Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 30

False definition

"Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective."

Alternative Medicine is simply referred to those treatments not in the mainstream of allopathic medicine. Traditional Chinese Medicine, for example, has been tested for thousands of years and clinically proven effective for centuries. The medical system has its complex anatomy and biological knowledge ahead of our time that scientists still yet to discover. It has the wisdom to treat a person as whole in a "natural" way, which means treating the core issues or the cause of the disease by looking into every aspect of mind and body possible, treating the often untreatable by "medical science", and not relying on long-term prescription drugs that covers the symptoms but cause side-effects. That's why millions of people turn to "Alternative Medicine" for different options of treatment that could be more effective in treating pain or chronical disease, for example. Not only it's clinically proven effective, but when allopathy medicine is not able to do no harm or without drugs. 67.174.218.173 (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A very experienced wiki editor once said to me that you only need three things to edit wikipedia successfully. Sources, sources and sources. That's what you need, because we wont take the word of a stranger on the internet as evidence. See WP:RS. and for this topic, WP:MEDRS. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually the anon's first sentence was spot-on, but it went downhill from there. The simplest definition of alternative medicine is any practice not in the mainstream of science-based modern medicine. That includes practices that lack plausibility, are untested, untestable, or ineffective, but doesn't mean that all such practices suffer from those faults.

There are examples of practices once considered "alternative" that are now accepted as effective for certain things. For example, acupuncture can be effective in treating certain specific conditions, and some herbal remedies are recognized as effective in specific cases (e.g. ginger for motion sickness).

That lead sentence is not only unsourced, but violates WP:LEAD in that it does not correctly summarize what the body of the article says. In fact, the body of the article goes to some length on that, saying instead that "alternative medicine" includes practices in which effectiveness hasn't been established scientifically, or that the theory and practice isn't part of biomedicine, in addition to practices that blatantly contradict evidence and scientific principles.

The lead sentence needs to be rewritten to bring it into compliance with WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The topic of this article is really broad and the definition should be defined that way in the lead and the body, using the best sources available (not Skeptic's dictionaries and what not). Right now, the article has logical inconsistencies that will inevitably confuse the reader. "Alternative medicine can never be effective in treating anything. Except when it is effective. But then it wouldn't be alternative. But it is alternative. And alternative medicine can never be effective in treating anything..." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad summary, but I'll give you points for trying. -- Valjean (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: If I read about Spinal Manipulation Therapy on Wikipedia, I'll find out that it's an Alternative Medicine AND that most studies suggest [spinal manipulation] achieves equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions. But if I read about alternative medicine, I'll learn that anything classified as alternative medicine by definition does not have a healing or medical effect. You see the logical inconsistency? What part of this is a "bad summary?" Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is getting into FORUM territory, so feel free to use my talk page. I will leave this clarification: We do not have an article about Spinal Manipulation Therapy at Wikipedia, and our Spinal manipulation article says "spinal manipulation was no more effective than other commonly used therapies". We also have a related article about Spinal adjustment, which is the AM variant practiced by chiropractors. It encompasses spinal manipulation and a whole host of other weird practices, some where the body is hardly even touched and the hands are not used, in favor of various mechanical and/or electric gizmos. The claims also range from the somewhat sensible to the esoteric religious "cure all" type. FYI, I am professionally trained and certified in manual therapies, including joint manipulation and spinal manipulation techniques. -- Valjean (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is a false definition. Integrative Medicine redirects here and is an approved board certification under the American Board of Physician Specialties Integrative Medicine Board Certification | ABPS (abpsus.org) Integrative Medicine focuses on the whole person, with decisions about prevention and treatment made based on medical evidence. It also makes use of all appropriate therapeutic approaches, healthcare modalities, and disciplines to achieve optimal health and healing.What Is the ABOIM? | ABPS (abpsus.org) I'm very new to editing Wikipedia but have loved it for a long time and have never had an article make me so upset as this article makes me. I wish I knew how to make the changes I think it needs but I'm hoping this is the first step. I think this article should be flagged as controversial. What if the main title for the article is Integrative Medicine and alternative medicine is just a subsection? FloresTindall (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Flores, I can understand your frustration. This is a broad topic. CAM and Integrative Medicine (IM) are explained near the top. They ARE alternative medicine (AM) (exact same), but when it is used "along with" effective mainstream medicine.

Used alone, AM is not proven effective. For cancer, Norwegian research showed that using AM together with mainstream medicine produced worse outcomes. Search the article for Norwegian or Norway and read the source.

That's why the redirects point here. AM, CAM, and IM are all explained here.

Any change to the lead should be discussed here first. When a consensus for change is reached, then it will happen. -- Valjean (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I am faculty at a family medicine residency and the integrative medicine curriculum director and I disagree with you that "CAM and Integrative Medicine...ARE alternative medicine (exact same)" The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health also disagrees as evidenced by their article Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name? | NCCIH (nih.gov) which clearly explains the differences. I have written their Press Office to inform them of the false definition and inaccurate portrayal on Wikipedia with the ask that they help to advocate for changes to this page. I think the best title would be Integrative Health, and if it is necessary to keep Alternative Medicine as the title, then I think we need to separate them and make Integrative Health its own page. The NCCIH writes that "Integrative health brings conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are two or more interventions such as conventional medicine, lifestyle changes, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy, and complementary health approaches in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than, for example, one organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different providers and institutions by bringing conventional and complementary approaches together to care for the whole person." Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name? | NCCIH (nih.gov) It is interesting that Lifestyle Medicine is a separate wikipedia page that is portrayed in a positive light when lifestyle medicine is a key foundational component of integrative health (see definition above) but is not referenced on this page at all. Your one example of an article where a type of AM produced worse outcomes does not mean that AM as a whole is not proven effective. There are many components to AM, CAM, IM and each individual modality has its own evidence, some with better evidence than others, but you can't throw out all as being ineffective when many modalities have robust evidence supporting them. FloresTindall (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@FloresTindall: Wikipedia has WP:RULES. Our rules might not be to your liking. E.g. NCCIH is widely considered a dubious source around here, i.e. it is seen as a pro-quackery apologetics organization. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I read the WP:RULES you reference and I don't see why NCCIH is considered a "dubious source" or how it is appropriate to call a government agency a "pro-quackery apologetics organization." Your statement clearly has a lot of bias which is something I thought was something Wikipedia tries to avoid. The University of Arizona defines "Integrative Medicine (IM) is healing-oriented medicine that takes account of the whole person, including all aspects of lifestyle. It emphasizes the therapeutic relationship between practitioner and patient, is informed by evidence, and makes use of all appropriate therapies." What is Integrative Medicine?: Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine (arizona.edu) Is that a source you consider credible? Or maybe Mayo Clinic Integrative medicine - Mayo Clinic Mayo Clinic Minute: What is integrative health and how can it help? - Mayo Clinic News Network FloresTindall (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Served with WP:GOODBIAS at your own talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The NCCIH was originally the OAM (Office of Alternative Medicine) under the NIH. That wasn't the NIH's idea, it was set up by a US Senator who was a fan of chiropractic (the 'cure any disease with manipulations' kind). The only reason that it is a separate from the NIH now is that when the NIH director tried to hold them to basic scientific standards the same senator got upset and spun them out to be independent (and thus not answerable to anyone but Congress, which in practice means not answerable to anyone). Given the history it should not be surprising that they aren't regarded as a reliable source, and just because a government puts a stamp of approval on something doesn't mean that it works - after all, India has a government agency that says putting coconut oil in your nose will help prevent COVID infection. MrOllie (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

FloresTindall, let me bring you up to speed with some important things you need to know:

1. Please read the Definitions and terminology section, where we discuss Complementary or integrative medicine and the Challenges in defining alternative medicine. It's a huge topic, so we attack it from many angles, and some may contradict each other. That's because various RS do so. Content is not based on the opinions of editors, even though we may express them on the talk page. When editing we leave that behind. Content is based on a wide variety of RS.
2. Integrative Medicine used to be a separate article, but the community decided it was better to integrate it here. It was never a large article, and only a community consensus would allow it to be started up again as a separate article. The same applies to Complementary medicine.
3. Please avoid any argument from authority. We do not regard some editors as better than others just because of their educational status. I have two medical educations and my wife has three, but even an uneducated, medically ignorant, editor who abides by our WP:PAG has just as many rights as I enjoy. The same applies to the many MDs and PhDs who edit this article. For example, we had to block a Nobel Prize winner because he would not follow our rules. That was sad, but we had to do it. He insisted that his greater knowledge (than maybe anyone else on Earth!) gave him the right to not depend on independent RS. Nope. That's not how we roll here. We have many physicians, researchers, Nobel laureates, Presidents of national medical societies, and other extremely qualified people working here, and most do so using pseudonyms for very good reasons. The internet is a dangerous place, and Wikipedia's open environment makes editors vulnerable to real life problems and professional embarrassment. I, for one, will do all I can to protect your real-life identity, but you must also be careful to not divulge anything. This article is currently watched by 801 editors, and many are professionals who know the subject, literature, research, history, and controversies. This talk page is where we civilly discuss our differences, and believe me, we do have them!
4. All aspects of the subject must be covered, including opinions and criticism. That means that non-neutral words and POV from RS are used. It is only editors who must be neutral, not sources or content. I have written an essay about how we deal with biased sources and NPOV: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It may help you understand this confusing topic. How can Wikipedia be neutral and yet have biased wordings and content? That's partially because around here "neutral" doesn't have the exact same meaning as elsewhere.
5. Wikipedia's medical articles have a higher standard for medical information sourcing than the sourcing standards for other articles. That's because that type of information must also meet the high bar of WP:MEDRS. That means we normally can't cite single studies but must cite reviews and meta-analyses of many good quality studies. This prevents editors from cherry-picking and violating our rules about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That also means we have higher standards than even the best medical journals, and we include far more than just the normal medical and scientific facts they include; we include all aspects of the subject, and historical and popular sources that are not governed by MEDRS can be used for such information. Our medical articles are now so good that most physicians use Wikipedia as their first source for medical information, and, done properly, that's okay. (That's a big caveat there! There are also cautions to observe.) Check out the articles found here.
6. We prefer that most content is from secondary and tertiary sources, not primary sources, although that is allowed in certain situations. It is the coverage in those secondary sources that tells us how much WP:Due weight to give a piece of information.

Enough for now. Feel free to use my talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

While a lot of this is difficult to understand I think I got the overall message. How does Wikipedia deal with articles that are subscription only access?

This article is Peer-reviewed and published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine where they used a systematic process to develop a definition of Integrative Health. Is this something we would be able to reference in some form here?

Defining Health in a Comprehensive Context: A New Definition of Integrative Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2017-07-01, Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages 134-137, Copyright © 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine FloresTindall (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On your first question, see WP:PAYWALL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can use it in spite of the paywall. (Please provide the exact wording below so we can turn it into a usable reference.) We will often provide such information as an attributed self-definition, whether or not it is objective, self-promotional, or outright pushes nonsense or quackery. (I am only speaking of general principles, not accusing the AJPM of such a thing.) That does not mean it will become the definition used in the WP:LEAD of this article, as the LEAD is a summary of the whole article, so definitions there are often a summary of lots of content and multiple definitions found in the body of the article. As such, it does not have to be limited to a definition provided by the organization. (As for AM, there is no "organization" to make such a definition.) That's why the heading for this thread is misleading and misses the point. A summary definition is just a summary, not a "false definition". The lead summarizes AM, not just IM or CAM. -- Valjean (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove unprofessional words/provocative language

This isn't a forum for your opinions (WP:NOTFORUM)

Many GP use homoeopathic remedies in their day today practice. They are finding integrating remedies is beneficial to the patient and NHS in many ways. Some are even taking up courses to use more homoeopathic remedies because they see the effectiveness when correctly prescribed.There must be something in this system for sure which has not been updated. It is high time we give this science it’s due respect and stop using provocative language like pseudo, quackery, . Using such words is unprofessional and insulting to scientific minds.I request to confirm facts from right sources not on individual opinions for the better of humanity 86.190.168.98 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC) PLease provide proper sources for your claims. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary for acronym sCAM

This existing article citation here which links to the Skepdic's Dictionary as a source for an acronym is unencyclopedic and warrants removal. The other source doesn't mention the acronym "sCAM" in the section that is accessible to review via the linked url. If it does actually appear in the text of the full article, a quote as part of the citation would be a wise beginning. The sentence describing this acronym is WP:UNDUE. Cedar777 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Cedar777, thank you for starting this thread. The Skeptic's Dictionary is a good source for alternative medicine and other pseudoscience topics, and one sentence can hardly be "undue" as NPOV/balance requires the skeptical POV must be mentioned. The very first sentence in the second source (Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy) says: "In recent years so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) practices..."

Here's our long-standing current version:

"It has also been called sCAM or SCAM with the addition of "so-called" or "supplements".

I suspect that someone has added a bit to that over the years, as I don't see "supplements" in the source, and without a RS that should be removed. I have often seen sCAM and SCAM with that word used to explain it by people who don't know the origins of sCAM. (Neither Carroll nor Ernst are the originators.) The original version is "so-Called Alternative Medicine (sCAM)", but the source for that version is not reliable enough for use here.

What about this version, with an added descriptive source and the sources in the right spots?

"The phrase CAM has been described as "so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)", while The Skeptic's Dictionary adds their skeptical touch to the acronym: "sCAM: so-called Complementary & Alternative Medicine", directly alluding to the word scam to describe the skepticism toward CAM from mainstream medicine because of the "lack of scientific rigor of 'complementary' treatments".

