Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Wait....

Wait, I'm not clear: is alternative medicine a good thing, or a bad thing? It's hard to tell from reading this article. You'd think someone would come out and plainly say "alternative medicine is a fraud and is bad for you" at least 40-50 times. I only see this stated about 20-30 times here. Redundancy is key, and some people might miss the point with this kind of subtlety. You wouldn't want someone to go out and take some useless herbal medicine because you failed to say "it's a placebo" in enough different ways.

No, really, fact is that most people who are into this stuff are going to glance over this page, and after the first three times of reading they are wrong, are going to say "if I was a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, I'd be sure to plaster Wikipedia with propaganda slamming my competitors also". They aren't going to believe you no matter how many times you say the same thing and no matter how many citations you put up. They think the modern medical system is a fraud meant to push nasty chemicals on people in order to make a lot of money. And at least half of that isn't necessarily untrue. A lot of money IS being made. AnnaGoFast (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine practices have little scientific evidence supporting their claimed efficacy. The reader can decide if that's a good thing, or a bad thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I promise to try to insert the words "Alternative Medicine is bollocks" into the article at least twenty more times this year. Best wishes, -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The moral to take from this is: Badly executed sarcasm ends up with people not knowing what you're trying to say. (Hohum ^@) 23:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There might actually be a valid point here. The Debunking Handbook states that a few well-chosen facts can work better than a list of myriad half-assed assertions. While I don't think we should remove anything, we might want to consider this. It might also be a very good idea to point out the alternative medicine lobby, which is remarkably strong. Carl Fredrik ^talk 01:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of money IS being made on worthless or dangerous products without evidence of benefit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s good to err on the safe side, but this article is sounding way more hostile towards alternative medicine in general than what we see in "the field", including among acknowledged medical practitioners. When one lumps together opposites like obvious quackery and traditional house medicines, such wholesale dismissal is to be expected, I guess. But when e.g. India has a dedicated Ministry to (certain types of) alternative medicine, one would think that that kind of recognition should be reflected in this article. --Geke (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I lunged for the like button on the original "Wait..." post. I had much the same experience trying to get citations for assertions of fact on the main 9/11 article, and have been topic-banned over just one single request for a citation from the first paragraph. User:Pedant (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah,. because you did this: [3]. What, it was an accident that they flew the hijacked planes into their target? Riiiight. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Geke @Pedant There is a lot of discussion around this topic in Archive 28.

I'm not sure why so much was archived at once but if a discussion is going, shouldn't it stay in the talk page for a while in case there is more to say? Dscotese (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that user was topic banned for being disruptive. It is not useful to open a discussion that was deemed disruptive by AN/I. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Herbal Medicine is what now?

Either we need to tone down this rant (and really it's closer to a rant than an article) or herbal medicine needs to be separated out in some way.

There is no doubt that herbs have health effects. Easiest examples are willow bark and foxglove (also known as aspirin and digoxin). Cannabis also has health effects which are discussed at length in its own wikipedia entry.

How would you reconcile this? Thalia42 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The article clearly distinguishes between "traditional medicine" and "alternative" medicine. Traditional medicine can be used in ways that are "alternative". Herbal medicine may be effective, but the belief that whole herbs are more effective or less harmful than licenced medication (consisting of extracted pharmacologically active substances) is called phytotherapy and is anti-scientific humbug, i.e. alternative medicine. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that distinction in the article. It starts out with "this is garbage that doesn't work" (Alternative medicine, fringe medicine, pseudomedicine or simply questionable medicine is the use and promotion of practices which are unproven, disproven, impossible to prove, or excessively harmful in relation to their effect) and then lists herbal medicine as falling within this definition (Herbal medicine: substance based practices use substances found in nature such as herbs, foods, non-vitamin supplements and megavitamins, animal and fungal products, and minerals, including use of these products in traditional medical practices that may also incorporate other methods.) This seems inaccurate on its face based on the original definition of alternative medicine. By the way, no one is arguing that whole herbs are less harmful than extracts (though we have some evidence of them being more effective, for example extracted pill based cannabinoids are not as effective as pot in reducing nausea that comes with chemotherapy.)Thalia42 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that willow bark and foxglove are not also known as aspirin and digoxin. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Holistic medicine for healing trauma

I am studying clinical psychology and would like to consolidate holistic treatments for trauma healing. Would 'Holistic medicine' be the appropriate header for describing a compilation of medical, psychological, and alternative/spiritual/energetic approaches to treatment, or does another term fit the bill best? Thanks for your help! Nicoleestrauss (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

you need to define "Trauma" first so the reader knows what is being "healed". As the encyclopaedia is built on reliable sources, you need to understand WP:RS. When making health claims, as you are probably going to want to do, you need to read and follow WP:MEDRS.

Good luck. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

By "holistic" do you mean the usual euphemism for pretending that bullshit plus medicine is somehow better than medicine alone? Guy (Help!) 14:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that Nicoleestrauss is a student editor on a psychology course. We should try not to bite, they will not yet know how much effort is spent keeping our articles free from pseudoscience/fringe stuff. (No criticism intended of the responses so far by the way, just a heads-up really) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, that makes it worse. Quackademic medicine is keeping a lot of this fraud alive. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicoleestrauss – I would strongly suggest you reevaluate your topic, because 1) there is unlikely to be any acceptable material for you to use, because there are no "holistic" methods with more than very marginal support (likely there is no support whatsoever); and 2) it will be very hard for you to edit any articles, because that material is unsuitable for a high-level article such as alternative medicine and attempts to create an article holistic treatment for trauma based on poor sources is likely to lead to deletion. I have seen this before, and treating the subject with proper scientific rigour is difficult enough that it will likely not lead to a good grade, and having your material deleted for violating WP:OR is likely to lead to a failing grade. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Dear community. Do you have sources for this paragraph "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work"? Kind regards Tøndemageren (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do, and they are all in the article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: So we do agree, that even though this specific paragraph has no sources in the introduction (even though at lot of the other statements there do), it is the sources used in the first line here, right? Or do you think of some of the other sources in the text? Kind regards Tøndemageren (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the paragraph includes hidden sources — and sources for that statement are plastered all over the article, including the section you point to (not only the first line). This really isn't a discussion worth having. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I am not in any way trying to say that it is not correct - I completely agree with the text. I'm a looking for a specific source for this statement, and as I can see, there are no sources in the introduction for the specific paragraph (hidden or otherwise [I am aware of the "hidden" sources btw - so that is not what I'm about]). I have tried to look through the sources in the text, and I do agree that, that is what the scientific community is saying. But do we have fx a consensus statement where these exact words (more or less) are mentioned. I am only asking, as we are having this discussion on da.wiki right now, and you guys have discussed this sort of matter a whole lot more than we have. So it is kind of an interwiki-help-question, where you can help settling a dispute if you have a specific source. Kind regards Tøndemageren (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

As we've had this discussion quite a few times now, I hope you can excuse me for being abrassive. I assumed that this was about lifting the issue once again, but I am very willing to help with the issue on da-wiki. The introduction as it stands here is the result of much debate and work, and I can only assume that rewriting the German version to be based on science will take the same amount of effort.

We do not cite any consensus statements here, but rather a number of articles, reviews, reports and books — each supporting the statement. I would suggest looking at the books "More Harm Than Good" 2018, Edzard Ernst and Consumer Health 9th edition which are both in-depth discourses on the issue, and certainly support the current wording. There is also the meta-analysis of meta-analyses by Edzard Ernst, which I can recommend. For a book that better targets a lay audience see "So-called alternative medicine (SCAM)", also by Edzard Ernst. While I would not cite the last book, it gives a list of sources and an overview that is excellent. I could certainly provide you with more, so please feel free to mail me for source tips, or if you need help finding how to access sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You are excused - I should have been more straight forward from the beginning. But I do appreciate the help, and I will try to get at hold of Edzard's book. Kind regards Tøndemageren (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's Minchin's Law. By definition alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. The name for "alternative medicine" that’s been proved to work is: medicine. It only gets to be alternative because it is not evidence-based. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for opening this again. As we have translated this article into danish on da.wiki, we are now having some discussions on the statements made. In this I was looking for the "ref name=Helmuth", but it does not seem to be a part of the article. Can anyone of you, point me in the direction of the source? Kind regards Tøndemageren (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Overstated

I had hoped to use this as a link from another article, but it is far too biased. It's fine to say that alternative stuff doesn't usually work with some exceptions, but to use such inflammatory language defeats the purpose and winds up sounding WP:POV. Intro needs to be worded objectively. The article, Adolf Hitler, does not leave the reader to assume that Hitler was any saint, but it is objective, purposeful and mostly WP:NPOV. Considering the emotions raised by the Nazi leader, I am impressed. Too bad the authors of the Hitler article didn't edit this one. Student7 (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Student7: Could you be more specific please? What exactly do you find biased? Do you have reliable sources to support your position? This page is not for a general chat (see WP:TALK). Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Intro too long.

"responsible investigation" piped to "clinical trials." "clinical trials" apparently deemed too understated. Hmph.

"accepts results that show it to be ineffective. The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in some the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects."

"Alternative therapies may be credited for perceived improvement through placebo effects, decreased use or effect of medical treatment (and therefore either decreased side effects; or nocebo effects towards standard treatment), or the natural course of the condition or disease."

While we are not supposed to footnote leads, if the editors are going to be this biased, they probably ought to reconsider.

Placebo effect shouldn't be understated. Doctors use it today. I purchase glucosomine, and have told my doctors. Studies have concluded that there is no correlation between taking it or not. My doctors have told me (knowing of the studies) "to continue taking it if I can detect that it seems to help." It does!

"Alternative treatment is not..." We shouldn't provide negative inventories. Tell what it is. The (topic, whatever it is) is not a lot of things. It is not a panacea. It is not the Fountain of Youth.... etc.

"Alternative or complementary medicine is dangerous..." Wikipedia is WP:NOTHOW. We are not a medical advice column. Just the facts.

"false treatment" is linked to "placebo", placebo not considered inflammatory enough to convey the editors feelings.

"Alternative medicine is criticized..." Criticism should probably be a main subsection near the bottom of the article, with plenty of footnotes," with a short summary provided in the (much shorter) lead. IMO.

"in apparent opposition.." Sarcasm. We're trying to compete with the Encyclopedia Britannica and we're using sarcasm? Jeepers!

Don't want to criticize the entire lead. I think this is good: "When used together with functional medical treatment, alternative therapies do not "complement" (improve the effect of, or mitigate the side effects of) treatment. Significant drug interactions caused by alternative therapies may instead negatively impact functional treatment, making it less effective, notably in cancer." Makes its case objectively and moves on. Incidentally, I've occasionally read that taking Human Growth Hormone is linked with cancer. Ugh. Sorry. Don't have a WP:RS.

"Alternative diagnoses and treatments are not..." Again, negative inventory.

From here on, rest of paragraph should be deleted IMO. Just overstatement: "Promoting alternative medicine has been called..."

Thank you for asking my opinion. If you don't agree, fine. I'm not going to be here to argue with anybody. Student7 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Minchin'sLaw? Guy (Help!) 20:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Here, Michin's Law is equivalent to no true Scotsman and suggests a terminology/article naming problem.

Allopathy annoys standard medical practitioners, but, IMO, allows the latter to define themselves away from "homeopathy" which is, but we needn't be too harsh here (article already overstated!) absolutely useless.

acupuncture seems useless to me, too. But some Orientals use it to replace anesthesia for surgery (!). Pretty strong placebo, IMO! I'd rank it up the scale a bit from total quackery.

I was prescribed melatonin for sleep disorder, by a licensed (conservative) pulmonary specialist. It was not intended as a placebo! It worked in lieu of raising the level of a controlled substance that he had prescribed.

Specialists have prescribed other over-the-counter drugs vitamins to compensate for their absence in my blood tests (and yes, eating better would be a better solution, though at my age, that might not work!).

It seems to me that the article editors definitely have a problem with OTC medications.

Someone mentioned "BigPharma" influence. That influence does seem more likely.

The information should be better shaded from can't work (homeopathy) to often works ("standard" medicine since they hate any other term). Student7 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

It is often the case that an editor puts significant work into an improvement, including sources, and then their work is reverted because the sources cited are not reliable sources. I'm wondering if Carl Watner or his publication, The Voluntaryist, is considered to be a reliable source. Dscotese (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New topics go to the bottom of the page. The Voluntaryist appears to be an anarchy soapbox (WP:SOAP), and seems well-offtopic to alternative medicine. --Zefr (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine which is now medicine

Could we include some examples of alternative medicine which have now been shown to have an actual testable effect? e.g. the examples listed in the "CAMs and the NHS" section here (assuming we can find decent refs to back them up). My reasoning here is that the article currently says (in slightly more words) that there is no evidence for alternative medicine and it doesn't work, whereas I don't think we should discount the possibility that a small proportion of alternative medicine techniques do have a small positive effect, but there isn't yet evidence for that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Will anything at all be considered in this area? are there any examples? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 09:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Alexander Technique might apply, as according to the article is that there is (albeit quite weak) evidence that it can help with back and neck pain. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the same as telling people to stand up straight, and any evidence is incredibly poor. Have you seen WP:MEDRS? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally think its better to mention these specific techniques, and say explicitly that the evidence is very poor, rather than not mention them at all. If there is a consensus against then I'll accept that though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Some SCAM treatments accidentally have minor beneficial effects that are not distinct from reality-based treatments that do similar things. To portray this as a validation of SCAM would be an abject failure of WP:FRINGE. As to validation of SCAM treatments themselves, NCCIM through its various iterations has spent in excess of $3bn trying to prove that SCAM treatments work, and has, to date, failed to validate a single one. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "which is now ..." formulation is spin not found in the source. It implies there's traffic from alt med to med when in reality there isn't (more the other way, if anything). Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

St John's wort for depression, may be one of the very few examples: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0325-2 Lucleon (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Except that the dose in a package is completely unpredictable, the product has side effects and serious interactions with other drugs, and the effect is weak. Oh, and it's not SCAM as such, it's a herbal remedy, it's hardly a surprise that giving an unknown amount of pharmacologically active substance of unknown purity has some effects. And, while it might work a bit, it's not medicine, for the reasons highlighted in the linked analysis: weak effect, poor information on adverse events, small and badly designed studies (generally run by True Believers). Guy (Help!) 22:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Effectiveness was similar to conventional antidepressants with fewer adverse effects (in mild and moderate depression). The effectiveness is unlikely to be the result of poor original studies: risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed for all RCTs and similar effectiveness was obtained when poor quality studies were excluded. Herbal medicine is often considered as part of scam, e.g. https://edzardernst.com/2016/10/st-johns-wort-for-depression-the-biggest-success-story-of-alternative-medicine/. Lucleon (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Conventional antidepressants are also not very effective for these symptoms. That's the point people miss here. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whom you are referring to with 'people' as it's widely know that the effectiveness of antidepressants is modest (SMDs around 0.3). While the effect size compared to placebo increases with severity that seems to be due to reduced placebo efficacy as severity increases and not due to increased drug efficacy (Kirsch et al 2008, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045).Lucleon (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Right. So SJW is nearly as effective as a not very effective thing but the more robust the study is, the smaller the effect size. In other words, it doesn't actually work. And that's why it's not used in clinical practice, so isn't counted as medicine. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"the more robust the study is, the smaller the effect size": as I said above the authors have carried out a sensitivity analysis which shows that efficacy was very similar when poor quality studies were excluded. If you cannot read the paper I recommend to read Edzard Ernst's comment on it; here is the link again: https://edzardernst.com/2016/10/st-johns-wort-for-depression-the-biggest-success-story-of-alternative-medicine/ Lucleon (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't even get what you guys are debating. Herbalism is neither pseudoscience nor alternative medicine — but paraherbalism is. That is to say, the belief that plants, herbs or w/e taken as a whole instead of the extracted active substance are better — that's bunk. The belief that taking St John's wort as tea or w/e — and that this would be better than the extracted active substance is bunk. The active substances from St John's Wort (hypericin or hyperforin) is not used in medicine for the reasons Guy explained above — however the reason the entire plant isn't used in medicine is because doing so is pseudo-scientific nonsense based on supernatural beliefs about things being "natural". Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

St John's wort has been termed alternative medicine for example by the American College of Physicians and also by people like Edzard Ernst. Of course there are different definitions of alternative medicine and one doesn't have to agree with that. It is prescribed as medicine in some countries (for example in Germany) and has been suggested by the US depression guidelines of the American College of Physicians for short-term treatment of mild acute depression. It's not recommended by NICE in the UK. Regarding it's efficacy and adverse effects, the systematic review from 2016 find similar efficacy to conventional antidepressants and less adverse effects (for mild and moderate depression). Edzard Ernst - who is not suspicious of promoting alternative meds - considers this "...an excellent review from a reputable and independent team. The findings are therefore trustworthy." and he continues ".... but we need to keep an eye on the interaction issue. As a sole treatment, SJW is much safer than conventional antidepressants. But if a patient takes other medicines, we ought to be very careful." to finally conclude "Irrespective of these problems, I have to say that SJW is without question one of the biggest ‘success stories’ from the realm of alternative medicine.". Apart from that I agree that this discussion is unfortunately going nowhere. Lucleon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is still medicine

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.

