Jump to content

Talk:Alternative medicine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ForgotMyPW (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 28 March 2019 (→Unproven vs. Disproven). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cmart35.

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RosilandToscano (article contribs).

Unproven vs. Disproven

Reading the lead section and accompanying info-graphic, much of the description of alternative medicine relates specifically to *disproven* alternative medicine, while not applying to *unproven* alternative medicine. In the case of unproven alternative medicine, it is sometimes the case that it goes on to become scientifically validated in particular settings (e.g. marijuana for the purposes of treating seizures). In light of this, much of the article is inaccurate/misleading, for example:

  • The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work.
  • Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from those which are simply ineffective to those which have known harmful and toxic effects

Thoughts? ForgotMyPW (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Efficacy section

I would like to make the following addition to the "Efficacy" section beginning Line 243:

"The NCCIH has often been criticized for its low standards for funding alternative medicine research. Such criticisms have garnered national attention, forcing the NCCIH to publish a post on its site asserting its scientific credibility. One of the main critiques has been that peer reviews of grant proposals are often performed by CAM practitioners instead of health experts. As a result, many ineffectual grant proposals have been supported. One such example is a study funded by the NCCIH which found that cranberry juice cocktail was no better at preventing urinary tract infections than the placebo. Many similar questionable research proposals have been funded by the NCCIH.This has taken away much-needed funding from researching alternative treatments that may actually work, further perpetuating the stigma of CAM as scientific quackery"

I think this should be included because alternative medicines like turmeric for example do have the potential to become integrated into modern medicine, but misallocation of funding has reinforced this false stigma that the field of alternative medicine is complete scientific quackery. Please let me know what you all think. Thank you! Rmukh17 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable source(s) for the proposed text. Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Again

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboard Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased.

Why is this author allowed to post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:77F:D6EE:ECB8:539C:E130:834B (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify which author and identify some of the edits that you consider biased please.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are biased.

In the section above, Morgan Leigh says " 'fake medicine', your biases are showing. "

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:Morgan Leigh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

WP:TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"This article looks so biased that it's hard to think that it hasn't been written on commission. It contains a lot of inadequacies, provides clearly opinionated definition incompatible with definitions a few renowned sources provide, it contains logical inconsistencies as well as one citation taken out of the context; it needs to be seriously reworked. Especially the definition."

Has anyone heard that Wikipedia is obliged to provide the "neutral point of view" content, which means unbiased and not making readers feel that an encyclopedia rated something as definitely bad? The major writers must have forgotten about that. The first lead will be read by the most people, and it is the most worth discussing on, because after reading so much bad things about alternative medicine comparing with the rest of the articles about it on the Internet, many people will never try any medicine which hasn't been produced by someone whose paramount goal is to dictate how quickly cure diseases. There is not even one word about pharmaceutical industry, but who would be the other person an ill person would get help from? (“Patient cured is a customer lost”)

A key question: what is alternative medicine? So, Wikipedia, you say that alternative medicine is "...promotion or use of practices which are unproven, disproven, impossible to prove, or excessively harmful in relation to their effect"? Wrong! Every dictionary would tell you that alternative medicine is just the term for medical products and practices that are not part of standard care, or not included in the traditional medical curricula, or instead of traditional western medicine! A few dictionaries or medicine services will tell you this (even one gov site):

Moreover, you clearly admitted in the FAQ of the talk section that this definition is not reliable "...its use as a primary source is not consistent with Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable medical sources", yet you decided to put it. National Science Foundation's or American Science Association's opinion is as important as any other national institute of science. Why the heck are you knowingly putting definition from inconsistent sources instead of concluding the definition from all definitions from dictionaries made by professionals? The reference to some journal of NSF only says that the definition is hard to be established, not that their definition is widely used, as the reference should show: https://www.nap.edu/read/11182/chapter/3#19 Oh, you excuse the reason for putting this definition with: "...but its inclusion remains important to some...". I guess that these 'some' are the people responsible for fending off critically thinking readers. By providing such radically different definition from the rest of 'alternative medicine' definitions which can be found in trusted sources, you are representing the topic unfairly, and not even allow to reasonably explain the followers of any alternative medicine technique.

