too much vitamin D can be harmful." And Mikey, please be advised that ArbCom has stated that calling any group of NPOV editors a "cabal" is considered uncivil and a personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the last claim, where exactly did they say that? However since you're not NPOV that doesn't apply, does it? To return to the science, please take note that the Scientific American article authors on vitamin D and cancer (Nov 2007, page 36-44) were taking 1000 IU/d and 4000 IU/d respectively, i.e. considerably over the RDA and into OMM range.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mikey, I'm completely NPOV. Another personal attack, I see. Scientific American is not a reliable source, it's popular press, more or less on the level of the Wall Street Journal. Please read WP:MEDRS so that you are more familiar with how to support your statements. If you would like me to help you out on more fully understanding NPOV and MEDRS, please do not hesitate to ask. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As quick to exonerate yourself as you are to castigate others; I shall leave it to others to judge what this implies about your self-critical abilities. I suppose you would also say that you never indulge in PAs and are always civil? Anyway, MEDRS does NOT says SA is not a reliable source, but says judgement should be used (as it always does). They actually say "For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, common sense, the verifiability policy, and the general reliable sources guideline should be considered in determining whether a popular press source is suitable for these purposes." --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SA may explain a concept in a useful way for a general audience; using it as a source for this general reason is quite different from relying on SA for research findings. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael, you mentioned a "cabal" in your first post to this section. If it's in SA then we should be able to back it up with other reliable medical sources, if that is the actual case. Scientific American is not a RS for new research. Keepcalm has this right above. You should concern yourself with finding those to bolster your case for inclusion. Please stay civil. To return to the topic of this section, there is still no reason to include the section I removed or the reference. Verbal chat 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't new research -- the evidence's been piling up for a few years. That's why it's reported in SA. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It's because a real journal wouldn't publish it. Again, I'm willing to mentor you on MEDRS and NPOV. Just drop me a note. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. The data has already been published elsewhere. That's the way SA operate -- their articles contain a list of journal references. Coming from someone who believes himself to be "completely NPOV", this is pathetic, but to be expected. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

← There is currently a lot of interest in Vitamin D. Most people in northern latitudes probably don't get "enough". Some groups recommend supplements of 400 or even 800-1000 IU/d for people living up north (e.g. PMID 17634462 from NEJM). This an doesn't seem like "orthomolecular medicine" to me - for one thing, it's hardly a megadose as the RDA is 400 IU. Secondly, it involves treating actual vitamin deficiency, rather than shooting for an excessive vitamin intake. Taking 500 mg/d of Vitamin C to treat scurvy isn't "orthomolecular medicine", right? So nor would be correcting a vitamin D deficiency. OK, that's WP:OR, but still... without an independent source linking the current mania for Vitamin D to orthomolecular medicine, it's all WP:OR. MastCell ^Talk 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Treating a deficiency can be OMM if the deficiency is subclinical, as it is here, since the amount of vitamin D required to optimally prevent cancer is more than the amount required to prevent rickets. Remember the definition I gave above, of a subclinical deficiency, is one coined by OMM, as the dictionaries attested. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a good deal of coining going on, such that "OMM" can claim about anything involving vitamins and nutrition. Again, using a substance, a nutrient or any synthetic drug, to prevent or treat is usually called chemoprevention or chemotherapy, not "orthomolecular medicine". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is an example of a OMM central concept being taken over by mainstream medicine and then denying its roots. Look at those definitions I posted: subclinical deficiency, n in orthomolecular medicine, deficiency of a nutrient sufficient to affect health but not severe enough to cause classic deficiency symptoms. They acknowledge the OMM roots of subclinical deficiency. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight should be given to an online dictionary, but I am fairly certain the term "subclinical deficiency" was used before orthomolecularists claimed it. One example from 1964: J Clin Pathol. 1964 Nov;17(6):666-70. Authors Lindenbaum and Klipstein report on "Folic acid clearances and basal serum folate levels in patients with thyroid disease", using the term "subclinical deficiency". One could always claim Lindenbaum and Klipstein as pre-OMM orthomolecularists, I suppose, along with any other scientist who had researched any aspect of diet or nutrients. It's an interesting exercise for orthomolecular websites, but of limited use on Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It was more than one online dictionary that claimed that "subclinical deficiency" was an OMM term. Even if OMM didn't originate the term, they certainly adopted and canvassed it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: let's use the talk page to discuss specific changes to the article. Orthomolecular medicine is a minority viewpoint, and no amount of original research/debate on the talk page will change that. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And to decide what goes in the article we have to know what the scope of OMM is. So much of the debate here is relevant. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just it. Where are the independent sources defining the scope of OMM? Yes, we know that orthomolecular websites appropriate any positive vitamin-related newsblurbs as vindication, and dismiss out of hand reams of evidence that vitamin megadoses are useless of harmful. But to write an actual neutral encyclopedic article, we need to look to independent sources. MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you retired. Hmmm. Anyways, why aren't Megavitamin therapy and OMM merged into one article. Basically, the same reliable sources that refute one refute the other. I get exhausted clicking my mouse from one to the other. Oh yeah, online dictionaries fail MEDRS quite badly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To MastCell: I agree we need to look at independent sources to write a useful neutral encyclopedic article. Precisely because some OMM sources will dismiss contrary evidence out of hand (just as mainstream sites will usually dismiss pro-OMM evidence out of hand, like some editors here). --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't dismiss anything. I reject unreliable references from fringe theory groups. It boils down to science vs. anti-science. Once again, I am most willing to mentor you to understand WP:MEDRS, a policy which might help you write better medical articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you serially reject studies, stating falsehoods about them, either you didn't read the studies or you read them and decided to make false claims; I call that dismissal when I'm polite.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. It's not appreciated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then stop making erroneous personal claims. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the page