---

Alternative medicine is still medicine just like alternative rock is still rock music.--2601:3C5:8204:910:A527:39E8:BCEB:E182 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Right, alternative facts are still facts. It is a word game. Got sources? This page is not to share your opinion about the subject, but to discuss improvements to the article based on independent reliable secondary sources. Retimuko (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• LMAO! Sure... comparing music to health care is quite the stretch. We don't call ineffectual methods "medicine". We call them quackery and alternative medicine. If they become proven, then they become medicine and they become part of the heath care system. Have you even read the section(s) about definitions? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I am appalled but unsurprised at the tone of responses to this simple taxonomic issue, which is salient to recent edits, both here and at the acupuncture page. Such comments are yet another example of the kind of partisanship spreading across Wikipedia at present which focuses on attacking positions one does not agree with rather than addressing actual issues.

Perhaps the editor isn't expressing this well but I think they are asking a fundamental question about how categories work at Wikipedia. I have been unclear about this myself so I went and looked it up. Categorization is the relevant page.

This page says;

Categories are organized as overlapping "trees", formed by creating links between inter-related categories (in mathematics or computer science this structure is called a partially ordered set). Any category may contain (or "branch into") subcategories, and it is possible for a category to be a subcategory of more than one "parent" category. (A is said to be a parent category of B when B is a subcategory of A.)

It also says;

If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France.

Bearing this in mind, and that medicine means "The study of the cause, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of disease or illness". By this definition alternative medicine is absolutely medicine. Its effectiveness or otherwise is orthogonal to this. Therefore alternative medicine is currently correctly placed in the category medicine. Because categories are arranged in a tree structure it is erroneous to also place the category medicine on the page for alternative medicine. Alternative medicine's inclusion in the category medicine is the reason the category medicine shouldn't be placed on the alternative medicine page.

My understanding of categories was that they were more like a tag and that one should put all relevant ones on a page. Now I see they are a tree structure. Perhaps 2601:3C5:8204:910:A527:39E8:BCEB:E182 had the same understanding... Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, but if you add Category "Medicine" to the Alt-Med article again, I'll remove it again. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 07:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to re-frame a pro-fringe advocacy as a "simple taxonomic issue". The name "alternative medicine" is invented by proponents to falsely claim it is a form of medicine. And you are trying to use this name to justify inclusion into the category of medicine. It is a circular argument.

I would also point out to other editors that Morgan Leigh is known to engage in this sort of advocacy as can be seen, for instance, here Retimuko (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Retimuko, I refer you to WP:PA. You both clearly have not understood what I am saying. I am saying that the recent attempts to add the category medicine to this page are erroneous. That everything is as it should be, and no changes need to be made. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"You both clearly have not understood what I am saying." Yes, clearly. I didn't understand it either. Even after you explained what you meant, I can see no positive connection between what you were trying to say and what you said. Actually, it seems as if you said the exact opposite. Nevermind.

Can we archive this discussion now? It seems the IP is alone with their opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Never seen people get so triggered over a single statement. Most be a very touchy subject. Regardless, users should remain civil--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The OP was trolling, nobody was "triggered" AT ALL. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well we dont know that for certain. This is something he or she could have believed, also dont know who Morgan Leigh is but they seem to be a very disliked person on this page. Just reminding people to stay respectful thats all.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Getting triggered" is respectful verbiage? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. The popular use of the word "triggered" comes from a mockery of people suffering from PTSD.Student298 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my rhetorical question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2019 (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.

Alternative medicine is still medicine

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.

---

Alternative medicine is still medicine just like alternative rock is still rock music.--2601:3C5:8204:910:A527:39E8:BCEB:E182 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Right, alternative facts are still facts. It is a word game. Got sources? This page is not to share your opinion about the subject, but to discuss improvements to the article based on independent reliable secondary sources. Retimuko (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• LMAO! Sure... comparing music to health care is quite the stretch. We don't call ineffectual methods "medicine". We call them quackery and alternative medicine. If they become proven, then they become medicine and they become part of the heath care system. Have you even read the section(s) about definitions? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I am appalled but unsurprised at the tone of responses to this simple taxonomic issue, which is salient to recent edits, both here and at the acupuncture page. Such comments are yet another example of the kind of partisanship spreading across Wikipedia at present which focuses on attacking positions one does not agree with rather than addressing actual issues.

Perhaps the editor isn't expressing this well but I think they are asking a fundamental question about how categories work at Wikipedia. I have been unclear about this myself so I went and looked it up. Categorization is the relevant page.

This page says;

Categories are organized as overlapping "trees", formed by creating links between inter-related categories (in mathematics or computer science this structure is called a partially ordered set). Any category may contain (or "branch into") subcategories, and it is possible for a category to be a subcategory of more than one "parent" category. (A is said to be a parent category of B when B is a subcategory of A.)

It also says;

If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France.

Bearing this in mind, and that medicine means "The study of the cause, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of disease or illness". By this definition alternative medicine is absolutely medicine. Its effectiveness or otherwise is orthogonal to this. Therefore alternative medicine is currently correctly placed in the category medicine. Because categories are arranged in a tree structure it is erroneous to also place the category medicine on the page for alternative medicine. Alternative medicine's inclusion in the category medicine is the reason the category medicine shouldn't be placed on the alternative medicine page.

My understanding of categories was that they were more like a tag and that one should put all relevant ones on a page. Now I see they are a tree structure. Perhaps 2601:3C5:8204:910:A527:39E8:BCEB:E182 had the same understanding... Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, but if you add Category "Medicine" to the Alt-Med article again, I'll remove it again. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 07:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to re-frame a pro-fringe advocacy as a "simple taxonomic issue". The name "alternative medicine" is invented by proponents to falsely claim it is a form of medicine. And you are trying to use this name to justify inclusion into the category of medicine. It is a circular argument.

I would also point out to other editors that Morgan Leigh is known to engage in this sort of advocacy as can be seen, for instance, here Retimuko (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Retimuko, I refer you to WP:PA. You both clearly have not understood what I am saying. I am saying that the recent attempts to add the category medicine to this page are erroneous. That everything is as it should be, and no changes need to be made. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"You both clearly have not understood what I am saying." Yes, clearly. I didn't understand it either. Even after you explained what you meant, I can see no positive connection between what you were trying to say and what you said. Actually, it seems as if you said the exact opposite. Nevermind.

Can we archive this discussion now? It seems the IP is alone with their opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Never seen people get so triggered over a single statement. Most be a very touchy subject. Regardless, users should remain civil--Fruitloop11 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The OP was trolling, nobody was "triggered" AT ALL. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well we dont know that for certain. This is something he or she could have believed, also dont know who Morgan Leigh is but they seem to be a very disliked person on this page. Just reminding people to stay respectful thats all.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Getting triggered" is respectful verbiage? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. The popular use of the word "triggered" comes from a mockery of people suffering from PTSD.Student298 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my rhetorical question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2019 (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.

Edit Efficacy section

I would like to make the following addition to the "Efficacy" section beginning Line 243:

"The NCCIH has often been criticized for its low standards for funding alternative medicine research. Such criticisms have garnered national attention, forcing the NCCIH to publish a post on its site asserting its scientific credibility. One of the main critiques has been that peer reviews of grant proposals are often performed by CAM practitioners instead of health experts. As a result, many ineffectual grant proposals have been supported. One such example is a study funded by the NCCIH which found that cranberry juice cocktail was no better at preventing urinary tract infections than the placebo. Many similar questionable research proposals have been funded by the NCCIH.This has taken away much-needed funding from researching alternative treatments that may actually work, further perpetuating the stigma of CAM as scientific quackery"

I think this should be included because alternative medicines like turmeric for example do have the potential to become integrated into modern medicine, but misallocation of funding has reinforced this false stigma that the field of alternative medicine is complete scientific quackery. Please let me know what you all think. Thank you! Rmukh17 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Please cite reliable source(s) for the proposed text. Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC - Again

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboard Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bias

WP:TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"This article looks so biased that it's hard to think that it hasn't been written on commission. It contains a lot of inadequacies, provides clearly opinionated definition incompatible with definitions a few renowned sources provide, it contains logical inconsistencies as well as one citation taken out of the context; it needs to be seriously reworked. Especially the definition." Has anyone heard that Wikipedia is obliged to provide the "neutral point of view" content, which means unbiased and not making readers feel that an encyclopedia rated something as definitely bad? The major writers must have forgotten about that. The first lead will be read by the most people, and it is the most worth discussing on, because after reading so much bad things about alternative medicine comparing with the rest of the articles about it on the Internet, many people will never try any medicine which hasn't been produced by someone whose paramount goal is to dictate how quickly cure diseases. There is not even one word about pharmaceutical industry, but who would be the other person an ill person would get help from? (“Patient cured is a customer lost”) A key question: what is alternative medicine? So, Wikipedia, you say that alternative medicine is "...promotion or use of practices which are unproven, disproven, impossible to prove, or excessively harmful in relation to their effect"? Wrong! Every dictionary would tell you that alternative medicine is just the term for medical products and practices that are not part of standard care, or not included in the traditional medical curricula, or instead of traditional western medicine! A few dictionaries or medicine services will tell you this (even one gov site): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternative%20medicine https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2211 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/alternative-medicine https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/alternative-medicine https://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/what-is-alternative-medicine#1 Moreover, you clearly admitted in the FAQ of the talk section that this definition is not reliable "...its use as a primary source is not consistent with Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable medical sources", yet you decided to put it. National Science Foundation's or American Science Association's opinion is as important as any other national institute of science. Why the heck are you knowingly putting definition from inconsistent sources instead of concluding the definition from all definitions from dictionaries made by professionals? The reference to some journal of NSF only says that the definition is hard to be established, not that their definition is widely used, as the reference should show: https://www.nap.edu/read/11182/chapter/3#19 Oh, you excuse the reason for putting this definition with: "...but its inclusion remains important to some...". I guess that these 'some' are the people responsible for fending off critically thinking readers. By providing such radically different definition from the rest of 'alternative medicine' definitions which can be found in trusted sources, you are representing the topic unfairly, and not even allow to reasonably explain the followers of any alternative medicine technique. The whole lead is solely devoted to telling us the negative effects of using the alternative therapies, and it enlists what makes them worse than big pharma products, while there is no references in the paragraph to prove the worse effects only. A flagship full A4 page neutral point of view material. A shame that Wikipedia doesn't devote any articles to describing side effects of any types of drugs, or how dangerous they can be, while an average OTC drug has a list of side effects half A4 page long. I see that someone made a really nice graph showing all possible results of applying alternative therapies. I conclude that this person believes blindly that Wikipedia’s definition of alternative medicine applies to all methods mentioned in the article, or the subject of falsehood of the methods was exhausted, or this person is a morbid pessimist. Either way, if a placebo effect works, then it means that pharmaceuticals are not as needed as they seem, because something which hasn't been patented not products can be used to cure. I also see that either nobody cares about treating diseases on one's own and showing working methods to other people, or that someone is pulling the strings when it comes to the fair choice of presented proof. I opt for the second option, because I do not believe that the articles concerning alternative methods of healing on mainstream Polish websites concerning medicine were so highly rated, if they didn't work. Examples: (translate the websites via Google Translate to see what they are about, and see favourable comments if there are any) About acupuncture: https://www.poradnikzdrowie.pl/komentarze/akupunktura-prawdy-i-mity-aa-Gw18-NLJk-Q33S.html About reflexology: https://zdrowie.tvn.pl/a/refleksologia-na-czym-polega-czy-jest-skuteczna Chiropractic: https://wylecz.to/kosci-i-stawy/chiropraktyka// Ear candling: https://www.poradnikzdrowie.pl/zdrowie/metody-alternatywne/swiecowanie-uszu-na-czym-polega-efekty-swiecowania-uszu-aa-qQ2E-44D5-cT8S.html https://polki.pl/zdrowie/medycyna-naturalna,jak-konchowac-uszy-instruktaz,10390044,artykul.html Osteopathy: https://www.poradnikzdrowie.pl/komentarze/osteopatia-rodzaj-medycyny-manualnej-aa-qHtH-dyLJ-ZoM4.html Notice that the tables showing types of alternative medicine shows only those methods whose efficiency can be relatively easily questioned, like: chiropractic, Ayurveda, naturopathy, acupuncture, yet forms difficult to question has been omitted, and shown only in the separate article showing full list of forms of alternative medicine : equine-assisted therapy (it really is mentioned there, seriously?!), physiotherapy, meditation, laughter therapy, yoga. The yoga issue is worth some attention, because it shows great incoherences in systematization of this subject, because if you type 'yoga' in the search box you'll get an article with the definition that this is just "a group of physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India". As the other end of the spectrum you can find on Wikipedia a bit hidden article about yoga for therapeutic purposes: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Yoga_for_therapeutic_purposes . So one part of Wikipedia acknowledges that yoga is practiced because of its at least small health benefits and on the other hand some Wikipedians treat it as a fringe medicine in common with shamanism? Interesting. Someone might have just offended 38 millions US, and 300 millions practitioners worldwide. This is how many of practitioners there are according to The Good Body: https://www.thegoodbody.com/yoga-statistics/ Thanks Wikipedia. Why the yoga wouldn't work? Because some PhD Mr Uebelacker cannot overcome 'methodological limitations'? Lastly, it'd be against common sense reasoning to think that yoga can't cure anything; it must be at least as good as any work-out, because they all are some kinds of physical exercise, so much recommended by any coach or physician in any form, therefore it shouldn't be enlisted among alternative medicine forms. Let me remind the definition of alt med written by someone wrote in the first paragraph of the article: "Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from those which are simply ineffective to those having known harmful and toxic effects." It's hard to say anything bad about yoga. Challenge physical activity as ineffective, authors of this article, I dare you. The cat is out of the bag, isn't it? ,,The lobby has successfully pushed for alternative therapies to be subject to far less regulation than conventional medicine" Wait — what lobby? Mafia? Drug dealers? Big pharmaceutical companies? It doesn't make any sense that some group could push legal changes towards legalizing selling everything that might not work. I can't recall anyone who would be that influential to influence any western government with all their WHO, UE, and advisory medical institutes towards allowing for some crap. "Alternative diagnoses and treatments are not part of medicine, or of science-based curricula in medical schools, nor are they used in any practice based on scientific knowledge or experience." — Bullcrap. Use Google. If that was true, sport physiotherapist would not exist, the Everglade University, SCNM Medical School, or GWSP in Chorzów (university), would not have their alternative medicine faculties: https://www.evergladesuniversity.edu/courses/alternative-medicine-degree-bs/ https://www.scnm.edu/ https://www.gwsp.edu.pl/oferta-edukacyjna/studia-licencjackie/terapia-artystyczna (translate this one with Google Translator. They have naturopathy and art therapy) There is more examples of such universities. Do you think universities would offer these courses if they couldn't present proof that this kind of medicine is effective? "Increasing the funding for research on alternative medicine techniques is the purpose of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. NCCIH and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than US$2.5 billion on such research since 1992" — Well, basically Wikipedia in other words gently says that the US government and their medical institutions consists of idiots, due to the fact that the 'scientific consensus' (I'm cross-referring to the first sentence of the article), or at least the aforementioned National Science Foundation considers alternative medicine techniques as these which 'refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using the scientific method' (Talk->FAQ), yet the US government keeps wasting money on researching something which keeps proving that it can't work despite 27 years of testing. Or maybe the alternative medicine methods will never be proven, because 'It differs from experimental medicine in that the latter employs responsible investigation,...", but nobody want to provide 'responsible investigation', because it's easier not to do this? So much room for speculation. But most importantly, why would US government spend so much money on something which has already been proved many times that it's not working? Something's fishy here... So renowned doctor Marcia Angell says: "There cannot be two kinds of medicine – conventional and alternative". True, but this does not mean that she considers all the techniques mentioned in your list as a fraud. Who knows what methods would she acknowledge as working or not? In fact, considering that she also wrote a book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It , and that she criticized pharmaceutical industry, as well as biases in the medical establishment, I'd be inclined to think that she actually is more supportive towards what you call scam than the existing cures. Do you take statements out of context hoping that nobody will check the overall worldview of the authority, huh? Notice that her opinion about the alternative medicine was stated well before she stated her opinion about drug industry too. As she states 5 years later after stating her opinion about alternative medicine: “Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centres, and the medical profession itself. ” If even US Congress can be manipulated by pharmaceutical industry, then what ‘non-profit’, poor, Wikipedia has to say in this matter? Someone in the discussion mention Minchin’s Law when it comes to the definition of alternative medicine. Really guys? He’s an actor. Not a physician. Not even a thinker. And his view of alternative medicine is his opinion. I don’t why did he say “by definition” while formulating his own definition, but I guess it’s from our beloved Wikipedia because it’s hard to find definition of alternative medicine outside of Wikipedia which also treats this branch as fringe. And he clearly denies existence of anything which simply goes beyond the current comprehension of supernatural activities. You may not describe opinions as laws, especially when they are said by someone who mainly works as an artist. By trusting the opinion of such an ‘expert’ you are showing belief bias/biased interpretation and this person is experiencing status quo bias. No medical professional authority assessed the validity of that claim anywhere. As someone in the discussion highlighted: “Alternative or complementary medicine is dangerous...”, language should not present opinion or suggest a medical advice. And this is what this article does with the use of this adjective. I concur. Lastly, keep in mind that with the content of this article you are indirectly condemning a lot of people who have been using alternative medicine therapies. And I really mean A LOT of people; roughly 25 % (adults + children) from the huge group which could represent the entire US population used some kind of alternative therapy according to the survey gathered by NHIS in 2007: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/NHIS These percentage cannot be lower in all more conservative societies, where traditional medicine is pretty prevalent (China, India, South American countries). Therefore I can assume that 25 % of the world population at least tried alternative medicine methods. You are really nasty to suggest that 2 billions of people in the world were so stupid that they tried something which probably will never be proven that it's working. That's it people. You better have your arguments well prepared before defending the content of this article, unless you want to look like idiots, cause I provided you with at least 10 legitimate arguments on why this article looks totally opinionated. I'm not going to change the article itself, because a man puts effort to expand the article, and an admin might come and revert any changes which can't be validated in solid sources. What are these solid sources? I don't know, but I guess it providing requires reading strictly scientific, uninteresting journals, sometimes inaccessible without paying. And your noble readiness to change Wikipedia's ignorant attitude towards arts practiced by 'lunatic charlatans' will go to waste. I don't even know if this long entry won't be deleted. Of course, I secured myself by coping the content of this entry as well as some Wikipedia's articles from the time of writing this text, cause I won't risk losing 4 hours of my time. Thank you Wikipedia for making me completely lose faith in your credibility, and I wish you to find a cheap, efficient, and without serious side effects medicine produced by a international corporation, should you suffer from any chronic ailment or being destroyed by any deadly disease of affluence. --5.172.238.93 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)The Polish Onion (TL;DR) . Is there a actual change to the article being requested here? And if so, please express it briefly in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the source(s) used to back up the change. No one will waste time trying to find it in that wall of text --McSly (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Of course there is a request to change. One needs to start with redefining in such a way that the definition has regard to the definitions provided by Cambridge or Merriam Webster dictionary. We can do it at once, (can we?) but if the change won't be reverted, it make the rest of the article look like a not justified criticism of these methods. Roxy, did you mark it as closed because it's just too long? ––5.172.238.93 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)The Polish Onion TLDR version: This article looks so biased that it's hard to think that it hasn't been written on commission. It contains a lot of inadequacies, provides clearly opinionated definition incompatible with definitions a few renowned sources provide, it contains logical inconsistencies as well as one citation taken out of the context; it needs to be seriously reworked. Especially the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.0.124.79 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the graphic at the top not excessively POV?