The whole lead is solely devoted to telling us the negative effects of using the alternative therapies, and it enlists what makes them worse than big pharma products, while there is no references in the paragraph to prove the worse effects only. A flagship full A4 page neutral point of view material. A shame that Wikipedia doesn't devote any articles to describing side effects of any types of drugs, or how dangerous they can be, while an average OTC drug has a list of side effects half A4 page long.

I see that someone made a really nice graph showing all possible results of applying alternative therapies. I conclude that this person believes blindly that Wikipedia’s definition of alternative medicine applies to all methods mentioned in the article, or the subject of falsehood of the methods was exhausted, or this person is a morbid pessimist. Either way, if a placebo effect works, then it means that pharmaceuticals are not as needed as they seem, because something which hasn't been patented not products can be used to cure.

I also see that either nobody cares about treating diseases on one's own and showing working methods to other people, or that someone is pulling the strings when it comes to the fair choice of presented proof. I opt for the second option, because I do not believe that the articles concerning alternative methods of healing on mainstream Polish websites concerning medicine were so highly rated, if they didn't work. Examples: (translate the websites via Google Translate to see what they are about, and see favourable comments if there are any)

Notice that the tables showing types of alternative medicine shows only those methods whose efficiency can be relatively easily questioned, like: chiropractic, Ayurveda, naturopathy, acupuncture, yet forms difficult to question has been omitted, and shown only in the separate article showing full list of forms of alternative medicine : equine-assisted therapy (it really is mentioned there, seriously?!), physiotherapy, meditation, laughter therapy, yoga.

The yoga issue is worth some attention, because it shows great incoherences in systematization of this subject, because if you type 'yoga' in the search box you'll get an article with the definition that this is just "a group of physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India". As the other end of the spectrum you can find on Wikipedia a bit hidden article about yoga for therapeutic purposes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_for_therapeutic_purposes . So one part of Wikipedia acknowledges that yoga is practiced because of its at least small health benefits and on the other hand some Wikipedians treat it as a fringe medicine in common with shamanism? Interesting. Someone might have just offended 38 millions US, and 300 millions practitioners worldwide. This is how many of practitioners there are according to The Good Body: https://www.thegoodbody.com/yoga-statistics/ Thanks Wikipedia. Why the yoga wouldn't work? Because some PhD Mr Uebelacker cannot overcome 'methodological limitations'? Lastly, it'd be against common sense reasoning to think that yoga can't cure anything; it must be at least as good as any work-out, because they all are some kinds of physical exercise, so much recommended by any coach or physician in any form, therefore it shouldn't be enlisted among alternative medicine forms. Let me remind the definition of alt med written by someone wrote in the first paragraph of the article: "Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from those which are simply ineffective to those having known harmful and toxic effects." It's hard to say anything bad about yoga. Challenge physical activity as ineffective, authors of this article, I dare you. The cat is out of the bag, isn't it?

,,The lobby has successfully pushed for alternative therapies to be subject to far less regulation than conventional medicine" Wait — what lobby? Mafia? Drug dealers? Big pharmaceutical companies? It doesn't make any sense that some group could push legal changes towards legalizing selling everything that might not work. I can't recall anyone who would be that influential to influence any western government with all their WHO, UE, and advisory medical institutes towards allowing for some crap.

"Alternative diagnoses and treatments are not part of medicine, or of science-based curricula in medical schools, nor are they used in any practice based on scientific knowledge or experience." — Bullcrap. Use Google. If that was true, sport physiotherapist would not exist, the Everglade University, SCNM Medical School, or GWSP in Chorzów (university), would not have their alternative medicine faculties:

There is more examples of such universities. Do you think universities would offer these courses if they couldn't present proof that this kind of medicine is effective?

"Increasing the funding for research on alternative medicine techniques is the purpose of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. NCCIH and its predecessor, the Office of Alternative Medicine, have spent more than US$2.5 billion on such research since 1992" — Well, basically Wikipedia in other words gently says that the US government and their medical institutions consists of idiots, due to the fact that the 'scientific consensus' (I'm cross-referring to the first sentence of the article), or at least the aforementioned National Science Foundation considers alternative medicine techniques as these which 'refer to all treatments that had not been proven effective using the scientific method' (Talk->FAQ), yet the US government keeps wasting money on researching something which keeps proving that it can't work despite 27 years of testing. Or maybe the alternative medicine methods will never be proven, because 'It differs from experimental medicine in that the latter employs responsible investigation,...", but nobody want to provide 'responsible investigation', because it's easier not to do this? So much room for speculation. But most importantly, why would US government spend so much money on something which has already been proved many times that it's not working? Something's fishy here...

