This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Medicine B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Alternative Views B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Minchin quote

One objection has been to the inclusion of Tim Minchin's quote. While a comedian's comment is perfectly appropriate as a documented opinion within a medical article, it really doesn't add anything that isn't already said by more authoritative sources in the article. It therefore seems superfluous.

Now, instead of deleting it, let's discuss my proposal to delete it. When we are agreed on what to do, then we can do it or not do it. I'm adding it here so we know exactly what we're talking about -- Brangifer (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian comedian Tim Minchin, in his nine minute beat poem "Storm", states that alternative medicine is medicine that "has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work." He goes on to ask "You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that’s been proved to work? Medicine.”

My view is that it should stay, at the end of the lead par, as a succinct expression of the key question as to whether there is a an objectively identifiable body of things we can point to and say "CAM," or whether the term is mainly a rhetorical operator, a cluster of associations, connotations. DavidOaks (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you all take a look here for quotes by even more authoritative persons which make the same point?:

• Alternative medicine critics

Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This quote is inaccurate and superfluous. I'm more than happy to see it go. leading off a serious encyclopedic article with a quote by a comedian is pointy at best; it smacks of an attempt to ridicule the subject matter. leading with any skeptical comment would produce an unnecessary POV - the lead should start of with a simple, neutral description of the subject matter, and prominent critical opinions should be saved at least until the subject itself is properly defined and lain out (I'd say third paragraph). --Ludwigs2 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally giving a reason. I hope we can continue the streak. I can accept the argument for avoding the appearance of ridicule. Now, I do not accept the argument that the lead should not include expressions of skepticism, because in this case, the very concept is tendentious. Example: the lead for Fibromyalgia notes, as it must, that there are serious doubts among credentialled experts about whether there is such a thing. The issue here is more semantic, which is why what you want is a language person with some knowledge of medicine or a medical scientist with some cred in language analysis.DavidOaks (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David - you're welcome, though I did make comments to this effect above. but never mind that. I do think that qualifying statements are necessary in the lead, but I don't think they should lead off the lead. your fibromyalgia page is a good example: the first paragraph is a simple, factual explanation of what fibromyalgia is, and critical commentary is saved for the second paragraph. I think in this case third paragraph might be better (since altmed is more diffuse than fibromyalgia and takes more explanation to get the sense of it), but I have no objection whatsoever to critical commentary appearing in the lead. frankly, I'd insist on it myself if it wasn't there. I just want to get an en clair description on the page first before we start poking it. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the comics comment to be edited out.As mentioned there is already criticism in the article towards Alternative Medicine from more authoritarian persons. What is the point of placing a comment by a comedian?Is it just an attempt to make the Wikipedia reader feel ridicule towards alternative medicine?The purpose of the comment appears to be more an attempt to make a play on emotions rather then anything professional, genuine skepticism from people in medical field. A comment by a comedian doesnt add or detract any weight from the history of Alternative medicine,what it involves,groups for and against it,adds nothing to the article that a reader needs to know etc.Severina123 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davis quote

We may be able to find a different author to a quote that substantially says the same thing. Let's try that and and see if we can agree on an alternative. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this statement about alternative medicine in the lead being from a Professor of English is not an appropriate source. stmrlbs|talk 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now is that because you think that folklorists have nothing to say on the subject of the definition of or the claims made for folk medicine? I'm asking on wikiprinciple, and kinda puzzled/amused by the readiness to assert, the reluctance to explain. Myself, I think the lead needs a strong statement of skepticism, and it would be better coming from a physician. Bullrangifer has given us a lot of them. Here are some that I think would work best in the opening paragraph. Angell and Happle are physicians (good cred) and speak to the operational distinctions. Novella is also a physician. Some would say that gives him cred when he is talking about language, but I was just talking to a linguist, who never heard of him (LOL). Carroll has pretty good phrasing, IMHOP. DavidOaks (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they should have nothing to say, but just that this shouldn't be the lead, the definition of alternative medicine. Folk medicine is part of alternative medicine, not the whole. Also this statement is not a very good definition of alternative medicine: "alternative medicine is any healing practice which has not been shown consistently to be effective", as many healing practices in conventional medicine are not consistently effective - look at conventional cancer treatment, or even treatment for something as common as acne or the common cold. Imo, the difference is not "conventional medicine works and alternative medicine does not", but more that conventional medicine tries to quantify the rate of effectiveness (small or large) and of risks (small and large) of many of its healing practices and use these scientific findings to determine the best treatment. Alternative medicine does not. And, I think this is what Marcia Angell is saying. stmrlbs|talk 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far it looks like we have three voices in favor of the Marcia Angell quote (not counting votes, just announcing trends thus far) -- do other people want to weigh in specifically on the question of building her quote into the lead?DavidOaks (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcia Angell, an American physician, author, and the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

• "What most sets alternative medicine apart . . . is that it has not been scientifically tested and its advocates largely deny the need for such testing. By testing, we mean the marshaling of rigorous evidence of safety and efficacy, as required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the approval of drugs and by the best peer-reviewed medical journals for the publication of research reports. Of course, many treatments used in conventional medicine have not been rigorously tested, either, but the scientific community generally acknowledges that this is a failing that needs to be remedied. Many advocates of alternative medicine, in contrast, believe the scientific method is simply not applicable to their remedies. . . ."^[1]

• Robert Todd Carroll, philosopher. Author of The Skeptic's Dictionary book and website.

• "A health or medical practice is called "alternative" if it is based on untested, untraditional, or unscientific principles, methods, treatments, or knowledge. "Alternative" medicine is often based upon metaphysical beliefs and is frequently anti-scientific. Because truly "alternative" medical practices would be ones that are known to be equally or nearly equally effective, most "alternative" medical practices are not truly "alternative," but quackery. If the "alternative" health practice is offered along with conventional medicine, it is referred to as "complementary" medicine."^[2]

• "Complementary medicine is another expression for "alternative" medicine, though the two are often linked as complementary and alternative medicine and referred to as CAM. The term 'complementary' seems to have been introduced by the purveyors of quackery in an attempt to produce the bias that untested or discredited treatments should be used along with conventional medical treatments. There really is no such thing as "alternative" medicine; if it's medicine, it's medicine. 'Alternative medicine' is a deceptive term that tries to create the illusion that a discredited or untested treatment is truly an alternative to an established treatment in conventional medicine. By adding 'complementary medicine' to the repertoire of misleading terms, the purveyors of quackery have improved on the illusion that their remedies somehow enhance or improve the effects of standard conventional treatments.^[3]

• Rudolf Happle, German dermatologist.

• "When deliberating on the essence of alternative medicine we should simultaneously reflect on the intellectual and moral basis of regular medicine. . . . (1) alternative and regular medicine are speaking different languages; (2) alternative medicine is not unconventional medicine; (3) the paradigm of regular medicine is rational thinking; (4) the paradigm of alternative medicine is irrational thinking; (5) the present popularity of alternative medicine can be explained by romanticism; (6) some concepts of alternative medicine are falsifiable and others are not; (7) alternative medicine and evidence-based medicine are mutually exclusive; (8) the placebo effect is an important factor in regular medicine and the exclusive therapeutic principle of alternative medicine; (9) regular and alternative medicine have different aims: coming of age vs faithfulness; (10) alternative medicine is not always safe; (11) alternative medicine is not economic; and (12) alternative medicine will always exist. The fact that alternative methods are presently an integral part of medicine as taught at German universities, as well as of the physician's fee schedule, represents a collective aberration of mind that hopefully will last for only a short time."^[4]

• Steven Novella, neurologist. Founder of the New England Skeptical Society and host of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast.