Other sources which refer to the book by Edzard Ernst: [1][2] -- Valjean (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Harold the Sheep, in your edit summary you reveal a negative attitude toward "non-neutral sources". As an editor at Wikipedia, especially with the clear wordings in NPOV about source neutrality, where on earth do you get such an attitude and why should it have anything to do with edits? You should know better. -- Valjean (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The word “non-neutral” isn’t essential to the point being made. It was an allusion to your comment to Cedar777. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Harold the Sheep is right. It's quite a stretch to say that something "has been described as" because one guy called it that in his book and on his self-published blog. These sources are not good or numerous, so what's the point other than to add one more little "gotcha!" to an article that already reads like a public service announcement? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ernst isn't just "one guy", but the first professor of CAM in the world and a renowned subject matter expert. It's rare to have a science-based expert dealing with the controversial border issues between fringe medicine and mainstream medicine in an academic setting, one who possesses a background and personal experience from both worlds. NPOV and balance means we include both sides of the story, and this provides the mainstream side. We are a mainstream encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, Valjean, sorry. Are you saying this article is one-sided in favor of alternative medicine? Are you also saying that this one guy (he's still just one guy) gets to plug his book, because he's a a professor who came up with a cute acronym? What you're suggesting is that IN WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE, we write that all of CAM is also referred to as SCAM. Is it? Who is calling it that? This one guy called it that? Oh, but he speaks for all of "mainstream science". He does? Who said he does? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

He did not come up with the acronym, and we aren't saying it in wikivoice. We are attributing it to the sources (plural) and anyone can see who wrote about it, which is more than Edzard Ernst. We're also citing Harriet Hall, who is also a subject matter expert. We can always name them if you feel that would be better, and the wording can be tweaked. Try to improve it per WP:PRESERVE. We are supposed to try to improve and keep long-standing content. -- Valjean (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

While a self-described "irreverent" guide may be entertaining to some readers, it does not reflect the kind of sourcing warranted here. A few web blogs use the acronym sCAM or SCAM for derogatory criticism only. That acronym is nowhere close to being in widespread usage. A more globally relevant source defining the common terminology is the World Health Organization (WHO), which reviewed 150+ member states in their 2019 report on Traditional and Complementary Medicine. In the 2019 study's glossary, the acronym CAM is defined as "The terms “complementary medicine” and “alternative medicine” refer to a broad set of health care practices that are not part of that country’s own traditional or conventional medicine and are not fully integrated into the dominant health care system. They are used interchangeably with traditional medicine in some countries."

In the report Legal Status of Traditional Medicine and Complementary/Alternative Medicine: A Worldwide Review from 2001 w/ 120+ member states, WHO defines Complementary/Alternative medicine as

The terms “complementary medicine” and “alternative medicine” are used interchangeably with “traditional medicine” in some countries. Complementary/alternative medicine often refers to traditional medicine that is practised in a country but is not part of the country’s own traditions. As the terms “complementary” and “alternative” suggest, they are sometimes used to refer to health care that is considered supplementary to allopathic medicine. However, this can be misleading. In some countries, the legal standing of complementary/alternative medicine is equivalent to that of allopathic medicine, many practitioners are certified in both complementary/alternative medicine and allopathic medicine, and the primary care provider for many patients is a complementary/alternative practitioner.

Practicies and laws vary considerably accross the globe. For the UK, the 2001 report says the country has "public-sector hospitals for complementary/alternative medicine" and the 2019 report states that "traditional and complementary medicine is integrated into the national health policy". The 2019 report also states that herbal medicines are sold with medical claims in Germany, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, and Australia among others. Four countires (India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka) offer a degree in Ayurveda, a practice that is "well integrated into the national health care system and recognized by the government of India".

This article currently devotes only a tiny space to covering what CAM is, what its forms are, where its practiced, if its growing, and how it's regulated around the world. If CAM and/or integrated medicine was a seperate article page with the space to cover the topic in depth, including a breakdown of the range of its forms along with summaries of the evolving legal and regulatory status of these forms throughout the world, then including the perspective of specific American skeptics and critics might be DUE. However, it is clearly an opinion position and should be framed as such, i.e. "Robert T. Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, and Mark Crislip an infectious disease doctor and alterntive medicine critic/blogger/podcaster strenously reject integrating alternative medicine into mainstream medicine and refer to CAM as SCAM."

The other source from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy that had appeared alongside the Skeptics Dictionary, does not use anything other than CAM for an acronym. It just doesn't link up the letters. Implying that it does is SYNTH. Cedar777 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with your point that a separate article for CAM might be warranted but it has been rejected in favor of a redirect to this page where it is mentioned but not in the in-depth manner the subject deserves. That doesn't mean you can't move the consensus toward accepting it. Why not start a draft in your userspace at User:Cedar777/CAM_draft? Develop it there and then propose it here? -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

To avoid edit warring, let's discuss this removal

My removal of content in this diff, was reverted by Roxy_the_Dog. The reason for that removal was that you have three quotes saying the almost exact same thing: "if it worked it would just be "medicine". I removed the two quotes that were not from people in the medical field (an entertainer, and a journalist), and retained the one by the doctor. That seems reasonable to me, but clearly Roxy feels differently. I'd love to hear why three almost word-for-word quotes belong next to each other, two of which are medical statements made by lay people help the article, when the one quote by the doctor would be plenty sufficient to make the point. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, I agree that Angell is one of the more qualified here. I read Angell's interview transcript from PBS yesterday and found that she had far more insightful things to contribute than her existing quote on the Alternative Medicine page where it is 1 of 4 quotes repeating nearly the same thing. If her image is being used as the face of something, it logically follows that her expertise is represented at some length, preferably paraphrased. Angell also elaborated on the sociological and psychological aspects of CAM, something that a quality article would address, preferably sourced to peer-reviewed journals. Minchin is an entertainer, not a subject matter expert in medicine. There is no need to cite a 10 minute YouTube video of a rant and call it a high quality source. It simply isn't one. Cedar777 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho, this is not a real "medical field", and there is no requirement that we only use content from medical sources or medical authorities. It's a pseudoscientific field pretending to be medicine. If this were a strictly medical subject, the sourcing requirements would be higher, but this is a topic covered by WP:PARITY, and commentary from all types of RS is allowed because mainstream authorities rarely comment on these things. Read that and you'll see that other types of sources are expressly allowed for this type of subject. Minchin comes from a medical family and is known for his insightful commentary as a popular comic who deals with serious issues, hence accuracy is important. The reason his quote is notable is that he summarizes the issues in a more succinct manner than anyone else and in a way they do not do. Using only the "doctor" source leaves the impression of a lone critic, but using several different types of critics leaves the right impression. The scientific skeptic community deserves representation as they are the main critics of AM.

I definitely agree about Angell. She has had an illustrious and highly-respected career. Her NEJM article is spot on. Fontanarosa and Lundberg share her views. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

leaves the right impression The right impression according to who? You? Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration. Others have agreed with me, and others have agreed with you on this matter. Your comment assumes that your opinion on how an article should be written (not the subject itself) is the only correct opinion. But several editors disagree with you. Just as several disagree with me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

And a link relevant to the general discussion: transcript of "lyrics" for Minchin's YouTube video. The gist of it (for those who don't want to sit through a 10 minute video rant or read the transcript) is that Minchin is really, really, really irritated by a female guest at a dinner party and decides to go a tirade. (His wife and the female host aren't thrilled to see him struggle and fail to contain his emotional outburst.) Other comments from the Minchin video where he addresses this woman include: "here's what gives me a hard-on" and "sharing curries and getting shitty at good-looking hippies with fairies on their spines and butterflies on their titties". Gee, why leave these gems on the cutting room floor?

Describing Angel as having an "illustrious and highly-respected career" doesn't match the action of using her face of respectability as an article image for a series of repetitive quotes that are ultimately capped off with Minchin. At least display Angel's mind at some length along with her image. Minchin's video belongs on his own page, not here. Cedar777 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean named the alternative: the impression of a lone critic. Valjean is right: this reasoning is very common, and having it once could give the wrong impression that it is not. You seem to be saying that you and the others who have agreed with you want to leave that wrong impression because you think it is not wrong.

Minchin has been pretty influential: I'd say that reasoning was invented by him, at least in this form. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Tim Minchin, by his own admission, is an insignificant, ignorant bit of carbon who gives himself a hard-on by vomiting his bile over dinner guests. While I admire his honesty and certainly agree with his assessment of himself, I'd say the 'reasoning' invented by him in this onanistic rant is not something that has any place in an encyclopedia article on alternative medicine. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing Minchin. I'd be more likely to support inclusion if there were other RS that quote him on it. I'm glad we have PARITY, but we have better sources available and more authoritative voices to highlight. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I also support the removal of Tim Minchin's views. It's a primary source (even if a 'viral video') given no additional weight. There are surely scores of better sources, scholarly and otherwise. The view that because alternative medicine is is not a 'strictly medical' topic we should lower standards is fallacious. As a comparison, comedian Ricky Gervais is a noted atheist, and a good deal of his material pokes fun at Biblical stories. It would be quite silly however to cite one of his stand-up specials in Noah's Ark on the grounds that "since scientists haven't found it yet, we can pretend to not be a serious encyclopedia." --Animalparty! (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Proof Homoeopathy is not pseudoscience

Proof 19 million users in authentic Homoeopathy alone Post graduate courses in Uk enrolls many GPs in homoeopathic course, No updates based on latest reasearch articles

This is not personal opinion , but bringing to notice facts to preserve authenticity of Wikipedia. 86.190.168.98 (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That isn’t proof. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

bruh lol Python Drink (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Honey for Coughing - Clinical Evidence? Folk Remedy? Alternative Medicine? All of the above?

There is clinical evidence that honey is an effective treatment for coughing, indeed perhaps more effective than some OTC drugs. See e.g. this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264806/ (which itself cites numerous other articles). Honey is also a folk remedy for coughing, has been for a long time. The article on folk remedies is part of the 'alternative medicine' series, the alternative medicine article describes these as 'lacking biological plausibility, testability, repeatability, or evidence from clinical trials'. It is misleading to say all folk remedies fall into these categories. Clearly, the reason you cannot buy honey as a medicine, is because there would be no money in it! I think the way things are presented is an oversimplication, and misleading. 83.252.72.30 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This is already covered in the Honey article here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to reconsider Integrative Medicine/Integrative Health having its own page

Hi, All. I'm back. In March, I came here to make the case that Integrative Medicine and Integrative Health is NOT the same thing, nor a re-branding, of Alternative Medicine. I ran out of time because I teach at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania and (and also just finished teaching a course at SPWS in Warsaw, which is why I am coming back in June instead of May). (Someone asked what do I teach, and I teach a variety of courses including Business Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Business Data Management and Information Systems, Project Management, Small Business Management, and many others. I've been teaching at Kutztown for 18 years, and before that had been involved in 4 entrepreneurial startups [two successful, two not-so-much] and a Vice President for two Fortune 500 Financial Firms (MBNA and First USA, now Bank of America and Chase).

While I'm not a medical doctor, I have been involved in Integrative Health and in doing Health Economics Research for many years. I also was in a very bad car accident twenty years ago that forced me to pay attention to integrative medicine since modern western medicine did not have an answer for the type of severe back pain that resulted from the injuries of the accident. Integrative Medicine helped - a lot. That does not make me biased, however, because I am at heart a scientist, and I looked for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that my situation was not a fluke or a one-off. In 2002 there was very little research on Integrative Medicine. In 2012 when I looked there wasn't too much more. But for the past ten years the amount of research has been building. The research indicates that Integrative Health practices and Integrative Medicine is an effective branch of modern western medicine (despite having its foundations in ancient practices of other cultures). It is my goal to introduce the editors of Wikipedia to that research so that they can understand why it is so important to enable Integrative Medicine to stop being redirected to Alternative Medicine and instead allow it to be a page on its own.

I am a college professor, not a full time Wikipedia editor, so I ask for forgiveness in advance for not knowing all the rules. I've tried to read all the guidelines, but I'm never sure when I'm doing things right, so I ask for your help and support in the logistics of my quest.

It was suggested that I create a first draft for Integrative Medicine (and the redirected Integrative Health) on my own talk page, so that is what I will be doing. I hope to finish it within the next week. In the meantime, feel free to look at the draft I've been working on and provide me with any help/support/suggestions that you would like.

CJ (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. I observe that User:Cjrhoads/Draft Integrative Medicine has no content, so it seems a bit premature to announce it here. Whatever you write there, be sure that any medical claims cite sources that are compliant with WP:MEDRS. That is a pretty high hurdle. It isn't enough to cite individual research studies; the sources need to be surveys of such studies. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that I would have used the word "review" instead of "survey" in Anachronist's post above. It has a specific meaning, yes? I look forward with interest to research that indicates that Integrative Health practices and Integrative Medicine is an effective branch of modern western medicine. I do wonder why the research of the last ten years hasn't surfaced on wikipedia yet, given the amount of retrophrenologists, homeopaths, acupuncturists and urine therapists we get around here, all plugging their woo of choice. Sorry for the rant, but sheesh. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

First - many apologies to all. I was working on my own talk page, not the page you had set up for me. (I'm not very well versed in getting all the details of how Wikipedia works, but I'm doing my best and learning fast. I'd love for you to help me with that part of it)

I now have put the first draft (which is actually my 4th draft, but you didn't see the others) in the right place (I think). User:Cjrhoads/Draft_Integrative_Medicine.

Second - I will review WP:MEDRS and fix whatever doesn't fit. I actually haven't gotten to the actual systematic reviews of the evidence of efficacy yet - I'm still working on that part. For now I just posted links to other sources of information about the systematic reviews and other studies. I would say I've only done about 25% of what I plan to post. But I'd like to get some help and suggestions as I go along instead of waiting until its finished.

Third = please try and keep an open mind. I know that you've been fighting against the "woo of choice" for a very long time. It hasn't been easy for centers for Integrative Medicine to separate the wheat from the chaffe (i.e. valuable therapies that are just now being taught in western medical schools being the wheat, and quackery being the chaffe). But that's where we need to look at the actual research and not rely upon what you may THINK you knew. For example, there is lots of research that shows that acupunture has beneficial effects, so that's integrative medicine. Retrophrenologists and homeopaths and urine therapists and whatever else you may mention has not made the cut, so you need to separate out those. In the last twenty years there's been a concerted effort to figure out what really works, and what doesn't. So please don't diss something until you've read the research on it. :-> CJ (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

CJ, I'll respond to this in more detail when you've started to give us some WP:MEDRS sources, particularly the ones on Acupuncture, but in the meantime please note that if my mind was more open, it would be dribbling out of the holes in my ears !!! - Roxy the bad tempered dog 05:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Cjrhoads/Draft Integrative Medicine

@Valjean: I'd like your help on improving this page

@Roxy the dog: I'd like your help on improving this page

@Anachronist: I'd like your help on improving this page

Removal of navbox pages

@AndyTheGrump @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I would like to propose the removal of Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from the alternative medicine navboxes for the same reason as was given aspartame in this discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually removed GMO before I saw this [3], and my stated reason applies for those others too (unless I missed something with ctrl-f), see also #2 in the numbered list at WP:SIDEBAR. To me however, removing the vaccine ones seems wrong anyway. We'll see if there's more opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand: you say "I actually removed GMO ... and my stated reason applies for those others too" but then you also say "To me however, removing the vaccine ones seems wrong anyway.". This seems like the opposite in each sentence. Which position do you apply? Altanner1991 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable that the vaccine articles stay in the sidebar anyway since the connection to Vaccine hesitancy is strong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a very good approach, thank you so much. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I WP:APPNOTEd Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar (it's what we're discussing, right?), we may just as well have the discussion here, probably more people watching. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Natural course of disease ≠ regression to the mean

In the first sentence of paragraph 3, the phrase “Natural course of disease” is linked to the article for “regression to the mean”. I don’t think these topics are at all related as an individual’s health is not a sampling of a random variable, and additionally it is confusing to link to an article with a title much different than the hyperlink text. I would suggest changing this link to point somewhere else, such as Natural history of disease or Acute (medicine). Also don’t think I’ve ever left a talk post so hopefully this is an acceptable way to use this tool! ♭e ♫ (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

An absolutely proper use of the talk page, and an interesting question, thank you.