To be clear, I think alternative medicine is almost all ineffective and a significant percentage of it is outright fraudulent, and I think this article should make every effort to present the overwhelming weight of evidence against it. But isn't it a bit much to have the main image of the article (and thus the first thing most people look at) an infographic debunking the subject? There's nothing like that in the articles about astrology or Young Earth Creationism. I think, if anything, it hurts the cause of evidence-based medicine to have this article read like a polemic rather than an evenhanded dismissal of something any reasonable person *would* dismiss. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never liked it, it is confusing. But whatever. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Me too. It looks like an IQ test that I would probably fail. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree it can be improved, but removing it is a horrible idea. It presents the mechanisms (possibly in too much detail) for how alternative medicine is "perceived to work". That it takes two minutes to process is the point — you need to read the caption to understand the underlying deception of alternative medicine. It is under no circumstances POV, and is very well supported by the contents of the article. I'll look into what improvements can be made. The scientific community is quite clear on that "alt-med" is not "reasonable" nor a subject for scientific discussion. It's been time and time again proven to be nonsense. This critique looks like all the other nonsense dives at "there might just be something to alt-med, we should't dismiss it", despite the fact that sources are dismissing it, and dismissing the anti-science base of alt-med philosophy. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Took me 2 mins to process. The idea is sound, but the graphics is wrong: i.e. not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

The graphic is not wrong. It's thoroughly supported by the sources in the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it's noisy and confusing. No problem with having it in the body. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I was about to come along and admit that I agree with you, it might belong better in the body. However, it seems someone jumped the gun and just outright got rid of the image. That doesn't seem right, and I think we ought to decide two things before removing it. 1) Where it should go & 2) What should replace it. The article is undoubtably much worse of with nothing, and the image serves a valuable purpose. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't know where it should go, I am fine with it pretty much anywhere other than the infobox. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to the definitions section then, but that needs some work. But we should discuss a replacement. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We do not need a replacement. Anything is better than this, specifically including no image. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be better further down, or not included at all. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverted

My edit earlier today was reverted and I was told to post here. The "Placebo effect" section doesn't currently address the crucial role of the placebo effect in alternative medicine. The paragraph is more about criticism of integrative (i.e. partly-alternative) medicine. What's the problem? 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you think there is a difference between integrative Alt-Med and non-integrative Alt-Med. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't what my edit was about. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You asked a question, "What's the problem", which I answered. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I was asking why an edit was reverted. It wasn't you who did that. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the main reasons I reverted are that I think the comment "Critics of alternative medicine argue that any improvements patients experience after an alternative treatment are merely the result of the placebo effect" is both uncited and, at best, drawing a long bow, and that I think any definition of placebo effect inserted into the article needs to be discussed, as it's a significant change. PepperBeast (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but was it really necessary to do something as drastic as reverting it, just because of one sentence?

A few proposals: there is a journal cited in the lede which lists possible mechanisms for why alternative medicine may be seen as working (Zelle, Muenstadt et. al., 2012) which could be used to explain the link between placebos and alternative medicine. This source is cited in the lede and obviously was an influence on the top image. Essentially, the 'Mechanism of Action' section needs to be an in-depth explanation of these reasons.

I don't think there is a dispute over the definition of the placebo effect. The only dispute likely is over what its mechanism is and how impactful it is, if at all. In my edits I cited an ambitious meta-analysis that I found on the placebo article (Hróbjartsson & Gøtzsche, 2010) to get an overview on both. I'm keeping that proposal as it is.

The last proposal is to move out all existing content from that section. The paragraphs on integrative medicine don't belong there. They belong as a paragraph in the section on integrative medicine, but for the most part they're repeating the criticism that all forms of alternative medicine get so can be condensed. Only one argument is specific to integrative medicine (the infiltration argument). Likewise, the last paragraph of that section is all to do with the history of alternative medicine in the US and doesn't belong there either.

Hope these proposals help. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider a single revert and request that you discuss something to be "drastic". WP:BRD PepperBeast (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The proposed wording:

The paragraph starting "The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine points to confusions..." will be moved under the 'Mechanism of action' heading, but not the 'Placebo effect' heading. The 'Efficacy' section is about the evidence that AM doesn't work; the 'Mechanism' section should be about why.

The entire 'Placebo effect' section should be replaced by this:

See also: Placebo

A placebo is a medical treatment with no intended therapeutic value, generally used as a control in medical experiments, to isolate treatment effects from the effect of no treatment. An example of a placebo is an inert pill, but it can include more dramatic interventions like sham surgery. Reported changes in symptoms in the placebo group in experiments, or differences between placebo and no-treatment groups, have led to the idea of a so-called placebo effect is whenwhere patients feel they experience an improvement after being treated with a placebo an inert treatment. Analysis of placebo studies suggests that pPlacebos do not have a physical effect on diseases or improve overall outcomes, but they can reduce feelings of pain and nausea by affecting how patients perceive their condition.patients may report changes in subjective outcomes such as nausea. The opposite of the placebo effect is the nocebo effect, when a patient who expects a treatment to be harmful perceives harmful effects after taking it.

The placebo effect is - a combination of subjective effects, regression toward the mean, observer bias, expectation effects, natural course of disease and other confounding factors - is likely to be one of the primary explanations for why alternative therapies may be credited for improving a patient's condition even though there is no objective effect, and in some cases the treatment may even be harmful. David Gorski argues that such treatments should be treated as a placebo, rather than as medicine. Almost none have performed significantly better than a placebo in clinical trials. Furthermore, distrust of conventional medicine may lead to patients experiencing the nocebo effect when taking effective medication.

A new paragraph added under the heading 'Complementary or Integrative Medicine':

Besides the usual issues with alternative medicine, integrative medicine has been described by its critics as an attempt to bring pseudoscience into academic science-based medicine, leading to the pejorative term "quackademic medicine".

A new subsection in 'Risks and problems' will be created titled 'Use of health and research resources'

Research into alternative treatments has been criticized for "...diverting research time, money, and other resources from more fruitful lines of investigation in order to pursue a theory that has no basis in biology." Research methods expert and author of Snake Oil Science, R. Barker Bausell, has stated that "it's become politically correct to investigate nonsense." A commonly cited statistic is that the US National Institute of Health had spent $2.5 billion on investigating alternative treatments prior to 2009, with none being found to be effective.

The last paragraph will be moved to the 'History' section.

I'm tempted to add a section on 'natural recovery' to the 'Mechanism of action' section and include the reasons cited by writers like Ernst, Gorski and others as to why the placebo effect does not justify use of AM. The trouble is, it seems any attempt to change the article gets reverted. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The above has been updated. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have marked it up with some changes to more clearly identify the fact that according to the best available evidence the placebo effect is not actually a thing. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It seems as though the reasons why a patient might report better outcomes after a placebo can divided into three categories: 1) mind tricks from the placebo treatment; 2) reporting biases which create differences between how the patients felt and how they said they felt; and 3) natural recovery that would have happened without the placebo treatment. I haven't given 2) much consideration, to be honest. 3) probably ought being discussed separately from placebos. I might propose a paragraph on that as well. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the wording that's more commonly used today is "regression to the mean" to describe what you're calling "natural recovery." --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

So the edited draft has the advantage in that it avoids saying that the psychological effects of placebos are a fact. Can a mind trick be a "real" thing? I'm up for wording that avoids directly answering this question.

The main issue I have with the edited draft is that regression to the mean and reporting bias should be treated as being separate from any psychological effects of the placebo. I'll propose a paragraph/section on regression to the mean. The issue of reporting biases (e.g. answers of politeness) is harder to separate, though a good meta-analysis should be able to see through it. I agree this should be discussed under the 'placebo effect' heading, but treat it as a separate phenomenon.

Other issues: The phrase "so-called" doesn't sound neutral. I also still think pain should be mentioned as well as nausea, among the subjective outcomes that can be affected. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A further proposed change: A new heading of 'Other factors' to go under 'Mechanism of action':

A patient who receives an inert treatment may report improvements afterwards that it did not cause. Assuming it was the cause without evidence is an example of the regression fallacy. This may be due to a natural recovery from the illness, or a fluctuation in the symptoms of a long-term condition. The concept of regression toward the mean implies that an extreme result is more likely to be followed by a less extreme result.

There are also reasons why a placebo treatment group may outperform a "no-treatment" group in a test which are not related to a patient's experience. These include patients reporting more favourable results than they really felt due to "politeness" or "experimental subordination", observer bias and misleading wording of questions. In their 2010 systematic review of studies into placebos, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson and Peter C. Gøtzsche write that "even if there were no true effect of placebo, one would expect to record differences between placebo and no-treatment groups due to bias associated with lack of blinding."

If there's enough content to go in the 'Other factors' section, it can be split into more than one section. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [Just to be transparent, I'm the same person as 78.33.33.241. For security reasons involving a public computer, I have not logged in when making edits on that computer. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)]

Redraft:

A placebo is a medical treatment with no intended therapeutic value. An example of a placebo is an inert pill, but it can include more dramatic interventions like sham surgery. The placebo effect is the concept that patients will perceive an improvement after being treated with an inert treatment. The opposite of the placebo effect would be the nocebo effect, when patients who expect a treatment to be harmful will perceive harmful effects after taking it.

Placebos do not have a physical effect on diseases or improve overall outcomes, but patients may report improvements in subjective outcomes such as pain and nausea. A 1955 study suggested that a substantial part of a medicine's impact was due to the placebo effect. The study was found to have flawed methodology in a 1997 reassessment. This and other modern reviews suggest that other factors like natural recovery and reporting bias should also be considered.

All of these are reasons why alternative therapies may be credited for improving a patient's condition even though the objective effect is non-existent, or even harmful. David Gorski argues that alternatives treatments should be treated as a placebo, rather than as medicine. Almost none have performed significantly better than a placebo in clinical trials. Furthermore, distrust of conventional medicine may lead to patients experiencing the nocebo effect when taking effective medication.

I have adjusted the wording to avoid treating the placebo effect as a fact. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Alternative medicine's links (in uk at least) to alternative approaches to health.

45 years ago when I first noticed alternative medicine in the uk it was part & parcel of what was then considered alternative approaches to a healthy diet. Mainstream consumers ate salt, sugar, white flour, processed & tinned foods then went to a mainstream random Doctor & said "I'm ill you're the doctor, it's your job to fix me". Alternative approaches were always about individuals taking responsibility and making choices. We went to wholefood stores & ate brown rice, 100% wholegrain flour, natural yoghurt, muesli etc - a completely different world to the funny tin of American wonder gloop pictured in the article. Then we'd go to an alternative health practitioner & they'd say "have you tried kefir - it's a traditional health food". Of course once its benefits are proven you forget it was once 'alternative'... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38800977 "So if you want to try fermented foods to improve your gut health it's best to look for products that have been made using traditional preparation and processing, or make them yourself, to ensure you're getting the healthy bacteria you're after." Yeah, like any self respecting hippy. 86.148.15.235 (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here, as you have not made any suggestion for improving the article. What you have described isn’t about alt-med at all, but just lifestyle choices for, as you rightly state, hippies who don’t understand nutrition. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Biased.

Why is this author allowed to post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:77F:D6EE:ECB8:539C:E130:834B (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please specify which author and identify some of the edits that you consider biased please.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

In the section above, Morgan Leigh says " 'fake medicine', your biases are showing. "

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[4][5]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:Morgan Leigh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The very definition of closed-minded.--KitchM (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources and references?

There might be sources somewhere in the text to part of the many statements in the intro. But if not I wonder about sources and references to the following statements. It also seems as if the text, or the intro, is at least slightly biased...

