Talk:Anthroposophic medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

State of article

This article is a complete and utter catastrophy. (RookZERO 06:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. AM is completely out of synch with the real world. An improbable mish-mash of astrology, karma, vitalism, homeopathy and general science-phobia pimped up as an "holistic" alternative. WP:PWNED! by the "Steiner said" mafia. Disgusting. 83.248.135.109 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error aside, I have to agree that this article, some eighteen months on, is still a complete and utter catastrophe. It is unclear right from the introductory paragraphs and does a very poor job of covering the topic. My particular concern, however, is with the section on mistletoe as a cancer treatment. I do not see how highlighting this particular herbal medicine, and research outcomes that are ambiguous at best, does a good job of illustrating anything at all about anthroposophic medicine and I frankly question the motivation behind its inclusion. Regardless, it unduly dominates the article rather than being presented as an illustrative example among others and I don't believe that is desirable. --Anthropoidape (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you reduce misteltoe to what you think is a reasonable level of detail for this article? That might make some "mental breathing space" for other ideas about expanding other parts of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be spun off into an article of its own; this is where it was until merged back in here. It is easily notable enough to deserve its own article: it is used by a majority of oncology patients in Central Europe; there are many articles on its usage published in peer-reviewed medical journals; the NIH website has a whole section devoted to it, including this review of trials. Hgilbert (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Used by "a majority of oncology patients in Central Europe"? As in, greater than 50%? Or are you being sloppy with your terms? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article cited states "up to two-thirds" of oncology patients; see

• Ernst E, Schmit K, Steuer-Vogt MK. Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Int J Cancer 2003;107:262-7, cited in BMJ 2006;333:1293-1294 (23 December)[1]. Hgilbert (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Hgilbert (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That paper cites PMID 12949804 as the source of the factoid, which I don't have access to. "Up to two-thirds" can mean "up to two-thirds of patients in the studies we reviewed" or "Up to two-thirds in this particular kind of cancer, but hardly any for this other cancer" or "Up to two-thirds of the patients in this town, where the doctor likes to put everyone on it" or any number of other things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

a bit of respect

After you study for 6 years in a Medical School, after you do whatever speciality you decide for another 4 to 6 years, after you take a postgrade master in anthroposophical medicine, then we may have a chat on your based opinions about it. Until then, please just show more respect... Dr. MFPoole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.39.69.170 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Factual accuracy is definitely disputed

This is not a proper article by any stretch, I am going to start looking for sources now to more accurately address this topic. Tmtoulouse 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! This is a difficult topic and it's good to have you around. Let's do our best to co-operate with everyone, anthroposophical editors will probably join here as well. Cheers Erdanion 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A difficult topic? What's difficult about it? Classic case of quack medicine article owned by partisans, highlighting everything that's wrong with WP. 83.248.138.43 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has practically no non-anthroposophical references. It is in violation of the arbitration rulings concerning anthroposophy-related articles and has been so for months. If adequate, non-anthroposophical sources are not cited in the next week or so, I will propose it for deletion.DianaW 03:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you wish this article to be next for cleanup according to the arbitration guidelines, propose this and give it enough months - as were required with other articles - for this to be done properly. By the way, A. sources are permitted for non-controversial aspects of a subject. Hgilbert 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I *am* proposing it, and you've already had months. The arbitration was back in January and applied to the entire "family" of Steiner/Waldorf/anthroposophy articles on wikipedia. Fred Bauder was clear that the basic problem is using only or mainly anthroposophical sources to "document" that anthroposophy is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are a couple dozen such articles that are exactly that - little mini-brochures that function to suggest anthroposophy does so many wonderful things for mankind. Like I say, the arbitration was in January, and it is clearly quite all right with the anthropsophists who have written all these articles that they sit forever and ever like this if no one hollers. I'm saying, either get to work fixing them or they should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't free advertising.DianaW 12:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The article may need more referencing, but substantial numbers of independent citations are already present. The article should be improved, not deletedHgilbert 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try not to use phrases like "the greatest thing since sliced bread" or "mini-brochure" when the article is clearly worded with statements like "the advocates believe" and "advocates see" and "advocates think". I do not see anything here that is any more promotional than, for example, the ayurveda article. Many people think ayurveda is great, many people think it's quackery. But as long as it's NPOV and presented as a belief system, then don't sling this kind of mud please. Let's be constructive. From what I can see, ALL of the references are allowable and non-anthro. Henitsirk 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

For those not present during arbitration proceedings, the arbitration concluded that this and related articles may only use peer-reviewed, mainstream published sources. Web publications and polemical sources from either side are not allowed.