This is an off the cuff response, so may be a little rough around the edges, but I'm pretty sure anything I get wrong will be corrected by somebody. The thing is that health outcomes are mostly assessed by the outcomes of a population, rather than individual results. Take the example of "a nasty bruise" and how the course of the same injury may vary in different people. At first it'll hurt, then discolour a bit, turn red, purple, blue and even black in various degrees, and gradually change back through those colours over a period of time. All those effects will vary depending on the individual, and the degree of seriousness of the injury, but sooner or later, things get back to normal. That is the point - the return to normalcy, (the mean), eventually happens without intervention.

Proponents of Alt-Med often point to their intervention as effective demonstration of their woo of choice when all that has happened is a natural recovery, and in discussion this is often countered by the mention of "regression to mean" and what that entails.

Of course, I wrote all the above before looking at the article, and perhaps the link to the article is a little too much, as the article deals with the major statistical meaning. Lets see if anybody else wants to comment, yes? - Roxy the English speaking dog 07:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses." - Scott H. Sicherer, Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 1999 Nov;10(4) 226-234

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this probably doesn't need any wikilink at all. The general idea that many diseases resolve naturally, without intervention, isn't terribly complex or implausible. (The wording of the article text might be tweaked for clarity, I suppose—the parenthetical bit seems to exist principally to provide a place to put the wikilink.)

Regression to the mean is an inappropriate target, certainly; as noted, that article is about sampling outliers, not variables whose values genuinely change over time. (If I had COVID and a fever of 40°C degrees last week, and my temperature drops back to 37°C today, my temperature measurement last week wasn't an outlier due to an imprecise thermometer or sloppy measurement. My fever going away was not a regression towards the mean; I just got better.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Updating and Improving Alternative Medicine Article so it is not rated as C-Class

Th article Alternative Medicine is rated C Class by Wikipedia. The article needs updating to reflect current literature or reliably sourced perspectives and should become more neutral. The article and the Series needs to distinguish between health practice, medical practice, and medical science. In many cases, the article does not describe the topics as the contemporary practitioners themselves but rather jumps directly to derogatory or pejorative descriptions.

Note that Wikipedia:Quotations policy allows useful short quotations subject to Fair Use criterion when it improves an article.

One example is the article on the National Institute of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) which is called an agency which it is not. The article does not correctly describe the historical progression from starting as an Office and becoming a Center and then being renamed by Congress. The article and Alternative medicine do not reflect the current mission or definitions adopted by the NCCIH. For example under NCCIH Classification, it poorly and non-neutrally presents a 1999 formulation. In 1999 the name was National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Congress changed the name to NCCIH and Mission in 2014.

Since editing the Alternative Medicine Series is so contentious, a better mechanism is needed for achieving consensus on changes that would get the article to at least a B-Class rating Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria

Bbachrac (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Major revisions are going to be resisted, so best to take it one edit at a time. Suggest a particular change you'd like to make, explain it, back it up, and build a consensus here on the Talk Page. You are also welcome to be WP:BOLD and make an edit. Just be prepared to come back here and start a discussion if it's reverted. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper Thanks for your comment. The problem as I see it is even if consensus is achieved on this Talk Page, the Alternative Medicine Series Guardians will undo any attempt at revision. Then what? Bbachrac (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If the changes get reverted, you didn't actually have a consensus. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie Yes, then the attempts at editing becomes a non-convergent series of attempted editing. There is actually no mechanism or process for closure on consensus.Bbachrac (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure there is, WP:DR, particularly WP:RFC. I don't recommend you start one here, though. Consensus is pretty firmly against creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE in a false attempt at neutrality on altmed topics. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bbachrac I've had to go through RfC to make what I thought were obvious edits in altmed articles. Sometimes the consensus was for the change, sometimes it wasn't. But if you are truly making a good-faith attempt to improve the article, then I would absolutely encourage you to try. If I support your edit, I would even help create the RfC, if needed. That's the whole point of a community-driven encyclopedia. But right now I don't know what specific changes you'd like to see. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A reminder to avoid RfCs: WP:RFCBEFORE. They are a last resort. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@All Thank you for the comments to date. I would like to see the Alternative Medicine series developed to Class B or A, but I think this is undertaking like the The Myth of Sisyphus and I am not sure that is a hill I want to climb. I like the format used by WikiUniversity: as exemplified in the topic "Does objective reality exist?" in developing its topics. Bbachrac (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Bbachrac, I agree that the current state of the Alternative medicine article is not good quality. It is dated and fails to reflect the terminology used by the recent WHO reports and by several recent major mainstream medical centers. Even more concerning is the distorted use of existing sources, e.g. The Atlantic and the NCCIH, to make statements in wiki voice that do not represent the actual content within those sources. I also agree with Pyrrho that focusing on particular changes, one by one, at talk via BRD is a wise approach to improving the page. Regarding your concerns with the outdated information about the NCCIH outlined above, would you be willing to edit the page or propose how the more accurate and current information be incorporated into the article? Cedar777 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

If that's true, then let's discuss it and make sure those sources are used properly. Provide the exact wording we use, the source, and describe the problem. Let's fix it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay I will do it, but I don't have time today, so later this week. I will create a Sandbox for discussion. Thanks for comments. {You might appreciate UC Berkeley Understanding Science. I have been sending the link to all my grandkids.} Bbachrac (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion on 4 November 2022
After further consideration, I have decided to put aside the objective of contributing to making Wikipedia less ideological and non-neutral in many of the health-related articles. I therefore will not be following through on editing subjects in the Wikipedia “Alternative Medicine” project. As with all other information sources, individuals will need to sort out for themselves the credibility of any particular article. Hopefully anyone coming to Wikipedia will for themselves go directly to active sources.

I arrived at this position by comparing the way Wikipedia treats the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences compared to its own web-site NCATS, and what Wikipedia does to The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) which conducts and supports evaluation research and provides information about complementary health products and practices.

I also found the thoughtful 2001 conference summary, “A critique on complementary and alternative medicine” by Kenneith I Shine, MD, then , President, Institute of Medicine, of the National Academy of Sciences, published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 7, Supplement 1, 2001, pp. S-145–S-152, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI:10.1089/107555301753393922. Unfortunately, this article is behind a paywall. 

Abstract

“Modern medicine regularly uses the products of science to improve health. Until recently, however, medicine itself has not been practiced in a scientific manner. The growth of evidence-based medicine is predicated upon the concept that insofar as possible, all aspects of medical care ought to be examined with regard to the evidence. All forms of treatments and preventive strategies should be subjected to assessments of efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy is demonstrated in the day-to-day practice of medicine. An evaluation of effectiveness may lead to one or more randomized clinical trials, where the results of these randomized clinical trials may be necessary to maximize effectiveness. From a health care perspective, safety must be assessed, not only with regard to adverse effects of the particular intervention, but also in the context of a comparison to alternative treatments. If evidence demonstrates the efficacy and/or effectiveness of a particular intervention, it may be unsafe to select a treatment for which evidence of efficacy or effectiveness is lacking. Certainly, patients should be fully informed of the evidence that is available for making rational choices. Alternative and complementary modes of medicine should be subject to these principles. The history of digitalis glycosides provides an interesting example of an important treatment arising from herbal medicine, by which many of these elements can be exemplified.”

Wikipedia articles unfortunately do not contribute neutrally to the ongoing exploration of health care topics or convey the evolution of thinking in the medical community.

You might find of interest John M Byrne MD YouTube 2019 talk and article Skeptical Medicine: Critical Thinking in Medicine,

To conclude, I do not advocate for complementary health practices and if they can afford access, individuals should first seek help from what is in artfully called “conventual medicine”. Individuals also need to advocate their health for themselves, because at least in the United States, their science based conventional physicians or health care providers don’t necessarily get to the right treatment for whatever is the problem. Bbachrac (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

An excellent outcome. - Roxy the dog 04:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Reducing fluff and matching sources to statements

I'd like to notify everyone that I am going to begin editing to reduce the wordiness of the article. I will try to be unbiased as demonstrated by leaving content of sentences the same while instead changing diction and syntax. As everyone is aware, this article also badly paraphrases sources, and cites multiple sources at the end of sentences in a way in which it is unclear what concept is being supported. I'm not sure I'll do anything about that yet beyond flagging, mainly because that's likely to be more controversial editing. UserSwamp (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

First example: "Complementary medicine (CM), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrated medicine or integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among the various attempts to capture the combination of alternative practices with those of mainstream medicine." "Among the various", and "capture the combination" are not meaningful additions of words. This should be simplified as "attempts to combine," which has a more active tone and reduces passive use of verbs. These practices are not "capturing" anything, that is flowery language. Practitioners are attempting to combine practices though.

UserSwamp (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend rather than tag, you make the copyedits yourself, but one edit at a time would be best. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Be very careful about edits to the lead. I had to revert some edits. It's safer to discuss proposed changes as WP:BOLD doesn't work for controversial stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. WP:BOLD applies to controversial subjects, leads, etc. It's less likely to get reverted if it's taken to the Talk Page, but bold definitely still applies. You are of course equally welcome to revert the edits, which you did. But this editor is acting in good faith, and has engaged in discussion on the Talk Page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead is long and not obviously sourced

The lead paragraph is long compared to most high quality articles. The lead uses relativistic superlatives (e.g., "Much of") that are not obviously sourced elsewhere in the article. Other high quality wikipedia articles have sources linked in the lead; this has none. I believe this is likely because the original author was ranting more than informing. It has already been discussed that this article uses the poor scholarship technique of citing multiple varied sources after several sentences of loose paraphrasing. UserSwamp (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your assumption is way off. Every sentence and word in the article and lead are the product of often long and intense discussion and collaboration between many editors of differing persuasions, and no one is allowed to include their own rants or POV.

We also try to avoid using refs in the lead because the lead is based on sourced content in the body. (Take a look at the lead at Donald Trump.) Any change in the lead should be discussed first as it is very sensitively worded, based on the sources in the body.

Because this article is about fringe and pseudoscientific ideas, mainstream sources have more weight, so keep that in mind. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll concede that I may have been wrong to assume that an early author (wink) had an out sized impact on the content and style of this article. Your reference to the citation format of another controversial article was not as helpful as you may have intended. I don't see a clear formatting standard for avoiding citations in the lead set across Wikipedia. Can you provide a link to lead style guide versus examples of articles? Would your suggested strategy be to start my copy editing and citation review in the sub sections and not the lead? UserSwamp (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Example:

"Much of the perceived effect of an alternative practice arises from a belief that it will be effective..."

In this case, "much of" adds no indicator of what measured quantity of perceived effects arise from placebo. Whose beliefs? From what sociological survey was this sourced? I don't dispute that a source exists and that a survey found this conclusion, but in such a controversial lead, it ought to be linked. This is no place for appeals to the authority of conventional physicians' opinions or surveys from popular articles. At this point in the article, it can only strictly be ceded that:

"A perceived effect of an alternative practice may arise from a belief that the practice will be effective (placebo)." The original author's diction lends a seeming authoritative personal tone, which should be edited to be more neutral.

Example:

"This is further exacerbated by the tendency to turn to alternative therapies upon the failure of medicine, at which point the condition will be at its worst and most likely to spontaneously improve..."

In this case, "This is further exacerbated by the tendency" reads in a narrative format, and it is unclear what subject or object is being "further exacerbated." This can be most conservatively be simplified to: "There may be the tendency for patients to turn to alternative therapies..."

This edit ignores of course the erroneous conflation of regression to the mean with the natural course of medicine, but someone (cough) seems unwilling to let that be fixed.