• "The fundamental intellectual flaw of “CAM” as a concept is that it is made to include modalities that are extremely diverse, even mutually contradictory, under one umbrella. Very deliberately modalities which are scientific and mainstream, like the proper use of nutrition, are often included under the CAM umbrella by proponents in order to make it seem like CAM is a bigger phenomenon than it actually is, and as a wedge to open the door for the more pseudoscientific modalities."^[5]

• "The dichotomy between alternative and conventional medicine is artificial and confusing. It should be given up. "Medicine is what works," the best methods known should be used. Any kind of medicine which adheres to this maxim is to be taken serious."^[6]

Well, many of these definitions are explicitly skeptical (e.g., people trying to define AltMed/CAM in terms of the fact that it doesn't work rather than in terms of the pragmatics (they originate in modalities outside modern scientific medicine). aren't their any neutral (non-skeptic, non-advocate) definitions out there? --Ludwigs2 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the definition of altmed is a semantic field between the polarities represented by skeptics and proponents. That's why the lead needs both. DavidOaks (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're getting that belief. Most altmed practitioners don't worry about mainstream medicine; most medical practitioners don't worry about alternative practices. there is a notable group of people trying to debunk/refute/redefine alt med, and another notable group trying to legitimize it, both using semantic games, yes. but I don't think you can reduce the whole issue to their tempest-in-a-teapot. as I've said before, alt med is easily defined as 'practices which are not derived from the conventional assumptions of western scientific medicine'. that's a clear, descriptive, and (as far as I can see) entirely accurate representation of the material. what's wrong with it? --Ludwigs2 21:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where you are getting the belief that "Most altmed practitioners don't worry about mainstream medicine; most medical practitioners don't worry about alternative practices." If you can find a WP:RS that says so, propose adding it. I am looking at bunches that show and say explicitly that it's controversial. Failure to announce the controversial nature of altmed, in the lead, would be as inappropriate as failure to include skepticism in other articles on controversial topics. If it weren't controversial, it wouldn't be "alt." My conviction grows that the article is about semantics, ideology and rhetoric rather than about science. Bullrangifer has brought forward sources that diretly address the rhetoric, ideology and history of science. I have identified several I think well-suited for the lead. DavidOaks (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to correct you a second time - I never said that we shouldn't shouldn't include skepticism in the lead. if I need to correct a third time, I will begin to think that you are intentionally misrepresenting me. that won't turn out well.

(outdent) thanks for the warning. You're not the only one involved, therfore not the only one addressed.

I can point to any number of research articles in conventional science, and any amount of writing in alternative medicine sources, that makes no mention of the other.

Alt med practices existed long before the term alt med was coined - some alt med practices existed for centuries before scientific medicine was invented - and for most of that time and in most modern cases the two sets of practices exist in parallel, with little or no cross-referencing between them. there has been a growing awareness, of course, and a sizable group of people on both sides who are trying to deal with the question of their relationship, but for the most part, Altmed gets along fine without thinking about conventional medicine, and vice-versa. of course people who are concerned with the inherent problem are going to write more about it; that doesn't mean that the inherent problem is what defines the classification.

(outdent) That's a joke, right? That there exist conventional science articles that don't mention altmed, altmed articles that don't mention science, as a proof that there's no particular controversy? Apply that logic to astonomy and astrology, and you will see that it doesn't advance things. If altmed exited prior to science, then it is a list of practices. Very well, let's have the definitive list, and be done. I think you will have trouble finding one, because the term exists to contrast altmed to something else. That makes it a matter of semantics. DavidOaks (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is about semantics, rhetoric, ideology, or science, though I think all of those things need to be discussed. I think the article is about alternative medicine. do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yes, I disagree. The more I observe the discussion, the more certain I am that it needs to be about semantics, the more certain I am that language authorities are what's needed. DavidOaks (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, again this is an article about alt med, not about the controversy of alt med. If all you're looking at is the controversy, then I can understand why you think it's all semantics. but if that's all you're looking at, then you are seriously working on the wrong article.

No, that's hardly all I'm looking at. But I am curious how anybody's going to define this thing w/o reference to controversy, since, far as I can tell, the only way we know it's altmed is that there's disagreement as to its inclusion in scientific, standard, institutional med (terms are another thing we have to settle on). That is, semantically, it is not definable except by opposition. 12:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

further (for the third time) you misrepresented what I said. where do you see me saying there's no particular controversy? are you discussing this issue with me or with some preset argument in your own head that you've convinced yourself I'm making? should I take your misrepresentation as intentional this time, or would you like to claim that it's an unfortunate error? --Ludwigs2 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for unintentionally giving offense. I recognize that you acknowledge controversy. I think the difference is, I'm pretty sure that the subject of altmed is not definable in a positive way, that is, it can't be defined without reference to something it is NOT, and that's where controversy enters -- not way down in the subject. "Alternative" implies some other thing to which it is, well, an alternative. DavidOaks (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[QUOTE]this is an article about alt med, not about the controversy of alt med.[/QUOTE] Brilliant. I am embarrassed to admit that the obvious had not occcurred to me. This article does need to be split to altmed and altmed controversy. Gandydancer (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the subject of alt med, the whole subject from all possible angles. We cover it all right here. Only if one aspect warrants so great coverage that its inclusion would unbalance the article because of a lack of space would a fork article be allowed. A content fork article now would be very inappropriate and against our policies. If there's anything that characterizes alt med, it's controversy, hence the name. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Brangifer: it's seriously your contention that there is nothing to Alt Med except the controversy about its relationship to scientific medicine? or am I misunderstanding your position? --Ludwigs2 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing more than misunderstanding, you're misrepresenting what I wrote above. I really don't see how you can get that out of what I wrote without totally ignoring the first part of my paragraph. Controversy just happens to be an inevitable part of the subject, and therefore belongs in this article, not in a fork. There is obviously much more than controversy to the subject, but many aspects of the subject are disputed and will therefore need to be dealt with in the article. A separate "controversy" section has been disparaged, so the controversies and disagreements are spread throughout the article. I'm not always comfortable with that approach, but that's the preferred format. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent - I was just working with your "If there's anything that characterizes alt med, it's controversy, hence the name" which seems to imply you think it's all about the controversy. I agree that controversy needs to be part of the article and not in a fork. I just happen to believe that the controversy is a secondary (or possibly tertiary) part of the article, not the primary part.

let me be clear - I always prefer a 'describe first; qualify second' approach to fringe articles. I don't want to remove or minimize critical perspectives, I just want to get the actual subject matter of the article out to the reader before we start telling the reader why the subject doesn't work. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm assuming you're addressing me, DavidOaks, rather than Bullrangifer. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to assert that there's nothing to it except its relationship to scientific medicine. I am saying that I do not yet see a way to define the subject except in contrast to scientific or institutionally recognized medicine, which in turn is defined by being subject to scientific method and rigorous testing procedures (and other implications of the scientific method, e.g., subject matter separate from organization, falsifiability of hypotheses, an articulated theoretical model subject to confirmation and disconfirmation. The only other way of defining that occurs to me is lists, which would be arbitrary and subject to much disagreement, hence more controversy...but maybe that's just my lack of imagination/insight. So yes, I do not (yet) see a way to define this subject that does not depend upon its status as dissent or departure from a field which in turn regards it with skepticism. My present view is that it is not definable except as a field of dispute.DavidOaks (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, David, I was taking to brangifer - see his comment directly preceding mine. but since you responded... I have to ask, seriously - do you simply not read all the way through my posts? I've dealt with this issue 3 or 4 or 5 times already. I'm really getting sick of repeating myself on this page; if it continues I will have to revise my editing approach.

so, again, here's a perfectly feasible definition of alt med (in sarcastically highlighted text, so that you can't miss it)

'Alternative medicine' is a conventional term for an assortment of healing practices which are not derived from the conventional assumptions of western scientific medicine.

