Jump to content

Talk:Functional medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 25 March 2018 (Looking for more discussion here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Organ reserve

The article mentions "Organ reserve", what is that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as unsourced material. --Malerooster (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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.[1][2]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mu, Q; Kirby, J; Reilly, CM; Luo, XM (2017). "Leaky gut as a danger singnal for autoimmune diseases". Frontiers in Immunology. 8. Frontiers Media: 598. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2017.00598. Retrieved 28 February 2018.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ Chey, WD; Kurlander, J; Eswaran, S (2015). "Irritable bowel syndrome: a clinical review". The Journal of the American Medical Association. 313 (9). American Medical Association: 949–58. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.0954. Retrieved 28 February 2018.
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Functional_medicine&oldid=832418933"