User talk:Cjrhoads/Draft Integrative Medicine

Suggestions?

This is the first draft, and I'm looking forward to getting other's views on how this page can be improved before it is posted publicly. CJ (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some refactoring and copy edits to roughly bring it up to our WP:MOS standards. Also removed HTML codes and replaced them with wikimarkup. HTML will work, but wikimarkup is the most commonly used coding. I'll make a few other types of edits. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done enough for now. This is far from up to snuff for an article here. It is far too one-sided and promotional. There is no criticism at all. WP:MEDRS is also an issue. Ref work needs to be finished, with properly formatted references. Right now they are just in a rough format that works. See below for the bare minimum. Scientific citations will usually include DOI numbers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!!! This is exactly the kind of help I was looking for. Now I'll see how the wikimarkup looks and I'll try to use that in the future.

We can work on making it "two sided" together. Of course I must admit to being a fan of integrative healthcare. But I'm sure we can temper the "promotional" aspect of it so that just the facts remain.

CJ (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This is a reasonable article and I hope it will get published. What can I do to support the process?

Valjean, user:Valjean - I am sympathetic to your impulse for specificity. That is reasonable. However, public health and conventional medicine are always evolving and I am looking forward to the systematic reviews that may provide unbiased information.

RogerJahnke (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes - and as I said, I didn't have a chance to add the systematic review information yet. That's coming. CJ (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. In my opinion this article is nearly ready to go live. At that point, others can help you format sections and make it more balanced. You don't have to do all of this alone. UserSwamp (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. It's taking much more time than I thought. I'll make some more changes now, add a few reviews of systematic reviews, and hopefully we can then publish. CJ (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A basic citation template I like to use

Here is a basic citation template I like to use:

Template: <ref name=" ">{{cite web |author-link1= |last1= |first1= |author-link2= |last2= |first2= |date= |title= |website= |url= |access-date= |quote= }}</ref>

Contents: <ref name="Harding_11/15/2017">{{cite web | author-link=Luke Harding | last=Harding | first=Luke | title=How Trump walked into Putin's web | website=[[The Guardian]] | date=November 15, 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke | access-date=December 24, 2017 | quote=At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. }}</ref>^[1]

Result: Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. "At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease."

I like to choose a unique ref name, so I use the last name(s) of the author(s) and publication date.

See this citation tool: Yadkard
An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding_20171115"

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease.

Missing AM in the Definition section

The Definition section totally ignores Alternative medicine (AM), and that's a serious lack. IM is the integration of AM into mainstream medical practice. The AM article has several definitions that should be used here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Cjrhoads. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point is that Alternative medicine is NOT Integrative medicine. By definition alternative medicine is an alternative to modern western medicine. Integrative medicine combines complementary treatments and practices WITH modern western medicine to treat the whole person, not just the parts. But it is Medicine, based on scientific principles of evidence-based treatments. Wikipedia is calling alternative medicine and complementary medicine the same thing. I believe that this is a mistake, and don't want to repeat the mistake here. However, I think if we use the term complementary, it will work. CJ (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong in many ways. CAM does not exist without AM. It actually exists because of AM. It is a blending/incorporation of AM into mainstream medical (MM) practice. All definitions of CAM make this plain, so one cannot describe CAM without discussing AM. They are not synonyms, so your statement ("Wikipedia is calling alternative medicine and complementary medicine the same thing.") is false. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry - but I've been too busy lately to work on this. I hope to get back to this as soon as my schedule allows. In the meantime, here is my response to your reply)

CAM does not exist without AM, but Integrative Medicine is not CAM. Hence we do not need to discuss ALTERNATIVE medicine because it IM not an alternative, it is Integrative Medicine which is, by definition, integrated by the physician into the treatment plan for the patient. It is complementary, in that the primary care physician chooses those evidence-based therapies that complement conventional therapies for the current or future health challenges of the patient. That's what makes it Integrated Medicine. Not an alternative. Almost all integrative medicine therapies are adjunctive, not primary. They must be integrated with conventional medicine.

-- CJ (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Let's refine our understanding so we're on the same page. If we keep "talking past each other" we'll get nowhere. We need to decide the question of "something".

So what is the "something" that is being "integrated with conventional" medical practice, if not AM methods? Your own answer: it is "those evidence-based therapies that complement conventional therapies." From that, we can infer that "those evidence-based therapies" are "not" already traditionally "conventional". What "therapies" are those, if not AM? "Something" is being integrated. It is "something" that is not already considered conventional/mainstream, and that's what's known as AM.

Some physicians then take the AM practices they consider "evidence-based therapies" and try to "integrate" them. If these therapies that are being "integrated" aren't certain AM therapies (the evidence-based ones), then "what are they?" Where do they come from?

It is self-evident from any list of IM practices that they are taken from traditional AM practices. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said "It is self-evident from any list of IM practices that they are taken from traditional AM practices". I respectfully have to disagree on the term "traditional Alternative Medicine practices" as you are applying it. I absolutely agree with the term "conventional" and that the "something" that we are talking about are not "conventional", but there is a huge gap between "conventional" and "alternative". I use the term "complementary" for that gap. That's why I don't feel that we need to use the term "alternative" at all, because the other term, "complementary" is actually a smaller subset of what might be called "alternative" and is the proper term to use.

I'll give you an example. Magnets. For many people, wearing magnets as bracelets or imbedded in socks or necklaces would be considered "alternative". It was often sold as a healing thing. But then a lot of research was done that basically showed no impact or help or healing by wearing magnets, no matter how strong the magnets were or how long they were worn. It was "debunked" as a healing practice. It is still "alternative", but it is not "complementary" because no self-respecting physician would ever tell their patients to wear magnets to decrease their pain.

Now compare that to tai chi or qigong or yoga or Pilates. All of these also started out as "alternative". But then a lot of research was done that basically showed a lot of help and healing by doing any of these practices. Self-respecting physicians who keep up on the medical literature would absolutely recommend tai chi or qigong or yoga or Pilates for their patients. So these practices are no longer considered "alternative". They are "complementary" in that they complement conventional medical practices.

18:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC) CJ (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two are classified as Traditional medicine, and Pilates is a modern form of exercise. The physical aspects (not religio/philosophical) are all forms of exercise, which is not AM, but is an acceptable part of any mainstream medical practice. It's not even "complementary". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Harding_11/15/2017-1] Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease.

[1]