One of the issues I find with the quality of this article is that it is mostly (but unadmittedly so) critiquing a singular conception of "Alternative Medicine," e.g., that popular fad and cultural push in Western society since the 1970s, but this angle is unclear because the article is too long and digresses to an elitist, philosophical cautionary tale about scientific literacy. It would be improved by being whittled down with a clearer acknowledgment of the process by which practices may become accepted by medical science. The article does a poor job demonstrating which practices and ingredients, according to a lack of studies or negative results, remain outside of what can be accepted as having been proven effective empirically. Is anyone catching my drift? This article reads as if there is a capital "A" Alternative Medicine, which must be publicly debunked in dragging soliloquy lest any of the masses be led astray. I agree that the quack marketing monolith should be acknowledged, but proportionally to the extent to which it actually exists today as a monolith. Otherwise, this article would be more convincing detailing how we know or don't know the effectiveness of the practices (yoga, acupuncture, scar tissue massage, certain cognitive therapies) that may be considered on the fringe of scientific acceptance. UserSwamp (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you're saying. My advice is to pick your battles. There is no hurry. Pick one change, make a case for it, call in a third opinion if you need to, and if you're still not satisfied, an RfC. Despite what you might think, there are other editors who believe this article could be improved. I've had to jump through hoops of RfC to make what I thought were obvious improvements. Sometimes the consensus was ultimately with me. Other times it wasn't. Just pick one thing at a time and don't write walls of text. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it short from now on. UserSwamp (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

UserSwamp, that's excellent advice from Pyrrho the Skipper. Make small edits, be very specific, discuss them, provide sources, and seek a consensus version. That method, even in the most contentious circumstances, will often produce an improvement, as no article here is ever "finished" or "perfect," including this one. We welcome civil suggestions for improvement, but strongly resist the "bull in a china shop" approach we so often see here. I think you have skills we will appreciate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to move forward with the edits suggested above, which would remove the quantitative ambiguity of "much of" and the stylistic "this is exacerbated" from the lead sentences referencing placebo and natural course of disease. The sources from the main article section that discuss perceived effectiveness mechanisms do not conclude "most of " the perceived effect of alternative therapies is placebo, but they do conclude that a mechanism explaining perceived effects is the placebo effect. Similarly, no source in the main article uses the language that states the placebo effect in alternative therapies is "further exacerbated by" the natural course of disease. They do state that the natural course of disease can mistakenly lead patients to believe a therapy has been effective when it had not. UserSwamp (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@UserSwamp For the ease of other editors, start a new section on the Talk Page and suggest your proposed rewrite and a brief explanation, just like you did here. Your proposed rewrite could be what you mentioned above: "A perceived effect of an alternative practice may arise from a belief that the practice will be effective (placebo)." Then we can discuss that one proposal and we can try to come to a consensus one way or another. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, UserSwamp, follow that advice. Take small bites and deal with them individually. When I say "small" I mean single words, phrases, or sentences. Rarely larger when dealing with controversial topics. This one has been edited by so many editors under so much scrutiny that each turn of a phrase is often the result of a long (sometimes weeks or months) discussion and a consensus decision, so don't make any potentially controversial changes without discussion. If you do make a change and it's reverted, then you have touched one of those items and should then discuss it. The archives document all the previous discussions. We don't like to rehash old controversies. It wastes time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Complementary or integrative medicine section is one sided

Title pretty much says it. Equating complementary and integrative labels to alternative is painting with too broad of a brush as other editors have pointed out repeatedly. This ignores effectiveness in favor of things like plausibility which contain inherent bias. 141.157.200.57 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

We call these things what our best available sources call them. Not what wikipedia users think is the best name. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

We follow what RS say. We also (that is editors, especially those of us who are medically trained) take into account current research, laws, and practices. So far, IM is defined as the combination of AM practices with traditional medical practices. (Some IM practitioners would then like to say "formerly" AM practices, but that's just misleading.) Just because they are combined does not automatically mean the AM practices have been proven effective. When combined, they may provide some comfort to patients not otherwise exposed to the types of AM practices that provide comfort. Great! Who doesn't like a good meditation or relaxation session or smell some nice smells? Whatever. The AM practices are still not curing any serious illness, just providing mental comfort. And they are not providing better outcomes. In fact, with cancer, Norwegian studies show that cancer patients who are ALSO given AM treatments die faster and quicker than those who are not given AM treatment along with their traditional cancer regimens.

When researched, all AM practices are still deficient on the "effectiveness" side of the equation. When they are proven effective, they will no longer be classified as "alternative," but will become accepted mainstream medical practice and called "medicine." Sometimes the acceptance takes time as most scientists and medical practitioners are justifiably conservative about practices that have a dubious history. They are trained to have a "prove it" attitude. That attitude is completely lacking in the AM community. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Recreate IM article?

Hello @Valjean:, Over ten years ago, I noticed that integrative medicine was equated with complementary and alternative medicine and tried to change that here. As you noted, a consensus was reached at the time to keep them as if they are the same thing.

I'd like to reopen this discussion and invite others to join in. Ten years ago, the term Integrative Medicine was not yet "codified", so there was some basis, at the time, for calling it the same as alternative medicine. But over the past ten years that has changed - a lot. Integrative Medicine is practiced by all the major medical schools and hospitals and health networks. The practices under Integrative Medicine are ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed. I would like to create a draft Integrative Medicine page and put all of my sources and evidence on it for further discussion, but am not sure about the best way to go about doing that. Can you advise me please? CJ (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I like your idea. It will give everyone a chance to see if the result has merit, especially the newer RS you will use.

I suggest you create the draft at User:Cjrhoads/Draft_Integrative_Medicine. You can copy material from this article, its archives, and the history at Integrative Medicine, where it used to be a separate article. Don't try to recreate the article in article space before a discussion here. The current redirect should not be changed without that discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll work on it when the University semester is over. Thanks for the encouragement.

CJ (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious about which AM practices fit under "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed." Please list them. As you may well know, any practice which has such evidence is not called "alternative medicine"; it's just called "medicine". IM and CAM are rightly accused of being attempts to sneak/rename AM quackery into medicine. That's a hurdle you'll need to deal with and discuss in your new article as it's a major criticism. IM and CAM are areas which reveal that anyone, especially hospital administrators, will do anything for money, and adding acupuncture, homeopathy, and such like does draw in more patients and makes more money, even when they do nothing more than give comfort. Such decisions are based on financial considerations, not scientific evidence, but they of course obfuscate and attempt to pass off their decisions as scientifically plausible. Unfortunately they cannot provide anything but the weakest of "evidence" while showing an increase in profits. That's how capitalism works. It isn't evidence-based. -- Valjean (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Valjean,

I don't plan to get into the "it's all for money" concept because there are too many examples of standard modern western medicine providing therapies of dubious value "just for the money". Let's just agree that both standard western medicine and alternative and complementary medicine each has its share of bad actors who utilize therapies of dubious value because it lines their pockets rather than help the patient. They also both have the MAJORITY of practioners who are just trying to do the best they can for their patients - and sometimes modern western medicine doesn't have the answers while other systems do have the answers.

However, your point - that we don't want quackery to enter into integrative medicine is well understood and agreed upon. From the beginning I have been a dogged researcher who will not allow either personal feelings or financial considerations bias my research. And I'm not alone. Most integrative healthcare practitioners are well aware that we must be diligent against fraudulent practices that don't actually benefit the patient. For example - magnets have pretty much be debunked entirely by medical research, while acupunture, medication, tai chi , qigong, yoga, Pilates, and other activities have been supported - some of them strongly - by the medical research that has been done on them. I noticed that you mentione acupuncture as quackery - but I believe you need to reread the medical research on that topic. Even insurance companies now cover that practice, so it is likely considered "medicine" and not "alternative" by most doctors.

And, of course, here's the info I shared with you on my talk page: CJ (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the list:

Nutritional support such as: botanicals, vitamins and minerals, and probiotics.

Physical Activities such as: tai chi, yoga, acupuncture, massage therapy, spinal manipulation, art therapy, music therapy, dance, mindfulness-based stress reduction, meditation, breathing exercises and guided imagery, qigong, hypnotherapy, Feldenkrais method, Alexander technique, Pilates, Rolfing Structural Integration, and Trager psychophysical integration.

Acupuncture

Cognitive Practices such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Dialectic Behavior Therapy.

That is based on the NIH (Whats In A Name) and on MantraCare

Another good source is:Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health.

Medical Schools with Integrative Medicine are:

Osher Center For Integrative Medicine at Harvard Medical School

Osher Center For Integrative Medicine Vanderbilt Medical School

Mayo clinic

And, of course, all the members of the Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health

Once I get a chance to create the draft page, I will be able to post extensive high quality systematic reviews of a variety of integrative medicine and health practices. But as I said, I won't have time until May.

CJ (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

CJ, I asked you above for a list of those practices that fit "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed" and decided to do a bit of research. I used the American Board of Physician Specialties link provided above by FloresTindall and found this page: Integrative Medicine Examination Description There I found two sections:

Complementary Modalities

• Manual Therapies
• Biofield Therapies
• Acupuncture
• Movement Therapies
• Expressive Arts

Whole Medical Systems

• Traditional Chinese Medicine
• Ayurveda
• Indigenous Medical Systems
• Homeopathic Medicine
• Naturopathic Medicine
• Osteopathic Medicine
• Chiropractic
• Functional Medicine

Right off the bat we see several fully quackish and unscientific items in the Whole Medical Systems section (which I have wikilinked for convenience), the worst, IMO, being Homeopathy. Wow! Just study those articles to see what RS say about them. None of them fit the "ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed", with the exception of Osteopathic Medicine, which is fully modern mainstream medicine, not AM. What is really meant is Osteopathy, which is AM. We have two articles here to make the difference. -- Valjean (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

For convenience I have also included the AM series box we include on many of these articles. -- Valjean (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing approaches to medicine with actual practices of medicine. Most of the "Whole Medical Systems" are simply non-reductive ways to treat patients. Again, there is some research evidence that treating a patient without considering the "whole" body and mind is not nearly as effective as treating patients considering both the body and the mind.

You appear to have a ricochet bias against anything that isn't reductionist, and don't appear willing to actually look at the research that decides WHICH of the actual PRACTICES are evidence-based, and which are not.

Rather than utilizing general lists of modalities and approaches, I prefer to utilize a laser-focused attention on ONLY those practices for which there is medical evidence, and (perhaps) those practices for which we have not YET developed enough evidence but which appear to be helpful without any harmful effects or costs to the patient.

I wish I had more time right now to discuss this more deeply, but I have to teach a class. I will return in May, create the draft page, and continue this conversation.

CJ (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

CJ, I look forward to your draft. Feel free to contact me by email. I'd like to know what you teach. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: - I think this is pinging Valjean. Could you please help me on the page you set up for me? User:Cjrhoads/Draft Integrative Medicine CJ (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

CJ and FloresTindall I need at least one good RS which clearly states that Integrative Medicine are ONLY those practices for which substantial evidence for efficacy and efficiency has been developed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am really looking forward to getting my hand on reliable sources for IM efficacy. Baits Breath -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: The problem is that Wikipedia does not follow RS for lumping integrative medicine in with alternative medicine, does it? Can you show me anything other than "skeptic" sources that does? Everything I find on the internet, from sources such as Harvard here, to Cleveland Clinic refer to integrative medicine as something either more or different than alternative medicine. You're not going to convince people just by saying "it's true because I said it!" And you're certainly not going to convince anyone because "capitalism" when conventional medicine is also "capitalism". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

?? Right above, the ABPS (a RS) exam for IM covers many AM practices. When mainstream medical practitioners "integrate" AM practices with their mainstream medicine it's called "Integrative Medicine". If that doesn't define IM, then what does? Do you know of RS that say otherwise? It's really simple and easy to understand. -- Valjean (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That's my whole point. In the lead for the alternative medicine article it says, integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings... of alternative medicine. But integrated medicine IS NOT a synonym or "rebranding" of alt medicine is it? It's defined by all sources, including yours, as a combination of alt and conventional therapies, and should be defined that way. What part of this is hard to understand? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand, and I agree that wording should be tweaked. How's this? integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings to describe various ways alternative medicine is combined with mainstream medicine. I think that small change can resolve the matter without starting huge discussions and edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. I think that's a lot better yes. Personally, I would tweak that to integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are terms used to describe various ways alternative medicine is combined with mainstream medicine. But I would personally be fine either way. I just think "rebranding" is an odd word to stick in the lead of an article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Now it reads: Complementary medicine (CM), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrated medicine or integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings that describe various ways alternative medicine is combined with mainstream medicine. I hope that is a reasonable solution. Your concern was justified. It was indeed awkwardly written. -- Valjean (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the collaborative spirit (and for enlightening me on the functioning of the industry a bit). I think it reads much better now, and I hope others agree. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To illustrate, let's imagine how two construction workers (AM & MM) use their tools on different projects. In this example, each usually works with two completely different types of tools and builds different kinds of buildings for different kinds of customers, although there is overlap; some customers like both, so they make separate work orders from each one.

AM's tools are pretty, esoteric, and really feel good stuff! MM's tools are fairly rigid and boring colors.

MM decides he wants to add AM's pretty tools to his toolbox. When MM uses all those tools together, he is practicing IM because he has "integrated" AM's tools into his construction practice. Now MM snags more of AM's customers who can now get the best of both worlds with one order.

AM + MM = IM. That's how it works. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

So in your example, would you say that that the IM he is practicing is 100% not effective? Do the AM tools spoil the whole toolbox? Because that's what this article definitively states. That IM is a synonym, or rebranding, of alt medicine, and that alt medicine, and thereffor conventional medicine that integrates it, "is not effective." Simple logical fallacy, you see? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No. "100% not effective" is an extreme interpretation. That means 0% effective. It just means that the addition is less effective. While the AM may provide some psychological comfort effects (a nice thing), it doesn't seriously contribute to the physiological healing effects of the mainstream methods, and in some cases may actually weaken the overall effect. It also adds to the cost for the patient as many insurance companies will not cover methods that lack strong evidence, so the patient must pay for it. Unfortunately, the provider usually doesn't (never?!) make it clear that the AM methods being used aren't proven effective. If the IM practitioner is being honest and explains to their cancer patient that the addition of massage, aromatherapy, etc. is for comfort and does not have any curative effect on cancer, then I see no problem with it. False marketing is quackery, gives false hope, and literally empties the patient's bank account. Truth in advertising is good, but it's rare for this stuff, as the pretense of effect, a marketing ploy, is why it's done at all. Massage is great for musculoskeletal issues, but not for curing cancer.

If I had used bricklayers as the example above, the IM practitioner is adding nicely colored bricks of dubious strength to his wall. The cool patterns are prettier, good for marketing, and increases profits, thus fooling the patient. It also adds no real strength to the wall and actually weakens it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Lego bricks. pretty but useless in the real building world. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean, the addition of one clinically unsubstantiated technique does not inherently decrease the efficacy a the total approach that also includes clinically substantiated treatments. A clinically unsubstantiated treatment is alternative by definition, but a clinically unsubstantiated technique is not ineffective by definition. There are treatments now established with experimental data as effective that were not widely used 20 years ago. In other words, your entire angle misses the temporal aspect of the movement of one technique from "alternative" to "conventional." UserSwamp (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

On wikipedia, your edit is what we call a WP:WEASEL wording. It waters down the language in order to make WP:FRINGE ideas seem more plausible. We trust the experts, in this case, medical scientists, to determine what is and is not real. Many such spheres of knowledge are based on empiricism. If you don't believe in empiricism, wikipedia probably is not the place for you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

UserSwamp, we agree far more than you realize, but until the efficacy of an AM practice is proven, it remains AM. See the edit summary of the edit I just made. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Pulling the weasel wording card allows opponents of an edit to side step the fact that the discussion of wording in cases of fundamental definitions or epistemology are necessarily pedantic. I assure you as a trained plant scientist I appreciate the nuances of the scientific method, as a process, by which we produce data and arrive at conclusions. This is necessarily an epistemological and linguistic question. If something is considered alternative if not proven, then this is different than considering something alternative if it does not work. There is the category in which something may be unproven by a designed experiment and still function. Before experiments were designed to collect data and PROVE whether nitrogen increased plant growth and yield, nitrogen containing fertilizers still functioned to increase growth and yield. This is not a mere game of words, but the entire point. UserSwamp (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining basic logic to all of us incompetent morons who do not know the difference between "unproven" and "disproven". Also for pointing out that opponents of an edit are acting in bad faith, "pulling cards" and "sidestepping". I did not know that such villainy was afoot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

UserSwamp, you write: "If something is considered alternative if not proven, then this is different than considering something alternative if it does not work. There is the category in which something may be unproven by a designed experiment and still function." Indeed. As explained in this article, that category is mainstream "medicine," which cares not about the origins of a method or potion. If it works, then it will be used. The explanation for "why it works" may come later, but it is still classified as "medicine," no longer "alternative."