We could go two ways. We could restrict this page to treatments which are promoted by people who identify themselves as orthomolecular and treatments which are called/identified orthomolecular by reliable sources. Then we would not consider megavitamin therapy to be the same as orthomolecular medicine. This is the most reasonable, since Pauling used the term to denote the right molecule in the right amounts, and the people involved were quite aware that adverse effects can occur with high doses of vitamins -- these adverse effects are just not that common. OMM practitioners targeted a few vitamins in particular for use, mainly niacin and vitamin E. Alternatively, some people seem to think we should merge megavitamin therapy into here and cover all megavitamin therapies indiscriminately. That doesn't make much sense. If some doctors are proposing megadoses of vitamin D, certainly it could be covered in megavitamin therapy -- assuming that the doses are called megadoses, which they probably aren't, since megadosing is a dirty word in medicine, and a dose is really only defined relative to theoretical RDA. Vitamin D proponents are largely advocating for a higher RDA.

Orthomolecular medicine is actually a theory of optimal nutrition. I suppose many people have their own idea of what optimal nutrition is, but OMM proponents have particular theories about it, which can be represented here. Other theories belong elsewhere, like the nutrition page. II | (t - c) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are serious about only using WP:RS that directly reference OMM then we'll have to remove studies that rubbish supplements without mentioning OMM directly. Is that what people want? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Bruce Ames used to be represented fairly heavily in this article due to his promotion of vitamins. Here is an article where he discusses megavitamins for genetic defects. This stuff is not really new, although he makes it sound like it is; Menolascino discusses the same thing as a mainstream discovery. This is the sort of thing that easily fits under megavitamin therapy, and is actually in some cases mainstream. This type of megavitamin therapy has a relationship to orthomolecular medicine, although it's a bit more distant. II | (t - c) 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OMM and megavitamin therapy are commonly used as synonyms (in part because the most visible orthomolecularists are the people selling megadose supplements in infomercials, etc.). The views of orthomolecularists about themselves are also important and should be recognised; that's why the lead prominently features the orthomolecularists' views on diet.

As for "we'll have to remove studies that rubbish supplements without mentioning OMM directly", that's simply not in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. A minority viewpoint should be balanced with verifiable mainstream information from reliable sources. Since OMM is not just a minority viewpoint, but also a minority term used to describe aspects of a (another? a related?) minority viewpoint, one can't well expect authors of reliable sources to use the term. That is, in my interpretation anyway, sources satisfying RS for medical science can balance fringe viewpoints without directly referring to the fringe viewpoint by name, although advocates of fringe viewpoints can't claim reliable sources or notable figures as supporting their fringe viewpoint without a direct link. Is it "fair"? Perhaps not. But it is Wikipedia policy, and a good way to ensure the encyclopaedia doesn't become a forum for unreliably sourced content. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent possibly problematical edits

In a recent edit, Orangemarlin removed a "crap reference" [4]. We're not going to be able to make a decent article without citing orthomolecular medicine people, including their website statements -- which are about as reliable as their journal articles. The policy on WP:SELFPUB is that it's OK when it's not contentious/self-serving and expresses their views.