"Alternative medicine is used by a significant number of people, though its popularity is often overstated."

"Large amounts of funding go to testing alternative medicine, with more than US$2.5 billion spent by the United States government alone."

"None have shown any effect beyond that of false treatment, and most studies showing any effect have been statistical flukes."

"Alternative medicine is a highly profitable industry" (Profitable compared to what?)

"with a strong lobby". (Strong compared to what?)

"This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden"

"with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma"."

"The lobby has successfully pushed for alternative therapies to be subject to far less regulation than conventional medicine."

"Alternative therapies may even be allowed to promote use when there is demonstrably no effect"

"Regulation and licensing of alternative medicine and health care providers varies between and within countries."

"Despite laws making it illegal to market or promote alternative therapies for use in cancer treatment, many practitioners promote them."

"Alternative medicine is criticized for taking advantage of the weakest members of society."

"Terminology has shifted over time, reflecting the preferred branding of practitioners."

"For example, the United States National Institutes of Health department studying alternative medicine, currently named National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, was established as the Office of Alternative Medicine and was renamed the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine before obtaining its current name."

"Therapies are often framed as "natural" or "holistic", in apparent opposition to conventional medicine which is "artificial" and "narrow in scope", statements which are intentionally misleading."

"When used together with functional medical treatment, alternative therapies do not "complement" (improve the effect of, or mitigate the side effects of) treatment."

"Significant drug interactions caused by alternative therapies may instead negatively impact functional treatment by making prescription drugs less effective, such as interference by herbal preparations with warfarin."

"Alternative diagnoses and treatments are not part of medicine, or of science-based curricula in medical schools, nor are they used in any practice based on scientific knowledge or experience."

"Alternative therapies are often based on religious belief, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural energies, pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or lies."

"Alternative medicine is based on misleading statements, quackery, pseudoscience, antiscience, fraud, and poor scientific methodology."

"Promoting alternative medicine has been called dangerous and unethical."

"Testing alternative medicine that has no scientific basis has been called a waste of scarce research resources."

"Critics state that "there is really no such thing as alternative medicine",

--Mats33 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE, those sources belong in the body of the article, not in the lead section. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I proposed a re-write to the lede. So far I have just done an outline, but I will probably flesh it out in the coming days. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the third paragraph is probably a bit strong - we could remove the sentence " Alternative medicine is criticized for taking advantage of the weakest members of society." without losing any information. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. According to our best WP:RS, it is not different from quackery. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That is my opinion as well, but it seems a bit unnecessary compared to the rest of the lede which focuses on the facts. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...

— AndyTheGrump, [6]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A neutral point of view is still needed even for the most contemptible subjects. This article feels very in-your-face in how it's trying to discourage the reader from alternative medicine. The most spectacular example of bias has to be: "This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden, with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma"."

There was another user who said it best in a previous discussion (now archived) on this page. The article on Adolf Hitler still manages to portray a neutral point of view, and it doesn't feel as though it is deliberately trying to portray him in a negative light. But I can't see how anyone would be able to see him in anything but a negative light if their only knowledge of him came from that article. We can surely do better for alternative medicine. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEUTRAL. WP:SPOV is WP:NPOV for scientific matters.

The root cause of the problem is the false equivalence given to the views of anti-fluoridationists and the scientific community. The scientific consensus, by definition, incorporates all significant valid viewpoints. It develops over time in response to new data. In maters of science, the scientific consensus view is inherently the neutral point of view for Wikipedia purposes. To "balance" that with anti- views is to compromise fundamental policy.

— Guy, [7]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Unproven vs. Disproven

Reading the lead section and accompanying info-graphic, much of the description of alternative medicine relates specifically to *disproven* alternative medicine, while not applying to *unproven* alternative medicine. In the case of unproven alternative medicine, it is sometimes the case that it goes on to become scientifically validated in particular settings (e.g. marijuana for the purposes of treating seizures). In light of this, much of the article is inaccurate/misleading, for example:

• The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work.
• Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from those which are simply ineffective to those which have known harmful and toxic effects

Thoughts? ForgotMyPW (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'm working on a redraft of the lede down below. I have suggested defining alternative medicine as "treatments that have not been accepted into mainstream medicine." Not all of them have been "disproven". Some have not been disproven (and thus remain "unproven") simply because researchers have better things to do. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's better wording to say "shown to be effective" rather than "proven". Anywikiuser (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The word "clearly"

We should remove the word clearly from the first sentence of the Definitions and terminology section which says "...whose effectiveness has not been clearly established using scientific methods...". It has not been established full stop, clearly or otherwise. Moriori (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Anywikiuser (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed re-write of lede

The lede for this article is currently 7 paragraphs long with nearly 700 words. Some points are repeated, like the $2.5bn figure and the fact it differs from experimental medicine. Manual of style advice for ledes is that they should not usually exceed four paragraphs. For sure, this needs condensing. As this is a contentious topic, I'd rather float proposals and seek other editors' input. Here is a proposed plan:

• Paragraph one: A quick definition of alternative medicine.
• Paragraph two: This paragraph explains the difference between conventional and alternative medicine. Conventional medicine relies on trials to show medicine is effective. By definition, alternative medicines are not supported by these methods. How research promoting alternative medicine either falls short of these standards or ignores them altogether. Some of it is based off alternative views of how the human body and diseases work to modern scientific beliefs. Difference with experimental medicine.
• Paragraph three: This paragraph looks at it from a human perspective. Briefly touches on the reasons why some people are drawn to it. The effects of taking them: at best, the placebo effect makes the patient feel less symptoms, but has no effect on the underlying illness. The

real problems: it can divert them from effective advice and treatment, and some alternative medicines are actively harmful.

• Paragraph four: This paragraph looks at it from a wider perspective. Size of the global industry? Is it growing or shrinking? Criticism includes that it diverts resources from worthier causes. Regulation and the attitudes of governments and healthcare providers (it varies by country).
• Paragraph five: More detailed notes about defining it, which notes how it's a somewhat loose concept, and has had several names. Difference/overlap with traditional medicine. A quick definition of complementary/integrative medicine. End with the quote: "There is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't."Let me know if think something different is needed. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So to begin the draft: (References are to be concealed in comment brackets, as they are in the current lede)

Alternative medicine, also known as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and by other names, refers to a variety of treatments which have not been accepted or validated for use in mainstream medicine.

Modern medicine relies on the scientific method to determine if treatments should be used. A treatment can only be considered effective if it performs better than a placebo, in a clinical trial with blinding to control for observer biases. Alternative medicine includes treatments have either been found in clinical trials to be ineffective, or have not been validly tested at all. They are commonly based off non-scientific or pseudoscientific explanations for how disease works, such as those that come from traditional medicine or superstition. Alternative medicine generally differs from experimental medicine, which refers to treatments that are being considered for scientific acceptance.

Reasons for the appeal of alternative medicine include how it is often advertized as "natural" or as "holistic". Other factors include distrust and disillusionment towards conventional medicine, and favourable media coverage. Patients may perceive improvements after taking alternative treatments due to regression to the mean (i.e. a natural recovery or change in symptoms) and the effect of taking a placebo. Research into placebos suggests they do not have a physical effect of diseases, but can improve how patients perceive their condition, especially in the short term. Most alternative treatments have little effect beyond that of a placebo. It is rare for them to be effective, and some can be actively harmful. Alternative medicine can also divert patients from receiving effective treatment.

The prevalence and role of alternative medicine varies greatly by country. The global complementary and alternative medical industry was estimated to be worth US$59.8bn in 2018. In some parts in the world with poor access to effective medicine, the most common treatments given are traditional medicine, which can overlap with alternative medicine. In the Western world, use of alternative medicine has risen since the 1960s. Attempts to include it in mainstream medical clinics, schools and funding plans have been opposed by the proponents of evidence-based medicine, who have furthermore called it a waste of healthcare funding and resources.

The phrase "alternative medicine" came into use in the 1970s. There is no universally agreed definition for the term; it generally encompasses treatments that have originated from outside of scientific research and used without proper evidence. One argument is that the term itself is misleading, and that "There is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't." Other terms include fringe medicine, pseudomedicine and questionable medicine. The term quackery implies medicine that is intentionally fraudulent. The terms complementary medicine and integrative medicine refer to alternative medicine that is combined with conventional treatments.

Since I don't have a good overview for how large the AM industry is, I haven't done a 'paragraph 4'. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Paragraph 4 now added. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I object to the phrase " It is a loosely-defined concept, and a treatment that is considered "alternative" in one country may not be in another." because it's bollocks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As some of the cited sources here note, it is hard to pin down a precise definition. A common definition is that it is 'not part of mainstream medicine'. Unfortunately, AM has sometimes permeated mainstream medicine, especially when packaged as 'complementary'/'integrative'. Another definition is to say it's medicine which is not evidence-based. That would allow something more consistent, but not all conventional medicine is evidence-based. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

it hasn’t become mainstream medicine at all. The conmen and quacks have attached themselves to real medicine, surely, but that does not legitimise their fraudulent practice. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia has already taken a side, see WP:LUNATICS. Some might not like it, but Wikipedia already is a front for QuackWatch and organizations of skeptics. Wikipedia's choice in respect to SCAM industry has already been made and there is no coming back. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite being one third shorter, it still has five paragraphs. I realise the usual advice is no more than four, but this is quite a long article, and the first paragraph is a short one. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• In essence good effort, but some problems. The reason this article is so convoluted is because it has been exceedingly difficult to write in a way that rigorously enough defends the science from all the quacks that keep popping up. A major issue with the proposed text is the new definition, which is inaccurate. For starters, there is no such thing as "mainstream" medicine — it's just medicine, and "alternative" medicine simply purports to be medicine when it isn't. Second, the total lack of biological plausibility is what defines "CAM", and is why it isn't medicine. The proposed definition is circular, stating that there is a lack of biological plausibility is not. This might be difficult to express tersely, and I think that is something we're just going to have to accept. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not easy to find a 'quick' definition that can be universally accepted. Looking at the definitions cited by this article, there are obviously more than one:

• Harrison: "...a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that have historic origins outside mainstream medicine" This source argues that the 'not used in the mainstream' definition is no longer entirely true, and that 'not evidence-based' definition is also problematic.
• NSF: "...all treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods."
• Angell: "What most sets alternative medicine apart, in our view, is that it has not been scientifically tested and its advocates largely deny the need for such testing." This sources also agrees that the 'not used in mainstream' definition is no longer entirely true. Later on: "Alternative medicine also distinguishes itself by an ideology that largely ignores biologic mechanisms, often disparages modern science..."
• Tzu Chi: "Alternative therapies are those lacking scientific validation that are excluded from medical school training programs and uninsured by health plans."
• IOM: "...a broad domain of resources that encompasses health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period."
• NCCIH: "CAM is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not generally considered part of conventional medicine."
• WHO: "...a broad set of health care practices that are not part of that country's own tradition and are not integrated into the dominant health care system."

As you can see, the 'not used in mainstream medicine' is used by some sources but others find it problematic. Perhaps the best 'quick definition' is to say "treatments which have originated from outside of scientific research and been used despite a lack of evidence that they are effective." Anywikiuser (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

But those aren't really good definitions either, because non-alt therapies such as Taxol originated outside the realm of traditional pharmaceutical research, and we lack evidence for many medical practices, including many surgical procedures. This bizarre fact stands despite, just a few months ago, science went so far as to producea randomized trial on parachute jumping:

• 'Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial'

The point being that the sole workable definition, which lies at the bottom of most of what you cite above, is that of: Alternative practices being those that lack biological plausibility and which are untested or untestable. The source currently used to express this in the lede is from Edzard Ernst's latest book "More Harm than Good". Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just as a minor note, the "parachute use" trial you mentioned is actually from the BMJ Christmas edition (described here, briefly mentioned at The BMJ#Journal content). While the article is legitimate, its main purpose is satire - in this case it's following the tradition of this article, also from the BMJ Christmas edition, which satirized the blind use of systematic reviews. :-) Sunrise (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

On a major note, I was being sarcastic. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the initial comment here says that the primary issue is length, it would be a much more effective approach to identify specific parts of the current lead that are redundant or over-detailed, then propose edits to remove or replace them. Changing the definition, for instance, is a separate discussion that will take a great deal of time without much impact on length. Mixing it in with all the other changes will only make the discussion more confusing and distract attention from other edits that might then be missed during the review.

This is, by the way, what I was thinking when I made these edits to shorten the current lead to 5 paragraphs - that the problem is solved much more easily than by a rewrite. For instance, the $2.5 billion figure was mentioned as an example of duplicated content, but fixing it was entirely uncontroversial and straightforward. Sunrise (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Second proposal

One of the reasons I was so quick to turn down your version Anywikiuser, despite agreeing that the current version is too long — is that I have been thinking of rewriting this lede for a few months now. I've spend a disordinate amount of time on the following version, so please rest assured that each statement is backed up by either sources already in the article, or some which I will provide in the coming days. Note that I have tried to follow the current structure of the lead, while cutting some duplicate passages and totally rewriting others. The only thing my version lacks is any mention of "supernatural" or "superstitious" underpinnings of the "alternative". I guess this could be expanded upon.

Alternative medicine are generally practices that lack biological plausibility and which are untested or untestable, and in a few cases categorically proven ineffective. Complementary medicine (CM), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrated medicine or integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine, are among many rebrandings of the same phenomenon. While the aim is to achieve the healing effects of medicine, alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside medical science. They are distinct from experimental medicine which employs scientific method to test plausible medical therapies through responsible and ethical investigation producing evidence of effect or of no effect. Traditional medical practices become "alternative" when used outside their original settings and in the face of better options with proper scientific explanation and evidence-base.

In some cases, laws of nature are violated by the claims of alternative practices; in others the practice is plausibly effective but so dangerous to the patient that any use is unethical. Alternative practices range from ineffective to harmful and toxic.

Much of the perceived effect of an alternative practice arises from a belief that it will be effective (placebo effect), or from the treated condition resolving on its own (the natural course of disease). This is further exacerbated by how alternative treatments are most often turned to upon the failure of medicine. At this point the condition will be at its worst and most likely to spontaneously improve. In diseases that don't get better by themselves, such as cancer or HIV, multiple studies have shown significantly worse outcomes if patients turn to alternative therapies. While this may be because advanced disease causes patients to lose hope in medicine, it has also been shown that some alternative treatments actively interfere with medicine.

The alternative sector is a highly profitable industry with a strong lobby. Often juxtaposed to the derided "big pharma", the alternative-industry profits from less regulation and is allowed to promote practices which are proven to have no effect. Despite many countries having laws against marketing or promoting alternative therapies for many conditions, there is active promotion of use in cancer, autoimmune disease, HIV and among children. Billions of dollars have been spent studying the "alternative", with little to no positive results. 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".

Take it for what it is, Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Implemented. I mostly cut from what was already present, making it shorter but with the same meaning. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This has many of the same problems as the original lede. See my discussion of "Unproven vs. Disproven" above. I think Anywikiuser's version has gotten closer to fixing this issue, and closer to WP:NPOV. ForgotMyPW (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've rewritten the text to carry the exact same content, so it would not have any differences in meaning, which is why you would identify the same "problems". However, those aren't problems, and the definition is clearer now: in that it explains in a simply manner that what makes alternative treatments "not medicine" is not the same as what makes Chicken BLT "not medicine". It's not enough to simply state that it is outside medicine/medical science.

What specifically differentiates alt-med from medicine is the rejection of prior probability and biological plausibility — which are de facto barriers from anything to ever become "medicine".

That said, I'm open to improvements, but the definition part is definately not controversial. Only very extreme versions, such as those mentioned "which include all physical activity as alt-med" differ from this definition (which I actually mention). The same is to be said about anything that includes cannabis-treatment without biological plausability — that it is not the same as cannabis treatment with biological plausibility. The latter has been a widely topic researched within medical science for some time now, and it really never had a period when it was deemed to lack biological plausibility (of note is that even with its widespead adoption, the results are rather poor).