Whoever wrote the below:

The explanation for "why it works" may come later, but it is still classified as "medicine," no longer "alternative."

Too bad this isn't the way wiki operates. Most AM articles have to pass a moving target test of plausibility even if the treatments are effective. You have people like Ernst who make blanket statements including many effective therapies along with bunk like homeopathy. 141.157.200.57 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, it's great that we consider Edzard Ernst an expert on these topics because our best available sources do. We don't rely on the opinions and interpretations of random internet users. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as the world's first professor of complementary medicine, he has the scientific and medical background to understand the claims and underpinnings of alternative and complementary medicine. He has received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation. He learned homeopathy, acupuncture and other modalities whilst at a homeopathic hospital in Munich, when he began his medical career.

Otherwise, in response to the IP, any treatment that is proven to work is classified as "medicine," no longer "alternative," regardless of its origins or whether its mechanism is understood. If it works, real doctors will use it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

even if the treatments are effective How can you tell that they are effective? Is your judgment better than that of the reliable sources you disagree with? How come?

No need to answer that. The answer to the second question is very likely "no". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any difference between what would be called pseudomedicine and so called "alternative" medicine?

Is there any reason to think that "alternative medicine" is anything but a euphemism for pseudomedicine? ★Trekker (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The only time I have ever seen pseudomedicine in use has been on wikipedia, so my answer is not really, why do you ask? - Roxy the dog 13:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like bias to let one type of pseudoscience use its own prefered terminology, pseudohistory isn't called "alternative history" or pseudomathematics "alternative mathematics".★Trekker (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle, we have to rely on our sources to tell us how to describe these things. "pseudomedicine" is perhaps a valid alternate term for alternative medicine, but it probably isn't WP:DUE enough to be used in the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Allopathic" as a term

Alternative medicine is anything not taught traditionally in an allopathic medical school. So, for example, that would include: osteopathy, chiropracty, naturopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine. Most observers would be able to find examples of elements of alternative medicine that are well classified as pseudomedicine. Most observers would be able to find examples of elements of alternative medicine that are not well classified as pseudomedicine. So these terms are not synonyms or euphemisms for each other. Jaredroach (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your definition contains the pseudomedical term "allopathic", which is a misrepresentation of real medicine, and fails from the start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Um. OK. But that's the technical term that describes most medical schools. I have never really liked that term either, but it is what the English language and common as well as professional usage have given us. See the NIH definition here: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/allopathic-medicine. In short, "A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called biomedicine, conventional medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and Western medicine." Jaredroach (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Allopathic is a derogatory term, in much the same way as quackery is. - Roxy the dog 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That claim is simply not true. Or at least does not capture the entirety of the usage. There may indeed be some people that use 'allopathic' in a sentence and intend that term to be derogatory. There may indeed be some people that see 'allopathic' in a sentence and interpret that term to be derogatory. But the term is also in widespread use in a non-derogatory sense. For example, I am an allopathic doctor trained in an allopathic medical school. I use that sentence to differentiate myself from other doctors trained in other categories of medical schools. You can check the non-derogatory and professional usage for yourself. For example, look up articles in PubMed with 'allopathic' in their title. The vast majority — probably all of them — do not have a derogatory redolence. Jaredroach (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The thing that matters is what our secondary reliable sources say, especially medical and scholarly sources. And many if not most of the most recent uses of "allopathic" in that type of sources describe it as a derogatory term.

The usage you're describing is, by current standards, outdated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredroach, your POV is not informed by the way the term "allopathic" is commonly used in the fringe world of alternative medicine. There it is used in a pejorative manner in their attacks on evil Big Pharma, evil MDs, and evil “Slash-Poison-Burn” cancer treatments. Keep in mind that alternative practitioners have to demonize modern medicine to gain customers and justify their existence, and they are very nasty. They use "allopathic" in a very derogatory way all the time. The history of the term shows it was originally used that way by the founder of Homeopathy: "The terms were coined in 1810 by the inventor of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. It was originally used by 19th-century homeopaths as a derogatory term for heroic medicine, the conventional European medicine of the time and a precursor to modern medicine, that did not rely on evidence of effectiveness." (from our Allopathy article) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Check the references in PubMed. Many of them are from 2023. The references you cite above, are for the most part fairly old or obscure. The one in Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care from 2022 seems to support, at least to some extent, your viewpoint. But please note I am not arguing that your viewpoint is wrong. I am just arguing that it is incomplete. And I think it is a minority viewpoint, at least based on PubMed citations. Jaredroach (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because a word is used by a firebrand in a disparaging passage, it does not mean that word is inherently derogatory. If an anti-urbanist claims that "High-rise development is the work of idiots," that does not make the phrase 'high-rise' derogatory. None of the 26 PubMed articles published in 2022-2023 with 'allopathic' in the title use the word in a derogatory sense. Please note that I am not saying that the viewpoint that the word can be used in a derogatory sense is invalid. But that viewpoint does not capture the use in professional or medical circles. We should not promote the view that the term is derogatory on Wikipedia. Jaredroach (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're actually examining the question wrong, by Wikipedia standards. Some salient rules of thumb:

1. The question isn't "in all of PubMed, how is this word used?" It's "in all reliable sources about alternative medicine, how is this word used?" That is this essence of a good WP:RSUW source review. The scope is the article subject, and the highest quality sources about that subject dictate how we cover it.
2. PubMed is not the only search engine we use. Google Scholar is more comprehensive and tends to include more scholarly narrative reviews in monographs that are secondary and authored by experts, but can also bring in some junk that does need to be sifted through. More discerning but still comprehensive are SCOPUS, WebOfScience, and Gale. These are golden for our purposes.
3. 2022-2023 are not the only publications that qualify as "recent". For actual questions of medical claims (like is this treatment effective e.g. WP:BMI), 5 years ago and later is a good rule of thumb, and WP:MEDRS are essential. But for questions like this which are more terminology-based and not actually BMI, the window can stretch farther back as long as much hasn't changed in the time since.
4. WP:PRIMARY sources (eg non-reviews like primary journal articles) are not really very useful. All WP:SECONDARY sources trump primary sources, typically. Per WP:PARITY, we often use non scientific journal article sources in FRINGE topic domains like this, especially when addressing non-WP:BMI claims and terminology. Sources like WP:SBM, The Conversation, HealthFeedback, and WP:SNOPES are golden for non-BMI stuff.
5. Source reviews should disregard so-called "cursory" or "hit-n-run" mentions. This is a big one. We're interested in sources which directly address the term itself, not simply use it once and then move on. The former indicates a source which has investigated the term, its meaning, etymology, connotation. The latter indicates a source which just heard it somewhere and repeated it (likely uncritically).

Some other good sources on the term "allopathic" as derogatory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One might consider that anybody who uses the term "allopathy" is a true believer in Alt-Med, as Quacks use it almost routinely to refer to real medicine. - Roxy the dog 14:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Alternative Medicine and Complementary Therapy are not the same.

Here’s a quote from the article that needs citation:

“Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience. Traditional practices become "alternative" when used outside their original settings and without proper scientific explanation and evidence”

Here’s an article from the NCCIH, the federal government’s branch of the NIH, which has a different view on this subject: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name

This source clearly states that a non-mainstream therapy becomes alternative therapy when used INSTEAD of standard care, saying that Complementary therapies are completely distinct from this classification as clients utilize them without stopping their main treatment. Does author of the original quote have a source for their point of view? TefCur93 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaken, they are the same, as you have been told elsewhere. The NCCIH is an unreliable source when discussing Alt-Med. - Roxy the dog 16:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

What is your source? “You are mistaken, they are the same, as you have been told elsewhere.” By who? You and your editor friends? Or is there a source backing up your classification of CM and AM? TefCur93 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If it works, it is medicine, if it doesn't, it isn't medicine. Indeed yes, I told you elsewhere. - Roxy the dog 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree! If a therapy has been scientifically proven to work as standard care then it can be defined as traditional medicine. If not, then this said therapy can fall into one of two categories of therapies outside of the umbrella of mainstream care:

-Complementary therapies, which are used alongside and not as a replacement for mainstream care, or

-Alternative therapies, which are used instead of mainstream care.

The categorization of a therapy in practice depends on its decided application by the client, but a therapy is not an alternative therapy if it isn’t used instead of standard care. I know you’re not a fan of my NCCIH source but it still stands to reason that the NCCIH is a branch of a government organization and you have not provided a source backing up your distinction between complementary and alternative therapies other than your own opinion. TefCur93 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow!! First you agree, and then in the very same post you go off not agreeing. That's daft. - Roxy the dog 16:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, I’m saying we agree that therapies that are not backed by scientific evidence should not be classified as standard medical care, we agree on that. We don’t agree on how these non-standard treatments should then be sorted after that, you want to put all of them under the “alternative” umbrella and my argument is that your decision to do so is your opinion, not based on any legitimate source of systematic categorization. Do you have a source that invalidates my argument? TefCur93 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I just edited the title to better reflect the context of the conversation. TefCur93 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

... and I returned it to the original title, which I had responded to. - Roxy the dog 18:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There are experimental therapies in mainstream medicine, but all of them are labeled and marketed as "experimental". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely! I’m not talking about experimental therapies that are already mainstream though, I’m talking about non-mainstream therapies that people either use in an “alternative” or in a “complementary” way. The US government makes this distinction very clear (see CDC and NCCIH); you may disagree with this distinction and I respect your opinion but I would like to see a source suggesting that complementary therapy is and should be under the umbrella of alternative medicine from a semantics standpoint other than the collective opinions of the editors on this site. TefCur93 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the umbrella term is SCAM (supplements, complementary and alternative medicine). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and complementary and alternative applications are distinct within that umbrella. I agree. TefCur93 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Your tactic here appears to be to act as if you are already correct, and everyone else here doesn't appear to get it. The consensus here is against your changes, and this tactic isn't helping. See WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m only bringing a widely accepted opposing viewpoint into the discussion, we can agree to disagree. TefCur93 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you wont look at sources already supplied, you could tell us which of your complementary therapies are not Alt-Med. - Roxy the dog 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Here’s two sites with the goal of collecting accurate information on complementary therapies.

https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com/about/#research+standards

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/complementary-therapies-in-medicine/about/aims-and-scope TefCur93 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

neither of this sources appear to be WP:MEDRS compliant. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

To answer the charge, I guess complementary means "used together with" or "and", while alternative means "it replaces" or "either, or". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! TefCur93 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Alexander Technique as it's more appropriate here.

Murbanek97, you write: "complementary and alternative therapies are completely distinct from one another in their application." That is not entirely true. The method is identical. It is the situation that changes. A cancer patient who is getting radiation and chemo from their physician is getting mainstream medical care. The same patient can then be prescribed relaxation therapy or hypnosis, and those therapies are now complementary to the radiation and chemo. In another setting, away from the physician and not being presribed by the physician, those are alternative methods. So the method is the same. The setting makes the difference.

BTW, that situation with the cancer patient is interesting. Research in Norway showed that cancer patients who used alternative methods together with (complementary) their standard care died faster and more often than those patients who did not use the complementary methods. Standard care has proven and documented effects and side effects. We do not know all the effects and side-effects for most alternative/complementary methods, other than that we know they are unproven or disproven. If they are proven to be effective, they are no longer classified as alternative but are classified as mainstream medicine. The old joke goes: "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine." Period. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is Murbanek btw, username switch. “The method is identical. It is the situation that changes.” Yep this is exactly what I meant when I said that the application is distinct. A therapy becomes complementary to someone when used in addition to standard treatment, though I’m waiting for your source explicitly stating that a therapy does not “flip” from alternative to complementary unless it’s prescribed by a healthcare professional. I would love to hear more about this research on cancer patients in Norway though, can you link that as well? TefCur93 (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

TefCur93, here's a news report about the research in Norway. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment : Alt-Med and Complementary med are the same. They are 'both' quackery. - Roxy the dog 10:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

What is this based on? The NCCIH lists complementary and alternative therapies as being distinctly different in their application. TefCur93 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

NCCIH is not reliable as a source. As I have told you elsewhere. - Roxy the dog 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes and no. It is not a WP:MEDRS if used for claims of effectiveness, but it is a RS for documentation of the official government classification. That is how we are using it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, yes, documentation.- Roxy the dog 16:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn’t answer my question. NCCIH is a part of the National Institute of Health. We can disagree on the validity of that source but you still have not provided one to support your own opinion. TefCur93 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I did answer your question, You can disagree on the validity of the source, but you'd be wasting your time. The sources you seek are already in the article. - Roxy the dog 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No you did not answer my question. You said:

“Alt-Med and Complementary med are the same”

This was my reply:

“What is this based on?”