In another edit, Orangemarlin added a "100X" better reference for the statement that Altschul and Hoffer first discovered the niacin-cholesterol relationship [5]. Problem is, a third-party is required to back up the statement that these men "discovered" the relationship. Based on their original paper alone, someone else could have discovered it. We can cite both, but the third-party 2005 book is necessary to support the statement that they discovered it. Also, I think going into depth about other treatments for cardiovascular disease is unnecessary -- previously it said "a standard medical treatment" -- that doesn't imply that it's the only treatment. II | (t - c) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Sneader book, but if it confirms the discovery and it's reliable, I wouldn't object to its return. At the same time, we can't be using self-published websites to support claims about third parties. Abram Hoffer's claims about himself, when explicitly identified as such--sure--but not an anonymous website author's claims about Hoffer, or, worse, about scientists who have never endorsed OMM. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The crap reference was not about Hoffer -- it was about Kauffman, who is in the OMM "Hall of Fame". He apparently was a dyed-in-the-wool OMM researcher. The reference said something non-contentious: he worked with niacinamide. This article ought to mention the major figures in the history section. All of the OMM "Hall of Fame" figures other than Max Gerson were full members of the OMM community. II | (t - c) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:NPA applies to the titles of sections. I agree with KeepCACO about this, and I don't see a real problem with OMs OMM edits. Verbal chat 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to attack him by putting his name in the section title. I was trying to indicate what the thread was about. And right below here you've got him calling me a "CAM potion pusher", yet I don't see you removing that. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. II | (t - c) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised either. The hypocrisy and lack of objectivity here is amazing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought putting it in a section title, which makes it large, needed refactoring. I would remind all people to observe WP:NPOV. Also, changing section titles isn't a big deal, but changing other peoples comments isn't something that should be done lightly. If you have a problem please take it to WP:WQA or other WP:DR, thanks. Verbal chat 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Imperfect, I love removing crap references. And Niacin is not a standard medical treatment for CVD. You would die of CVD if you only took Niacin for CVD, but I know you CAM potion pushers love to think so. Take one small article but ignore the 10 million others that describe the long list of treatments for all the various types of CVD. Eat your veggies, and you probably wouldn't have to worry about CVD, with or without niacin. Sheesh. Ridiculous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the "standard medical treatment" language directly from the ACS article [6]. Your statin thing is an unnecessary tangent which doesn't fit in the article, and is also unreferenced. II | (t - c) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this thread is mentioned in an AN/I raised by Orangemarlin. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Orthomolecular psychiatry

It has been proposed to merge Orthomolecular psychiatry with this article; there has been some editwarring over converting the other article into a redirect. I'm planning to refer the question to a broader community discussion and am looking into what would be an appropriate forum. Editors might want to wait before putting a lot of work into merging the two articles in case the eventual decision is to retain two separate articles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge has already taken place. Better venues than AfD, as proposed, would be WP:FTN or an WP:RFC if consensus on the other article changes. Comment should probably continue on the other talk page as it has already been discussed there. Verbal chat 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)this discussion.

Looks like it was therefore a totally bogus re-direct which under the rules of Wikipedia should be immediately undone. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is blatant obstructionism and lying. I suggest bringing User:John Gohde and User:Colonel Warden to WP:AE for disciplinary action under the Pseudoscience Arbcom case. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up:

Problematic behavior has been referred to arbitration enforcement. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the lack of proper notice and discussion on this particular talk page is perfectly factual as well as appropriate. I, myself, was about to vote to have the article merged, but was offended by the gross lack of proper notice. I went out of my way to look for and saw no discussion taking place. None was referenced in the above notice, either. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article length may dictate that this article - Orthomolecular medicine - be divided. The current article is over 80k! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that article size is not necessarily a problem since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Also, I didn't know of any rules prohibiting a merge, particularly after discussion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Artw (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a real rationale. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a sufficiently distinct subject that a seperate article is desirable. Also if the rationale for deletion is "POV fork" then, frankly, that's ludicrous. Also a general objection to allowing editors to railroad through changes through wikilawyering and canvasing, for whatever that's worth. Artw (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You should consider not repeating yourself from page to page. It doesn't strengthen your argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly a clear venue for discussion was not clear at the time - it looks like we have settled on this one. Possibly the other page should be restored and propper tagging indicating the merge discussion should be added so interested parties might know the best place to express their views? Artw (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this at ANI under the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring_on_merge_of_orthomolecular_psychiatry_into_orthomolecular_medicine. Since I know that the editors I mentioned in that thread watch this page closely, I'm hoping it's OK if I don't do individual notifications. II | (t - c) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that User:ImperfectlyInformed be community banned from Wikipedia for not contributing anything of value to the encyclopedia in that thread. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