This is also what is central to the definition problem, "alternative medicine" is not the same as an "alternative within medicine" — and because of the semantic difficulty of differentiating between the two we get false proposals such as "alternative medicine that becomes mainstream". Firstly, mainstream medicine is not all of medicine, there are contentious treatments used by few, but on a firmly scientific basis, taking into account biological plausibility and prior probability in their application. "Alternative medicine" does none of this. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Added mention of prior probability in the lede to clarify faults in research methodology of the alternative. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the notion you are talking about exists (medicine that has no plausibility and/or has been disproven). I simply disagree that that is the definition of Alternative Medicine. Anywikiuser has provided 7 cited definitions of "alternative medicine" and nearly all of them would encompass how cannabis was considered 20 years ago. In other words, alternative medicine that becomes mainstream (or scientifically validated) is *not* a false proposal! More broadly speaking, we need to embrace the existing literature and use the same definitions -- I think it's a problem to not include any citations for the definition of something in the lede. If there are conflicting definitions, that's OK too. But we should be citing them and explaining those differences! ForgotMyPW (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

All the references from the old lede are valid, but adding them will look like [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] — which is why they've been hidden here for years. They can certainly be restored to their hidden state....

As for the definition, it is not especially controversial, because as I said, some of the "definitions" above aren't definitions. You can't just say that alt-med isn't part of medicine, because without qualification that isn't relevant to a definition. A cheese sandwich isn't medicine, but we don't define it by that. If you insist on that type of backward definition, you need to clarify what makes medicine medicine, which the current definition does. Alt-med is not medicine for the reasons defined above — which is also gotten into by quite a few of the definitions. Alt-med is alt-med because it is used or promoted despite lack of biological plausible mechanism of action — and there are a great number of definitions that discuss this. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that a definition along the lines of "alternative medicine is anything outside the mainstream" is not sufficient. But I think several definitions given above are more explicit. NSF, Angell, Tzu Chi all describe it as medicine that has *not been scientifically validated*. I think this is the main source of contention here. You would argue that it is about prior plausibility, I would argue it is only about empirical validation. For e.g., while cannabis may have had plausible medicinal properties 20+ years ago, it was considered alternative medicine at that time because many of these properties had not been rigorously studied and validated. ForgotMyPW (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What you are getting at is that there are two ways in which something can become alternative.
Both lack of biological plausibility AND lack of evidence — can make something alternative. However lack of evidence per se does not make something alternative. I realize that while the lede touches on this, it isn't clear enough. I will dig some more in the definitions and see if I can clarify on the talk page tomorrow. Then we can discuss how to express it best, and how in-depth we want to be.

Also, prior probability isn't really central to the definition. It is simply a technical error in much research into the alternative — which I thought relevant enough to include in the lede. I'll see if I can clarify this as well. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Carl. I think your view that "lack of evidence per se does not make something alternative" is the basis of the disagreement. Certainly, the term alternative medicine is used to refer to medicines have not been scientifically validated, whether or not there are any plausible biological properties. Scientific validation seems to be the crux of most of the definitions of alternative medicine that I've seen. They usually don't bring up prior plausibility, and it's easy to see why. If a medicine is not plausible, then it cannot have been scientifically validated (i.e. alternative medicine). If something is plausible, it might be scientifically validated (i.e. mainstream medicine) or not (i.e. alternative medicine). In other words, everything rests on scientific validation. ForgotMyPW (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That is true, and the crux is in the treatments that simply can not be validated — or where the lack of mechanism of action means that any study with a positive result is de facto a false positive. This has been used effectively by the alternative industry to cast doubt, and is explained in great detail in "More Harm than Good". I'm still working on how to express this in a way that 1) is useful here on the talkpage, and 2) is useful for the article. I will get back to you – I'm just very busy over this weekend. Feel free to message me in the coming week. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Pseudomedicine

This article (Alternative medicine) is, by redirect, WP:s article about pseudomedicine. However, there is no mention of the term in the article. Pseudoscience#Politics,_health,_and_education mention it once.

Is this good enough, is Alternative medicine/Pseudomedicine 100% identical (or close enough), or should the article expand on pseudomedicine somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• They're pretty much the same thing. It's sort of referenced in the lede: "Frequently used derogatory terms for the alternative are new-age or pseudo..." It's not obvious, but the term pseudomedicine also appears at the top of the infobox. Until recently it appeared more clearly in the lede, but the lede has very recently been trimmed. There are a lot of words for AM, including both euphemisms and derogatory terms. Including all of them would add another two lines to the lede, which would make it distracting to read. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Per the lead of the article, this makes an amount of sense. Following that reasoning, the title of the "Alternative and pseudo‑medicine" sidebar below the infobox is a bit redundant, isn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Complementary Medicine

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I searched wikipedia for complementary medicine & was redirected to alternative medicine. Certain fanatical paranoid zealots here who think they represent science are fond of using the words of Jimmy Wales to justify their bigotry, so we end up with very silly articles like this. To be clear (if you're hearing me Jimmy) I for one am glad that wikipedia is a place where I can be pointed towards the true reasons the twin towers collapsed the way they did & so have no need of the conspiracy theories, I'm also glad that when I overhear talk of 'chemtrails' I can find out what the hell that's supposed to mean within a relatively sane article here. On the other hand, while I'm no Christian (I have little time for any of the Abrahamic religions) I'm also glad that should I be curious about what exactly is meant by (e.g.) 'The Holy Ghost' I can read about it here in an article written by theologians - I might have slightly more in common with Brian Cox & Richard Dawkins but what on earth would be the point of asking them about it? So my message is, to clear this mess up, if you are a sceptic (& at times I'm myself agnostic) please by all means explain carefully here on the talk pages your concerns so your POV can be appropriately taken into account but let's leave a space for an article on complementary medicine to be edited by people who are experts on that particular subject, not people who are just out to destroy. The boundary between 'alternative' & 'complementary' may not always be consistent but complementary medicine I'd say is defined by the willingness of conventional medical services to engage, & as such has been MAINSTREAM in the civilised world for a quarter of a century now, so it's time for wikipedia to catch up. & oh here's a starting source to illustrate my point https://www.plymouthhospitals.nhs.uk/mt-complementary-therapies (unsourced anecdotal evidence suggests that several scientists have been unafraid to take advantage of the facilities there.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.15.235 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, sorry forgot to sign 86.148.15.235 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Your source says "All Therapies offered within the Centre are offered as an aid to relaxation not as an alternative to the conventional Cancer treatments i.e. chemotherapy, radiotherapy etc." That's from their pdf on Craniosacral Therapy. Btw, Jimmy is unlikely to hear you here, but you can try User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, I don't know how much I can respond to you before somebody who doesn't like what I'm saying jumps on this & says "here is not a forum" but I honestly don't see good collaborative articles happening without sensible discussion of the subject occurring between potential editors. I'm not an expert but I think something that gets missed is that, while medical science is amazing, medicine as practiced has always been a mixture of art & the science of the day - still is to some degree. (Isn't it within my living memory that UK Dr qualifications were still arts degrees?) Relaxation, deep relaxation is a significant aspect of the healing arts. (With apologies re "foruming" in I think an exceptional context) I know a very bright & lovely girl who was put on allopathic medication for anxiety in her very early teens, it was probably a temporary need but still 20+ years later whenever she tries to come off the medication she gets severe withdrawal symptoms (as warned by G.P.) yet while she's on it her life is blighted by side effects. So let's not downplay the importance of looking at relaxation in medicine. I could say much more but we might have to re-visit WP policy first :o) 86.148.15.235 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I would like to point out that Jimbo is unlikely to sympathise with you regarding medical fraud, (Complementary Medicine, Alt-Med call it whatever you like), if you do address the subject with him, but he'll be polite. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you Roxy, I don't imagine he will be brought to heel & roll over straight away but as long as slander & libel against good people are the unintended consequences of his well intentioned vision then it would be strange if people like me just sat back & let it happen 86.148.15.235 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mechanisms of action

I think a variant of case e) should also be quite common in practice:

• sick patient + mainstream treatment -> sickness cured + side effects
• sick patient + mainstream treatment + "alternative treatment" -> sickness cured + less side effects due to placebo effect

Think, for example, of a cancer patient who gets regular chemotherapy against his cancer, which causes nausea as a side effect, then he takes some homeopathic pills against nausea (in addition) and it gets better.

In contrast to case e) the "alternative" treatment does not significantly interfere with the regular medical treatment and hence is less problematic. In case of homeopathic "medicines" offered against mere symptoms, it sounds almost acceptable ... but only given that the cost of it is no higher than what a placebo effect is worth, and that the nausea is not part of a severe adverse effect against the chemotherapy agent that would normally prompt a change in medication, etc. ...

At least if the (mainstream) treatment is finally successful, the patient is likely to later ascribe part of that success to his "alternative / complementary treatment". In contrast to e) where in case of a disease like cancer the patient will be significantly less likely to survive (although in case of survival the same cognitive bias may happen). --130.83.182.66 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So what? Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

To make a long story short - complementary use of "alternative" treatment does not necessarily interfere with the regular treatment. --130.83.182.66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, so what? Are you trying to improve the article, or making some sort of point? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That case does not appear in the figure (' how alternative medicine "works" ') but might be important in practice. Why so irritated? Are my edits considered disruptive by the (other) Wikipedians here? --130.83.182.66 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative medicine articles are extremely difficult to edit if you are not in line with what the regular medical community says about it. So, unless you can find a good reliable resource per WP:RSMED that says what you are trying to add, there is not change anybody will be listening to you. KFvdL (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

To add, if you look careful, all those 5 options are essentially ways of saying alternative medicine is bad. You and I personally may know that is not true, but this is what the medical establishment wants us to believe and thus it is really hard to get anything in WP that is not supported by the medical establishment. KFvdL (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

I remember skimming the introductory sections of this article a few years ago and seeing a pretty nuanced description that ended with mentioning that alternative medicine is outside mainstream science and not respected by evidence-based medicine despite claims its practitioners would make. Now the entire introductory paragraphs, along with that new image about how alternative medicine 'works', read like they were ripped straight out of a RationalWiki article.

Why does every sentence in the introduction of this topic need to emphasize that 'alternative medicine is not accepted by scientists'? Why are their literally no sources for this absurdely long wall of text in the introductory section (for example, "Promoting alternative medicine has been called dangerous and unethical." Who is saying this?) except for the final line? Why arent the problems regarding the definition of alternative medicine even alluded to in the introductory section? Why is it so hard to find any reference in this article to anyone that actually believes in alternative medicine and what their responses are to critics?

Apologies, I missed the FAQ at the top of the page about the references and see that there are actual references made for these lines. In the case of the Diamond reference ("There is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't[...]"), this is almost a direct quote from him. I have made that specific citation visible for this reason. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is excessively POV and does not read at all like an encyclopedia article, but one you might find ripped out of an advocacy site (one of the only two sources for the introductory section of this article is a site literally called sciencebasedmedicine.org). At the very least, the entire introductory section needs to be rewritten and properly sourced. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Uhm...side note....WP:MOSLEAD is pretty clear that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I think consensus on this issue is pretty clear from the many many discussions about it we've had on this talk page. These are not controversial things. The minority viewpoints that believe altmed are valid are not worth it... If you want to add citations, be my guest. But I think consensus is probably against you completely revamping the lead to suit a POV you yourself say you don't have.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well apparently the header of this talk page disagrees with whatever consensus you are claiming is present here, as it clearly states that this topic is controversial. I admit to not being aware of that protocol before, but this article clearly seems to me to be a controversial one so I fail to see how that is relevant. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So why don't you add some citations? I doubt anyone will disagree with that. But I can guarantee there are people who will disagree with your removing the NPOV. And yes, I know you would disagree that it is a NPOV. But that is exactly the nature of the disagreement so many would have with you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

In the section above an editor says that he wants "allow the various competing viewpoints to speak for themselves". presumably he is talking about some "competing viewpoint" other than the viewpoint shared by most scientists and philosophers -- that quantum mysticism is pseudoscience and quackery.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[8][9]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards quantum entanglement, and biased against quantum mysticism.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I read this before and I fail to see how this is relevant. Why are there now zero sources for the wall of text at the beginning of this article? Why is there not a single mention of someone like Deepak Chopra AT ALL in this article despite his name being frequently referenced when talking about alternative medicine? Why is a gigantic graphic about how alternative medicine does not work the front image of this article?

Again, this article gives the impression that its writers are trying their hardest to convince you that alternative medicine is bad and does not work which is not what an encyclopedic article should be trying to do. An encyclopedic article should be more objective, which is significantly different than suggesting that alternative medicine is on the same level of scientific medicine, an impression I do not recall this article ever giving (although I am not aware of a lot of the history of this article so correct me if Im wrong).

I am not a supporter of alternative medicine, but this article is a mess. I support removing the leading image and rewriting the introductory section as has been suggested by others in this talk page. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. It is a thoughtless bias of the worst kind. - --KitchM (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @KitchM:. Ok, that's great. So what change to the article are you proposing? Please be specific. --McSly (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.116.47 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I unfortunately don’t have time to edit this article, but my two cents is I very strongly agree with the criticisms that this article does not have a NPOV. The premise of the article is that alternative medicine is all disproven and has no plausible mechanisms of action. I direct your attention to the discussion in the 2005 IOM report of the evidence base based on Cochrane studies, which is laid out in the article:

“As of 2005, the Cochrane Library had 145 CAM-related Cochrane systematic reviews and 340 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. An analysis of the conclusions of only the 145 Cochrane reviews was done by two readers. In 83% of the cases, the readers agreed. In the 17% in which they disagreed, a third reader agreed with one of the initial readers to set a rating. These studies found that, for CAM, 38.4% concluded positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%), 4.8% concluded no effect, 0.7% concluded harmful effect, and 56.6% concluded insufficient evidence. An assessment of conventional treatments found that 41.3% concluded positive or possibly positive effect, 20% concluded no effect, 8.1% concluded net harmful effects, and 21.3% concluded insufficient evidence. However, the CAM review used the more developed 2004 Cochrane database, while the conventional review used the initial 1998 Cochrane database.” JustinReilly (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is very specific about WP:GEVAL. So, no, it does not violate neutrality. WP:SPOV is NPOV for scientific matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative medicine's links (in uk at least) to alternative approaches to health.