Please answer this question. TefCur93 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If it works, it is medicine, if it doesn't work it is not. - Roxy the dog 16:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Once again, that can be true and it still doesn’t change my argument or your lack of a source. Here’s another source from the CDC outlining the differences: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/survivors/patients/complementary-alternative-medicine.htm?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=off Do you have a contrary source? TefCur93 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Medicine is what's practiced by legally educated and licensed healthcare professionals. Without that education and licensing, a therapy or method is alternative. Physicians have a lot of legal latitude for what they can prescribe, and some will include methods that are not mainstream. Insurance may not pay, but it is being used in a complementary fashion. It may not work either. It may still be quackery, even if a physician is involved. (The "quackery" aspect has to do with how it promotes itself and the claims it makes.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

“Medicine is what's practiced by legally educated and licensed healthcare professionals. Without that education and licensing, a therapy or method is alternative.” This specific categorization runs contrary to the opinion of both the NCCIH and the CDC. I am fine with discussing alternate viewpoints on this subject but they need to be evidence-based. TefCur93 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it contrary? Practicing medicine without a license is illegal. As a healthcare professional, but not a physician, even I am limited in what claims I can make and methods I can use. Those who are not working under a physician are alternative practitioners. Any medically-related claims they make are usually an illegal practice of medicine without a license. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

“Those who are not working under a physician are alternative practitioners. Any medically-related claims they make are usually an illegal practice of medicine without a license.” What about cases where practitioners make it explicitly clear that their practice is not a replacement for medical treatment? Based on official US government designation they would be “complementary” practitioners, not “alternative” practitioners. TefCur93 (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This gets into how we define "medical" practice. In the modern world, it is what is practiced by properly educated and licensed medical practitioners. This usually (laws vary from country to country) limits the prescription of drugs and the making of diagnoses to licensed physicians. In some jurisdictions, Physician Assistants (PA) and Physical Therapists/Physiotherapists (PT), who are only allowed to work under the oversight of a licensed physician, are allowed to make certain diagnoses. Anyone else who makes a diagnosis or gives drugs is breaking the law. Anyone else who offers treatment under the guise of treating any medical condition is practicing medicine without a license. Anyone else who makes medically-related claims related to any health/disease condition is breaking the law.

You seem to be proposing that it is the unlicensed practitioner, not the law and the licensed practitioner, who decides whether the treatment is "complementary" or not. I do not believe that is the case. It certainly never has been in my practice or to my knowledge. The patient has to be under the care of a licensed physician, who then knowingly prescribes the use of the "non-mainstream approach" (NCCIH). Then it is officially part of the physician's plan of care for that patient and can rightfully be called "complementary" to the mainstream approaches used by that physician as part of their plan of care for that patient, and it is part of the physician's charting in that patient's journal located in that physician's office or hospital. None of that happens in the unlicensed practitioner's office. Whatever they write there is outside of the law. They are on their own and "alternative".

This isn't some type of thing where anyone who is not licensed can just decide that their offer of treatment is "complementary" without the physician's knowledge and direct oversight. It must be charted in the physician's patient journal. Just because the patient and this unlicensed therapist practitioner both know that the patient is using some drugs does not make an unapproved and unofficial addition of a "non-mainstream approach" to those drugs an official "complement" to the physician's plan of care. The physician must know and approve. Without that, the care is "alternative" and off-the-books. If the unlicensed therapist practitioner is not working with the physician, they are on their own. (Yes, even the use of the word "therapist" is a protected title reserved only for officially licensed medical practitioners in many places. PTs are such practitioners. Their license allows them to use the word "therapist".)

What I am describing is known as Integrative health:

"Integrative health brings conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are two or more interventions such as conventional health care approaches (like medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy), and complementary health approaches (like acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than, for example, one organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different providers and institutions by bringing conventional and complementary approaches together to care for the whole person."[4]

It's a "well-coordinated" thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

TefCur93, this is getting off into NOTFORUM territory. We can discuss this on your talk page. Let's keep the focus on your original concern at the beginning of this thread. Are you satisfied with the change I implemented? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I am thankful for the change you made as it’s a great first step. I would love to know how I can better keep the focus on the topic of the thread. Here’s another source from the CDC I just found:

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/survivors/patients/complementary-alternative-medicine.htm?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=off

This source has the same method of differentiation between complementary and alternative therapies as the NCCIH website. I want to learn more about the thought process behind why Wikipedia does not distinguish them in the same way. TefCur93 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does distinguish them in the same way. The method is the same. It is only the situation that changes. Whether used as alternative or complementary, it is still without good evidence of effectiveness, may still be considered quackery, etc. It isn't suddenly transformed by its association with the mainstream methods it is being used with. It's just more comforting or makes the process nicer, and that's not a bad thing. What is problematic is that many physicians who are into CAM make claims that the addition increases effectiveness, and those claims are wrong and just marketing. It makes the process more expensive for the patient as insurance rarely pays, and it gives the patience a false sense of hope. BTW, I have two mainstream healthcare educations. My wife has three. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

“It's just more comforting or makes the process nicer, and that's not a bad thing. What is problematic is that many physicians who are into CAM make claims that the addition increases effectiveness, and those claims are wrong and just marketing.”

I think this is a great point! I don’t think this justifies lumping all non-mainstream therapies into the alternative therapy umbrella, for the sake of semantics. I respect your opinion though and would love to see a source that supports your claim. TefCur93 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

TefCur93, I'm having trouble understanding what point you are trying to make, so let's start with your statement "Alternative Medicine and Complementary Therapy are not the same." That is basically a false statement. Focus on the subject word "therapy". (In this case, we are talking about a specific "alternative therapy" and the same therapy used as a "complementary therapy".) This may all seem like "just semantics", but words are the place we have to start.

Now let's substitute "therapy" with the word "rock" and use it to illustrate. A rock is a rock, no matter how it is used. It's the same rock. How it is classified may vary according to how it's used, but it's still a rock. Now let's use "acupuncture" to illustrate. Acupuncture is acupuncture, no matter how it is used. It's still acupuncture. How it is classified may vary according to how it's used, but it's still acupuncture.

When used alone, apart from any mainstream methods, acupuncture is classified as alternative. When it is used together with mainstream methods, it is classified as complementary. Keep in mind that all complementary methods are identical to the same alternative methods. (Before there was the concept of "complementary", there was "alternative".) It is only the context that determines the classification. The therapy/method remains the same. Does all that make sense to you? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Pinging TefCur93. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy with other things, yes I agree with you and that’s actually why I originally changed the title of the conversation before Roxy changed it back. I could’ve done a better job making it clear in the original title that I’m talking about the difference in “complementary” and “alternative” approaches solely in terms of their application and not in terms of the aforementioned therapy itself.

My disagreement is largely based on how these non-mainstream therapies are categorized and I think our disagreement actually raises an interesting conversation on the topic of medical ethics. I have no doubt that you are incredibly interested in making sure that patient autonomy is upheld in your practice and an important part of that is making sure that your patients are informed so that they CAN make informed decisions about their health.

My argument is solely that out of concern for this issue medical professionals sometimes (and this is very profession-dependent) put a blanket label of “alternative medicine” on all practices that are not understood or under direct supervision from a physician. If one were to take this distinction literally a doctor could listen to a patient describe how they are using Yoga or Pilates as a complement to help with back pain and still label their efforts as “alternative” therapy, even if it has no effect on or even enhances the main treatment, solely because the medical professional isn’t directly involved or may not understand the therapy and its benefits.

This, in effect, amounts to an effort to increase patient autonomy which may in practice actually decrease autonomy if the “alternative” label discourages a patient from seeking a therapeutic practice that may help them. In my experience with people treating mental illness, for example, they generally want to build a “toolkit” of different strategies and not throw all of their weight behind one universal alternative therapy supposedly designed to cure all illness without medical treatment. People often look at a therapy not designed to replace modern medicine (as none of them are), but then see the “alternative” label and immediately walk away.

I think the medical establishment is largely responsible for upholding this state of affairs but I also believe that better semantics could satisfy everyone on all sides of this debate so that we can make sure the patient truly has the agency to make the right decisions about their own health. This is why I believe it would be far more productive to consider complementary and alternative therapies to be identical in practice but completely distinct in application, and that it’s not productive to blanket-label all non-mainstream therapies as “alternative” solely because a doctor isn’t directly involved, rather than listing all non-mainstream therapies under the “CAM” label where the terminology can be used interchangeably. TefCur93 (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can get this situation changed, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. In my experience, patients don't usually pay much attention to labels and do whatever they want. Few of them understand issues of evidence. They do pay attention to insurance coverage, or lack of same, but most are willing to pay the out-of-pocket expense for using a therapy that appeals to them.

There is no danger involved in not using an alternative/complementary method, but there can be great danger in using many of them, so one should also figure that into one's risk-vs-benefit-ratio. Maybe something potentially good will fall through the cracks in that situation, but 99% of the time it's a problem worth risking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia’s stance on this topic but it’s not like I’m out here on my own making this argument. Everything you just said could be 100% true (probably is honestly) but the reality is that in practice people make decisions for their health outside of the umbrella of primary care every single day. The role of a doctor is extremely valuable to this process and I wholeheartedly agree that people generally don’t consult doctors enough on their health issues. That said, in cases where a doctor is uninformed on a therapy that a patient wants to add as a complement to their already existing toolkit that lack of information should not prevent a patient from being able to find out if that therapy is right for them, especially in cases where conventional medicine may be extremely beneficial for a patient’s symptoms but not completely sufficient on their own. TefCur93 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Competent medical providers keep up with the literature and continuing education. The issue of dealing with patient compliance and patient use of alternative/complementary therapies is often covered, and providers learn about many of these methods, especially the evidence base and risks. They are also educated to not antagonize patients when they inform them of risks vs benefits whenever that is necessary. Patients do ask about these things. I have often discussed these issues with my patients, and I never criticize a method unless there is real danger. Otherwise, I let patients do whatever rocks their boat. Criticizing alternative therapies has great risks for a provider, including (in my case) sabotage of business and death threats to self and family. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s awful! Is that common in the medical profession? I’m happy you aren’t outright dismissive of non-mainstream therapies with patients despite that.

When you say you let the patient do whatever floats their boat, what threshold would that other “thing” your patient is doing have to cross in order for you to consider it complementary rather than (or as a subsect of it being) alternative? TefCur93 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If the physician has prescribed it, it's complementary. If the patient is just doing it on their own, it's alternative. The complementary approach is safer because there are methods, especially dietary supplements and spinal manipulation, which can cause serious problems the physician must know about in order to protect the patient. If a patient does things on their own, with no coordination with the physician, they can end up in serious trouble because of the lack of coordination. The physician will not fully understand the patient's symptoms.

I once had a patient with serious neck issues after a traffic accident. His initial patient history included comments about "suing". That was a red flag, so I took the best notes for his patient journal I had ever done. That proved providential. After several treatments, he was improving greatly, and I took my usual vacation from Christmas until the New Year. The next time I saw the patient he was much worse, and I couldn't understand what was going on. I hadn't done anything before vacation that could explain it, and the pause shouldn't have caused such problems. He was angry, in pain, and filed an official complaint against me. In the process of the investigation, my documentation was impeccable, and a piece of information came to light. During my vacation, he had gone to a chiropractor who, of course, manipulated his neck, a procedure that any MD or PT would consider contraindicated in his case. (Manipulation is pretty much mandated for a chiropractor in every case. It's their "hammer" for all diseases.) He immediately got worse, and the chiropractor told him it was my fault. That's why he filed the complaint against me.

Because of my impeccable charting, I was totally exonerated. Nothing I had done could explain his relapse, but the chiro treatment certainly could. That kind of shit happens, so the "well-coordinated care" mentioned above (for the use of complementary methods) is essential, and that can only happen when the physician prescribes the complementary care option and is knowingly and willingly kept in the loop. My patient sought alternative medicine outside of that loop. It could have caused him quadriplegia or a vertebral artery dissection and stroke. Those were high risks for him with the injuries he had sustained in the car accident. I knew that, and even though I am certified in manual therapies and joint manipulation, I knew not to do it with him. If I had done it, it would have been "complementary" because the patient had been referred to me by his physician. (I had an excellent working relationship with local physicians, and often got referrals from physicians far away whom I didn't know. Unfortunately, some of the local ones trusted me so much that they sometimes sent a referral with no diagnosis written on it (a blank check) and just told the patient "he will know what to do". That was illegal. I then had to phone the doctor and get a verbal diagnosis I could write on the referral with a note. I always covered my ass.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly agree to disagree on the complementary/alternative/non-mainstream semantics but based on that story and I’m sure countless others like it that you have I can definitely see why your point of view is different from mine. I still maintain my position of how non-mainstream therapies should be categorized but I think we both share the goal of wanting people to have the best care possible while also having the wherewithal to make informed decisions about their health. TefCur93 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

... and I maintain that my responses here do not conflict at all with wanting patients to get the best care possible, remembering that many do not have the wherewithall to to make informed decisions about their health, as illustrated by Valjeans anecdote above. - Roxy the dog 15:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we simplify the lead?

Lede needs to be simplified. My efforts to improve the lede are being reverted. One the one hand, when I add NIH references to the NIH definition, the NIH source is being maligned as unreliable, and my edits are deleted. An effort to add a reference to a peer reviewed review article was also reverted. On the other hand, when I suggest that references are needed for other claims in the lede, these suggestions are being deleted on the grounds that no references are needed because those claims are evident from reading the body of the article. This is frustrating, and seems contradictory. However, these reversions may be constructive in that they point to the greater issue of the lede needing to be cleaned up. The lede is too long and too biased. It needs to be shortened and made more neutral. The bias seems to be that along the claim that 'alternative medicine' is synonymous with 'pseudoscience'. This is clearly a viwwpoint held by some; this viewpoint should be included in the article. It is not the mainstream view in the medical professions (e.g., the NIH); the medical professional point of view should also be represented. My suggestion is to shorted the lede and avoid controversy in the lede. Then shunt the rich discussion with the various viewpoints to the body of the article — much of this is already in the body. Jaredroach (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaredroach, you must feel frustrated! I understand, and rather than place an "edit warring" warning on your talk page, let's just discuss here. Editing a lead is a tricky and usually very contentious thing, so you should discuss proposed changes here when they are reverted. Following WP:BRD is just good practice. That lead has been thoroughly hashed out, fought over, and warred over for years, right down to the exact words and punctuation, so any change, even the smallest, upsets the consensus version apple cart.

I suggest you start proposing changes here, one at a time, in separate sections, and we can discuss them together. There are many editors, including many of us medical experts, who watch this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead must sum up all the content in the body of the article, so controversies are also mentioned there. That stuff cannot be shunted off to the body. My rule of thumb is discussed in this essay I wrote many years ago: How to create and manage a good lead section: "If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight."