II is annoying, has called me a "liar", and isn't very nice at times, but at other times, I enjoy his banter and dedication. I probably wouldn't support his being banned. He probably should stay away from CAM articles.. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support the merge. Edison (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this merge. The subject is distinct. And in any case it is not a POV form--the POV in the 2 articles is the same (a rather hostile NPOV approach to the subject, which I think lacks significant balance. It is not mainstream, but also not quackery.). The present state of the merge shows the reason for keeping it separate: one intrusive paragraph, and the loss of most of the material. Such a merge can unfortunately result not in organising material, but destroying it, as there are people who have the apparent view that the fewer articles on such things the better. DGG (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The present state of the merge is indeed less than ideal, so let's improve it. I suggest that constructive work on the article is rather preffered to personal attacks. Material, i.e. reliably sourced material, has not been destroyed; rather, material repeated multiple times has been condensed.

On the size of the article, WP:SIZE gives a rough guideline: "30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose", or "10 pages" of printed text. By "readable prose", the guideline means that only the main body is measured for size. Currently, there are about 3600 words of readable prose in this article. I would conclude that the article is not too long, even by the standards of the guideline, itself subject to judgement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge. This is a tough one. On the one hand, the article it stands is a mess, and badly needs cleanup, proper sectioning and weighting per WP:FRINGE, and we absolutely shouldn't be forking off articles for each condition that a fringe field has a theory on or purports to treat. On the other hand, it seems like more than a few fringy quacks cooking up ideas in their basements, and it seems to have a notable history independent of orthomolecular "medicine" generally, and a notable body of theory about the psychiatric causes of illness offering an alternative to mainstream formulations. It seems a genuine real world fork of orthomolecular "medicine". I'd be open to being shown otherwise. Phil153 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge per Phil153. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support the two things appear to be the same and one thing. Pauling gave it the name "orthomolecular"[7][8] and also coined the name "orthomolecular medicine"[9][10] but the bases of the theory had already been created. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Supported (again) per Enric and Phil's first hand - his second hand has a problem. Verbal chat 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks like consensus to me. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge.--Alterrabe (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per reasons I've given above and at the psychiatry talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't fit the definition of a POV fork; no valid reason to merge. Notable subtopic. Plenty of sources available, including skeptical sources; sources published in mainstream science publications, and sources by Nobel prizewinner Linus Pauling who has published on this topic in mainstream science journals. See WP:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. I still plan to refer this question for broader community input after receiving a reply from User talk:EdJohnston#Broader discussion of merge about what would be an appropriate forum. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Everything seems to have gone strangely quiet over how exactly that article represents a POV fork. If anyone is still using that as their justification then they should really expand on that. If no one is using it as a justification then IMHO the current blanking of that page is bogus and should be undone until the merge discussion is complete. Artw (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point!
      Levine2112 pointed out that the merged page is over 80,000 bytes. Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb says over 60 KB "Probably should be divided".
      Comments on the page protection request: Verbal said there, "after discussion and agreement"; in fact, in that discussion, three editors, myself, Colonel Warden and Levine2112, had expressed opposition to the merge, and discussion was in progress, for example about the definition of POV fork. There also, ScienceApologist said, "As someone who has not been editing the page at all, I second this request." In fact, ScienceApologist had made a number of edits to the page in November, including converting the article into a redirect. 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      As Colonel Warden said, "Linus Pauling's seminal paper upon Orthomolecular Psychiatry was the first usage of the term Orthmolecular and so this was the founding branch of the more general field." Illustrative of this is the fact that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine was earlier titled "Orthomolecular Psychiatry". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It's now edited down to 72 KB. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Distinct enough to be separate articles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I could support for this if summary style was adhered to strictly, but I'm too disappointed in the way the group pushing this merge has acted to support right now. II | (t - c) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic will sprawl too widely if contained in one article. I generally favour small articles since they seem to suit this medium well, especially on hand-held devices, and such articles may be readily linked together so that related topics are easily navigated. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge, with some reservations. Orthomolecular medicine is a big topic. And, big topics should reasonably be expected to be broken up into several smaller child topics. Dr. Abrahm Hoffer as far as I am concern is best known for his anti-aging Orthomolecular research that used niacin. Wrote on misdiagnosed senility but hardly had anything to do with serious psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia. Ergo, the Orthomolecular psychiatry article needs a major clean up. -- John Gohde (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  On the contrary, Hoffer is cited as a pioneer of orthomolecular psychiatry, for example here; I believe he is frequently cited within orthomolecular psychiatry^{(00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC))} for using megadoses of niacin to treat schizophrenia. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I worded that badly. The article may require cleanup and Hoffer may be in general better known for other things, but within the topic of orthomolecular psychiatry he was one of the major early experimenters, perhaps the most cited. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Checked PubMed and found references to 204 articles authored by Hoffer, including one published in 2008 on that very topic of using Niacin to treat schizophrenia. -- John Gohde (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Coppertwig. Brothejr (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the two articles are clearly distinct enough to be separate articles and that merging them would inevitably result in an overly lengthy article.Vitaminman (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the combined article is well under the size limit suggested by WP:SIZE. The "readable prose" is less than half as long as it could be before bumping against WP:SIZE. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure articles can be much longer if well structured. This one is not - it's over long, rambling and needs to be split up. Artw (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for RfC