I am thus removing a web-published source self-published on "quackwatch.org". Hgilbert 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

a bit of accuracy

Shouldn't this article contain information regarding Rudolph Steiner's views regarding the cause of diseases, and that he thought that many causes for diseases were not just rooted in the physical but also rooted in the spiritual (or what some might call paranormal, metaphysical, or even pseudoscience)? According to the Wiki article on pseudoscience, it is defined as, "any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method." In the Anthroposophical medicine article it states, "Anthroposophical medicine is a form of complementary or alternative medicine (CAM), and has been criticized by some current day advocates of evidence based medicine, such as Wallace Sampson and Edzard Ernst, who have argued that practitioners of anthroposophical medicine and other forms of alternative medicine deliver treatments for which the efficacy or safety hasn't been adequately demonstrated through strictly controlled medical and scientific testing." It also says, "Robert Todd Carroll claims that, for ethical reasons, Anthroposophical physicians do not conduct double-blind controlled scientific experiments, and that it is thus nearly impossible to evaluate their success rates." These statements seem to indicate that Anthroposophical medicine could very well fit the definition of pseudoscience. Is no mention of that applied to these views when it is applied to other unproven or unprovable theories on Wiki, for example Wilhelm Reich's views concerning Orgones. The Orgone article is marked in the pseudoscience category. Yet, Rudolph Steiner's views, such as his claim "the heart is not a pump", though clearly an inaccurate medical statement, and some of his other ideas are given a pass and no mention of pseudoscience appears in this article or any on Wiki that seem to be relating to Steiner and some of his unproven/unprovable notions.

Basically, what I'm saying here is this: Be honest about what "Anthroposophical medicine" is and what it is based upon. If it is based upon spirituality and 100-year-old science, then please describe what the fundamentals of these concepts are for the readers and seekers of honest and accurate information. Robert Todd Carroll described Anthroposophical medicine's basis like this: "Chief among these teachings is that the body is not an independent material organism and that good health depends on a harmonious relationship between the physical body, spirit or vital force, the soul, and the ego."[2] Perhaps one could also say it this way: To Steiner, good health is achieved when the physical organism is properly aligned with three bodies that manifest during a human's lifetime: (1) the "etheric body", (2) the "astral body", and (3) the "I". Aren't these among the "mystical" things which Steiner wrote about? Why isn't this in the article? To Steiner, bad health often reflected the working out of one's "karmic destiny." Did he not write of such things also? In 1910, Steiner said, "If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox, we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity." (Karma of the Higher Beings in Manifestations of Karma Lecture 8, May 25th, 1910). Well, I just think some of these things are important to the topic at hand and should be represented in the article.