simple, straight-forward, easy. what problem do you have with this? --Ludwigs2 17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the worst and most POV laden definitions I've ever seen. And your presentation and style is decidedly rude, so I hope you do revise your approach. Best, Verbal chat 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again, you're welcome to make an actual argument, but your feelings on the matter are largely irrelevant. please explain in what way this statement is POV? --Ludwigs2 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting somewhere and is also illustrating the point that I in turn have tried to get through to you quite a few times. Your proposed definition uses "not" -- that is, it's a negative definition, a definition in terms of what alt med is NOT. That's been my point all along. Now, when we start in on how we determine that a given thing is altmed vs scientific (standard, institutional, etc) the determination actually is not historical. Nobody says of a given drug or therapy, "did this come outta Asia? Was this in use before 1600? Whoa, none o' that!" They ask "has this been proven to be safe and effective?" which leads to another question, "has this been empirically tested under controlled conditions?" Yes, the testing is what makes it Western scientific medicine, and the insistence on using it despite lack of evidence or coutnerindications of safety or effectiveness make it altmed. It's not altmed if a)it's clinically proven or b)nobody's using it (as far as I know, there is no trepanning going on. If there were, it would definitely qualify). DavidOaks (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is a marvelous example of wp:synth. my sentence is purely descriptive; yours relies on an interpretation of what's going through people's minds when they think about AM. yes, scientists test modern drugs empirically; yes AM is not tested empirically in the modern sense of the term; combining those to make an assertion about how people see AM is synthesis. --Ludwigs2 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if what I wrote immediately above were pasted in the lead, that would be wp:synth. However, we have comedians, folklorists, physicians, statisticians, philosophers, physicists all saying the same thing, and it's a matter of choosing the best quote. If we have WP:RS for the formulation you're putting forward (altmed is defined by non-westernishness) that belongs too, in a lead that would explcitly acknowledge the difficulty and multiplicity of definitions of a controversial subject. DavidOaks (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. no one is going to disagree with the statement that AM is a collection of practices which are not derived from western scientific medicine (because disagreement would mean one believes that AM is derived from western medicine, which is prima facia incorrect). This is not a thing that needs to be proved, and citations to that effect are irrelevant and unnecessary. Your statement, however, is a statement designed to advance an opinion (an opinion about AltMed from the perspective of western medicine) - that's why it needs reliable sources, that's why the sources come into question, and that's where the danger of synthesis arises. sure, a number of people say what you cite - that's what makes it a notable perspective - but I could easily find numbers of people with medical degrees (as well as comedians, philosophers, and social scientists) who come out with favorable statements of AM as a whole or of specific practices. You simply have no grounds to assert that inner dialog you attribute to people above is actually the inner dialog that scientists, doctors or people in general use. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This is not a "sky is blue" case, i.e., common knowledge, common understanding. Citations are absolutely necessary. I'm not offering any inner dialogue, and I am not offering my own wording (though I'm making good faith efforts to explain things). I am offering quite a few quotes from WP:RS that say altmed is definable as practices which have not demonstrated safety or effectiveness. DavidOaks (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if that definition is used, then mainstream medicine's off-label use of medicines is alternative medicine. stmrlbs|talk 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been made repeatedly. I see it as hairsplitting; the common sense test would be to ask whether this is what people ahve in mind when the term altmed is used, or to run in the other direction, whether most people would consider the use of drugs which have been tested for one therapeutic use to amount to altmed when used in another. Here's an authoritative response to the proposition at hand, that under the "not tested for safety and effectiveness" standard, off-label use of drugs means that all medical practice is altmed (an absurdity of course, to have an alternative with no possibility of a thing to which it is alternative): "It is important to recognize that off-label use of medication is not the same as non-evidence-based used of medications."[1] This one is really thorough:

"In a 1993 article on alternative AIDS therapies, Carola Burroughs defines "alternative" as a "catch-all phrase" used for "various treatments which simply have not been accepted by the medical establishment."2 Terms like unconventional or unorthodox make a political distinction. Distinctions like modern medicine, versus traditional or folk medicine denote cultural variations and imply a superior level of advancement. Unproven is another often-used distinction. However, there are standard medical treatments used today that have gained their acceptance through history of use, rather than formal clinical testing. Drugs tested and approved for one use can be prescribed off-label for a new use when preliminary outcomes look hopeful and the physician feels the situation warrants the risk. Although not yet thoroughly tested and proven for that use, off-label uses are common in clinical practice." [2]

I am not proposing this for inclusion in the lead or anywhere else, simply bringing it forward to do away with the claim that we can't have a testing-standard as part of the definition because of off-label use. DavidOaks (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more: You don't put something in scare-quotes if it's the generally understood usage -- here's a guy who thinks off-label use is an ethical problem (and that's what makes it look like altmed, which he clearly doesn't admire).http://sols.asu.edu/symposium/2006/authors/schaninger_39.php] Here's one that treats off-label use as something other than altmed, and subject to scientific testing[3] DavidOaks (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ DavidOaks: I don't think you're really understanding the synthesis issue here. you have a number of quotes from reliable sources, yes, but you are using them to advance a position that is not present in reliable sources.

@ stmrlbs: actually, that's not true, and is the reason I used the 'derived from' language. an off-labal medication is clearly a medication that was derived from scientific medicine - this particular use may not be (currently) approved, but the drug was assumedly created and tested in a lab, and approved for some purpose. This is entirely different from something like (say) Chinese medicine (derived from a completely different medical model) or magnetic healing bracelets (derived from some modern semi-spiritual beliefs unrelated to medical science). see the point? --Ludwigs2 19:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, I do not understand the issue you are raising. Here are many authoritative voices defining altmed. How is choosing one of them to use in the lead, for the purpose of defining altmed, wp:synth? DavidOaks (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not inherently synth, unless the quote is used in such a way that it becomes an implicit critique of AM. that quote from Carola Burroughs you used above is not half bad, and you'll notice, is more or less a paraphrase of what I said, only replacing the 'derived from' bit with 'accepted by'. I'm really just trying to do as she suggests - keep the political distinctions aside until we've developed a proper description of the topic. then we can introduce critiques and other political distinctions (in, as I said, maybe the third paragraph). f you go on to start using the 'doesn't work' type quotes tight up front, however, then I'm going to object, because that is synth - it would be us as editors trying to advance a political opinion about altmed before we've even talked about what altmed is. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think it comes down to this: there is a view that noting, in the lead, that CAM is controversial would be POV and that failure to do so would be WP:POV. Does that capture it? If so, we sit around and wait for others to talk up a consensus. DavidOaks (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David - again - nowhere, ever, anywhere, period did I say that the controversy should not be mentioned in the lead. I said that the lead should not begin with the controversy. of course the controversy should be discussed in the lead, but not until the second or third paragraph. --Ludwigs2 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definitely belongs in the first paragraph, because the subject is not definable without reference to what it claims to be but is not acknowledged as (effective medical practice), and that because of failure to successfully demonstrate safety and effectiveness. DavidOaks (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, that's simply not true. Traditional chinese medicine, again, can be discussed very thoroughly without talking about western medicine. eventually you'll have to get to the point where you mention that western scientific medicine has no verification of its practices, but you certainly wouldn't start there, if for no other reason than TCM predates western medicine by about 1600 years. it's kind of hard to define something by its failures according to a system that occurred 1600 years later. or why should we define something like (say) Reiki by western medicine, when neither the medical community nor the Reiki community care (from the medical perspective it's non-invasive and non-harmful; from the Reiki perspective, medical testing misses the point). you keep treating AM as though it were a thing which could be analyzed, labeled, and refuted, when in fact it is a collection of independent, unrelated things which have no commonality except that they are outside normal medical purview. --Ludwigs2 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's simply not true? There are many topics under discussion. I'm guessing it's the assertion that these things cannot be defined except in terms of what they are not (?) I hold to it. We're talking about all these unrelated things, which have nothing in common except that they have no empirical basis, and have not been evaluated for safety or effectiveness. That's the ONLY thing holding them together. So it should be in the first paragraph. It's their definition. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but verifiability. We have definitions of altmed from WP:RS under discussion. Please address these. DavidOaks (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I believe the current proposal is to include the definition which you regard as neutral, but which I regard as a proponent's view, as well as a critical view from a scientist, in the first paragraph, including a note that the field is highly contested. In practical terms, this means the status quo, plus getting a WP:RS for something like the formulation you propose, and replacing the folk-medicine-specialist's view with a physician's quote. Right now the Marcia ANgell wording seems to have the most support. Respond to that, please. DavidOaks (talk)

(e/c) sorry, what wasn't true in the first case was your statement "because of failure to successfully demonstrate safety and effectiveness." Few AltMeds have failed tests of safety or efficacy; most are simply untested by western procedures and some are outright untestable. Of those that have been tested, some have passed muster. in your second post you changed it to "have not been evaluated for safety or effectiveness", which is better, but which is also true of many conventional medical procedures which have never been formally evaluated; the phrase does not really distinguish between conventional and alt medicine. again, the real distinction between conventional med and alt med lies in the fact that they are derived from different models. that's it. this may (and probably does) translate to more reliable treatments from conventional medicine, but that is something to be discussed later in the lead and farther down in the article. it is not a definitive characteristic of every form of alt med. --Ludwigs2 03:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to the 'current proposal': I don't think that works for me - I see it as an effort to defame the topic even before the topic is established. in exaggerated terms it would be like saying "Alternative medicine is a stupid idea, but lets go ahead and talk about it anyway," which is not the correct way to begin an article. --Ludwigs2 03:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we have to rewrite the book - we have several good definitions already. This one for example:

"Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is 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. CAM includes such resources perceived by their users as associated with positive health outcomes. Boundaries within CAM and between the CAM domain and the domain of the dominant system are not always sharp or fixed."[16]

Also, I feel we need to change the name of the article to Complementary and Alternative Medicine.Gandydancer (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that definition (while hellishly wordy) does work for me. with respect to renaming the article CAM, well... I was the one who merged the article into its (more or less) current incarnation, a couple of years ago. There was a big debate over whether it should be called CAM or Alternative Medicine, and we decided to stick with Alt Med because we felt that CAM was still kind of an underused neologism. I still think Alt Med is more recognizable to people, though we could reopen the discussion and see if sources have changed their views on it. --Ludwigs2 04:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we continue to define CAM in the lead, as we currently do, there is no need to rename the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this latest proposed definition works as the proponent's, which is essential, and while it's verbose, it covers that part of the territory. It does include acknowledgement of the squishiness of the term, but it does not include recognition of the controversiality of CAM. That has to be in the first paragraph, like "mythical" "reputed" "supposed" "speculated" and "debated" have to be in the first paragraph of Loch Ness Monster (actually, not all of them; I'm gonna rewrite that puppy). DavidOaks (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true; this is a perfectly valid, neutral description. David, you seem to believe that any description of alt med that doesn't include disparagement is a form of advocacy, which is pure unadulterated bias. Obviously we need to include you POV (because it's a noteworthy POV), but it cannot dominate the article. I will point you to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Evaluating_claims, particularly this line: "This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." This is what I'm aiming for. no idea is ever defined in terms of its failings. --Ludwigs2 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say "not true;" you might more accurately phrase it "I disagree." I see it as valid, yes, but not neutral and not complete. You are correct, any def of altmed that does not note why it's alt rather than med is incomplete with bias against revealing why it is not universally admired. That POV cannot dominate the article -- never said it should. But it has to be core to the def. You nd I have made outselves clear; let's let the consensus process go forward now. BTW -- are you affirming altmed as WP:fringe? DavidOaks (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A statement which defines alt med as different than conventional medicine is neutral; a statement that implies it's less than conventional medicine is biased. the second is not allowable. can you preovide a statement you like that does the first? If not, then we'll have to go Gandy's, as the most neutral statement available. --Ludwigs2 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Disagree. A statement that defines altmed as different from med is accurate but incomplete. It needs to be paired with a statement that explains in what way it differs. We absolutely need more than one statement, more than one quote, because there is more than one aspect to be accounted for, and the definition itself is a field of semantic contention. We are now disagreed on what constitutes neutral def and what constitutes bias. I would say leaving out any mention of controversy on a subject which is not definable outside of controversy is biased in favor of proponents. Imagine trying to define tea bagger protests while working under a rule that you're not allowed to say they disagree with anything, or anybody disagrees with them. Let there be two WP:RS quotes in the 1st par.DavidOaks (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Ludwigs2's concern, but also agree with David that some mention needs to occur in the first paragraph. I'm glad to see that discussion is moving forward.

To move forward, I suggest that actual proposals be presented here, discussed, and then tweaked into an acceptable format. Please don't try for major changes across multiple paragraphs. Small changes may be enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me i dont see anything wrong with the introduction how it stands except the statement "it is often opposed to evidence based medicine and encompasses therapies with a historical or cultural, rather than a scientific, basis." The statement "Evidence based Medicine" could be changed to Standard Medicine,Conventional Medicine or something better anyone can think of along these lines but not Traditional Medicine as it then might bring confusion with the field of Traditional Chinese medicine. The reason why i feel this wording change is necessary is because sometimes Conventional Medicine is also not Evidence based and also some things that fall under the "umbrella" of Alternative Medicine can sometimes be evidence based eg:some herbal medicine and some TCM herbal medicines. Also it is not always the case that the modalities go off a historical or cultural rather than a scientific basis. I find none of the proposed quotes above satisfactory,eg:Angell,Carroll,Happle,Novella as all of their statements would then render this article not NPOV but i do find the quote by Davis satisfactory and NPOV as it simply objectively states a fact ""that which has not been shown consistently to be effective" and doesnt have bias,POV or opinion. I suggest to leave the Davis quote in or if people have issue with it being from a folklorist then to find the similar statement but from someone in medicine. Also, if people want the mention of the criticism of Alternative Medicine added in the introduction then perhaps this below passage could be edited out and placed in the below main body section "It is frequently grouped with complementary medicine, which generally refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[4][5][6] under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM. Some significant researchers in alternative medicine oppose this grouping, preferring to emphasize differences of approach, but nevertheless use the term CAM, which has become standard.[7][8]"

and in its place put something along the lines of "There is scepticism or non acceptance of Alternative Medicines from some practitioners or organisations in Conventional Medicine due to the belief that sometimes "The claims that CAM treatment providers make about their benefits can sound promising. However, researchers do not know how safe many CAM treatments are or how well they work. Studies are underway to determine the safety and usefulness of many CAM practices."

(quote from Meddlineplus) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/complementaryandalternativemedicine.html

Links to support my suggested changes

Some Non evidence based in Conventional Medicine

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/121/5/1070-a

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/358/3/252

http://ebmh.bmj.com/content/12/3/65.full

Some Evidence Based in Alternative Medicine

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000145.html

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab006206.html

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003230.html

Some scientific basis and not cultural or historical in Alternative Medicine

http://www.phytomedicinejournal.com/search/quick?restrictName.phymed=phymed&search_area=journal&search_text1=Bronchitis

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/58481.cfm#C

http://www.cmjournal.org/

http://rmit.com.au/browse;ID=fp46zcaom6cbSeverina123 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this tag please be justified, concisely, with specific points? Otherwise it will likely be removed. Thanks, Verbal chat

thanks, yes. I placed it there because there is an broad failure of discussion on the following two points I have raised above:

• there is an excess emphasis on the the philosophical position of 'Evidence-Based medicine', as opposed to a more neutral reference to scientific medical practices. Wikipedia is not the correct venue to campaign for a particular philosophical viewpoint. I think EBM is prominent enough to get mention in the lead, but I don't think the medical position in its entirety should be cast as being derived from EBM (particularly since EBM was specifically invented as a means to redefine medical perspectives towards AltMed).
• The intro leads with critical commentary. It should lead with a neutral description of the topic - i.e., one that does not attempt to call into question the safety or efficacy of AltMed in bulk or as a matter of definition. critical perspectives should be added later in the intro to balance out any perception that AltMed has broad medical acceptance, but this is an article about Alt Med, not against alt med, and shouldn't give the appearance of being the latter.

--Ludwigs2 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, weighing in: I don't think EBM needs explicit mention in the lead. Now, are you saying that invoking a standard of empirical testing is invoking EBM? Forgive if I've misunderstood. I wouldn't agree with that. I think submission to empirical testing is essential to the definition of the contrasting category, scientific med. Similarly, the lead should not say that altmed is of questionable safety and effectiveness. It should say that it has not been systematically evaluated for safety and effectiveness. Otherwsie it would be medicine. (gee, Tim Minchin said it so much better). DavidOaks (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the first point is correct, and the second one isn't a problem per David. Verbal chat 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) If you want to remove EBM from the lead entirely, I'd be ok with that - my main point was that it was over-represented. we can discuss that in more detail as needed. I wasn't saying that 'invoking a standard of empirical testing is invoking EBM', but I get the sense that a couple of editors here are making that association, which strikes me (and you, apparently) as incorrect.

I think we need something a little more nuanced than has not been systematically evaluated for safety and effectiveness, since the extent to which practices have been tested for either varies significantly across practices. Acupuncture and chiropractic have undergone certain kinds of testing, traditional chinese medicine less so (though it has a tremendously long history of non-scientific testing), Reiki is neither tested nor testable... however, my real point (again) is not an objection to the qualification, but an objection to the fact that the qualification leads the article. the fact that it has not been systematically evaluated according to the principles of scientific medicine is not a defining characteristic of AM, except to the extent that (as I said above) AM is not derived from the conventional assumptions of western scientific medicine.

