Talk:Functional medicine

"Undocumented toxins"

To User:Alexbrn, I saw you reverted my edit removing "of undocumented toxins" from the list of treatments, because it's confusing, and not included in the link referenced. Your explanation about it being a "gloss of the term" is confusing as well, and doesn't explain the revert. Can you explain what you mean? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I would think it is the use of the word "toxins" as in Detoxification (alternative medicine). --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there hasn't yet been a response from the editor who reverted my edit, and because the term is not in the source referenced, I've removed this phrase again. Based on my understanding of WP:MEDRS, sourcing should be quite strict, which is also a problem with other areas of this page. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Establishing what fringe claims are doesn't require MEDRS sources, or we'd never be able to do it.--tronvillain (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To User:Tronvillain: What do you make of the warning on MEDRS that says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." This is the blog of one doctor, and does not count as a secondary source as I understand it. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That the "toxins" of detox are a load of BS is not WP:Biomedical information, but is more in the realm of common sense / health fraud / basic science. Pretty much any source will do for it. Alexbrn (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't get away with such hand-waving arguments (calling something names like you just have) when it comes to a topic with controversy. You must be more specific. If FM were addressing the major toxins known to medicine (such as the ingestion of insecticide), it would still have to prove that its treatments were safe and effective, which it apparently has not yet done by standard experimental testing for any accepted toxin. But if FM actually addresses vague "environmental toxins" that "can feed cancer, ...induce insulin resistance and obesity through multiple mechanisms..." then the burden of proof is on FM big time to actually list those toxins, show that they exist in harmful levels in the average environment, prove that they cause these particular disease effects at the level they exist in the average environment, and then show that FM's treatments are safe and effective. If FM wants to be accepted as a valid medical therapy, it must pass the same stringent tests of evidence that all other medical therapies must pass. That is why a WP article must emphasize the negative side of the controversy for any school of treatment that claims to be a branch of medicine. If WP is not safe, then it can harm people, and if WP is not effective, then it is fraud. Wishful thinking is not science. And wishful thinking is generally harmful because it keeps people away from doctors who might help them early in the course of their disease. David Spector (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The blog of "one doctor", who happens to be one of the primary figures at the Institute for Functional Medicine. We aren't establishing biomedical information, we're establishing the details of a fringe claim, which is literally "Toxins!", but not specifying what they are - see this 2018 IFM seminar. --tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bulleted list of "treatments"

During my recent attempt to clean up the bulleted list of "treatments" under Description, I noticed a few issues with the poor quality of this section. Primarily, this is not a list of treatments. It is a list of treatments, other types of medicine, concepts, and contributors to disease. As I describe below, detail about the Institute for Functional Medicine's use of the retracted Lancet paper is completely mischaracterized. There is information not backed up by reliable sources (as I have mentioned above). I realize this is a sensitive topic, which makes it all the more important to get right. I am certain there is a way to clean up this page in a way that is accurate and useful to readers. This is not everything, but here are some of my observations:

• Orthomolecular medicine: This is not a treatment so much as another type of medicine.
• "Biochemical individuality": Not a treatment, but it is indeed a principal of functional medicine.
• Diagnosis of chronic occult infections (e.g. so-called chronic Lyme disease): By definition, diagnosis of something is not a treatment. Here again the source does not mention the information it purports to verify.
• Homeopathy, including "Biopuncture", the injection of homeopathic remedies: This is not a part of functional medicine.
• Antivaccine advocacy including promotion of the discredited link between MMR vaccine and autism (the retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. is cited in The Textbook of Functional Medicine): This is not a treatment of functional medicine. Also, the "original research" saying functional medicine promotes the discredited link between MMR vaccine and autism is incorrect. The Wakefield study is cited twice in The Textbook of Functional Medicine. Once in Chapter 30 to support the statement: "Gross and microscopic gut inflammation is very common in autism (see Table 30.5). Corresponding symptoms—pain, constipation or diarrhea, gastroesophageal reflux,(111) and increased intestinal permeability(112)—are also frequent. Inflammation of the distal ileum with adenopathy can be particularly prominent.(113),(114)" It is reference 113 in this chapter. It is also cited in Chapter 10: ""We now know that autism is a multifaceted disorder associated with gastrointestinal inflammation, nutritional deficiencies,…65". It is reference 65. So while that paper is cited, the alleged vaccine connection is not.
• Leaky gut syndrome: This is not a treatment, but something functional medicine talks about as an important contributor to disease, and borne out by several studies. The issue noted in the references is a semantic one that differentiates "leaky gut" from "intestinal permeability"; in reality they are synonyms.

At the very least this list needs work. It very well may need to be split into different sections and rewritten to discuss medical conditions and treatments. I might try this myself, however the topic will benefit from discussion and views of others. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References

I see User:Alexbrn edited a sentence to clarify that the bulleted list contains not just treatments, but also practices and concepts. This is a small step forward but, put simply, not nearly enough. There is still much room for improvement. It would be great if others can weigh in and share their thoughts on how we can move forward? As I have mentioned above, this bulleted list contains inaccuracies and mischaracterizations that make this a less useful resource for readers. Absent any discussion, I may choose one and start working on it. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What are functional medicine doctor pre-requisites and training, for instance to be eligible to be members of the American Functional Medicine Association?

What are functional medicine doctor pre-requisites and training, for instance to be eligible to be members of the American Functional Medicine Association?

Hi, a friend was telling me that functional medicine is all quackery, but actual doctors have told me it was good in some cases, and all the functional medicine doctors I've seen online before I think were regular MD's first.

I was trying to find out if there are any prerequisites to being a functional medicine doctor in the USA or Canada in particular, because apparently according to my friend from an uncited source, it is NOT actually required to be a full practicing medical doctor first?

Is this something someone could research and follow up with in the article? Or even a comparison of what different associations or regulating body's standards are, if there are numerous and they differ widely?

I'm new to editing wikipedia but I think wikipedia is a great resource! Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.31.111 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wakefield citation in IFM textbook

Yesterday I made a bold edit to remove the following from this article: "(the retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. is cited in The Textbook of Functional Medicine)". The statement's placement in the text of the entry alongside a statement that functional medicine incorporates anti-vaccine advocacy appears intended to give the impression the paper is cited in the textbook as support of anti-vaccine material or discussion of a link between vaccines and autism. Neither of these are the case. The paper is used to support the following, quoted directly from the textbook:

"We now know that autism is a multifaceted disorder associated with gastrointestinal inflammation, nutritional deficiencies"

The statement was re-added after my edit by User:Ronz who said: "might need an independent source though". Ronz, are you saying an independent source must be shown to assert that functional medicine practitioners promote a link between autism and vaccines? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that an independent source would help us determine if it is worth mention, and with what context. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That the FM crowd has latched onto Wakefield just double-confirms they're a bunch of crooks. But has this been discussed in sources I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I again removed misleading information about the Wakefield citation in The Textbook of Functional Medicine. The paper is cited in the textbook once to support a link between autism and gut issues. The book does not discuss vaccines and autism. I have not found any sources to support this article saying so, nor have other editors offered sourcing, so I have gone ahead and removed the content. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted promotional material. You are now warned about discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn: You notified me on my talk page that "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Can you explain to me what this means? I'm trying to constructively edit Wikipedia to expand its useful knowledge on medical topics, among other things. What is the best way for me to continue to contribute to this article, and others like it, in a way that will not be seen as disruptive? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)