• Proposed wording for RfC: (Version A) "Question: Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine? Please comment here. Notes: Please leave the page in the form of an article during the discussion. It is requested that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion after a reasonable period of time, for example 5 days after the posting of this RfC." (end of version A.)
  (Version B) "Question: Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine? (Versions before merge: psych med) Please comment here. Notes: During this discussion and while the page is protected as a redirect, article development can continue at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Temp. It is requested that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion after a reasonable period of time, for example 5 days after the posting of this RfC." (end of version B.)
  Version A may avoid complications with GFDL compliance from developing the article on a separate page, but I think it will require agreement of involved editors not to redirect the page during the discussion, and then agreement of the protecting administrator to unprotect the page. The intention is that responders to the RfC are encouraged to add their voices to this discussion already in progress. Comments are welcome on the proposed wording; if you don't like it, I would appreciate it if you would explain why and suggest alternative wording. I would also appreciate it if those editors who have redirected the page would state that they are willing to leave it in article form during the discussion, as is done during AfDs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I made this topic a new level-2 heading.

I would add to both versions an entreaty that involved editors (everyone who has recently commented here or at psych, or is otherwise not coming to the RfC with a reasonably fresh perspective) make their points above the section for new and uninvolved editors. The RfC guidelines stipulate this, but the in practice it is routinely ignored. Something along the lines of See previous section for ongoing discussion. Involved editors, please reserve this section for new editors with a fresh perspective.

We might as well be firm about closing it in five days (or whatever, though that sounds reasonable to me) to avoid future acrimony. Also, if we use a temp page it can be history-merged with the extant article; I am not an administrator, but I believe that it would be relatively easy in the case where all edits to the temp page are made after any edits to the main page. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the usual suspects, I see some new faces which could be moved there: Edison, DGG, Phil153, Artw, and Brotherj. II | (t - c) 18:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid disagreement and possible editwarring over moving of comments, I suggest it might be better not to move other editors' comments, especially if one is involved in the discussion. Moving of one's own comment might be appropriate for some editors. I was beginning to hesitate about posting the RfC since many comments have been received already, but I'm taking the above comments as encouragement that an RfC is not an unreasonable idea, and might post it in about 12 hours (allowing some time for further comments). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need uninvolved editors, since with the exception of me and maybe 1-2 others, the votes have aligned nearly entirely along a skeptic/quack proponent divide. I don't think we're getting a neutral view of things with current participants. Since there is clear consensus above for no merge (even if it just the CAM constabulary outweighing the skeptics), you could probaly ask the admin to revert the page to its pre redirect condition. Makes the RFC easier too. Phil153 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait are you a skeptic or a quack, Phil? ;-) Anyhow, I don't think that I've ever commented/contibuted to the Orthomolecular article, so my comments can be seen as "uninvolved". That said, I like and admire what Coppertwig is doing - as usual, he/she is ahead of the curve at keeping the peace. Thanks, Coppertwig. Personally, I think Version A is preferable, but I don't think that the difference is really all that important in the grand scheme of things. I look forward to commenting when the RfC has been posted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He said excepting himself. Phil153, if you wish to ask Ruslik0 (talk) to revert the page that's OK with me. If it remains protected I wonder whether a template could be placed at the top directing users to this discussion and/or to the temporary page, and what would be least confusing. If there is consensus for a change, we could request it with {{editprotected}} or by asking Ruslik0.

