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)