So renowned doctor Marcia Angell says: "There cannot be two kinds of medicine – conventional and alternative". True, but this does not mean that she considers all the techniques mentioned in your list as a fraud. Who knows what methods would she acknowledge as working or not? In fact, considering that she also wrote a book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It , and that she criticized pharmaceutical industry, as well as biases in the medical establishment, I'd be inclined to think that she actually is more supportive towards what you call scam than the existing cures. Do you take statements out of context hoping that nobody will check the overall worldview of the authority, huh? Notice that her opinion about the alternative medicine was stated well before she stated her opinion about drug industry too. As she states 5 years later after stating her opinion about alternative medicine: “Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centres, and the medical profession itself. ” If even US Congress can be manipulated by pharmaceutical industry, then what ‘non-profit’, poor, Wikipedia has to say in this matter?

Someone in the discussion mention Minchin’s Law when it comes to the definition of alternative medicine. Really guys? He’s an actor. Not a physician. Not even a thinker. And his view of alternative medicine is his opinion. I don’t why did he say “by definition” while formulating his own definition, but I guess it’s from our beloved Wikipedia because it’s hard to find definition of alternative medicine outside of Wikipedia which also treats this branch as fringe. And he clearly denies existence of anything which simply goes beyond the current comprehension of supernatural activities. You may not describe opinions as laws, especially when they are said by someone who mainly works as an artist. By trusting the opinion of such an ‘expert’ you are showing belief bias/biased interpretation and this person is experiencing status quo bias. No medical professional authority assessed the validity of that claim anywhere.

As someone in the discussion highlighted: “Alternative or complementary medicine is dangerous...”, language should not present opinion or suggest a medical advice. And this is what this article does with the use of this adjective. I concur.

Lastly, keep in mind that with the content of this article you are indirectly condemning a lot of people who have been using alternative medicine therapies. And I really mean A LOT of people; roughly 25 % (adults + children) from the huge group which could represent the entire US population used some kind of alternative therapy according to the survey gathered by NHIS in 2007: https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/NHIS These percentage cannot be lower in all more conservative societies, where traditional medicine is pretty prevalent (China, India, South American countries). Therefore I can assume that 25 % of the world population at least tried alternative medicine methods. You are really nasty to suggest that 2 billions of people in the world were so stupid that they tried something which probably will never be proven that it's working.

That's it people. You better have your arguments well prepared before defending the content of this article, unless you want to look like idiots, cause I provided you with at least 10 legitimate arguments on why this article looks totally opinionated. I'm not going to change the article itself, because a man puts effort to expand the article, and an admin might come and revert any changes which can't be validated in solid sources. What are these solid sources? I don't know, but I guess it providing requires reading strictly scientific, uninteresting journals, sometimes inaccessible without paying. And your noble readiness to change Wikipedia's ignorant attitude towards arts practiced by 'lunatic charlatans' will go to waste. I don't even know if this long entry won't be deleted. Of course, I secured myself by coping the content of this entry as well as some Wikipedia's articles from the time of writing this text, cause I won't risk losing 4 hours of my time.

Thank you Wikipedia for making me completely lose faith in your credibility, and I wish you to find a cheap, efficient, and without serious side effects medicine produced by a international corporation, should you suffer from any chronic ailment or being destroyed by any deadly disease of affluence.

--5.172.238.93 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)The Polish Onion[reply]

(TL;DR) . Is there a actual change to the article being requested here? And if so, please express it briefly in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the source(s) used to back up the change. No one will waste time trying to find it in that wall of text --McSly (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a request to change. One needs to start with redefining in such a way that the definition has regard to the definitions provided by Cambridge or Merriam Webster dictionary. We can do it at once, (can we?) but if the change won't be reverted, it make the rest of the article look like a not justified criticism of these methods. Roxy, did you mark it as closed because it's just too long? ––5.172.238.93 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)The Polish Onion[reply]

TLDR version: This article looks so biased that it's hard to think that it hasn't been written on commission. It contains a lot of inadequacies, provides clearly opinionated definition incompatible with definitions a few renowned sources provide, it contains logical inconsistencies as well as one citation taken out of the context; it needs to be seriously reworked. Especially the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.0.124.79 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the graphic at the top not excessively POV?