@ verbal: feelings are not valid arguments on wikipedia, generally speaking. do you have something more substantive? --Ludwigs2 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you've backed up any of your points with respectable references, then I will spend more time evaluating them. For now, I see nothing substantive - just your decidedly fringe opinion that you "feel" this page is POV. Verbal chat 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's too bad. I'm entitled to add a dispute tag, and you're obliged to discuss it meaningfully before removing it, even if you think it's crap. --Ludwigs2 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the trouble with having complementary therapies tested and having studies done is that for any academic or physician to actually begin testing any CAM, they would be committing career suicide or at least be seen as a kook. However, most complementary therapists don't have the academic background to design and set up a proper study. Then there is the funding problem. Designing and carrying out a decent study is fairly expensive. It would have to be funded by a large enough, wealthy enough organization. There aren't too many of these organizations around in the complementary therapies community. The American Chiropractic Association is likely the only one to do this easily, but personally I have not been impressed by the studies I have seen commissioned by the ACA. Look at the poorly designed (probably rigged) study on chiropractic vs. the McKenzie Technique. The McKenzie Technique by the way, is a physiotherapy technique for lumbar disk damage. The study is readily online and found with google. We have to ensure that whoever funds the studies is if not unbiased, then of integrity.

It is likely that if different complementary therapies were tested in an unbiased way some would fail, but others would show demonstrable benefits for the public. I can't speak for everyone in the complementary therapy community, but I would welcome the opportunity to have these things put to the test and have the chips fall where they may as long as the studies are fairly and properly set up. Likely some prefer that their livelihood not be put under a microscope, but many of us have confidence in our particular therapies--otherwise we wouldn't have gotten into the business.

I've looked into a number of complementary therapies and have found that they are a mixed bag. Some I believe are not effective, while others are preferable to what might be suggested by mainstream medicine. And still others do have some benefits, but the benefits are hyped and exaggerated by their supporters. However, separating the wheat from the chaff would be a positive contribution for the public.

Incidentally, it seem likely that a study of reiki could be done in a scientific way. I can't see how they couldn't test the rate of healing on --say--burns or wounds of a measurable size. It could easily be done on animals for instance. Then we could create lesions of uniform size and depth, then divide it up into test group, control group, and a group of test animals which might have a pseudo-reiki treatment to take into consideration any other factors. I doubt that rabbits experience a placebo effect, but reiki treatments and being handled by people may have some effects due to reduction of stress or relaxation. So saying that these things are untestable seems unlikely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacken (talk • contribs) 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nacken~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacken (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments in many ways. Not all alternative therapists are quacks, and the honest therapists would welcome good research on their methods. Everyone would benefit if the "truth" could be ascertained.

There are (at least) two factors influencing research: (1) the commercial interests of pharmaceutial companies and (2) the desire of proponenets for scientific legitimization. There are far more factors, but those two factors are already quite visible.

1. Pharmaceutical companies aren't blind or ignorant regarding alternative methods. They employ people who do nothing but search for substances and methods that might be turned into a profitable new drug or method. If there is a claim for anything, even in the remotest jungle region, and of course every claim on the internet, they HAVE already checked it out if there is the remotest chance of it really working. Don't underestimate their ability to turn literally anything into a patentable product.
2. The other factor is the NCCAM. They are a pro-alternative organisation with alternative therapists serving on the guiding committees. They have a huge interest in researching all kinds of known alternative methods, including spiritual ones, and they have the money to do it. They have actually been doing that for a long time now, and the results have been published. The results have been dismally disappointing to them as advocates, and of course to therapists. The article describes those results at the end of this section.

So what can honest therapists do who find their methods have actually been disproven? They can either find something else to do, or modify their method of working and the claims they make. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have currently protected the article, no doubt at the wrong version. As you all most likely know, this is an article under arbcom probation and the standard expected of editors here do not include multiple editors doing very few article edits but reverting each other for nearly a week. As soon as it was clear that there was opposition to a content change, editing should stop (no-one has edited the article in the last hours, but I felt it best to formally freeze it). In a relatively delicate article such as this, excessively reverting or not working towards achieving consensus is grounds of sanctions and/or editing restrictions.

I would welcome more comments at the above arbitration enforcement request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Verbal regarding the conduct of the parties involved. henrik•talk 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked in the field for about 20 years, what I've noticed is that we talk about complementary medicine rather than alternative medicine. The term alternative medicine is used by people who are unfriendly to these forms of therapy. It is a pejorative term. We normally don't think of these therapies as an either/or proposition. We think of what we do as being supplemental or complementary to what mainstream medicine does. Certainly we are not going to tell you to ignore your doctor.

~~Nacken~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacken (talk • contribs) 05:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially true in England, where it is customary to use the terms complementary and CAM, unlike in the USA. Alternative medicine is the oldest term, while CAM is a newer marketing terminology designed to make alternative methods sound more useful and more, well, "complementary" to mainstream medicine than they necessarily are. It's true that some are, but some that are called CAM are still just as ludicrous as before they were called CAM. They are just using the marketing terminology. It's not a black and white issue and there's lots of history behind this. Keep in mind that more money is paid out for alternative medicine than for mainstream medicine. It's a huge industry with very large profits because manufacturers of alternative products and supplements do very little, if any, research. The biggest money is of course in the homeopathic industry, where bottled water is sold for a fortune. The 20 million dollar duck is a good example. It's described here:

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

That's where the really big money is. There is probably no other product with such a huge profit margin when one looks at profit in relation to investment in research. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

small potatoes. Try looking at the orphan drug Glivec - almost 4 billion in sales [4], and that is with India giving Novartis a hard time. Diovan isn't doing badly either: a little over 6 billion. stmrlbs|talk 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was that in 1996, but I'm referring to profit in relation to investment in research. With homeopathy, there's basically no research performed by producers, just profit. How much does one duck cost in relation to the total sales? Not a bad deal! Water is cheap. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's a specious argument. General practitioners don't do any research either (not to mention your garden variety cosmetic surgeon) and they make way more than your average alternative medicine provider. --Ludwigs2 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the subject. Nobody was talking about them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you talk about how alt med people make higher profit margins than drug companies, when in fact alt med people should not be compared to drug companied, but rather to GPs. that's what the vast majority of altmed people do - they apply medical techniques they learned somewhere ostensibly to help people get better, just like GPs. what issue do you have with that? --Ludwigs2 18:42, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, it just wasn't what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about "alt med people". I was talking about the manufacturers of homeopathic remedies. I have also tweaked something I wrote to make it clear that I'm not talking about total profits, but about the ratio of profits to investment in research. There is no comparison between manufacturers of homeopathic agents and regular pharmaceuticals. There is no doubt that many pharmaceuticals bring in more money, but homeopathic production is done in the absence of any meaningful research investment, only lots of marketing investment. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ok, I misread. my apologies, and I'll retract the comment. --Ludwigs2 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. An understandable mistake. Welcome to the club of imperfect human beings. I'm a charter member ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, we are talking about billions for ONE company for ONE product. And Novartis has several products in the billions in sales. As far as research, the public sector was very much involved in the development of Glivec along with Novartis [5] Marcia Angell - who you quoted previously in talking about a definition of alternative medicine - wrote about the development of Glivec and other drugs here [6](do a find on Novartis). It costs around $3000 per month [7] . There is a reason that Novartis invested heavily in fighting India to get their patent extended. There are billions involved. You need to look at both sides of the fence when you talk about who makes the highest profits. stmrlbs|talk 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note my comment above. BTW, your long harangues against mainstream medicine and pharmaceuticals are rather off topic here. There are articles here where they would fit in better. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which comment are you talking about? the long harangue about 20 million dollar duck (with a full paragraph quote from quackwatch) that had nothing to do with the difference between CAM and Alternative medicine?. BullRangifer, if you choose to state opinions like "That's where the really big money is. There is probably no other product with such a huge profit margin" (your original statement), don't act offended when someone counters with information that disagrees with your opinion. stmrlbs|talk 01:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stmrlbs, I owe you a BIG apology! I just went back over this page and discovered that your comments were actually related to the discussion about off-label use, and that they were thus on-topic. I'm very sorry and will strike my comment. BTW, what you wrote doesn't disagree with my opinion since I agree that there's lots of money made by pharmaceutical manufacturers and that they charge too much whenever they are allowed to do so. My point was that they have to reinvest lots of their profits in research. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious reason: Read the references - they are for the most part not related to alternative med, but to the more recent term CAM. That is what this article is about, both approaches, and the title of the article needs to reflect and address that. As Vitaminman has documented, CAM has become more mainstream - not alternative med, but both A and C med. If someone has a good argument for not changing the article, please post it here. If not, I suggest we change the name to reflect a more recent viewpoint of altmed. Gandydancer (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. It's a done deal and we're not going back over that nightmare again unless you can present more compelliing arguments than were used before, and you're not even close to getting there. You will have to study the archives very thoroughly and come back with something new. That will take many days. Until then, no go. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

geez, do you ever assume good faith? --Ludwigs2 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with good faith. This has to do with requesting better arguments than recycled ones we've heard before. Gandydancer is a newbie who needs to know that we've been there before. They need to do more research. That's all. You are the one exercising bad faith. Your combative attitude reveals that you need to be topic banned from these topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I still haven't gotten any promise from you that you won't repeat your violations of BRD. I want an assurance from you that you realize that it's wrong to discuss and repeatedly edit in a controversial manner at the same time. The BRD cycle doesn't have a repeat button at the end. Discuss means ONLY discuss, not edit at the same time. Will you promise not to do that again? Have you understood? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see that's what I mean: if you actually assumed good faith, you wouldn't need any promises of that nature.