45 years ago when I first noticed alternative medicine in the uk it was part & parcel of what was then considered alternative approaches to a healthy diet. Mainstream consumers ate salt, sugar, white flour, processed & tinned foods then went to a mainstream random Doctor & said "I'm ill you're the doctor, it's your job to fix me". Alternative approaches were always about individuals taking responsibility and making choices. We went to wholefood stores & ate brown rice, 100% wholegrain flour, natural yoghurt, muesli etc - a completely different world to the funny tin of American wonder gloop pictured in the article. Then we'd go to an alternative health practitioner & they'd say "have you tried kefir - it's a traditional health food". Of course once its benefits are proven you forget it was once 'alternative'... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38800977 "So if you want to try fermented foods to improve your gut health it's best to look for products that have been made using traditional preparation and processing, or make them yourself, to ensure you're getting the healthy bacteria you're after." Yeah, like any self respecting hippy. 86.148.15.235 (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here, as you have not made any suggestion for improving the article. What you have described isn’t about alt-med at all, but just lifestyle choices for, as you rightly state, hippies who don’t understand nutrition. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought; Tabasco sauce is the best fermented food commercially available in the uk, followed closely by siratchachacha. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"Alternative medicine describes any practice which aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested or untestable." My point is that in the 1970ies (when 'alternative' views became culturally prominent) if i went to a mainstream Doctor (in the uk) there was very little chance that Doctor would advise me against eating white bread & very little chance that an English Doctor would know what kefir was - or anything like it. On the other hand if I'd gone to a uk alternative practitioner the chances of being recommended whole foods & kefir would've have been quite high. It's taken 40 years for allopathy to catch up with some of the things that do good. So that opening sentence in the article will need to be changed eventually. I have POV and you make very clear that you have another POV so my opinion is that the article is best edited by someone capable of adopting a neutral position. 86.148.15.235 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Allopathy was a new term for me, but WP knows many things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That's because you are a nice person GSS, but the use of the word is perjorative towards medicine. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

So WP told me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In this case the word was chosen because in the 1970ies UK doctors were advocating many things that are not done any more because, while they were then thought helpful, when the evidence was looked for it wasn't there. "Evidence based medicine" in its current form is quite new & evolving all the time. I only know this because I listen to medical programmes on BBC Radio 4.86.148.15.235 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again - this isn't a forum you know Roxy & we're not doing social media here either (heaven forbid) but for newcomers needing to catch up: Allopathy is a word regularly used by practitioners of alternative therapies to describe (broadly speaking) western mainstream medicine. in normal everyday circumstances it is not used by 'mainstream' doctors to describe themselves or each other or the principles of their work. In other words it's just not a word they normally use (unless they happen to practice in more than one discipline). The Oxford English dictionary (for example) will be looking at all sources to determine the usual usage & meaning of this word and it's logical to assume they could not be discriminating against sources from alternative practitioners (or the clients or prospective clients or ex-clients of alternative or complementary practitioners). Wikipedia on the other hand will (it can be presumed) not be listing as a "reliable source" any source coming from the viewpoint of any alternative practitioners (because as I see it the followers of Jimmy Wales don't like any of them.) The outcome is that the current wikipedia article misrepresents most alternative practitioners (& their clients) in its opening line by stating unequivocally that allopathy is a pejorative term. This is not supported by the Oxford English Dictionary (who are looking at usual general usage). A possible reason for such a discrepancy it seems to me will be that the only mentions in Wikipedia "Reliable" sources are likely to be when an argument between mainstream/alternative has been documented by the mainstream side. (In other words wikipedia lives in its own little imaginary world divorced from day to day realities ;o) 86.148.15.235 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

further points which would be obvious to anyone familiar with the subject : "Alternative therapies often make bombastic claims, and frequently include anecdotes from healthy-looking individuals claiming successful treatment" In fairness a couple of years ago I did come across an example which might fit this description, some Americans were running a website based business called "The Truth About Cancer" which I was very suspicious of - perhaps because the bombast did not resonate with my British reserve! I will leave it to you dear reader to make your own judgement : However the tin of gloop labelled "Miracle cure truly amazing works in minutes guaranteed" is the most incongruous & silly thing imaginable to see on a page about alternative therapies. I have from time to time been seeing alternative therapists for 40 years & they have always said things like "this will take a lot of work over a significant period of time" and "there are no guarantees". I am unable to think of any product in the alternative world I know which claims "works in minutes" & I do not think that picture would be recognised (for example) by anyone on this course https://www.cityandguilds.com/qualifications-and-apprenticeships/beauty-and-complementary-therapies/complementary-therapies/7607-complementary-therapies#tab=information&acc=level3 So that picture straight away robs the article of any appearance of credibility. "Alternatives to reality based medical treatments" in this case seems to be referring to something very different from anything I am familiar with and perhaps deserves a separate article? On the other hand the picture does currently serve as a useful warning that the article's authors are not to be taken seriously 86.148.15.235 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of mindfulness in this article? I think it only needs a short mention & a link because it's covered elsewhere in wikipedia. Some people do say that alternative medicine cannot exist because there can ultimately be only one valid type of medical practice, however if we do want to understand all of what is really meant by alternative medicine then it really does need to be acknowledged that mindfulness practice was embraced by western alternative medicine some 30 years before it began to be accepted by the western mainstream. 86.148.15.235 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Stay focused on whether any content needs changing, otherwise people will stop responding. One of your arguments is that in the 1970s, alternative medicine often implied a movement for lifestyle medicine, rather than unscientific medicine? Anywikiuser (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anywikiuser I don't have time or resources to re-write & research the whole article but if the article's authors are sincere then I'm surprised if they could be uninterested in a response from someone who has been a participant in the subject. Also I may not be the best person to edit this article directly anyway because it's possible that the subject could be wider than my personal view of it. Back to your point, I'll take this bit next : "The alternative is distinct from the experimental, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing evidence of either effect or of no effect." I do have some understanding of scientific method but scientific experimentation is distinct from "The Experimental" in a general sense. My exploration of alternative medicine arises in a context of an experimental lifestyle, one where I take responsibility for the inherent risks in the fact that I am deciding to make choices outside of the mainstream. Medical science is all about statistics, in contrast this very afternoon I have heard the story of an individual (local to me) whose individual adventurous attitude yielded surprisingly good results after conventional scientific approaches had failed him. So no, that sentence is wrong, the alternative is NOT distinct from the experimental, rather the alternative experimental may differ from the scientific experimental - but that's a quite different thing. In alternative medicine we learn one way or another that each individual's journey is unique. In contrast, testing "plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing evidence of either effect or of no effect" is a method for looking at populations. Using a method that has been shown to work for 90% could conceivably make things worse for 9% & even cause the death of 1%. With alternative medicine I just say "wow, so glad that worked for that person" without any expectation that the same method will work in the same way for me or anyone else. The positive results will always be original research - sorry! that's why you can't get the type of citations you'd like for a medical article... So I could think about re-writing that sentence above but as long as wikipedia thinks it knows better than even the Oxford English Dictionary then I'd be wasting my time. I remain just a number to preserve some degree of privacy but my isp has just randomly changed that number 31.51.220.92 (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No WP:SOURCES=no edits. As simple as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I know that and I'm going to leave you alone now, my words are left with the intention of inspiring others to start thinking about how the article might one day better represent the subject. If I'm not asked back then I won't be back without a source for something.31.51.220.92 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In the future, do mind WP:NLT: accusations of libel are reason for a site ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The very first comment on this page actually ends with a complete reversal, and an admission that "alternative" is equivalent to "false". It states "Of course once its benefits are proven you forget it was once 'alternative'". Exactly. Proof equals true, no proof equals false. Something for which proof may arrive soon is also false, but may be true soon. Something for which proof has been long awaited but the proof has not yet materialized, is false. Things like homeopathy and chiropractic, studied for decades with no proof and solidly anchored as "alternative" (and therefore false) medicine, belong in the latter category. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The Inefficacy of Security through Obscurity

Why the approach of removing reference to any and all dietary supplements being used as dietary supplements is a bad idea:

   1. Consumer might be looking at actual product in a store and is trying to be responsible by looking up the ingredient list.
   2. Consumer might have just read a fantastic spam or clickbait article about said Dietary Supplement and is again, doing the 
      right thing by looking it up.
   3. Consumer might have just had a friend recommend said product on any number of social media sites.
   4. Celebrity Doctor may have just recommended said dietary supplement on TV.

In software, and in Encyclopedias, the principle of security through obscurity, or, keeping people safe by withholding, or hiding information deliberately and hoping they don't find out is unsustainable. It just means that when faced with a dearth of information from a supposedly reliable source (Wikipedia) and finding out nothing on a particular page, a patron will simply go elsewhere, and perhaps find information from a site that doesn't utilize something like WP:MEDRS, and doesn't have the warnings, and the side effects listed and the possible dangers readily apparent and cited. Maybe I am being a bit WP:SOAP, or WP:NOTHERE, but I am not being WP:FRINGE, and I am not being WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Reality is: major retail stores, up to and including, mainstream grocery stores, and drugstores, sell these products. The internet sells these products. There is no denying that these products are here to stay barring major Legislative changes. Orrin Hatch's baby: DSHEA 1994; covers the retail sale of these products. Denying that as a fact is not only delusional, but it is potentially damaging to people who might have otherwise been properly warned if we had only allowed the section to be created.

That is all.

4Cancer (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify your point? Who is removing what? What exactly do you propose to change in the article and based on what sources? Why are you talking about dietary supplements here? There is an article about them. See Dietary supplement. Retimuko (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Retimuko

I apologize, I was told that speaking about "Alternative Medicine and Supplements" was to be done on this page.

First Question: Clarify my point: I was speaking about each individual supplement page, not Dietary Supplements in general. For instance, the pages for any "newly fadded" supplement. Supplement news articles sometimes pop up in my news feed and for instance, today, I helped edit a warning for Konjac. It is a literal diet pill that can block your intestines. Previously, there was no information in the page under the "uses" section that said it was being used this way. But, now it is.

Second Question: Who is removing what: I have no idea, but most dietary supplement pages lack information about the plant, extract, oil, etc being used as a dietary supplement...therefore, it seems the idea of "security through obscurity" reigns supreme for want of not misleading people that these things are medicine (of course, of course they are not) but it is not being mentioned that they are being sold under DSHEA, and therefore warnings about the dangers of each individual supplement are absent also.

Third Question: What exactly do you propose to change in the article and base on what sources? I am not proposing any changes to this article, I am addressing a group behavior as a part of WP:MEDRS, as they react to all things Alternative or Pseudoscience. I am saying that you simply can't keep it quiet. Sources proposed for individual pages are: https://dsld.nlm.nih.gov/dsld/ and any negative, or warning studies that could be found on an individual supplement on PUBMED. Or WebMD.

Fourth Question: Why am I talking about Dietary Supplements here: Again, I was told that this was the place where I could find knowledgeable users who could answer my specific questions about Alternative Medicine, of which Dietary Supplements are a major part.

Would you like me to copy or move this section to the Dietary Supplements page? It is a discussion that needs to be had, I think.

I hope that I answered all your questions adequately.

Thank you.

4Cancer (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Things that pop in the newsfeed should be used with a little caution, see WP:NOTNEWS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

I understand, my view is that it will become a sudden "thing" and that a certain segment of the population will immediately go out and try to find out about it. Or buy it. But, hopefully, try to find out more about it first. Just because you don't fall for clickbait, doesn't mean that others follow the same path. In a way, you've got to think like someone who is completely unlike you in order to understand the draw, and then switch back to you so you can see the danger in it. Right?

4Cancer (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll bite. Can you provide specific examples of ingredients used as dietary supplements for which the articles on those ingredients do not cover use as dietary supplements? David notMD (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David notMD,

Okay, as a perfect example, my friend texted me yesterday saying that she had been at a friend's house and he gave her all sorts of "medicinal herbs" and she cited "Mullein" - which she said she's used as an cough expectorant - as one of the ones that he gave her. The verbascum site, lists it's use as a fish poison (seeds)...but not that it is being used (horribly enough) as a dietary supplement/medicinal plant, which it should do, but with huge, huge warnings. There are several manufacturers of Mullein supplements and WebMD has a section on it as well. It doesn't talk about the fish poison bit though. As an encyclopedia, both uses can be listed side by side, and I would say this is important because while browsing Mullein offerings for sale, one very clearly had seeds in with the leaves and flowers.

But, this is a perfect example of where "security through obscurity" doesn't work.

Thanks, 4Cancer (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I see it's sold on Amazon. This could be a decent source. Don't WP:COPYPASTE, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if by "verbascum site" you mean the article Verbascum, it does mention the medicinal use at Verbascum#Other_uses. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Verbascum thapsus has better referencing, but neither really address a distinction between unsubstantiated traditional use and evidence-based science published in peer-reviewed journals. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Errant definition

Alternative medicine is any medical model that is not a Conventional/western/allopathic medicine model. They may or may not have a biological basis, be tested, or be effective. Staying that ALL alternative medicine is not based in biology, not tested, and not effective is totally and completely false statement that does not belong here. For example both medical models recognize exercise and as important. There are studies which prove its effectiveness in improving health outcomes. This entry says that if a medical provider practicing convention tells a patient this, it is proven true, but if a medical provider who also practices alternative medicine (in addition to conventional medicine) it is not proven true. This falsity should be corrected. Elisaclay (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, dont be silly. Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Foundational medicine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Foundational medicine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

I would suggest citing the sentence "Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective. Complementary medicine (CM), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrated medicine or integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings of the same phenomenon." with the following citation as this article supports this claim, given that no literature currently supports this sentence.

Ng, J.Y., Boon, H.S., Thompson, A.K. et al. Making sense of “alternative”, “complementary”, “unconventional” and “integrative” medicine: exploring the terms and meanings through a textual analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med 16, 134 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1111-3 174.95.182.119 (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede in articles rarely needs references as these are provided in the body of the article. Your suggestion appears to be primary research and would probably not be appropriate even in the body of the article. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Change "Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective. Complementary medicine (CM), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrated medicine or integrative medicine (IM), and holistic medicine are among many rebrandings of the same phenomenon. Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside medical science, and rely on pseudoscience. Traditional practices become "alternative" when used outside their original settings without proper scientific explanation and evidence. Frequently used derogatory terms for the alternative are new-age or pseudo, with little distinction from quackery. Some alternative practices are based on theories that contradict the science of how the human body works; others resort to the supernatural or superstitious to explain their effect. In others, the practice is plausibly effective but has too many side effects. Alternative medicine is distinct from experimental medicine, which employs the scientific method to test plausible therapies by way of responsible and ethical clinical trials, producing 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. Much of the perceived effect of an alternative practice arises from a belief that it will be effective (the placebo effect), or from the treated condition resolving on its own (the natural course of disease). 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 the absence of this bias, especially for diseases that are not expected to get better by themselves such as cancer or HIV infection, multiple studies have shown significantly worse outcomes if patients turn to alternative therapies. While this may be because these patients avoid effective treatment, some alternative therapies are actively harmful (e.g. cyanide poisoning from amygdalin, or the intentional ingestion of hydrogen peroxide) or actively interfere with effective treatments. The alternative sector is a highly profitable industry with a strong lobby, and faces far less regulation over the use and marketing of unproven treatments. Its marketing often advertises the treatments as being "natural" or "holistic", in comparison to those offered by "big pharma". Billions of dollars have been spent studying alternative medicine, with little to no positive results. 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". To "Healthcare and treatment practices that treat medical conditions that people use instead of or with western medicine. Alternative medicine include: Traditional Chinese medicine, Chiropractic, Naturopathy, Myotherapy and Osteopathy." Mykal O'Leary (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The current text is well supported by the body text, and your version is somewhat lacking in encyclopeadic detail, and accuracy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Broken refs

Current ref 23 makes a reference to

• Kopelman 2004
• Wieland et al. 2011

But neither of them have full citations in the article. Those should either be removed, or the full citations provided. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

Alternative medicine is characterised as medical thought strategies and practices are alternative to pharmaceutical medicine. 90.71.88.68 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you see the big brown box when you posted your comment? The one that says

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

You didn't follow the instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Displacement of effective conventional treatment

The extent to which use of ineffective alternative medicine replaces conventional treatment of a condition which could have been cured or ameliorated is worth looking for. I suspect the vast majority of alternative treatments are done in situations where there is no treatable condition, i.e. on someone who is as healthy as they can be. Refusal of COVID vaccine might be a exception to the general rule. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources that agree with your suspicion, we cannot do anything about it. Anyway, since vaccine hesitancy is a real thing and keeps diseases alive that could have been eradicated by now, it does not really matter if there are many more cases where the only damage is to the wallet, or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately that very tendency to reach out of alternatives blindly is exactly what gives fuel to the anti-AM writers. There is science, and there is not-science and the latter can only serve to put peoples health at risk. That said, there are scientifically founded (not yet proven or disproved) ideas and hypothesis which offer therapeutic approaches under the guise of some form of so called Alternative Medicine and may offer some hope under some circumstances - however, these things need to be understood in the context of their potential risks and benefits and distinguished from overt quackery and spiritualism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Current Article is Unscientific Opinion Piece

Rather than helping readers to distinguish between fantasy, unscientific, speculative, preliminary, and peer reviews approaches and concepts this article simply equates western mainstream medical school practice with "scientific" and anything that identifies itself as in any way including elements outside of that scope as garbage. While the intention is good the reality of this article flies in the face of Wikipedia objective voice discourse with its give an inch and they'll take a mile fascist fear mongering mentality. The reality is that most therapeutic and diagnostic protocols we accept as conventional practice were initially drawn from domains that would have originally been considered "Alternative Medicine" by modern standards. Just because the witch doctor wears a ridiculous outfit and appeals to some non-existent spirit doesn't mean that the potion offered doesn't contain tinctures that might reduce inflammation or reduce nausea. In fact anyone who was paying attention in pharmacology class will realize that this is exactly how many of our palliative treatments were "discovered". Furthermore, much of psychology is literally a formalized type of suggestion therapy which like placebos actually can have a positive impact on treatment (which is why we have double blind studies in the first place). Finally, it is a fact that some of the various therapeutic models lumped into Alternative Medicine attempt to speculatively extend well understood best practice with entirely reasonable hypothesized therapies which may in time be incorporated into conventional double blind proven approaches (funding permitting), or even holistic protocols which are entirely founded upon known best practices where only the holistic integration itself hasn't received full scientific review. Because of the absurdly one sided non-objective voiced nature of the entire Alternative Medicine article model and its self referential justifications for peer reviewed references it leaves the layman no support in distinguishing outright quackery from potentially valid protocols which haven't had sufficient time or funding for full process review. And please, no BS implications of anyone who disagrees with you is an unscientific anti-vax cultist whose therapeutics are based on spiritualism or that everything that hasn't been double blind studied and peer reviewed can't possibly be valid. That way is the end of all progress and to claim the Wikipedia supports such biased reporting would be like dismissing Copernicus or Galileo because of an establishment that was stuck in the past.