Also, the lead should not be changed unless it reflects changes to the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The NIH (and the NCCIH), contrary to popular belief, are actually not a very reliable source on Wikipedia. It's an inherently political organization, e.g. no scientific or expert review panel dictated the formation of the NCCAM. That decision was entirely dictated by act of Congress. On Wikipedia, we trust secondary reviews published in academic journals more to tell us how to cover a topic. This article is the result of many dozens of editors working together, its wording is a delicate balance of the many policies that come into play here. If it seems like you're being reverted a lot, it's probably a good indication that you're editing in a controversial high traffic area with lots of editors monitoring the article avoiding POV pushing and vandalism. This lead has been stable for a long time. If it seems as though many other editors don't agree with you, I would suggest WP:1AM as a good read. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience."

Let's remove the absolute claim that all alternative medicine is pseudoscience from the lede. Many or most definitions of alternative medicine include some entities that are not pseudoscience. A claim that all alternative medicine is pseudoscience is inappropriate for the lede of this article. Jaredroach (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please start with an exact quote from the article. Then we can discuss it. We really have to demand precision in discussions to avoid misunderstandings.

What "entities that are not pseudoscience" are you thinking of? I suspect you mean something like "that do not have pseudoscientific reasoning" behind it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience" is too strong. It needs to have a word added that makes it clear that not all alternative therapies are pseudoscience. For example, it could be changed to "Some alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience". Jaredroach (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What "entities that are not pseudoscience" are you thinking of? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The lead is written as a summary of body content, based on our best available sources. The status quo still appears to be a valid summary. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the reply to Val's question above (in the peanut gallery.) - Roxy the dog 15:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Let us all gather and observe the heat death of the universe, together — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your question implies that you have thought really hard to come up with an example of alternative medicine that is not pseudoscience, and have failed. Furthermore, your question implies that if you were presented one example of alternative medicine that was not pseudoscience, then you would change your opinion. In the long run, for this argument to be successful, _everything_ practiced under the penumbra of "traditional Chinese medicine" or "osteopathic medicine" must be classified as pseudoscience. This is the current consensus of the two or three Wikipedia editors defending the current status of this article. The utility of such an extreme definition is questionable. There are practices of TCM and osteopathy that overlap with {allopathy; Western medicine; biomedicine; conventional medicine; mainstream medicine; orthodox medicine}. For example, the use of particular medicines backed by extensive research. Dealing with these overlap cases would require considerable ontological contortions. For example, one could claim that any use of a compound with scientific evidence behind it is, by definition, not TCM, and not osteopathy. That approach would preserve the claim that all of TCM is pseudoscience. But that would change the definition of TCM (or osteopathy or any other field encompassed by the phrase "alternative medicine") to mean something different than almost anyone using those phrases would intend. Jaredroach (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting for answers. Dry roasted, anybody? - Roxy the dog 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In the long run, for this argument to be successful, _everything_ practiced under the penumbra of "traditional Chinese medicine" or "osteopathic medicine" must be classified as pseudoscience. This is the current consensus of the two or three Wikipedia editors defending the current status of this article
Please don't attribute statements to others that they did not, themselves, say. You have brought these definitions and considerations, others have disagreed with your premises and the format of the question. Sources are what matter. Not our personal opinions.

Any attempt to argue ontology on Wikipedia is destined to fail, as Wikipedia is not, has not ever been, and will likely never be, logically consistent. it isn't a science. It isn't mathematics. It's a set of contradictory and overlapping policies and guidelines which get us really close to a good encyclopedia. There's no inherent logic to it that you can argue with and WP:WIN as in a debate. What is true in one article according to the sources will not always be true in every other article. This is because Wikipedia has no single universal "consensus" truth. There are, instead, many contradictory local consensuses that are, occasionally, overturned by more global consensus. But you aren't going to get very far if you try and treat Wikipedia like a logic puzzle that you can crack open. Better to look at the sources, see what they say, and go along for the ride. Thus far, I have not seen you link even a single source to support your position. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Many medical students complain that many facts of medical sciences make no sense, have no apparent logic, and you just have to learn them by rote. A Romanian medicine professor commented thereupon that students coming from linguistics-based high schools are better equipped to study medicine than students coming from natural sciences-based high schools. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So so so so very true. I have never heard this but I feel as if I have lived it a thousand times. As a PhD-scientist-turned-3-months-from-MD, I have been frustrated by no end of unscientific and inconsistent eminence-based practices in medicine. Medicine isn't a science, it's an art, that's informed by science.

Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is an art informed by fairy-magic-dusted horseshit. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Osteopathy has, for the most part, repudiated its pseudoscientific beginnings and joined the world of rational healthcare. That is why graduates of its schools, but not those of chiropractic or naturopathy, can train as residents and legitimately identify themselves as primary care physicians or specialists." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140750/ tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a proposition for what to do with the sentence/topic of this thread, so I'll start a new thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Stuff to move around

I would also like to add the catch-22 that defines AM: "If a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I like both your proposals, but I have two worries. First, the proposed language would make the first paragraph quite long. Perhaps we could deal with this by moving some of the other names for AM to a later paragraph? Second, the proposed language would duplicate, in part, the beginning of the second paragraph. Would we remove "Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the established science of how the human body works; others resort to the supernatural or superstitious to explain their effect or lack thereof" if this proposal is adopted? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, really good thoughts. This is exactly why I usually propose potentially controversial changes here. More eyes and all that. A collaborative result has staying power here. We don't want unnecessary duplication, so any modifications are welcome.

I like the idea of moving the CAM/Complementary/Integrative mentions to later, maybe as the first sentence of the last paragraph. The first paragraph should be devoted to AM. Those various applications of AM can come later.

The other stuff in the second paragraph could be moved to the first paragraph after merging into my proposition, so that needs work, but that can be complicated as there is quite a bit of duplication with the second paragraph. We may even end up merging it and keeping it as part of the second paragraph, depending on how long it gets.

So, to simplify things, let's start with the easiest things first:

1. Move the CAM/Complementary/Integrative stuff now. Is that okay? We can always revert later, but let's give it a try.
2. Adding my catch-22 sentence somewhere. That could be an easy thing to do. Where's a good spot? When I look at the current second paragraph, it might work at the end there. I'd add "history has shown", as in "History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine".

So that's two things to do before attempting the complicated merging stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the last paragraph for the alt names. I think it would work well for it to be proximate to the line on "Its marketing often advertises ...". Placement of the catch-22 in what's now paragraph 2 sounds good to me, with the other content on effectiveness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. More tomorrow. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my support to this as well. A clear and evident improvement which expands our description of the multiple forces underlying the adoption of alternative practices. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Lumping all AM under pseudoscience is too simplistic and is actually wrong. It also set us up for a well-deserved straw man attack, as we have just observed. Some practices make no origin or mechanism of action claims that are related to science, and those are essential elements for being considered "pseudoscience". There are myriad types of AM, and there are many other factors than PS that describe some of them better. Putting this right up front makes for a better lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we're done with moving the content around. Please comment in the section above this one for the merging discussion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

References

"Derogatory"?

 Done

Thanks for your efforts @Valjean. I'm confused about how New age can be considered a derogatory term. The article for New Age does not say anything about the term being derogatory for medicine, only for music. It might be a good idea to remove new age from the sentence in the first paragraph and tighten it up. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The word "derogatory" is gone now. You make a good point, and since "New Age" is not mentioned as "derogatory" in the body, there is no reason to say "derogatory" for it in the lead. New Age is kept because it is mentioned in the body as associated with many AM practices. I hope that's a good solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes- great work ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's use a better third sentence

Here is the third sentence in the lead:

Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience.

There is a sentence in the body that is better suited for use there, as "pseudoscience" isn't the only factor that should be mentioned in the lead:

Unlike medicine, an alternative product or practice does not originate from using scientific methods, but may instead be based on hearsay, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.

What think ye? Feel free to tweak. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. - Roxy the dog 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Make sense; not all alternative medicine justifies itself primarily on pseudoscience. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not an improvement. Seems ignorant of sociology and anthropology, problematic as this article lumps traditional medicine (and integrative medicine) into the alternative frame. Keep it in the body of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Love it, think it's a great improvement as it expands upon what the body should say using great sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's an attempt to merge them without losing anything of importance:

Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.

I have added one more ref/note after "outside of medical science", altered "using scientific methods" to "using the scientific method", and then added "anecdotes". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to change that third sentence before we merge it with the second paragraph. (That would involve a change to both.)

Here is the third sentence in the lead:

Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience.

Here's a replacement based on the sentence in the body of the article, but adapted for the lead:

Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.

How's that? Shall I make the change? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I boldly added it. Now we can proceed to the next step we're discussing in the new section below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's resume this merging discussion in the new section. The other stuff in the second paragraph could be moved to the first paragraph after merging into my proposition, so that needs work, but that can be complicated as there is quite a bit of duplication with the second paragraph. We may even end up merging it and keeping it as part of the second paragraph, depending on how long it gets. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Strange sentence

"Some of the successful practices are only considered alternative under very specific definitions, such as those which include all physical activity under the umbrella of "alternative medicine"."

That's the last sentence of the lead, and I don't find corresponding content in the body. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. It looks like something someone just dropped there. It also seems false. Exercise is not considered AM, unless it's some weird form making bogus claims. "Exercise" is only mentioned twice, and then in the context of TCM. All other exercise is considered mainstream and not AM.

I'd like to just nuke that sentence. I find it offensive that exercise, which is a major treatment modality of PT, is being mentioned here. It is not AM. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No response, so I'll just nuke it. If anyone can find a justification for keeping it, or they can word it better, it can be restored in a better form. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with removing this sentence. It has no correlation in the body, and is not backed up by a source or any source I can find. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Usage/prevalence

Moved from above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Angel, in the PBS source, also addresses who uses CAM in the United States and for what reasons, i.e. reasons regarding what they find lacking in their experiences with conventional medicine. Repetitive quotes from skeptics only provide part of the picture for this topic. If demographics show certain groups are using this more than than the general public, this article fails to neutrally address why that is.

This source [5] is also underutilized in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You are touching on a different topic than the subject of merging a small set of specific wordings in the lead. You are talking about the popularity and use of AM. We have a section (or more) in the article on the topic. Are we missing mention of that in the lead? If so, then it should be mentioned, likely in the last paragraph, where we get close.

That source is only used once, in the "Prevalence of use" section. If you see other relevant places to use it, then do so.

If you want this subject dealt with properly, then please start a separate section and move this there. Then we can deal with it and help you better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Testing and diagnoses

Many alt med sellers rely on pseudoscientific or unvalidated testing that is used to make pseudoscientific diagnoses. For example, chiropractors claim to detect "subluxations" on X-rays while TCM practitioners have, for example, tongue and pulse diagnosis. The TCM Wikipedia article describes 8 principles of diagnosis starting with Yin and yang.

Discredited IgG food sensitivity tests may lead to diagnoses of inappropriate food sensitivities. False diagnoses of leaky gut, adrenal fatigue, heavy metals, Lyme, and "toxic mold" may also be facilitated. And then there's the alternatively-diagnosed vaccine injury (e.g. the discredited claim that autism is a vaccine injury). The infobox lists alt-diagnoses and anti-vaccination but the text of this article doesn't really mention them. There is a separate list of diagnoses characterized as pseudoscience and categories for Alternative diagnoses and Alternative medical diagnostic methods.

Where would it be appropriate to discuss these major components of the alt med industry? ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You have listed a group of articles that might logically be placed under one umbrella. Come up with a title. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What needs to be merged so we avoid duplication

The replacement for the second sentence:

Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energy, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.

The second paragraph:

Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the established science of how the human body works; others resort to the supernatural or superstitious to explain their effect or lack thereof. In others, the practice has plausibility but lacks a positive risk–benefit outcome probability. Alternative medicine is distinct from scientific medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing repeatable evidence of either effect or of no effect. Research into alternative therapies often fails to follow proper research protocols (such as placebo-controlled trials, blind experiments and calculation of prior probability), providing invalid results. History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine.

Now let's merge these by first identifying duplications. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The first place I notice a similarity (yet a contrast) is here, so maybe we can merge them:

• Alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.

• Alternative medicine is distinct from scientific medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing repeatable evidence of either effect or of no effect.

Merged (by reversing the order and making the sentence a contrast):

Unlike modern medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing repeatable evidence of either effect or of no effect, alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural "energies", pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.

We could then make that the second sentence in the first paragraph and remove the sentence from the second paragraph. (I replaced "scientific medicine" with "modern medicine" and wikilinked "energies".) Then the second paragraph would look like this:

Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the established science of how the human body works; others resort to the supernatural or superstitious to explain their effect or lack thereof. In others, the practice has plausibility but lacks a positive risk–benefit outcome probability. Research into alternative therapies often fails to follow proper research protocols (such as placebo-controlled trials, blind experiments and calculation of prior probability), providing invalid results. History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine.

