Talk:Alternative medicine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:30, 28 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alternative medicine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Science

Q1: Where does the statement that alternative medicine is not evidence-based or scientific come from?

A1: The source for this statement is a report produced by the National Science Foundation, which—while surveying scientific beliefs among the public—used the term "alternative medicine" to refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using the scientific method. The report went on to describe the American Medical Association definition as "neither taught widely in U.S. medical schools nor generally available in U.S. hospitals." The source is different than the definitions used by major medical bodies and its use as a primary source is not consistent with Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable medical sources, but its inclusion remains important to some and a point of contention to others.

Q2: Why don't I see lots of references in the lead?

A2: To keep the lead from looking like a jungle with all the references which are actually used, they have been hidden from view, but are visible when in the editing mode. If a reader has a serious question about the sourcing for a statement in the lead, they can start a thread on this talk page and request to see the reference(s). Then, an editor will unhide that reference for them.

Whole medical systems was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 September 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alternative medicine. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Alternative medicine

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

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Top‑importance

	Alternative medicine is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chiropractic High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic 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.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems theory.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Archives

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

Old discussions at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ayurveda#Tridosha system|doshas]] The anchor (#Tridosha system) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 15 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelica.gnlz (article contribs).

A Biased Perspective?

This article comes across as sounding very biased. A less biased approach would be to define Alternative Medicines as those that do not yet have sufficient profit-potential to warrant the enormous cost of adequate testing for proof of efficacy and safety. Thus, the supposedly-scientific bases for medicines has been dragged into the realm of economics and patents.

As such, alternative medicines remain in the gray area as "possibly helpful" where the decision to use them needs to be balanced against possible negative effects including safety, cost and discouragement from seeking more reliable alternatives. When the negative effects are low, they often become "worth a try".

Another topic that the article fails to address is the inherent variability that exists from person to person with respect to body chemistry. Such variability can mean that there are some alternative medicines that will work for some people but not for others. In taking such medicines, one is essential experimenting on oneself, but if the product is safe, the downside of such a self-efficacy experiment is normally only the cost and time involved. Many vitamins fall into this category.

Generally, some distinction should be included concerning those alternative medicines which have been shown to be medically safe (as distinct from effective) vs those which have received no such testing and which, therefore, could be physically harmful.

Another perspective missing is that most (or all?) of the proven medicines were, at one point, unproven and thus could have been regarded as "alternative medicines" at that time. The tendency to label all alternative medicines as quackery would have blocked these medicines from ever finding their way into the realm of testing and proven efficacy. Jetstream423 (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments, which are a lot more thoughtful than most of the complaints that show up on this talk page. I think the short answer to all your questions is that we must, by consensus, source the information on this page according to WP:MEDRS. If you or anyone else can provide such sourcing for the points you raise above, that would potentially be appropriate content to add here, for WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article is heavily biased against alternative medicine and does not provide the reader with knowledge useful for making an informed decision. 2603:3018:404:1400:963:1E9B:EFF8:4F84 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you forget that many therapies from the alternative medicine are not simply "not proven to be effective", but severely lack any biological plausibility.

Artemisinin was devised based upon alt-med research, but it would not have been possible without the chemical industry.

"Negative effects" are not only lack of direct harm from the therapy, but the cost of foregoing effective therapy for serious diseases.

"Medicines being invented and getting researched" should not be conflated with those medicines being alt-med. The pharmaceutical industry has to take steps in order to show that an invented medicine is actually effective, and this for a large chunk of the targeted population.

Vitamins and other supplement are being abused. The dosage of many American vitamins is scarily high. Excess of many vitamins is not harmless. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is not written from a WP:NPOV. There are reasonable definitions for alternative medicine as well as complementary and integrative medicine provided from WP:MEDRS, such as Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name? | NCCIH (nih.gov) and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) - NCI (cancer.gov). An operational definition of complimentary, alternative, and integrative medicine has also recently been determined Ng et al. (2022) and Cochrane Complementary Medicine.

Funding from the NIH, NCCIH, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has increasingly supported research on the safety and efficacy of complementary and integrative approaches. It is inaccurate to generalize and suggest that complementary, alternative, or integrative approaches are not evidence-based. Here's a systematic review of CAM for the treatment of psoriasis published in JAMA Dermatology.