• Draft RfC (version B) is at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox3. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion stalled and no consensus for the merge has developed. However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge. Ruslik (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine?

Question: Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine? (Versions before merge: psych med) Notes: During this discussion and while the page is protected as a redirect, article development can continue at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Temp. It is requested that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion after a reasonable period of time, for example 5 days after the posting of this RfC.

Involved editors, please comment in the thread #Merge from Orthomolecular psychiatry above.

Comments from previously uninvolved editors

• Support the merge. I've examines the positions above and looked at both articles as they existed prior to the merge, and I have to agree with those who say there's no encyclopedic reason to have two articles here. The vast majority of the information that's suitable for one would have to by nature of the topic go onto the other. Two articles just doubles the work involved. The merged version also needs work. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Both have sufficient material to warrent articles in their own right. A merged article would be too long and confusing. Pychiatry and medicine are clearly different in their scope. Lumos3 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I personally would prefer the merge, I admit there is not consensus for it (I consider the above discussion as a part of this RFC). However, as even many opposers said, the Orthomolecular psychiatry requires major clean up. So I will unprotect the article and revert the redirect. Ruslik (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reverted as this RfC has not yet been closed and there is no compelling argument to undo the redirect and merge that has already taken place after previous discussion. Verbal chat 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The RFC was posted 7 days ago, and has attracted two contributors. How much longer do you need? In addition, the merge proposal shows clear consensus for no merge. I'd ask that you undo your reversion as being against consensus. I personally would like to see closely related fringe stuffed in one article too, but I can't make a good policy case for it and consensus isn't there. Best to move on and fix up the issues in both articles. Phil153 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The RfC should be closed by an uninvolved admin. Perhaps it should be relisted to engender more participation? Also, wikipedia and consensus doesn't go on votes but on arguments and what is best for the project. Verbal chat 11:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I thought I my was "an uninvolved admin" here. Ruslik (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Just to note that I haven't questioned your status. Verbal chat 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vitamin E and Shute

I added some information on Shute's high-dose vitamin E thing, which was reverted [11] by Keepcalmandcarryon for 1) removing a sentence and 2) original research based on primary studies. I'm not clear how either of these are going on.

• I removed a sentence, but it was an introductory sentence which was superflous to the next two which said the same thing: vitamin E supplements seem to increase mortality.
• I did add two "primary" references, but their coverage on the issue is secondary. The 1974 trial of high-dose vitamin E discussed Shute in the introduction, and the 1948 letter had an editorial response criticizing Shute. I also clarified that the epidemiology, and initial large clinical trials of vitamin E, were not related to orthomolecular medicine. They were mainstream studies based on the hope that vitamin E supplements could have a preventive effect. II | (t - c) 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the revert as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The original said, "Initial hopes for the usefulness of vitamin E in orthomolecular medicine were based on epidemiological studies suggesting that people who consumed more vitamin E had lower risks of chronic disease, such as coronary heart disease." II changed it to "As a lower-dose dietary supplement for deficiency rather than a high-dose treatment regime, initial consideration of vitamin E supplementation for preventing disease was based on epidemiological studies which suggested that people who consumed more vitamin E had lower risks of chronic disease, such as coronary heart disease." I don't see anything in the source (Traber) about "initial hopes" or "initial consideration"; maybe I missed it. I think a better summary of the source would be to quote or paraphrase the first sentence of the last or second-last paragraph of the source. At the moment I see no particular advantage of II's longer version of the sentence.

The original said, " Not only are no benefits apparent, meta-analyses also report that vitamin E supplementation is associated with increased death rates". Both versions have the following sentence with trivial differences: "A 2005 meta-analysis found that more than 400 units of alpha tocopherol per day was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality." I agree with II that the previous sentence was unnecessary in this context. Also, the "not only..." violates NPOV: it doesn't seem to me to be in an impartial tone, and asserts as fact something which contradicts the conclusions of the Traber reference. I therefore support deleting this sentence.