First, new stuff goes to the bottom.

Second, I stopped reading after two sentences because they were just off-topic rant unlikely to be helpful in improving the article. If there is any worthwhile non-WP:SOAPBOX text in that small wall of text, could you please repeat that while keeping the meaningless clutter and attempts at insults to yourself? If not, go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is not wrong, but a wall of text carrying on about "fascism" accomplishes nothing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of material from the Model Guidelines for the Use of Complementary and Alternative Therapies in Medical Practice

Would User:Roxy the dog please explain any basis for removing the well sourced information from the Model Guidelines for the Use of Complementary and Alternative Therapies in Medical Practice in this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1029217341 User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Needs a WP:MEDRS source. -Roxy . wooF 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Has one, Complementary and Alternative Medicine IN THE UNITED STATES, a book published by the National Academy of Medicine National Academies Press. The material is from Appendix E page 338 User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Needs enough sourcing that it overpowers the already many multiple MEDRSes here. The definition of CAM is actually very well sourced in this article already. See WP:RSUW.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Overpower? Not our neutral point of view policy. All points of view in reliable sources should be included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"The New York Times called the NAM (then called the IOM) the United States' "most esteemed and authoritative adviser on issues of health and medicine, and its reports can transform medical thinking around the world." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I'm for executing quacks. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Included in proportion to their coverage in the full consideration of the landscape of sources. I too respect the IOM greatly. I also think the inclusion of "guidelines" under the "definitions" section was not necessary, or more specifically, undue. But I actually support the content you added under "negative outcomes."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem I'm addressing, and that the NIH is addressing, is the huge population that is using alternative medicine without it being adequately regulated. The idea is to bring alternative medicine into the system of medical regulation. Which is why no mention of how that might work is inappropriate. Simply dismissing it as "pseudoscience" is not making much of an impression on the public. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The full quote from the NYTs: "The Institute of Medicine is the nation’s most esteemed and authoritative adviser on issues of health and medicine, and its reports can transform medical thinking around the world. The government has asked the medicine institute to assess the safety of vaccines a dozen times in the past 25 years, hoping the institute’s reputation would put to rest the concerns of some parents that vaccines cause a host of problems, including autism. It has not worked." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As a guy who has a PhD in vaccine design, that quote does make me lol! Like any antivaxxer would ever care about the IOM...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

They usually don't seem to care about their own lives. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, the guidelines don’t belong in the “definitions” section. Brunton (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with it there, but the alternate definitions are even worse. "different from practice guidelines" is quite ambiguous, but has a rather definite meaning in the Wikipedia context where editors often rely on practice guidelines in selecting content, and, in fact, may be required to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Medical consensus

In the Efficacy section, it is stated that "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved" and then there are four citations. I am at a loss to find in any of these sources a "medical consensus" like that which is claimed. A simple Google search to find a consensus or definition shows nothing like that anywhere, but sources from Merck and many others are quite neutral, if not surprisingly positive in their definitions and assessments: From Merck: A substantial amount of information about CAM is available in peer-reviewed publications, evidence-based reviews, expert panel consensus documents, and authoritative textbooks; much of it has been published in languages other than English (eg, German, Chinese). Many CAM therapies have been studied and found to be effective and/or comparable to conventional treatment, but some have been found to be ineffective or subject to conflicting and inconsistent results. Some CAM therapies have not been tested in definitive clinical trials. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I have two questions. First, what is your point here. and B. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That the claim that "there is a general scientific consensus..." as shown in my comment, should be removed, as there is no evidence to support it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"... no evidence to support it". Have you actually read the article? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please kindly direct me to the part or parts of the article where it is supported. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a straightforward application of WP:RS/AC. "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors" Bolding mine. Ive not read the article, but if Pyrrho the Skeptic's claims are correct that the sources sited dont say there is a scientific consensus, then this article should not claim there is a scientific consensus. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I will wait for a response from User:Roxy the dog, as I've scoured the article and the internet and can find no "consensus" anywhere. I suggest a rewrite to "Many scientists believe" or "Many medical professionals believe" or something like that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I've softened the statement a bit and added specific examples where the statement is true. If necessary, I can provide quotes to back up the paraphrasing involved. Thoughts? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a huge improvement and I would be fine with this change. Thanks for helping to improve this article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that that is a long winded way of saying "general consensus"!! Why do we have to change it? it was much better, and easier to understand before. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I agree with your general assessment here, but I think this is probably the closest we are going to get here for "consensus via compromise."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

We make clear that it's true by definition. Alternative practices that actually acquire a sound evidence base become, ipso facto, straightforwardly sound medicine. We don't need to commit OR in order to belabor the point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Serious lack of impartiality

This topic needs to be treated as a sociological phenomenon instead of simply as a scapegoat for all that's hated about "anti-science". Science in the Western tradition and other systems of trying to ascertain truth about medical efficacy, while of course not necessarily producing the same validity of results, all may, for a given treatment, suggest results that are actually correct while other systems refuse to acknowledge them. Theories using the Western scientific method evolve, over time treatments considered "alternative" gain widespread scientific consensus, or conversely, scientific rejection. The mere fact that there isn't currently a consensus in Western science supporting a given treatment absolutely does not establish that it "lacks biological plausibility" or that it's "untested or untestable", as the leading sentence in the article suggests. This point of view is simply ridiculous on the grounds that it treats current scientific consensus as absolutely infallible. A more impartial tone for this article should simply state that "alternative medicine" consists of treatments not currently considered to have scientific consensus supporting them, without devolving into a rant presuming every such "alternative" theory must be completely incompatible with scientific verification. Impartiality in this context means describing a controversy between groups of people with different methodologies. It's fallacious to say that, since the scientific method tends to produce correct results, any result not acquired via the scientific method must be incorrect and unverifiable using the scientific method, particularly if application of the "scientific method" is further confined to only consider experimental evidence in the context of Western scientific institutions, and reject observational sociological evidence. Particularly if you consider that, yes, there is obviously some tendency for people to prefer treatments that work over those that don't, even if the evaluation of such treatments is as subjective as personal experience. Failure to consider these basic points renders the article as a culturally-biased rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.72.77 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

IP, if you have a concrete proposal to update the article, please add it here with reliable sources to back it up. Please also read WP:FORUM. --McSly (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am adding my voice to the numerous others above who feel that this article reads like a hatchet job against its purported subject. It is not objective. The sociological approach just suggested might be one avenue toward writing a better article here. Like some others above, I don't have time now to edit the article; but this post and those by others speak to consensus. -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

McSly, the IP did have concrete proposals, and he didn't suggest adding anything that is not already covered by the sources. Our articles are not meant to be written as advocacy propaganda (neither on one side or t the other). We don't need reliable sources to delete content that logical reasoning can prove false, whether it is in a "reliable" source or not (and if said sources contain faulty reasoning, or worse, deliberate faulty reasoning because the authors have conflict of interest, their reliability should be suspect). Another problem that's epidemic on WP: editors can largely make up whatever the hell they want, slap some reliable 'source' on it that doesnt actually say what they add to the article, and as long as it's on the right 'side', either nobody questions it, or if they do, then the Wikimob quickly subverts the topic and extonguishes discussion immediately (usually with one line, sarcastic, boilerplate responses, like McSly's above). Peace Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no goal to be objective. The goal is to be neutral. And please don't confuse neutral editing with neutral content. Please see WP:NEUTRALEDIT. And please remember that talk pages are not forums to share personal opinions on the subject. What exactly do you propose to change in the article and what sources do you have to support that? Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Firejuggler86, Your arguments here fly in the face of WP:NOTTRUTH. Especially this: We don't need reliable sources to delete content that logical reasoning can prove false, whether it is in a "reliable" source or not.

The question, as in many such situations, is "who gets to decide what is false?" And the answer to which is "our reliable sources." Hence why your argument is inconsistent with the way wikipedia works.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be about the editing approach taken on this article, which is not automagically aligned with the letter and spirit of all policies and guidelines even though the crafty editor may be able to call up any number of them to support their position. As such, the above demand for exact proposals and sources comes off as disingenuous and dismissive, seeming to indicate that you're having none of any 'discussion' on fundamental questions of how this article is being edited and are only interested in specific editing suggestions. Maybe that's your prerogative, but I add my voice to those who declare it an appropriate topic for an article's talk page, not to be misrepresented as "personal opinion." I understand that a nascent concensus toward a more balanced approach to covering this topic in a suitably encyclopedic manner may be frightening to those who are garnering so much joy from the freedom they've been afforded to pursue lunatic charlatans with vigor wherever they may or may not crop up, but I'm confident that if it continues, more of the mob will show up to protect that precious cargo. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 19:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Just want to echo what's being said, and as a lover of Wikipedia, it's embarrassing to read this article. As is said numerous times above, any attempt to add neutrality to this subject will be shot down by editors who, while well-meaning, believe that this subject is excluded from analysis of neutrality. This article needs a lot of work, and editors are acting childish when they refuse to engage in conversation about the many claims pasted in here from skeptic blogs and podcasts and statements sourced with links that don't even remotely support the claims. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is totally wrong especially with the definition of Alternative Medicine! The Natural way of medicine was actually the mainstream medicine and it changed when it was discovered that synthetic highly addictive medicine could be derived from petroleum products. It was then that Rockefeller unleashed his army of propaganda to change the definition of alternative medicine and even funded medical colleges to his drafted syllabi to actually include prescribing synthetic addictive medicine. This was the start of the Big Pharma. Sadly enough today we call the ages old tried and trusted method of natural medicine as alternative and the current toxic addictive drugs as mainstream. Totally wrong and a prime example of deterioration of human life and health just to sell more drugs that are poisonous for profit. Sage.Sauvage (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sage.Sauvage I suspect that you may be at the wrong article. What you describe is covered at Herbal medicine  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Rebranding

The lead paragraph uses the word "rebranding" in relation to other names used in the medical industry for alternative medicine. This is not the appropriate word to use and is an editorialization and sounds unprofessional. There is no "brand" nor body that made a marketing decision, as implied, that I can find. There are plenty of alternative (no pun intended) ways to phrase it than "rebrand". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is fantastically appropriate, and is linked to the wiki article on the subject too. No change needed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If you read the article linked in the Wikilink, you'll see a description of rebranding as an almost exclusively corporate phenomenon. In ths case, there is no corporation that made this decision. It is a clumsy and unprofessional word and I suggest the sentenced be rephrased to "other terms used by the industry are..." or something like that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, We do have a couple of sources that use the word 'Rebranding' (you can find them cited in the article body), and the article follows. We shouldn't come up with our own branding definition to try to undermine the sources, that would be WP:OR. But even so, branding is often but not exclusively corporate (see for example Place branding). MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for respectfully responding to my comment with follow-up information. I am having some trouble finding where rebranding is sourced, and I've looked at quite a few of the soures. Would it be too much to ask to request that you point me to where I can find those? THere are no citations in the lead, which makes it very difficult. Thanks.Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, Try the Shapiro book and the "A brand, not a specialty" article from Science Based Medicine. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That is an example of WP:RSOPINION as it's coming from the opinion of one non-neutral journalist using that label. That is quite a stretch to be used in the lead of a controversial article, wouldn't you say? I still believe this should be rewritten. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article looks fine to me as it is. The complaints about the SBM source don't seem to understand how our sourcing works with respect to fringe theories. See WP:PARITY. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Rebranding occurs in two contexts: Quacks try to come up with a better marketing strategy, somehow make their scam credible, and physicians who use alternative methods attempt to integrate them into medical language and practice. Even if the only virtue of a treatment is that it does no harm it is helpful if its name carries no excess baggage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

However, if CAM is mentioned, named, defined, etc. by numerous governmental and NGO medical authorities, which it currently is, for example, "Integrative medicine is an approach to medical care that combines standard medicine with CAM practices that have shown through science to be safe and effective." which is one of many official definitions, and its pretty common knowledge that some herbal things and alternative treatments can mitigate anxiety, which is often why they're used in conjunction with traditional medicine, then "rebranding", which came from one guy's book, is not appropriate here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

What does CAM stand for? And are you under the (false) impression that this article is lumping non-medical "complementary" treatments (massages, lifestyle changes, moving, dietary changes, etc) under the banner of "alternative" treatments, like acupuncture and Shiatsu? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you read the first sentence of this Wikipedia article, it stands for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It's defined here by the National Cancer Institute. Accupuncture is considered CAM. As you can see, it should either have its own Wikipedia page, or should not be called a "rebranding" of alternative medicine. No institutional authority on Earth has ever called it a "rebranding". Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, as I thought I made clear with the rest of my comment.

As for "acupuncture is considered CAM", well, yes. That's why it's Complementary AND Alternative Medicine. Of course that would include anything under the rubric of alternative medicine.

As you're still harping on the word "rebranding", I'll direct you to the comment by MrOllie above, which already addressed your complaints. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You asked if I thought the article is "lumping" together complementary (massage) and alternative (accupuncture, in your words), right? Here is from the National Cancer Institute:

Complementary medicine is used along with standard medical treatment but is not considered by itself to be standard treatment. One example is using acupuncture to help lessen some side effects of cancer treatment.

Alternative medicine is used instead of standard medical treatment. One example is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of cancer drugs that are prescribed by an oncologist.

So, does that help you understand? Complementary and integrative are used to distinguish from alternative medicine. Alternative medicine was not "rebranded" into CAM or Integrative Medicine. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The NCI is not the only body to have their own unique definition of CAM. This is not a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Then I would add the CDC definition and the Hopkins definition. The consensus is that some treatments are used WITH traditional medicine (complemetary, integrative). This should be addressed somewhere on Wikipedia. Either a separate article, or an explanation that medical practitioners use herbs, accupuncture integrated with standard care, and NOT that CAM is a "rebranding" of the "pseudoscientific quackery", etc. etc. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

As I haven't ever claimed it wasn't possible for alternative medicines to be used in a complementary manner, none of those three sources contradict anything I've said. The Hopkins source even confirms that acupuncture is an alternative medicine. I'm not seeing anything here that's worth engaging with, so I'm going to stop now. There's a clear consensus in this thread, and you've failed to change it thus far. I would suggest dropping the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for at least engaging and listening to what I had to say and reading the links. Take care Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And to you. Frankly, it's a little refreshing to disagree with someone and have them actually respond to what I'm saying, instead of simply repeating themselves over and over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

According to User:MPants at work: "There's a clear consensus in this thread,..." I fail to see it. CAM is characterized in the article as a "rebranding" of "pseudoscience." I agree there are genuine crooks, some of the licensed MDs, but there is also use of alternative techniques by competent responsible practitioners. I don't think there is any consensus to continue to use broad derogatory language. And, frankly, I have never supported the notion that a consensus of the Wikipedia editors who address a subject has any rational relationship with the truth or usefulness of an article. It often reflects the opinion of the four or five people who address the issue in this forum, an opinion that is manifestly not a reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, WP:NOTTRUTH. Wikipedia isn't about showing the truth as it really is. And I, for one, think "rebranding" is an absolutely appropriate word that does not only apply to corporate products. People have a "brand." Countries have a "brand." Movements, ideas, mythical figures...all have a "brand." Marketing applies to more than just goods, it also applies to services, and many non-commercial interactions.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I knew using the word "truth" would be incorrect however, pointing that out does not respond to the point being made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus to continue to use broad derogatory language. Can you define "consensus" as you're using it here? I think you're not using the definition at WP:CONSENSUS, because there's literally no way to argue that the arguments in this thread for keeping the current language aren't policy based and sound, while the arguments against it are, unless one denies easily verifiable facts.