with respect to the other point... the fact that you believe an argument is an old recycled one doesn't mean (1) that it actually is (memory is tricky), and (2) doesn't mean that you get to claim some high ground. if you think that the argument was made before, go and find it and represent it - it's not our responsibility to do your work for you. I personally don't care what arguments were made before - if they are good they can get made again, if they are bad they are best forgotten. Gandydancer does not need to go find the point that refutes his argument - you need to do that, and if you're not willing to, then you don't have a leg to stand on in the discussion. If there's something that gets asked frequently enough that this is a bother for you, that something ought to be in the FAQ for your convenience, but you have no one to blame except yourself if it isn't. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you, as a gesture of good faith on your part, to show some evidence in words that you have understood what went wrong in that edit war. I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that you realize what you did wrong. You even demanded on my talk page that I follow BRD, and yet you weren't doing it yourself. Do you see the problem? I would like to regain my faith in you, but I need you to give me a reason why I should do so. That would really help. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The FAQ idea is a good one, for avoiding continual re-hashings of long-talked-over points. There's an example at the top of the talkpage for homeopathy that should adapt pretty neatly to this one. DavidOaks (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the issue of Brangifer's lack of good faith, I agree with him that we've been there and done that. In the absence of some new and compelling arguments in support of the name change, the existing name should stay. Vitaminman (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not in favor of the change myself, but frankly I think it's officious and supercilious to tell someone that you've discussed the issue before and aren't interested in further discussion. that 'this has already been decided' thing absolutely reeks of page ownership. Now I doubt that's your intent, but that is the way it comes off. If someone raises an idea, and you are opposed to it, it is your responsibility to present the arguments again, on the off chance that the consensus might change. that's the way it works, sorry. --Ludwigs2 08:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a fail WP:CCC. - "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." Just because it has been decided previously NOT to change the name of the article, that doesn't mean that that decision cannot be challenged. With different editors, a different consensus may emerge. DigitalC (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, but we both know that it will be the same editors, more or less, who will meet up. It will just end up in another long battle. Things have been quiet and we've been able to concentrate on more constructive things. I just haven't heard anything that even comes close to a good reason to change. Changing, just because change isn't forbidden, isn't very compelling. The content would essentially be the same. If there are aspects that are missing or need changing, then why not concentrate on doing that? We'd need some concrete proposals, but change for the sake of improvement is definitely welcome. "Improvement cannot occur without change, but there can be a lot of change without improvement." -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we edit and condense this nauseating long article? I propose that we put this phrase below into the Definitions and catagories section and keep the section purely for discussion of that.

"It is frequently grouped with complementary medicine, which generally refers to the same interventions when used in conjunction with mainstream techniques,[4][5][6] under the umbrella term complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM. Some significant researchers in alternative medicine oppose this grouping, preferring to emphasize differences of approach, but nevertheless use the term CAM, which has become standard.[7][8]"

Can we give rid of the comedian and possibly add the below phrase in another section?

"The Washington Post reports that a growing number of traditionally trained physicians practice integrative medicine, which it defines as "conventional medical care that incorporates strategies such as acupuncture, reiki and herbal remedies"

It not easy with this article because really,it seems to me that all the branches of treatments under the umbrella of Alternative medicine should have individual wikipedia pages and perhaps the Alternative Medicine Wikipedia page should just give a brief outline because not all the information is going to be relevant to each modality and each modality should be dealt with on an individual basis. nevertheless,the article is here,so i propose could we get rid of the "Relation to evidence-based medicine" title and change then to two titles along the lines of "arguments and proponents for alternative medicine" and "arguments and proponents against alternative medicine" and condense this but have it cover all the information eg:who says why alternative medicines should be used and why,who is skeptical regarding it and why etc. The whole "Relation to evidence-based medicine" section is a bit longwinded. Its also not an easy read due to being unorganised.

Can we remove the "NCCAM classifications" section?Is it really necesssary as it just makes a too long article even longer.Could the classifications eg:chiro,osteo,biofield,ayurveda and so on be somehow added at the introductory part of the article and have it so if a person clicks over it they can be brought to the Wikipedia article on that subject. Alternatively could "naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism" and so on be edited out of the introductory and it all be put in "NCCAM classifications" section but with just the title words and not things like "Whole medical systems cut across more...." etc-it just makes the article too longwinded.

The section "Contemporary use of alternative medicine" is also too unorganised and overwhelming. Perhaps that section could be changed to something along the lines of Use among medical practitioners and uses across different countries,plus statistics?

The section "Public use in the US" could be turned into a whole another Wikipedia article perhaps about the statistical analysis of Alternative Medicine use in USA.

This statement would better fit in the Arguments and Proponents against Alternative Medicine "Some skeptics of alternative practices say that a person may attribute symptomatic relief to an otherwise ineffective therapy due to the placebo effect, the natural recovery from or the cyclical nature of an illness (the regression fallacy), or the possibility that the person never originally had a true illness.[99]"

Same for this To ABC Online, MacLennan also gives another possible mechanism: "And lastly there's the cynicism and disappointment and depression that some patients get from going on from one alternative medicine to the next, and they find after three months the placebo effect wears off, and they're disappointed and they move on to the next one, and they're disappointed and disillusioned, and that can create depression and make the eventual treatment of the patient with anything effective difficult, because you may not get compliance, because they've seen the failure so often in the past".[103]

I propose removing this below phrase as it isnt factual."whereas alternative treatments generally are not subjected to such testing at all"

Many Herbal medicine which is under the umbrella of Alternative Medicine is tested and studied.

This whole section below is not NPOV "Treatment delay Those who have experienced or perceived success with one alternative therapy for a minor ailment may be convinced of its efficacy and persuaded to extrapolate that success to some other alternative therapy for a more serious, possibly life-threatening illness.[105] For this reason, critics argue that therapies that rely on the placebo effect to define success are very dangerous. According to mental health journalist Scott Lilienfeld in 2002, "unvalidated or scientifically unsupported mental health practices can lead individuals to forgo effective treatments" and refers to this as "opportunity cost." Individuals who spend large amounts of time and money on ineffective treatments may be left with precious little of either, and may forfeit the opportunity to obtain treatments that could be more helpful. In short, even innocuous treatments can indirectly produce negative outcomes.[106]"

The whole below section is weird where it says "well the Dutch government...." is that a typo?Its not professional looking and sloppy to start a sentence with "well the...." Also why is only Dutch mentioned and not funding in USA or Australia or other countries?

Research funding "Well the Dutch government funding CAM research between 1986 and 2003 it formally ended funding in 2006."