Geneisner 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the arbitration decision is that you need to use authoritative verifiable secondary sources, that do not involve original research. You may not cite Steiner directly but you may use authoritative sources that describe what Steiner said. I don't think Skepdic.com or Robert Todd Carroll are authoritative sources for these purposes. Everything that you propose above appears to me to be original research (by putting together information from various sources to make a case). If you can find an authoritative source to cite that makes the same case you do here, then it should be cited. In order to preserve a neutral point of view, countervailing authoritative sources need also to be included. Also, please use the spelling Rudolf rather than Rudolph since it the preferred spelling in these articles. Merci bien, EPadmirateur 04:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why his own writings and the accurately documented commentary of others (especially modern day PhDs who have written things on Steiner) would be "out of bounds" for a Wikipedia article. Certainly if someone finds information directly from Steiner's own works, those views expressed accurately in the articles would not be "out of bounds" for Wiki. There's plenty of proof that Steiner believed in mystical and esoteric spirituality, and that he used unproven and unprovable theories to try and justify his views on all types of things, ranging from the unknown paranormal (or, as some might call, pseudoscience), to other things like medicine and education. One needs only to pick up some of Steiner's books and look through them briefly to see that some of his views are "different" and "controversial", to put it mildly; or, as some might even say, "out of left field" (to quote an old baseball saying). From what I can tell, most professional scientists, physicians, educators, scholars, and philosophers these days don't seem to give Steiner's views much notice, importance, or attention. Other than being regarded highly by his small group of current followers, it seems Steiner is mainly regarded as another peculiar and eccentric curio from an earlier era. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, therefore one would hope that it would have accurate information on the topics that it covers. That's all I'm trying to say. Geneisner 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Steiner's work is complex enough that he may be quoted for support by both sides. For example, he required of anthroposophical physicians - a requirement that is maintained to this day - that they would also be M.D.s. Thus there is a world of difference between anthroposophical medicine - which seeks to extend traditional concepts, not ignore them - and branches of medicine in which the medical authorities have by and large not been through a conventional training. The arbitration states that Steiner's work (and anthroposophical sources generally) may be quoted in non-controversial contexts. If the issue is controversial, peer-reviewed works of academic standard should be used. They also pointed out that such sources exist, and that the onus is on editors to find them.

There is a chair of anthroposophical medicine at Bern University in Switzerland, and at least one accredited university in Germany offers courses on anthroposophical medicine. The anthroposophical remedies based on mistletoe have achieved widespread recognition throughout Europe; though these have also been contested recently, one source quoted in the article states that two-thirds of all oncology (cancer) patients in Europe are given these as supportive therapy. This direction of medicine has much less recognition in the USA.

Let's continue to find academic-quality standards (medical research journals are best for this article). Hgilbert 10:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just reread the article; all of what you mention here is already included, I think, including the specific sources. I have reorganized the article; the methodology section is a fragment that needs substantial filling out. Hgilbert 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I see that in the first sentence you changed the term Complementary and alternative medicine to just say Complementary medicine, but wouldn't the Complementary and alternative medicine label still apply to some aspects of Anthroposophical medicine? Geneisner 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think anthroposophical doctors would characterize what they do as complementary: they are fully MD's and apparently utilize all the standard therapies (antibiotics, chemotherapy, surgery, etc.) when the situation warrants it. The scholarly literature characterizes AM as "complementary", for example, here "Anthroposophical cancer treatment is applied in a complementary (additional to conventional medicine) rather than an alternative way." and here. --EPadmirateur 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are all "Anthroposophical doctors" full Medical Doctors with medical PhDs from accredited universities (not just Steiner "Anthroposophical medical" programs)? Do all who practice "Anthroposophical medicine", meaning those who counsel others on it and offer "Anthroposophical medical" advice to others, have a medical PhD degree from an accredited university and not just a Steiner "Anthroposophical medical" program? If so, has this always been the case? Also, about how many Anthroposophical doctors are there in the world? Just wondering. Geneisner 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All anthroposophical doctors have recognized medical degrees (M.D.) from accredited universities and specialist training (surgery, pediatrics, internal medicine, etc.). They then receive an additional 3-years' training in anthroposophical medicine. (See Anthroposophic medicine: its nature, its aims, its possibilities, p. 17 and von Rohr, et al. (2000), p. 1183.) To my understanding this has always been the case. According to the IVAA brochure p. 21, "Anthroposophic medicine is practiced in over 80 countries.... Hospitals, sanitoria and other clinical institutions dedicated to anthroposophic medicine are located in Brazil, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland." There are anthroposophical medical associations in 31 countries, according to the International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations. --EPadmirateur 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

About how many currently practicing anthroposophical medical doctors are there in the world? Also, about what percentage of the world's practicing medical doctors are currently practicing anthroposophical medical doctors? 0.05%? .5%? 1%? More or Less? How many are we talking about here in real and raw numbers (that are hopefully also sourced from somewhere other than anthroposophical society literature and sources)? Just wondering. Geneisner 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the specific statistics are available. You can count them up where they are listed by the different medical associations. In the U.S., according to PAAM (Physicians' Association for Anthroposophic Medicine), there are 42 anthroposophical doctors (35 MDs and 7 DOs). In Germany, the GAÄD (Gesellschaft Anthroposophischer Ärzte in Deutschland) lists over 400 doctors and 17 clinics, hospitals and sanatoria. Those two numbers would probably give somewhat different percentages relative to the total number of doctors, differing by perhaps two orders of magnitude. --EPadmirateur 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two studies