Look, the arguments thus far can be easily summed up:

Pro: Multiple reliable sources have used the term to describe the phenomenon, which no-one denies having occurred. The term makes sense, as it has much the same meaning outside of corporate marketing as it does inside that industry.

Con: Branding is only a term in corporate marketing. These other sources don't mention branding. Some sources use a definition that makes sense on it's own, suggesting that it's not a rebranding.

Well, the pro arguments there align with our policies on verifiability and stand on their own. The con arguments require us to fill in the blanks and make assumptions that no reliable sources have ever stated.

The con arguments start with an assertion that's not verifiable in any RS; that "branding" is an exclusively corporate phenomenon. And it's not even unverifiable WP:OR, but a factually inaccurate claim. The Pro editors have already provided evidence which directly contradicts this. And even if it were a verifiable fact, that would not change what the RSes have said. The con argument then turns to asserting that there are sources which use "CAM", which, as evidence, supports the pro side. Then it's implied that the utility of that definition, rather than an attempt to distance from the negative connotations of other names is the reason for the shift in naming, though this is never clearly stated. Except that's textbook WP:SYNTH.

I'm sorry, but this is as clear a consensus as it gets, without edging into WP:SNOW territory. Without a sound, policy based argument against the current wording, there never will be a consensus to change it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification in Efficacy section

Regarding the citations added by User:MPants at work in place of the citation needed tag. These may require Failed Verification tags, as I looked through them and see nothing in the sources supporting the statement. To say that "there is no healing effect" from ANY the broad, undefined (according to this very article) things classified here as "alternative medicine" might be better said as "no measurable effect", though even that would be easily questioned. But please show me where it says that, if I'm wrong. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

From the very first of those sources: What most sets alternative medicine apart, in our view, is that it has not been scientifically tested and its advocates largely deny the need for such testing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe that nothing classified in this article as alternative medicine has been scientifically tested? How does that statement support definitively "no healing effect"? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe that nothing classified in this article as alternative medicine has been scientifically tested? This question is so far removed from any reasonable interpretation of my answer that I don't see any utility to continuing to engage you on this topic. You claim that this content "failed verification" is categorically false and I've nothing else to say on the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Then please help me interpret your answer. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested rephrasing

In the Marketing subsection it states, This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden, with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma". I don't think "this fact is intentionally kept hidden by the media" is up to Wikipedia standards. The source is unviewable, anyway. I suggest this be rephrased to something like, Alternative medicine has been estimated to be a $34 billion industry, with a strong lobby. Thoughts? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I plan to look up who added that and ask them for a quote from the book which we can add to the ref. If they can't or won't provide one, then I'll search for other RSes asserting the same. If I can't find those, then I'd support removing this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see that it was added by @Sunrise: in this diff. As I said above, Sunrise, could you provide a quote from the book which supports this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi MPants, in that diff I was restoring some content that had been removed, so I'm not the one who wrote this. For instance, the statement is present in a version from several weeks earlier.

I would also point out to the OP that regardless of whether the source supports the text, being unviewable is not itself a valid reason for questioning it. In addition, the proposed change is not a "rephrasing" but rather a deletion, as the statement given is very close to a watered-down version of the preceding sentence (which would presumably also be replaced as a part of said proposal).

I did spend some time looking for the source, because I read the original statement as "unverifiable" rather than "unviewable". I found an Amazon preview here, but not all the pages cited by the reference are covered. I suppose someone could ask at WP:RX. With regards to alt med lobbying, I see some information on page 43 that would likely be worth adding to the article. Sunrise (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, I was spot checking diff from the bottom and top half of the page to find the first one that contained that quote, and narrowed it down to yours. I suppose that's why computers are better at binary searches than people.

I would also point out to the OP that regardless of whether the source supports the text, being unviewable is not itself a valid reason for questioning it. Seconded.

In addition, the proposed change is not a "rephrasing" but rather a deletion, as the statement given is very close to a watered-down version of the preceding sentence (which would presumably also be replaced as a part of said proposal). Also seconded, though I'd note that the wording in the article is problematic: some rewording is likely appropriate, based on what the source says. I'm going to go ahead and get the Kindle version so I can verify myself, and I'll either self-revert my undo of Anachronism's recent edit, or change the wording to something else. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, after checking the source, on page 134, I found the following:

Misleading publicity also plays an improtant role in fostering popularity. Few media outlets place "alternative" methods in proper perspective: most reports feature the claims of proponents and testimonials from satisfied customers. The National Center for Homeopathy, which rates reports that mention homeopathy, has concluded that since 1999, only 12% of more than 1000 mentions of homeopathy were negative. Critical analyses of acupuncture, ayurveda, chelation therapy, chiropractic, macrobiotics and naturopathy are even scarcer. Figure 8-1 shows an ad that promotes a "CAM" newsletter by exaggerating problems within our mainstream health care system."

It then shows the ad, which it captions:

Figure 8-1. Portion of an ad for Health & Healing, a newsletter that advocates "alternative" methods. Most statements in the ad are either false or misleading.

Also note that the authors earlier (on page 34) stated that their use of "alternative" in quotes should be read as referring to treatments which are unscientific and lacking supporting evidence.

So I'd say the current wording (apparent weasel words notwithstanding) is a very close match to what the source says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Lack of particular coverage does not mean anything is being "intentionally hidden" by "the media", though. The statement as it is worded sounds like there is a big media conspiracy. I think given the feedback from User:Anachronist, myself, you, and a dash of common sense, the current wording is problematic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the quote I provided? The author frames it as deliberate, Misleading publicity also plays and important role in fostering popularity.. If our content frames it as deliberate, then we've done our job correctly. At no point in the source is it ever implied that this is some sort of mistake, and, contrary to your wild claim, at no point is it ever even implied to be part of some conspiracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

And how does this author know what the intentions of the media outlets are? How could any of us? Do you see the problem? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a problem here: I see an editor attempting to undermine a claim from a very clearly reliable source which is supported by multiple other RSes through means of their own WP:OR. That's a problem. An RS making a claim which you can't independently verify is not, because we trust our reliable sources. That's where the word "reliable" comes from. As with the issue below, I see no further utility to continuing to humor your objections here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You did your own original research when you described how the author is "framing it", though. You see? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on phrasing of statement

In the Marketing subsection of the Alternative Medicine article it states, This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden, with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma". Should the statement "intentionally kept hidden" be rephrased (to avoid claiming what "the media"'s "intentions" are, regardless of the views of the author being cited)? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should be rephrased. Not only is there a non-value-added WP:WEASEL-word "often", but the word "overlooked" and the phrase "intentionally kept hidden" both come across sounding like promoting a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice. Not acceptable, particularly if the weight of reliable sources fail to support the assertion. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Reword to: Alternative medicine is a highly profitable industry, with a strong lobby. This fact is often overlooked or obscured, with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma". This seems substantially more NPOV to me as it does not assign agency. And just as verifiable to the cited source.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problems I identified. And someone would just come along and rightly tag the sentence with {{by whom}} (which is the purpose of that tag). Somebody is overlooking or obscuring something. The claim shouldn't be without attributing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, I'm guessing "by supporters" would not satisfy? You would want specific names of people implicated as doing this?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No, because that changes the meaning; originally it was attributed to "media", which isn't the same thing as "supporters". What, exactly, is the purpose of this sentence? There is a source cited, apparently not available online. Until somebody looks at what the source actually says, we shouldn't be making guesses about what it says or means. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're assuming that "overlooked by media" should be parallel, and thus "kept hidden by media". However, I think that the intention might have been "kept hidden from media (or the general public) by Big Pharma". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The phrase “intentionally kept hidden” seems almost impossible to prove, and so should be either attributed or deleted (I prefer the latter). “Overlooked” by the media is closer to verifiable (I could imagine a study that showed how little the fact is mentioned in media), but still should be attributed. As we don’t know what the source says, we should work very hard to find out, or delete the sentence entirely (sooner, rather than later). This seems like an appropriate source, but doesn’t address the question at hand (at least per the abstract).

Regarding @Shibbolethink’s suggestion, “obscured” is functionally a synonym here, making the same claim as “intentionally kept hidden”. — HTGS (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I have boldly edited to replace the paragraph with "Alternative medicine is a very profitable industry, with a large advertising spend in the media. Accordingly, alternative practices are often portrayed positively and compared favorably to "big pharma"." I hope this helps, at least by inspiring an improved discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, yes I think this is a much better option.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't that now imply that the reason altmed is portrayed positively in media is because of the large advertising spend in the media?

And doesn't Big Pharma also spend enormous sums of money advertising in the media (in countries that allow direct to consumer advertising)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who commented and reworked the phrasing. Much improved, in my opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad Science (Goldacre book) covers the market size and ownership of major altmed/supplement companies, so that's another source for the subsection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"'Eastern medicine' typically refers to the traditional medicines of Asia where evidence-based medicine penetrated much later."

As the page is protected I am unable to insert a citation needed, but I think it would be helpful here. I also believe that further clarification is needed to indicate whether the statement is meant to imply the entirety of the Asian landmass with the numerous and diverse cultures within were subject to said phenomenon, or whether the writer of this statement had a certain subset of cultures in mind. 174.82.225.166 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Risks and problems chronology

The second paragraph from the "Risks" section mentions improvements in the UK and the EU to regulation in "the last two years". It should be a specific year, somebody reading this two years from now would assume these changes happened right now. It's unclear and makes the section look like a case of sloppy cut and paste. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point. That whole subsection was problematic and I removed it. For the record, the 'last two years' was referring to 2011-2012, judging by the source cited and the section's addition to the article in this November 2012 edit. Firefangledfeathers 04:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Article is biased

This isn't a forum for discussion of Wikipedia policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To say that all alternative medicine is unproven is very biased. 123.208.248.112 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Indeed, we are proudly biased towards a mainstream scientific point of view, thank you very much for noticing. -Roxy the dog. wooF 06:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC) According to the opening sentence of the wikipedia article, bias is "a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair". The Cambridge English Dictionary defines bias as "the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment". Doesn't sound like something to be proud of, especially for an encyclopedist. Doesn't sound very scientific either. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) That was irony. We are not actually biased, it's just that people who are biased either towards pseudosciences or towards false balance with pseudosciences accuse us of bias. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC) No one 'accused' you of bias. An anonymous reader, who may or may not be biased toward what you like to call pseudosciences, made a fairly innocuous observation about bias in the article. The second part of the response—"thank you very much for noticing"—was certainly an attempt at irony, but I'm not so sure about "we are proudly biased towards a mainstream scientific point of view". That actually seems to be the case, and the comment itself is evidence of it, even if it is taken as irony. I'd say the same about the credo you link to. Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I do not know what you are trying to say and why you explain things obvious to everybody who reads this in order to seemingly contradict me. Is this is still about improving the article? If not, do it somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC) I agree with Hob, I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make Harold the Sheep. -Roxy the dog. wooF 11:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC) It doesn’t seem that complicated, but I’ll try to make it simpler. Forgive me if I don’t succeed, I’m not as good with words as you. You said “we are proudly biased…” I said “bias seems an odd thing to be proud of, especially from a scientific viewpoint.” Hob Gadling said “that was irony” and linked to wp:YWAB to support his claim. To me, your comment seemed to express a simple truth, that you are biased and proud of it. Even if it is taken as irony, it is suggestive of a kind of pride that is cleverly dismissive of other inferior points of view. Linking to a hubristic screed like YWAB, which seems so proud of so many biases, is, to me at least, a rather odd way to demonstrate that you didn’t really mean it. Obviously if you really are proud of your bias, that has NPOV implications for any article you edit, including this one. It is also (ironically, perhaps) not compatible with a truly scientific point of view. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia does not care about your ideas about what is "truly scientific" and what is not. Wikipedia follows the science and the reliable sources. That is its "bias", if you want to call it that, and that is our "bias", if you want to call it that. Dictionary definitions will not help you here, because there is never a guarantee that the people who have used a word use it in exactly the sense as the dictionary defined it. That is not how language works. Math works like that. If you want to change Wikipedia's policies, this is the wrong place. Go to Wikipedia Talk:Fringe theories. I am sure that your suggestion to abandon, or radically change, that guideline will be met with open arms because everybody has been waiting for it and nobody has ever disagreed with it before. But to be sure, please have a look at the archives before you do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC) This page, on the other hand, is for suggestions about article improvement. You know, that thing you did not do. Instead you are wasting our time. That is why I repeat myself: go somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Of course Wikipedia doesn't care about my ideas dopey! Thankfully, Wikipedia doesn't care any more about my silly ideas on science than it does about the ideas of a mediocre pop-culture figure like Tim Minchin on medicine and alternative medicine. But it does, as you say, care about what science says and what reliable sources say, and most reliable sources would say that the scientific method, the "scientific point of view", involves objectivity and elimination of bias. In the case of a Wikipedia editor, that would involve objectivity and elimination of bias in relation to article subjects and assessments of sources, not a "proud bias" toward any point of view. So a kind of cognitive dissonance is produced when editors start proclaiming their bias toward that complex and ever-changing entity known as the "mainstream scientific point of view". I agree with what you say about language and mathematics, but surely it doesn't mean we can't refer to a more-or-less agreed upon broad meaning of a concept such as is found in the Wikipedia article on bias. If there isn't some degree of acceptance of the common meaning of a word, there isn't much point in using the word at all. I have no interest in changing Wikipedia's policies. The only policy I referred to was NPOV, and I think it an entirely appropriate policy for an encyclopedia, as indeed it is for a scientist. You mentioned "Yes We Are Biased" and someone else mentioned "Minchin's Law", but they are not policies, at least I hope they're not. I do apologise for "wasting our time", but after all I'm not requiring you to respond, that's your choice. But if you do respond, why should it bother you if I respond to you? Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC) If you understand policies like WP:DUE, WP:PSCI, and WP:GEVAL, fine and good. If not, those essays are explanations of policies, just like WP:SPOV. You should know already that NPOV boils down to SPOV in scientific and medical matters. Also, a judge should not be biased for one of the parties, but he/she is biased for applying the law. All people are biased, so pretending to be "unbiased" is delusional. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Well I sort of agree with you to some extent, but have you told that to science? Objectivity is required. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Scientific objectivity is achieved through organized skepticism, peer-review, and criticism from other scientists. It is not a given that one has or not by merely thinking hard about being objective, but it is achieved through a social process that is sometimes collaborative and at other times adversarial. Even with the best practices and acting in all honesty, errors are possible, so the scientific community has the task of weeding out such errors in the long run. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC) tgeorgescu But even if it is only achieved through a social process, it is still something that is actively sought. That objectivity is such a vital aim for science that an entire rigorous, complex, fraught and difficult process is undertaken for the sake of achieving it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) @Harold the Sheep: We are biased for mainstream science and for the medical orthodoxy. This is of course no secret, per Jimbo's official declaration at WP:QUACKS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) If you know that your opinions about whatever are irrelevant, especially on this Talk page for improving one specific article, then why are you still here whining about them, instead of doing that somewhere else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC) In fairness, multiple editors (including you), are discussing something unrelated to Alternative Medicine in this thread. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC) As I understand it, the talk page isn't so much for discussing Alternative Medicine as such, it's more for discussing matters related to the article. I think the question of bias is relevant to the article. When editors say "we're biased and we're proud of it" they make it a possible subject of discussion. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC) See also: Minchin's Law. VdSV9•♫ 23:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC) "All your bias are belong to us." Couldn't resist. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC) I suggest you read my essay. Here's a shortcut: WP:YESBIAS. -- Valjean (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners “lunatic charlatans”. Wales to activists who want new rules for Wikipedia: "No, you have to be kidding me." "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't." — Jimbo Wales[10] Valjean (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We are obligated to follow what reliable sources say, and they are biased toward science and facts and against nonsense.

We do not treat them as of equal weight. Read: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content#Neutrality, balance, and false balance -- Valjean (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cmart35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RosilandToscano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kvtokar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)