Because there still may exist some duplication, but be too complicated to do all at once, for the sake of transparency I suggest we install these changes and then move forward with more analysis and removal of duplication of ideas. I suspect the second paragraph will become shorter. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Oppose merger. The longer passage retains nuance. However, the last sentence only belongs in the body of the article. "History has shown that if a method is proven to work, it ceases to be alternative and becomes mainstream medicine." How do we factor into this version of "history" that the WHO has separate definitions for traditional medicine and CAM in various publications? Cedar777 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have installed the merged versions. Take a look at the improved lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that Cedar777 has reverted my bold addition (a consensus is not required), per BRD, let's discuss this. (Pinging others who have recently been active on this page. ScienceFlyer Shibbolethink Firefangledfeathers Galobtter Roxy the dog )

Cedar777, you did not provide a policy-based edit summary when you deleted the merged content I installed. Don't do that. You need policy-based reasons for blocking good-faith additions. Please explain yourself based on policy. I merged two sentences and thus got rid of duplication. What's wrong with that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree this edit is patently a good contribution which improves the summary-style of the lead. There was also pretty evident consensus above to include it per WP:CONSENSUS — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There is not much point in dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the lede when the broader issues are that the article is outdated and the body needs an update to better reflect existing sources and include more current sources, i.e. from the last 10-15 years. While there is a large quantity of relevant and pertinent information here, the scope is too narrow and some content is present that is cringeworthy in its lack of awareness. The reality is that many general resources still differentiate between integrative, complementary, and alternative medicine (CDC [6], American Indian Cancer Foundation[7], Mayo Clinic [8]) or that simply do not frame it collectively with the language used in the Wikipedia article. Yes, the voices of noteworthy authors and skeptics are certainly relevant and required for the subject but not at the exclusion of all other content and context. It may be helpful for editors to extend curiosity and empathy towards this subject and its users in order to reflect RS more accurately. Cedar777 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Then find and add such content. We are always open for newer information, especially if there are any MEDRS sources that have finally proven a named AM method is actually effective for a real disease, not just a comforting measure. If it's about the increasing popularity of AM, we know about that, and updated numbers might be relevant. There is money to be made on quack medicine, and "modern medicine" isn't exclusively evidence-based medicine. It's also a business, and by adding nostrums, more money is made. That's how business works. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see the terminology/framing done in the articles listed in this section: "Recent sources that address usage" listed below. Cedar777 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2023‎ (UTC)

The entire defining opening of this article is bias and insulting

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

---

There isn't a single sentence in this section that isn't horribly insulting to practitioners of alternative medicine but belittling to those who choose to use alternative medicine. I would suggest someone who doesn't feel it's necessary to state that alternative medicine has very little distinction from "quackery" as well as 27 other unverifiable origination practices such as the "belief in supernatural 'energies'"

Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine despite lacking biological plausibility, testability, repeatability, or evidence from clinical trials. Unlike modern medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing repeatable evidence of either effect or of no effect, alternative therapies reside outside of medical science and do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural "energies", pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources. Frequently used terms for relevant practices are New Age medicine, pseudo-medicine, holistic medicine, unorthodox medicine, fringe medicine, and unconventional medicine, with little distinction from quackery. 2600:1700:AB31:1D80:1C5E:39E0:51CE:CA6E (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So, what do you want us to do about it? Sweep those facts under the rug just because you do not like them? See WP:IDLI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This is great news. We must be doing something right. - Roxy the dog 10:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Claims

The small box in the upper right corner of the page states, under "Claims": "Alternatives to reality-based medical treatments". This is an editorial disguised as neutral point of view. It might be more accurate to say: "Alternatives to mainstream modern Western medical practice". Surakmath (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the wording could be improved, particularly by following the actual common language used regarding the subject (alternative/complementary/integrative medicine) by major WP:MEDORGs and by omitting the term “reality-based”. Cedar777 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We could skip "Claims" in the infobox, since it's a bit complex, and infoboxes aren't good with complex. IMO "modern Western" is worse than "reality-based". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Skipping is a good option. Any good philosopher will tell you "reality" isn't a thing per se, but a view. I see "evidence based" as a common phrase. Since the 1950's at least, the Western world has adopted many traditional Eastern understandings and expanded on them, such that East/West isn't a useful means of distinction between the medicines. Skipping is a good option. _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I support skipping the claims parameter in the infobox Cedar777 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I would support keeping it as "alternatives to science-based medicine". As it's important to describe the relationship between "evidence-based" which is the phrase that many doctors know, but is often corrupted by alternative practitioners who perform shoddy studies, and "science-based" which takes into context the low quality of such studies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Rose Shapiro

Rose Shapiro is a notable writer. Her views are relevant but they should not be stated in Wikivoice as was redone here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1146676462&diffmode=source%7C. There are many sources that do not share her opinion of the terminoloy. Cedar777 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine, and not "in Wikivoice". Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the unnecessarily snide intro and tagged the areas where it is unclear who's views some of the statements in that section belong to. Cedar777 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Bon courage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"snide" is an interesting characterization. I don't agree with that perspective. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I don't see why this (referring to them vaguely as "experts") is necessary. Both Gorski and Shapiro are very much in the public eye with their views. Each has their own biography page. If we are naming Ernst repeatedly, why not list and wiki link Shapiro and her 2008 book Suckers as well? Cedar777 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean that we should collapse the entire idea of criticism to just Shapiro. That's bad summary-style. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Snide due to this bit of wording "Besides the usual issues with alternative medicine," which comes off as editorializing. That intro doesn't contribute much of anything to a statement about integrative medicine. Mostly it indicates the writer really finds the subject contemptible and rife with "issues".

See MOS:NOTE: "phrases such as of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, and actually make presumptions about readers' knowledge, may express a viewpoint, and may call into question the reason for including the information in the first place. Do not tell readers that something is interesting, ironic, surprising, unexpected, amusing, coincidental, etc. Simply present sourced facts neutrally and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Such constructions can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone: Note that this was naturally subject to controversy in more conservative newspapers. becomes This was subject to controversy in more conservative newspapers.

What are the "usual issues" that readers are expected to have as a reference point?

It would be better to do away with that framing (Besides the usual issues). Cedar777 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent sources that address usage

• 2018 "Complementary medicine use in the Australian population: Results of a nationally-representative cross-sectional survey" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35508-y

• 2017 "Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in US Adults With Moderate Mental Distress: Results From the 2012 National Health Interview Survey" Journal of Primary Care & Community Health. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2150131916671229

• 2011 "Rx for Prevention, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health" http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/wwwfiles/ph/media/media/rx-nov-dec2011-web.pdf

• 2011 Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Canada and the United States https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.92.10.1616

• 2022 Prevalence of Use of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the General Population: A Systematic Review of National Studies Published from 2010 to 2019 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40264-022-01189-w

• 2018 Complementary medicine and the NHS: Experiences of integration with UK primary care https://www.bristol.ac.uk/primaryhealthcare/news/2018/national-cam-survey.html

Cedar777 (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . not much feedback here on other editors views on the quality of these sources or their content. Cedar777 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect you'll get more traction with this after you propose some wording you'd like to include in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The difference between backwards editing and forwards editing applies here. (courtesy mention to Levivich who recently raised this useful distinction at another unrelated article)

Backwards editing: "Here is what the article should say, now let's find sources to support each fact..."

Forwards editing: "Here are three good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them..."

In this case, here are six good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them . . .

Perhaps editors here at alternative medicine A) haven't yet had an opportunity to read any of these sources B) believe that some or all of them are of insufficient quality or C) have read them but are unwilling or unable to acknowledge or integrate this information with their existing views on the subject. Cedar777 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. They look like potentially good sources. You found them and have read them, so you are welcome to take the lead in finding a way to use them. We'll be happy to help you get it right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The framing of the topic remains concerning, i.e., the topic as currently described in the article is lacking in neutrality. It broadly implies that practitioners of the conflated alternative/complementary/integrative medicine are quacks and the users are nitwits. Multiple WP:MEDORGs do not conflate the three terms. A sizable number of the cited sources outside of the history section are over 20 years old!

Per WP:MEDDATE sources from the last 5 years are preferred.

I hesitate to summarize the above sources covering usage demographics until some of the broader issues in the article are addressed. To proceed at this point would likely amount to participating in finger pointing to the implied "nitwits" rather than being part of an updated assessment of the topic. Editors may detest this subject thoroughly but there is factual evidence that CAM is not dissipating. Cedar777 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It may also prove useful to review these more recent sources simply for the language they use to frame the subject itself. By default, they are differentiating complementary/alternative/integrative medicine usage from the usage of medicine proper as something worthy of study. In order to study it, they must define it. Cedar777 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

References

The Skeptic's Dictionary

It is unnecessary to rely on a self-published source and use it in the article. Per WP:RSP "it's preferable to read and cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary." If those sources still aren't any better, the content is undue. Cedar777 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's published by Wiley, and WP:PARITY applies. Nothing can be "per RSP" because it's just an overgrown essay. Bon courage (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RSP provides concise, carefully worded summaries that reflect a consensus of editors. Perhaps by your logic that RSP is "just an overgrown essay" we would also devalue what it states about the non-peer-reviewed blog SBM, right? RSP is in fact useful for understanding what a consensus of editors have agreed about a source. The Skeptics Dictionary just isn't that strong of a source. The points it has raised can better be attributed directly to the best quality sources that it cites or to higher quality alternative sources in general. Cedar777 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like an axe being ground! RSP has zero WP:PAG force (as it helpfully says at the top). In some senses its checkbox approach is antithetical to the correct running of the WP:CLUETRAIN but it's sometimes useful like the lies we tell to children; that's how I use it anyway. If you want an actual on-point WP:PAG I recommend WP:PARITY. For woo, sources like The Skeptic's Dictionary are golden. Of course, if you have better then bring them forth! Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Carroll was a highly respected subject matter expert. The yellow status is just a caution, especially regarding use in a BLP situation, not as we are using it here. Ultimately all yellow sources are used on a case-by-case basis, and this use stands up to examination as a useful source here. Especially on this topic, it is very relevant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we can and should do better by limiting this to WP:BESTSOURCES. Cedar777 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you find such sources and then propose them as a replacement. Until then, keep The Skeptic's Dictionary. It is written by a highly respected subject matter expert and can be used, even according to RSP. It is only for BLP matters it should not be used. Pinging Bon courage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"The Skeptics Dictionary" refers to two things. One is the published work, per Bon courage, which - as a book published by a major publisher - is regarded as fine. The other is a self-published website. As a sef-published website it cannot be used for claims about living people other than the author, but it is still the work of a subject-matter expert, so is potentially ok for other claims even if it may not be the best choice. The problem, though, is that there is cross-over between the two works, which means I normally check the book to see if the same claim is in there before deciding what to do. - Bilby (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

How 'integrative medicine' is characterized is not a BLP issue. So I'm not sure why it's being raised, Wikipedia editors often link to the website version because they prefer linkable content, it's true. Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how it is being used, but I think there was some confusion between the book (unquestionably a reliable source) and the website (a reliable source, but self-published, and therefore has limitations on how it can or should be used). WP:RSP acknowledges both, but the concerns raised there only apply to one. - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, and it seems the only mention on this page from the website directly is a quote from Carroll himself. So WP:SPS would apply and the quotation is arguably justified, given Carroll is an expert. the other mention (skep_dic_comp_med) appears to be verifiable to pages 5,17,75, and 322 of the 2004 book. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby, the book and website do present a worthwhile distinction. Carroll's 2007 The Skeptic's Dictionary does NOT have a dedicated definition for integrative medicine - there is no listing for it in the book. This statement: "Carroll described Integrative medicine as "a synonym for 'alternative' medicine that integrates sense with nonsense. It integrates the scientific with the untested and the discredited." comes directly from the Sceptic's Dictionary website, a WP:SPS.

Furthermore, what Carroll says on the website shows far more balance and is actually this "Integrative medicine is a synonym for "alternative" medicine that, at its worst, integrates sense with nonsense. At its best, integrative medicine supports both consensus treatments of science-based medicine and treatments that the science, while promising perhaps, does not justify."

WP:SPS advises: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

This source should be discarded for something better or at minimum it should be modified to reduce the cherrypicking of Carroll's words. Cedar777 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You aren't listening. The answer to your proposition is still a big NO. We are dealing with a fringe subject, so WP:PARITY applies. Carroll (both book and website), Gorski (blogs and anywhere else), Ernst, Barrett, et al are all good sources for fringe topics like this. They are subject matter experts. When dealing with fringe topics, SPS allows the use of subject matter experts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Right. it's good for woo. Not good for WP:BLP stuff. So we're good. Bon courage (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, the wording extracted from the published source does not accurately represent what Carroll actually said which was "Integrative medicine is a synonym for "alternative" medicine that, at its worst, integrates sense with nonsense. At its best, integrative medicine supports both consensus treatments of science-based medicine and treatments that the science, while promising perhaps, does not justify." Cedar777 (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Carroll said the same thing with slightly different wordings in different places, in the book and on the website. Both are acceptable sources, and we have chosen this one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP P&G, we should use the highest quality one, which is the book. Cedar777 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree, I think SBM and Ernst are the highest quality sources we have on this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy of article

This is not my opinion per se, just a fact (I am a big supporter of both Science and Folk Medicine, favoring science) - This article is obviously biased against Alternative Medicine, and therefore cannot be taken as accurate. In order for accuracy to occur, the author must take an unbiased viewpoint, and just state the facts. The use of the word "derogatorily" when referring to "Big Pharma", but them blatantly discrediting centuries of Folk Medicine, much of which HAS proven to be effective (fact), as well as the rest of the language used in the article, shows that this article is extremely biased against Alternative Medicine and therefore inaccurate in its findings, and should be re-written, or edited, by someone with an unbiased viewpoint - or at the very least, include a section from an Alternative Medicine point of view, which includes scientific findings of efficacy in the use of herbal medicine. Thank you. 2600:6C44:75F0:73F0:D03F:480A:44B7:2D5B (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been said many times before and I'll say it again. The article reflects the scientific consensus on alternative medicine. If suitable sources exist to support the effectiveness of "folk medicine", they can certainly be used to support changes to the article. I recommend reading Reliable sources and Identifying reliable sources (medicine). PepperBeast (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It very clearly does not. "Complementary and Alternative medicine" includes disciplines AS DEFINED BY GOVERNMENT POLICY such as Physiotherapy, Chiropracty, Osteopathy, Acupuncture, Herbalism (which is the basis of 90% of the modern western pharmacopeia). Both public and private health insurance cover these treatments, and therefore being recognised by government and for-profit corporations cannot be considered "fringe" or "untested". As a scientist this so called nebulous, UNCITED, "scientific consensus" not only DOES NOT EXIST it is also counterfactual. Articles like this are why the founder of Wikipedia now describes it as "The most biased encyclopedia to ever exist". 202.53.33.99 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The bias of Wikipedia is very clearly stated at WP:PSCI and WP:MEDRS.

Most quacks hate Wikipedia, and homeopaths hate it with a passion. Homeopathy is the second most contested article on Wikipedia, after Jesus, and this spreads across multiple language versions of Wikipedia.

— Guy Chapman

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160422023551/http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2015/07/homeopaths-to-jimmy-wales-please-rewrite-reality-to-make-us-not-wrong/

Wikipedia is very clearly biased for mainstream science and for evidence-based medicine.

Pretending that an encyclopedia could be unbiased is just silly.

And, frankly, we don't care about the policy of your own government, since your government is not an authority on scientific matters. They're all politicians, you know, and politicians adopt compromise measures and often fall for quackery. Governments decide upon projects of laws (the laws of your country), they never decide upon scientific matters, since that is not the business of politicians. Science gets decided through peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals, not by asking politicians to take a vote. See Indiana Pi Bill for details.

Those brands of alternative medicine being legal in your country is a political freedom, it does not mean that scientific evidence would support such quackery. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaiah0604 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isaiah0604 (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)