This is all not NPOV below

"One of the most critical is the placebo effect, which is a well-established observation in medicine.[113] Related to it are similar psychological effects such as the will to believe,[110] cognitive biases that help maintain self-esteem and promote harmonious social functioning,[110] and the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy"

Severina123 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severina123, as a newbie I'm sure you mean well, but your comments reveal that you haven't a clue as to how Wikipedia articles are built up, or why they are built the way they are. They are constructed according to certain rules and policies which are applied by those who edit the article and create it. The way an article looks often reflects its history, including long and heated discussions, disruptions that have resulted in editors being blocked and banned from Wikipedia, compromises, wordings that exist because of prior agreements as a condition for merging other articles into this one ("Complementary medicine" and "Complementary and alternative medicine"), and many other factors which you can't know about. Instead of making a long list of changes you'd like to make, how about finding something that you think violates policy? That way you'd be making suggestions based on policy. Other types of suggestions based on personal preference don't usually get any traction because our arguments have no weight if they aren't based on policy. Read the policies that are linked at the top of your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a bit rude Brangifer.i dont know why you decided to be abrupt to me. I was only trying to help and suggested those changes not to try to take anything away from the article-history etc,but just to try to make it more reader friendly and organised.Some readers might be overwhelmed by articles that arn't written clearly and are unorganised.I thought condensing it and making clearer specific titles would make the article an easier read.I was hoping that this would be done in a way that nothing from the article was lost but that it also wasnt repeating and longwinded as it is in some places. Sometimes if i come across an article on the internet that repeats things or that is unorganised and jumping from one place to another instead of things that go together fitting neatly into one section i will feel overwhelmed and will look for another article on the subject that is written more eloquently and i thought some other readers might feel the same. Apart from what i have written above on the other titles (eg:Davis quote title) and maybe two paragraphs or so regarding NPOV issues,i dont really have any issues with the article at all,my objective was simply to make the article more streamlined and organised. Does every suggestion need to be about policy violations?Cant some suggestions just be about other things like aesthetics? If my suggestions regarding organising it wasnt agreed with by the majority,that was ok,it was just a suggestion i was putting out there. I didnt think that they were any major or controversial changes that anyone would have much opposition to,they were mainly just aesthetic and organisational change suggestions,although i understand that if much discussion,compromise,arguments etc have occured which has made made this article what it is now,that due to this, large changes might not be welcome even if they are only organisation/layout style changes.

I am not sure if i have used the Edit Summary box correctly now.Hopefully i did:) Severina123 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Severina. I am truly sorry that I offended you. That wasn't my intention. I am often too direct. Actually your concerns aren't over the top. Articles can easily evolve, because of their histories, into a collection of sourced snippets that, seen by new readers, are a confusing jumble. If that's what you are experiencing, I'm not surprised. I suggest that you try suggesting one thing at a time. What you wrote contained so many concerns and suggestions that I was overwhelmed, a concern that has been mentioned on your talk page. You are seeing this with new eyes and thus see things that the rest of us don't notice, so I'm interested in hearing your suggestions. Just take it slower. BTW, you used the edit summary quite nicely! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is both nauseatingly long and appallingly badly written. Sadly, however, speaking from recent experience, I have little faith that its self-appointed owners will see fit to allow very much in the way of significant changes to it. Still, one can live in hope... Vitaminman (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns this article. Instead of making a vague and imprecise complaint, which no one can really address, how about being specific and suggesting something constructive? I made such a suggestion above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have done exactly that, and as I have said already, all hell broke loose. And the article still opens with a quote from a non-medical person, a folklorist!, with "or "that which has not been shown consistently to be effective."[2] And as I said a long, long time ago, if that were the case you'd have to throw antidepressants (and plenty of others) into that catagory. I agree with Vitaminman, good luck to anyone that wants to try to make this article more accurate, but I'm not going to waste anymore time on it. Perhaps that will eventually be deleted, but how many people can spend endless hours and days on a project that should have obviously been corrected in short order? Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, GD, that argument has been raised repeatedly, and it seems to be purposed towards disallowing the proposition that alternative medicine is readily distinguished from scientific by canons of testing. In response to the last raising of this hairspliitter, by Strmlbs, I offered responsible professional medical opinion to the contrary. Please do not raise the issue again until you find responsible professional medical opinion in support of your view, at which point we can incorporate both documented views into the article (it'll be tricky and clunky, but it's the appropriate wikiprocedure). Repeating, to spare you the trouble of searching: "It is important to recognize that off-label use of medication is not the same as non-evidence-based used of medications."[8]; "In a 1993 article on alternative AIDS therapies, Carola Burroughs defines "alternative" as a "catch-all phrase" used for "various treatments which simply have not been accepted by the medical establishment."2 Terms like unconventional or unorthodox make a political distinction. Distinctions like modern medicine, versus traditional or folk medicine denote cultural variations and imply a superior level of advancement. Unproven is another often-used distinction. However, there are standard medical treatments used today that have gained their acceptance through history of use, rather than formal clinical testing. Drugs tested and approved for one use can be prescribed off-label for a new use when preliminary outcomes look hopeful and the physician feels the situation warrants the risk. Although not yet thoroughly tested and proven for that use, off-label uses are common in clinical practice." [9]

Yeah, Gandy... perhaps you and I and severina should simply begin editing the article and see what happens. as long as the three of us maintain proper communication in talk, we should be able to circumvent any non-communicative reverts. shall we plan out the first move? give me a bit, and I'll make a new section with some proposals. --Ludwigs2 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Brangifer will not admit it, but he does own this article. I have learned the hard way that every wiki guideline meant to keep wiki honest and fair can be used to keep an article dishonest and biased if one person is an experienced editor who is determined to have his way. If every twisted quideline fails they will just doggedly refuse to accept change and drag the discussion on till other editors give up, as Brangifer has done. Here is my original post regarding this change which resulted in endless discussion, but to date, no change:

Here is what I removed: ...or "that which has not been shown consistently to be effective."[2], and it is from the opening sentence of the article, and it is a quote of an MD that nobody's ever heard of from a book that nobody's ever heard of either. When I said he is not noteworthy, I am NOT using my own definition, I am using the Wikipedia definition. Compare that statement to the balanced Cochrane definition. Are we, in the opening sentence of this article, going to use the statement of an unheard of person/book or a Cochrane review? If Brangifer can find a guideline that suggests this, I'd like to see it. Not that you'd need to check the guidelines as it's only common sense. Furthermore, as I said, to suggest that the definition "everything that has not been shown to be consistently effective" would have to include medications used in mainstream medicine as well. For instance recent studies have shown that antidepressants are effective for severe depression but not effective for mild depression--interestingly, it has been found that St. John's wort HAS been found to be effective for mild depression, but not severe depression. I am tempted to get into a discussion about accusations of vandalism and the suggestion made so frequently that editors to this article are creating editing wars, but I will not further stir the pot for now. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer, notability is not a requirement for inclusion of references, only for the creation of articles. The subject of an article must be notable, but the content can be from V & RS, including unnotable ones. There are numerous definitions of alternative medicine, some of them conflicting, and we are including some of them from various sides of the debate. That's what NPOV requires. If this article were to make it seem like there are clearcut definitions and that there are only two sides to the debate, it would be misleading, because that's not the way it really is in the real world. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing different today is that I learned, through discussion, that Davis is not even a medical doctor, but (if I remember correctly) a doctor of philosophy! And he hasn't even written a book, but that the quote is from a web page about folk medicine from some state! This experience has certainly opened my eyes to a few things about wikipedia and why so many editors lose interest in attempting to edit. I certainly will not be wasteing any more time on this article. Even if Dr. Davis' quote were deleted today, who has that sort of time and energy to waste on getting a change that should have been so obvious? Gandydancer (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig and Gandydancer (addressing you together, since in the last few posts you have made common cause) this is really unhelpful. It’s unhelpful when a new editor shows up and wants to launch into a wide-ranging series of changes on just the points that are in dispute for you (Ludwig) to say “yes, let’s do that, and see what happens.” And then for you (GD) to accuse BullRangifer of ownership – s/he didn’t lock the article, an admin did, because of edit warring, in which you (both) were active participants. BR has put numerous concrete and specific suggestions forward, to which you (two) have not responded. Instead, you (GD) continue to harp on a settled point – there has been consensus for a long time that a folklorist’s view, while of significance for folklore-connected subjects, is not as strong as that of a medical person for the specific case of altmed, but you have steadily declined the opportunity to discuss the numerous options that have been put forward. Instead, you just keep saying that “nobody has ever heard of” the folklorist. Since the one who keeps whipping this dead horse, let’s get it settled. Please PROVE, using WP:RS, that nobody ever heard of this person (those are the exact words you have used, repeatedly). Simply demonstrate that nobody has ever heard of this person, that this person has never published a book. Now demonstrate that everybody has heard of Cochrane group (I most sincerely have not, but I’m willing to be the outlier). Prediction – you’re not going to be able to. So stop, OK? And try instead saying responsible and demonstrable things like “I have never heard of this person,” and/or “I do not ” Wouldn’t that be much better, much easier to defend, much more likely to move us forward? Please too re-think your false dichotomies (you seem to have the idea that only one source is permitted, though the point has been made (repeatedly) that the complex subject requires more than one quote. OK, if you’re aware of a policy that dictates for cases of dispute, a single quote and POV must be represented, bring it forward. Otherwise, pitch in and help identify the alternatives. And if you cannot do these things, then stop this unproductive complaining about matters already long settled and please turn your energies to some productive discussion and editing. It is unhelpful when you say that we need to have all old conversations all over again and you have no obligation to look at archived discussions. DavidOaks (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David: because this is a contentious page, I have decided it's best to stick close to policy on matters of talk-page content. Therefore, I have decided to studiously ignore and avoid the following types of comments, and suggest that all other editors do so as well:

• arguments that focus on an editor's characteristics or qualifications (including length of editorship, previous bad behavior, ascriptions of group membership, and etc.)
• assertions of consensus that are not specific to particular points of content and are not backed up with links to previous debates
• comments of any sort that do not deal specifically with article content.