I definitely agree this article should be updated for a more neutral point of view. People can make more informed decisions, and shared-decision making between patient and provider is encouraged when it comes to making medical and health-related decisions. 4whirledpeas (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NCCIH is not a reliable source for anything, it is a political body set up to promote altmed whether it works or not. You should have at Wikipedias article on it, which explains the history. Note also that a neutral point of view does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Where the mainstream sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reliable sources in addition to NCCIH and the others already provided offer reasonable definitions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine.

Professional practice policies, guidelines, positions, and statements for complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine approaches are available.

The American Academy of Family Physicians has a policy that advocates for recognizing and acknowledging integrative medicine, conducting evidence-based evaluations, considering cultural perspectives, and pursuing education on non-conventional healing methods.
- The AAFP published a review in 2019 with clinical recommendations for exercise, yoga, and meditation in the treatment of depression and anxiety.
The American Psychological Association Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend certain complementary and integrative approaches for treating depression.
The North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination includes competencies addressing complementary and alternative medicine.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology endorses guidelines on the use of complementary and alternative medicine during and after breast cancer treatment.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists encourages informed decision-making and acknowledges the interest in CAM approaches and their use in conjunction with conventional medical care.

Original research and review studies have been conducted on various CAIM approaches. Thus, there is research that is based on biological plausibility with evidence of effectiveness that can also be considered for this article.

The Journal of the American Medical Association Dermatology published a review study in 2023 suggesting that nutraceutical supplements, such as vitamins B5 and D, botanical extracts (e.g., green tea), probiotics, and omega-3 fatty acids, could be beneficial in acne treatment, with few adverse effects reported.
The Journal of the American Medical Association Dermatology published a review study in 2023 suggesting nutritional supplements like zinc, pumpkin seed oil, capsaicin, and omega-3 and 6 fatty acids with antioxidants may help treat hair loss, with rare and mild adverse effects.
The American Heart Association published a 2022 scientific statement in Circulation on complementary and alternative medicines in the management of heart failure, reporting on the potential benefits of CAM approaches such as CoQ10, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin C, vitamin D, yoga, and tai chi on heart failure, as well as those that may be potentially harmful or with uncertain safety.
The American Heart Association published a 2013 scientific statement in Hypertension on alternative therapies for the treatment of hypertension.
JAMA Internal Medicine published a systematic review and meta-analysis in 2014 which reported that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions in multiple dimensions of psychological stress.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published a 2021 systematic review on noninvasive nonpharmacological treatment for chronic pain. The report reviews the safety and effectiveness of various treatments, acknowledging those with potential benefits and those with little evidence of benefit.
The Journal of Pain published a meta-analysis in 2019 stating that acupuncture has a clinically relevant effect on chronic pain compared to control, with effects lasting up to 12 months. Even Medicare covers acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain.
Check out the Research Map from Osher Center For Integrative Medicine (Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital). You’ll see 1000 researchers and nearly 2000 publications.

Some mainstream sources are critical, but not all. Some maintain a more open, balanced, and neutral framing of the topic of CAIM.

Alternative Therapies Like Meditation and Acupuncture Are on the Rise - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- In this article from 2024, Stanford Medicine's Dr. Sean Mackey, chief of pain medicine, points to a growing body of research validating alternative therapies. He sees this as a positive development, with traditional clinics like Stanford's incorporating more mind-body therapies and other nonpharmaceutical options.
The Health Benefits of Acupuncture | TIME
Traditional medicine provides health care to many around the globe – the WHO is trying to make it safer and more standardized (theconversation.com)
The Evolution of Alternative Medicine - The Atlantic
Will exercise, meditation or reiki help if you can’t find a therapist? - The Washington Post

4whirledpeas (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Type: Physical therapy

insert this subsection under Types. Many of these techniques appear on the List of forms of alternative medicine and their articles reference the Alternative medicine page but there is very little mention of these here.