I have entered a second journal article by the same authors as the first one entered here in the "Studies" section; one appeared in 2004 and one in 2007 in two different medical journals. It is not clear to me whether they refer to the same study which was reported twice, in which case the entries should be combined, or if they are different studies. Hgilbert (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaccinations

I have removed the Steiner quote on this subject as per arbitration guidelines; in any case, it does not support the statement that he recommended against using vaccinations. There are citations available, I believe, supporting the case that anthroposophical doctors often recommend not vaccinating; let's bring one of them aboard. Hgilbert (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Material from the Criticism section needs to be incorporated in the other sections of the article (see WP:Criticism#Criticisms_of_a_topic_in_its_article. I have begun to do this. The other points of criticism can be added into the Studies section. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Boo! I see you have removed this material from the article. You people love to remove material, even well documented material, that shows Steiner in a negative light. Shame on you all (Steiner Gestapo) for not representing Herr Steiner's views in a more truthful way.

To Steiner, bad health often reflected the working out of one's "karmic destiny." Did he not write of such things? In 1910, Steiner said, "If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox, we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity." (Rudolf Steiner. Karma of the Higher Beings in Manifestations of Karma Lecture 8, May 25th, 1910). Well, I just think some of these things are important to the topic at hand and should be represented in the article. Your feeble attempts to hide what Herr Steiner really stood for are silly, trite, and laughable. Go ahead though, keep believing your lies, but it seems crappy that many of you try to cover up a lot of the quackery the old fart once spoke of, and then try to represent it (or misrepresent it) as something else while you goose-step along, farting to your own propaganda.

Fartbucket (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fartbucket, you are correct in saying that Steiner saw in health one aspect of the karmic challenges life presents. If we find objective sources that characterize this, we can include it - I agree it is an important aspect of his work. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review for details of the Wikipedia arbitration decisions that limit sources, and in particular explicitly exclude original Steiner texts as representing "original research". Also excluded are anthroposophical sources in controversial areas, so what the article now represents is nobody's propaganda, but peer-reviewed sources largely or completely drawn from academia. Hgilbert (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

I haven't done a careful review of the links, and I think that the regular editors of this article (or at least of CAM articles in general) could do a better job than I could. What caught my eye was the fact that there are rather more than a dozen links, and of a type that is likely to attract more links to be "fair", even if the links add no significant information value. For example: links to six or eight related organizations -- and if another organization is discovered tomorrow, then doubtless its link will be unquestioningly added just because all the others are there.

The next biggest problem is #1 on the list of links to avoid: These are not really unique resources that go beyond a (hypothetical) perfect article. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If you want to find an organization that deals with anthroposophical medicine, or a clinician who supports it, or a manufacturer who makes it, then you need to go to your favorite internet search engine, not Wikipedia.

Here are some other specific concerns:

• link to a magazine: This is free advertising for a commercial product. Where's the benefit to Wikipedia and its readers? (The same, BTW, could be said of the list of the "present-day clinics".)

• links to manufacturers: "sites that primarily exist to sell products" are specifically deprecated under WP:ELNO.

• duplication with references: If a website is used in an inline citation, it should not be repeated in the External links section.

If you need help weeding this linkfarm, then you can probably get assistance from someone at WT:EL. If you left it up to me, I'd probably delete all but the second and fourth items in the "information" section. Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I'm removing most of the links. Hgilbert (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Negative information removed?

In a newspaper editorial, Edzard Ernst suggested that mistletoe can have negative side-effects and that there is a danger that some patients might choose to abandon other cancer treatments.