II also added the following: "In the 1940s, Vogelsang and the Shute brothers promoted the use of vitamin E in the high-dose range of 200-600 mg/day as a therapy for heart disease and other health problems, and established a center called the Shute Institute. They published uncontrolled positive studies of it as a treatment for heart disease, but high-dose vitamin E was called as "valueless" even in 1948, and the first negative double-blind controlled trial occured in 1950. In 1972 a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 3200 IU/day of vitamin E found no effect in 50 adults."

I agree with II that Anderson can act as a secondary source for some information about Vogelsang and the Shute brothers, and about a negative double-blind trial in 1950. I'm not convinced that everything II inserted is supported by the references; for example, I didn't find anything in Anderson about the Shute Institute, or about the 1950 negative trial being the first such; maybe I missed it. I don't have immediate convenient access to the Vogelsang reference so I'm not commenting on it for now at least. Apparently the 1972 trial referred to in II's edit is the main study described in the 1974 Anderson reference; if so, that's a primary source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic. Thank you for directly addressing my edit, Coppertwig. It was quite professional. On your points: 1) the advantage of my sentence (which could be edited) is that it clarifies that the later studies were not related to OMM. 2) the 1950 trial is the only one Anderson makes note of; however, perhaps it isn't the first. Easily fixed by removing first. 3) Vogelsang and Shute sign with "The Shute Center" in that 1948 letter. If it bothers you, that part can be removed. 4) Primary references are appropriate when dealing with a little-studied area. Unfortunately, since the people opposing the inclusion of the material don't seem willing to engage the arguments, I may have to look outside to WP:RS/N. II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the "not only". Here, evidence is presented that fringe claims are not simply overblown (that is, advertised wonder cures have no recognisable effect), but that they could lead to harm. Additional recent studies with similar findings could be cited in this section if editors question the prevalence of such findings. "Not only" serves to show the apparently widening evidence gap between fringe claims and medical research results...with the latter of course defining Wikipedia's NPOV on such matters. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not direct Wikipedia to unduly emphasize the difference between fringe and mainstream science. The mainstream context should be represented, I agree, but the facts should be stated, not opinions -- and the statement "there are no benefits to vitamin E" is an opinion which needs to be substantiated. Instead, all significant viewpoints should be stated neutrally -- and in a minority science article, that includes their opinions to some extent. By the way, how do you support removing "some nutrients might be beneficial" and the Altschul/Hoffer discovery of niacin increasing HDL in this edit? The former is clearly supported by the first reference, and the second is supported by a reference.II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The current statement that there are no apparent benefits from vitamin E supplements is not a verifiable fact and contradicts some of the sources. We may be able to report as fact that high-dose supplements increase mortality, but as far as low-dosage supplements are concerned we certainly cannot make any such definitive statement. Traber says "significantly lower risks of total and cause-specific mortality," and "although two studies did show such a reduction" and "However, 15 mg/d may be a vitamin E intake that is achieved only with supplements," Cherubini et al say "and observational data in humans suggest that antioxidant vitamin ingestion is associated with reduced cardiovascular disease," Miller et al (2005) [12] say "in secondary analyses ... the pooled risk difference for low-dosage vitamin E trials was -33 per 10,000 persons (p = 0.021) ... Further research is needed". Even the sources reporting negative results of meta-analyses do not tend to make such bold statements as this, but instead make more careful, hedged scientific statements, for example stating that a particular study or meta-analysis did not find evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's analyze your statements. First of all, your claims notwithstanding, there are no benefits from E supplements. Please show one reliable source that shows it does anything. See Dietrich M, Jacques PF, Pencina MJ; et al. (2008). "Vitamin E supplement use and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the Framingham Heart Study: Does the underlying health status play a role?". Atherosclerosis. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.12.019. PMID 19195657. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) for a very well done study that has difficulty determining if there are any effects, and can't even see if the reason that Vitamin produces positive results is because healthier individuals take them. Observational data is not very useful, and is not very scientific. See Sesso HD, Buring JE, Christen WG; et al. (2008). "Vitamins E and C in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in men: the Physicians' Health Study II randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 300 (18): 2123–33. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.600. PMID 18997197. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Now Vitamin E might do something else, but it hasn't been published. Modern data does NOT show anything positive from Vitamin E. And "further research is needed" is predictive, and frankly useless to this article. Science does not make hedged statements...only amateurs and agenda pushing creationists think it's nuanced. You take from their statements that there's an outside chance it could happen. It doesn't. It's just that science doesn't work in "truth". You should read Evolution as theory and fact. Vitamin E is nothing more than an oil that you probably need in small amounts. Coppertwig, your comments here are one of the reasons I find you supportive the anti-science crowd. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there are no heart benefits from taking a lot of vitamin E, although one can find anomalous studies -- the small CHAOS trial, and the 2006 NIH consensus statement notes that a women's trial had lower cardiovascular deaths (ref 18). However, the statement "there are no benefits" implies that there are not any type of benefits for any vitamin E supplementation, which the sources don't state. For example, vitamin E might be good for people with SIRS [13]. II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you said, "there are no benefits from E supplements." This talk page is for discussion of article content based on reliable sources, not for expressing one's personal POV about the topic itself.^{(14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC))} I may be misinterpreting what you said, but you seem to be under the impression that I've claimed that vitamin E supplements have benefits. I don't think I've made such a claim in this discussion. My claim is that a sentence in the article contradicts what is said in some of the sources, which I've already quoted. I think this sentence needs to be deleted or replaced with something else. Perhaps someone can come up with some good wording. I might come up with a suggestion later, something that more accurately and precisely reflects what the sources say. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where the fuck did I employ original research? I see a couple of outstanding citations to support the Vitamin E POV pushing of yours. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that you had done original research. I was just commenting on your statement that "there are no benefits from E supplements." I may have been mistaken: perhaps your statement was related to article content after all: are you claiming that the sources support this statement? I don't think they do. A "study that has difficulty determining if there are any effects, and can't even see if the reason that Vitamin produces positive results is because healthier individuals take them" is not a study supporting a definitive statement that there are no benefits. We need to make a more nuanced statement, more similar to what's stated in the sources, or similar to what I just quoted you saying about that study, but with a bit more formal wording to replace "can't even see if"; perhaps "cannot determine whether". I'm sorry, I haven't had time to look at that source yet. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For a dissenting opinion on vitamin E, see:

• Traber MG, Frei B, Beckman JS (2008). "Vitamin E revisited: do new data validate benefits for chronic disease prevention?". Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 19 (1): 30–8. doi:10.1097/MOL.0b013e3282f2dab6. PMID 18196984. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'll let you guys read over that before I cite it. Email me if you need a copy. Also, the meta-analyses on increased mortality are poorly-cited here. In the paper, the author clearly says that his findings are not generalizable to the normal adult population (yet), and that lower doses still substantially above the RDA (100 IU) seem to decrease mortality. If this isn't fixed, or no explanation is provided for why it is not fixed, I will have to fix it. II | (t - c) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Non refereed journal with a publication from Linus Pauling Institute nutjobs. Fails WP:MEDRS. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the Official Count?

Well five days has long since passed. I count 13 opposed votes versus 6 supporting votes. That means that the bogus redirect has been properly determined to have been improper. When may I expect Wikipedia to officially remove the bogus redirect?

Is that NEVER or am I missing something? -- John Gohde (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, it is not about voting, but quality of arguments. Verbal chat 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In any normal merge discussion that would be a rejection of the proposed merge – I see no reason why this should be different. Artw (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The result of the RfC so far is 1:1, with the oppose being demonstrably false; The merge has already happened and the article is better for it. Verbal chat 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was railroaded through. That's why we're having this discussion. Artw (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any great rationales for merger amongst the supports, either. Artw (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As Verbal stated, the RfC stands at 1:1, with the opposing editor apparently having not read the merged article. Interestingly, that same "uninvolved" opposing editor is now edit warring to introduce synthesised conclusions into the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...as opposed to DreamGuy, who is a strong supporter of ScienceApologist. I'd say the RfC pretty much failed to get much in the way of outside opinion Artw (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SA has science on his side. You CAMmies have no science. Case closed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And by CAMmie you mean...? Artw (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, not an Alternative Medicine fan as it happens. That you feel the need to make that assumption and your repeated insistence on splitting things along partisan lines, in this and other articles, is indicative that something pretty grim is happening around Wikipedia at the moment, IMHO. Artw (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stay focused on improving the article and not dismissing somebodies opinion(s) because they are a "strong supporter" or whatever. Shot info (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thouroughly seconded. We need to look at the comments as a whole, not divide them up into "involved" and "univolved" on arbitary lines. Artw (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)