Besides the above reason, inclusion of this section will add the small amount of nuance about the subgroup of alternative medicine based on anecdotal or placebo based treatments with a lack of direct negative side-effects, as well as "treatments" science is unequiped to extract causality from due to difficulty of blinded trials, as mentioned above in A Biased Perspective?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Physical therapy and related disciplines

Physical therapy, along with related disciplines like Pilates, Yoga as therapy, and Tai chi, focuses primarily on the treatment of musculoskeletal issues and occupies a unique position on the fringe of conventional medicine, largely due to challenges in conducting standardized medical trials for addressing specific problems. These practices, which include manipulative techniques such as osteopathy and massage, as well as other methods like foam-rolling, manual lymphatic drainage, acupressure, taping, and sauna, often lack definitive proof of effect. Nonetheless, they are some of the few alternative medicine practices frequently recommended by healthcare professionals and sometimes funded by healthcare providers^[1] due to their minimal risk of harm. However, their use in place of established treatments for serious conditions, such as cancer^[2], can still lead to adverse outcomes. Elkir (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Eardley, Susan; Bishop, Felicity L; Prescott, Philip; Cardini, Francesco; Brinkhaus, Benno; Santos-Rey, Koldo; Vas, Jorge; von Ammon, Klaus; Hegyi, Gabriella; Dragan, Simona; Uehleke, Bernard; Fønnebø, Vinjar; Lewith, George (2012). "A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU". Forsch Komplementmed. 19 Suppl 2: 18–28. doi:10.1159/000342708. PMID 23883941.
^ Ades, TB, ed. (2009). "Myofascial release". American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.). American Cancer Society. pp. 226–228. ISBN 978-0-944235-71-3.

Not done. The sources provided don't support the content. Is it common in the literature that physical therapy is described as alternative medicine? Are there sources that support it holding a "unique position on the fringe"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream reflects popularity not a specific medical practice

The article creates false dichotomies between broadly applied and innovative practices. No critique of pharmaceutical practices is provided (i.e., what works in highly controlled clinical trials may be far less efficacious in the "real world"). A more helpful start to this topic might first parse medical care for acute and chronic physical injury and disease, mental and behavioral trauma and progressive illness, and personalized genetic functionality and dysfunction. This said, indivifual situations might reflect a combination of physical, behavioral, and genetic issues thereby calling for a combinatorial approach. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can improve the article then find useful sources and then make use of theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cheers 22FatCats (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references will not ballance the bias in the entre. An implicitclaim is made that alternative and complementary care is ineffective. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no a priori assumption that CAM is ineffective. But if a CAM approach is shown to be effective, it is no longer CAM, it becomes mainstream medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream likr 5NP acuponcture for managing withdrawal ? An assumption must be made that a treatment may be effective before it is declared to be ineffective. There are areas of treatment where safety and egficacy have been demonstrated under controlled vonditions. Behavioral health is an underserved aspect of mainstream healthcare. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture is neither mainstream nor effective. See Acupuncture. --Hob Gadling (talk)

If you cannot improve the article within the framework of Wikipedia rules, then you cannot improve the article; you are in the wrong place and should go to a forum instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 30, 2023

Efficacy and Safety of Auricular Acupuncture for DepressionA Randomized Clinical Trial

Daniel Maurício de Oliveira Rodrigues, PhD1,2,3; Paulo Rossi Menezes, MD, PhD1; Ana Elise Machado Ribeiro Silotto, BSc1,2; et alArtur Heps, BSc1; Nathália Martins Pereira Sanches, MD4; Mariana Cabral Schveitzer, PhD5; Alexandre Faisal-Cury, MD, PhD1

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2345138. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45138 BlueSkiesRI (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the guidelines for sourcing on medical topics at WP:MEDRS. This paper does not meet that standard. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSkiesRI, that's an odd choice. It shows safety but lack of efficacy.[1] It is also not suitable here as it does not pass muster as a MEDRS source. We prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our standards are higher than those used by medical journals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The rules of evidence preclude. I am through here. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Eardley2012-1] Eardley, Susan; Bishop, Felicity L; Prescott, Philip; Cardini, Francesco; Brinkhaus, Benno; Santos-Rey, Koldo; Vas, Jorge; von Ammon, Klaus; Hegyi, Gabriella; Dragan, Simona; Uehleke, Bernard; Fønnebø, Vinjar; Lewith, George (2012). "A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU". Forsch Komplementmed. 19 Suppl 2: 18–28. doi:10.1159/000342708. PMID 23883941.

[acs-2] Ades, TB, ed. (2009). "Myofascial release". American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.). American Cancer Society. pp. 226–228. ISBN 978-0-944235-71-3.

[1]

[2]