The above text was removed yesterday on the strictly limited grounds that a pro-AM person disagrees with part of it (actually, the disagreement is only whether it might have serious negative side effects; the pro-AM person agrees that negative side effects do happen, and does not disagree that a person might abandon other proven cancer treatments if given the opportunity to take this less proven, but less immediately horrible treatment). I don't think that the removal is justified, and I think the removal violates NPOV. Does anyone have any other comments to make before it is restored? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That whole section on mistletoe needs some serious revamp and NPOV wording, better sourcing and balance. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced editorializing about the side-effects with an actual scientific analysis that reported both that there are no serious side-effects, and the exact nature of the reactions encountered. The danger of abandoning other treatments is a joke; anyone who chooses a particular treatment regimen runs the danger of "abandoning" other possible treatments. If there were a scientific study that shows that this in fact happens, and to the detriment of the patients, it would be worthy of inclusion.

Vis a vis balance of POV: four of the six bullet points in this section of the article mention limitations or negative evaluations. Hgilbert (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others that the Ernst criticism should not be removed. First, even if the citation is an editorial in a newspaper, Ernst is a scientist who has written in scholarly journals about his evaluation of Iscador, so his opinion shouldn't be dismissed for that reason. Secondly, to select which criticism is listed based on one's own reading and evaluation of the cited material borders on original research which should be avoided. The only argument against including Ernst would be undue weight which I think can't be justified here. Let the readers evaluate the different points in the article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: I hadn't realized that Ernst was a scientist who had studied Iscador. Hgilbert (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I think the solution needs to involve adding some brief title for Ernst, like "researcher" or "scientist" so that the reader doesn't automatically think "newspaper reporter". It would also be nice if we could cite a proper paper that presents his views there as well. Has he written any regular reviews that report the same sentiments in a more scientific context? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OR

Why the OR tag? Hgilbert (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh - I see - no reference for Holland and Great Britain. I've added this. Hgilbert (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be adding the OR tag again as this is a mostly collection of primary sources. What we need here is meta analysis or statements from scientific/medical/governmental bodies - not just primary sources. Tagging as OR is better than removal, as these sources could help us improve the article. But good job on adding refs. Verbal chat 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the sources with meta-analyses/reviews. Hgilbert (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statements from major medical bodies would still be highly useful, if not preferable. Jefffire (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The NIH has a series of web-pages devoted to mistletoe medicaments as cancer treatment: see the first page of eight for medical professionals here (there is also a series for lay persons).Hgilbert (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistletoe has been used in folk medicine for hundreds if not thousands of years. Conflating mistletoe research with anthroposophical medicine is PoV. Jefffire (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The modern use of mistletoe to treat cancer is wholly based upon anthroposophical researchers' development of a series of medicaments; this is supported by several sources in the article, e.g. Murphy's history of Iscador, the manufacturers' websites (e.g. Weleda), the article by Ernst (an opponent of mistletoe therapy). Hgilbert (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but research into anti-cancer properties of mistletoe aren't inherantly "anthroposhical". It isn't any particular great validation of anthroposophical medicine if this one treatment out of all they have proposed just happens to have interesting properties. Indeed, much of the research conducted would seem to defy many of the pricipals of anthroposophical medicine, leading me to regard this not really being particularily relavent to the article other than mentioning that it was initially proposed by, and often used in anthroposophical medicine, and move the bulk of the section into Mistletoe. Jefffire (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly right that this medicament has to a certain extent made a transition into general usage. We could certainly present the origins (and development) of the extracts here and move the discussion of the present state of research to the mistletoe article - or to an article focusing on the medicinal use of mistletoe extracts.

The research doesn't defy any principles of anthroposophical medicine, however; there is no "rule" that one shouldn't use randomized studies, for example, only a discomfort with the ethics of treating patients on a random basis (recognizing that this is done for statistical purposes). It is an ethical preference of practitioners, not a "principle" of the medicine. Hgilbert (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

factual accuracy disputed

What remains to be cleared up vis a vis the factual accuracy of the mistletoe section? Note that we have replaced studies with reviews for POV balance. Hgilbert (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the tag from this section if there are no remaining issues. Let's give a few days for responses, though. Hgilbert (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"and the participants also received conventional medical treatment"

Is this addition based upon the article citation? If so, it should be placed before the footnote tag. If not, on what is it based? Hgilbert (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

unbalanced?

Please raise issues on the talk page before placing an unbalanced tag here. This tag assumes there are verifiable sources not quoted here, or undue weight given to certain ones; explain further. Hgilbert (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)