I don't see any other way to maintain civility on this talk page except strict adherence to those rules.

WIth those rules in mind, I'm having a hard time seeing what can be responded to in your previous post. something about Davis and Cochrane, perhaps, but I don't understand what 'people having heard of them' has to do with their use in this article. can you explain that, please? --Ludwigs2 16:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is really strong evidence in the padlock admins placed on this article that past behavior is very much an issue, and I took the liberty of pointing out serious defects in current behavior and communication likely to take us to exactly the same place, and soon. Your rules sound like good resolutions; by all means follow them if you think they will help you keep on track. Now, how about saying which of the many quotes BullRangifer put forward appeals to you, and why, or if none of them is acceptable, why not. DavidOaks (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said numerous times in the sections above, BR's quotes are (almost without exception) quotes from the perspective of skeptics that are designed to refute or denigrate Alternative Medicine as a whole. I object to these quotes on the grounds that (a) trying to make a clinical judgment about all AM practices as a group is absurd given the diversity of practices that are lumped under this umbrella, and (b) this is an article about AM, not an article against AM, so we should not begin the article with a fairly pointed effort to poison the well. good enough? --Ludwigs2 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The reason for that is because AM is a controversial topic. The reason for THAT is because it is only definable as that which has not (yet) gained acceptance by normative institutions. The reason for THAT has to do with the scientific method and the process of reasoning from evidence (with a sidebar to off-label use, please see above before recurring to that argument). Now, perhaps there is a definition of AM which does not include these things. Let's have it. But most definitions of AM have these things, and excluding them would be whitewashing so we must have them AS WELL AND IN THE LEAD. I think an MD would be rhetorically strongest, because some readers are too stupid to understand that the MDs are in effect talking about semantics and philosophy, subjects outside their realm of expertise, but there is such a thing as the labcoat-fetish. If your position is that the lead cannot tip readers to the fact that a lot of responsible people think that AM isn't medicine at all, we aren't going to get consensus, any more than we can get consensus on a lead for Bigfoot that raises the question of whether there is such a thing -- THE TOPIC IS NOT DEFINABLE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO CONTROVERSY. DavidOaks (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Oaks, please review the talk pages. If the article was locked because of an editing war, I was not even posting at that time, so could hardly have been involved in it. As for your insistance that I PROVE that nobody has ever heard of Dr. Davis, can you PROVE that anybody (obviously beyond the small circle of friends/family/students/and readers of some state's website),has? As for the Cochrane Collaboration, if you don't even know who they are perhaps you should do some research. Wikipedia clearly states that certain types of research are more notable than others. The Cochrane review studies studies and publishes the results. They are well-known to any person that has done much posting in medical articles, but I'd bet that not 99%, but 100% of wikipedia editors, other than the few involved in this idiocy on these talk pages, has never heard of Dr. Davis, and especially so since he's not even a medical doctor. And, as for your suggestion that I instead say, "I do not think a folklorist’s view is optimal for the lead", THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER. Please read the discussion before you decide what I may have or may not have said! Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Gandydancer, I insist that you prove that no one has heard of Davis because 1) you have repeatedly made the claim (I certainly never claimed anyone HAD heard of him, although such a modest claim is readily proved with google and bibliography) and 2) you seem to be operating from the idea that “no one ever heard of him” is some sort of relevant standard. I am aware of no such wikipolicy, and am asking for you to bring it forward. You also seem to be under the impression 3) that we have to choose one and only one definition/quote/POV. By all means, bring that wikipolicy forward, or show me evidence that we came to consensus on the point. And if you are aware of consensus that a 4) folklorist has nothing of relevance to say on a topic closely connected to folk medicine, please show us that. Yes, you have asserted yourself. You have not said why anybody should agree. Perhaps it is self-evident to you, but that’s not how the process works. For myself, it seems to me that in fact we HAD reached consensus that this quote should be exchanged for one by an MD, primarily for rhetorical reasons having to do with easily scandalized readers. You’re the one who keeps raising the issue, when what you’ve been invited to do, repeatedly, is help choose a replacement. DavidOaks (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do we have to go over this??? Again, PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHAT I HAVE SAID OR HAVE NOT SAID! I made a suggestion thousands of words ago. Please quit just making stuff up! Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer, relax and let it go. when David catches up with the conversation you can move on from there. this is a distraction: please keep your eye on the ball, and we can move things forward. --Ludwigs2 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where it's at: right now, we've got one side saying the lead can't say anything negative about AM and another offering a wealth of very responsible, authoritative voices saying that doubts about the legitimacy of these things as medical practice is the very thing which defines them. I recommend everybody drop everything else and deal with those issues. DavidOaks (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

piffle. that's not where we are at all. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain where you think we are, and suggest something concrete and specific. I say we settle on an authoritative quote to capture the critical view which distinguishes altmed from med. Say yes or no to that; if yes, nominate something. If no, say what you think we should do. DavidOaks (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok. we are in the middle of a discussion that is not served well by these kinds of rhetorical declamations. why don't you go back to the above section and respond to the points raised, rather than continuing to harp on some perceived (and largely incomprehensible) flaw in logic that you think Gandy is making. sound like a plan? --Ludwigs2 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify what particular "points" you refer to. So far, here are the “points” I see “above” – (from Strlmbs): “Imo, the difference is not "conventional medicine works and alternative medicine does not", but more that conventional medicine tries to quantify the rate of effectiveness (small or large) and of risks (small and large) of many of its healing practices and use these scientific findings to determine the best treatment.” To which we respond, great – until you get an authoritative quote for the view, IMO=WP:OR. Next: We have quotes by Angell, Carroll, Novella, Happle, to which Ludwigs replies (only one of many such): “Well, many of these definitions are explicitly skeptical (e.g., people trying to define AltMed/CAM in terms of the fact that it doesn't work rather than in terms of the pragmatics (they originate in modalities outside modern scientific medicine). aren't their any neutral (non-skeptic, non-advocate) definitions out there? “ That is, if it’s skeptical, it’s not neutral. However, I do note that you immediately deny having said that we shouldn't have skepticism in the lead. Here’s what’s been said over and over again – in an intrinsically controversial subject, you do not achieve NPOV by finding a single POV, you do it by balancing POVs. Now, if you have a wikipolicy that opposes that, please bring it forward.

In short, we've got one side saying the lead can't say anything negative about AM and another offering a wealth of very responsible, authoritative voices saying that doubts about the legitimacy of these things as medical practice is the very thing which defines them. DavidOaks So let's choose a skeptical quote, and you can go find an authoritative source for your nonskeptical, i.e., supportive quote (treating the controversial as noncontroversial is not to me NPOV but whitewashing, and necessarily requires the balance of skepticism to achieve NPOV). Then we craft a lead which contains BOTH. DavidOaks (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was really thinking about my answer to your question in the section above (which you never responded to). however, if you want to paint in broad strokes, allow me to point out that I have explicitly said, at least eight times that I do not have a problem with some critical perspectives in the lead, and at least half of those comments were written explicitly to you. what I said was that the lead should not begin with criticism. do you want diffs?

as far as alternatives go, I believe I stated in big bold letters above that the best lead line would be "'Alternative medicine' is a conventional term for an assortment of healing practices which are not derived from the conventional assumptions of western scientific medicine." what is your specific problem with that statement? --Ludwigs2 23:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.