To be clear, I think alternative medicine is almost all ineffective and a significant percentage of it is outright fraudulent, and I think this article should make every effort to present the overwhelming weight of evidence against it. But isn't it a bit much to have the main image of the article (and thus the first thing most people look at) an infographic debunking the subject? There's nothing like that in the articles about astrology or Young Earth Creationism. I think, if anything, it hurts the cause of evidence-based medicine to have this article read like a polemic rather than an evenhanded dismissal of something any reasonable person *would* dismiss. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never liked it, it is confusing. But whatever. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. It looks like an IQ test that I would probably fail. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it can be improved, but removing it is a horrible idea. It presents the mechanisms (possibly in too much detail) for how alternative medicine is "perceived to work". That it takes two minutes to process is the point — you need to read the caption to understand the underlying deception of alternative medicine. It is under no circumstances POV, and is very well supported by the contents of the article. I'll look into what improvements can be made. The scientific community is quite clear on that "alt-med" is not "reasonable" nor a subject for scientific discussion. It's been time and time again proven to be nonsense. This critique looks like all the other nonsense dives at "there might just be something to alt-med, we should't dismiss it", despite the fact that sources are dismissing it, and dismissing the anti-science base of alt-med philosophy. Carl Fredrik talk 13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Took me 2 mins to process. The idea is sound, but the graphics is wrong: i.e. not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

The graphic is not wrong. It's thoroughly supported by the sources in the article. Carl Fredrik talk 13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's noisy and confusing. No problem with having it in the body. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to come along and admit that I agree with you, it might belong better in the body. However, it seems someone jumped the gun and just outright got rid of the image. That doesn't seem right, and I think we ought to decide two things before removing it. 1) Where it should go & 2) What should replace it. The article is undoubtably much worse of with nothing, and the image serves a valuable purpose. Carl Fredrik talk 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. I don't know where it should go, I am fine with it pretty much anywhere other than the infobox. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be moved to the definitions section then, but that needs some work. But we should discuss a replacement. Carl Fredrik talk 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a replacement. Anything is better than this, specifically including no image. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better further down, or not included at all. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted

My edit earlier today was reverted and I was told to post here. The "Placebo effect" section doesn't currently address the crucial role of the placebo effect in alternative medicine. The paragraph is more about criticism of integrative (i.e. partly-alternative) medicine. What's the problem? 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you think there is a difference between integrative Alt-Med and non-integrative Alt-Med. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't what my edit was about. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked a question, "What's the problem", which I answered. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking why an edit was reverted. It wasn't you who did that. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main reasons I reverted are that I think the comment "Critics of alternative medicine argue that any improvements patients experience after an alternative treatment are merely the result of the placebo effect" is both uncited and, at best, drawing a long bow, and that I think any definition of placebo effect inserted into the article needs to be discussed, as it's a significant change. PepperBeast (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but was it really necessary to do something as drastic as reverting it, just because of one sentence?
A few proposals: there is a journal cited in the lede which lists possible mechanisms for why alternative medicine may be seen as working (Zelle, Muenstadt et. al., 2012) which could be used to explain the link between placebos and alternative medicine. This source is cited in the lede and obviously was an influence on the top image. Essentially, the 'Mechanism of Action' section needs to be an in-depth explanation of these reasons.
I don't think there is a dispute over the definition of the placebo effect. The only dispute likely is over what its mechanism is and how impactful it is, if at all. In my edits I cited an ambitious meta-analysis that I found on the placebo article (Hróbjartsson & Gøtzsche, 2010) to get an overview on both. I'm keeping that proposal as it is.
The last proposal is to move out all existing content from that section. The paragraphs on integrative medicine don't belong there. They belong as a paragraph in the section on integrative medicine, but for the most part they're repeating the criticism that all forms of alternative medicine get so can be condensed. Only one argument is specific to integrative medicine (the infiltration argument). Likewise, the last paragraph of that section is all to do with the history of alternative medicine in the US and doesn't belong there either.
Hope these proposals help. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider a single revert and request that you discuss something to be "drastic". WP:BRD PepperBeast (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed wording:
The paragraph starting "The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine points to confusions..." will be moved under the 'Mechanism of action' heading, but not the 'Placebo effect' heading. The 'Efficacy' section is about the evidence that AM doesn't work; the 'Mechanism' section should be about why.
The entire 'Placebo effect' section should be replaced by this:
See also: Placebo
A placebo is a medical treatment with no intended therapeutic value, generally used as a control in medical experiments, to isolate treatment effects from the effect of no treatment. An example of a placebo is an inert pill, but it can include more dramatic interventions like sham surgery. Reported changes in symptoms in the placebo group in experiments, or differences between placebo and no-treatment groups, have led to the idea of a so-called placebo effect is whenwhere patients feel they experience an improvement after being treated with a placebo an inert treatment. Analysis of placebo studies suggests that pPlacebos do not have a physical effect on diseases or improve overall outcomes, but they can reduce feelings of pain and nausea by affecting how patients perceive their condition.patients may report changes in subjective outcomes such as nausea.[1] The opposite of the placebo effect is the nocebo effect, when a patient who expects a treatment to be harmful perceives harmful effects after taking it.
The placebo effect is - a combination of subjective effects, regression toward the mean, observer bias, expectation effects, natural course of disease and other confounding factors - is likely to be one of the primary explanations for why alternative therapies may be credited for improving a patient's condition even though there is no objective effect, and in some cases the treatment may even be harmful.[2][3][4] David Gorski argues that such treatments should be treated as a placebo, rather than as medicine.[3] Almost none have performed significantly better than a placebo in clinical trials.[5][6][7][8] Furthermore, distrust of conventional medicine may lead to patients experiencing the nocebo effect when taking effective medication.[2]
  1. ^ Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (January 2010). Hróbjartsson A (ed.). "Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions" (PDF). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 106 (1): CD003974. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3. PMID 20091554. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Gorski2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Novella2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference ATRAMM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Skep_Dic_comp_med was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference $2.5 billion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Abdulla1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
A new paragraph added under the heading 'Complementary or Integrative Medicine':
Besides the usual issues with alternative medicine, integrative medicine has been described by its critics as an attempt to bring pseudoscience into academic science-based medicine,[1] leading to the pejorative term "quackademic medicine".
A new subsection in 'Risks and problems' will be created titled 'Use of health and research resources'
Research into alternative treatments has been criticized for "...diverting research time, money, and other resources from more fruitful lines of investigation in order to pursue a theory that has no basis in biology."[2][1] Research methods expert and author of Snake Oil Science, R. Barker Bausell, has stated that "it's become politically correct to investigate nonsense."[3] A commonly cited statistic is that the US National Institute of Health had spent $2.5 billion on investigating alternative treatments prior to 2009, with none being found to be effective.[3]
The last paragraph will be moved to the 'History' section.
I'm tempted to add a section on 'natural recovery' to the 'Mechanism of action' section and include the reasons cited by writers like Ernst, Gorski and others as to why the placebo effect does not justify use of AM. The trouble is, it seems any attempt to change the article gets reverted. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above has been updated. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked it up with some changes to more clearly identify the fact that according to the best available evidence the placebo effect is not actually a thing. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. It seems as though the reasons why a patient might report better outcomes after a placebo can divided into three categories: 1) mind tricks from the placebo treatment; 2) reporting biases which create differences between how the patients felt and how they said they felt; and 3) natural recovery that would have happened without the placebo treatment. I haven't given 2) much consideration, to be honest. 3) probably ought being discussed separately from placebos. I might propose a paragraph on that as well. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording that's more commonly used today is "regression to the mean" to describe what you're calling "natural recovery." --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the edited draft has the advantage in that it avoids saying that the psychological effects of placebos are a fact. Can a mind trick be a "real" thing? I'm up for wording that avoids directly answering this question.
The main issue I have with the edited draft is that regression to the mean and reporting bias should be treated as being separate from any psychological effects of the placebo. I'll propose a paragraph/section on regression to the mean. The issue of reporting biases (e.g. answers of politeness) is harder to separate, though a good meta-analysis should be able to see through it. I agree this should be discussed under the 'placebo effect' heading, but treat it as a separate phenomenon.
Other issues: The phrase "so-called" doesn't sound neutral. I also still think pain should be mentioned as well as nausea, among the subjective outcomes that can be affected. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A further proposed change: A new heading of 'Other factors' to go under 'Mechanism of action':
A patient who receives an inert treatment may report improvements afterwards that it did not cause.[4][5] Assuming it was the cause without evidence is an example of the regression fallacy. This may be due to a natural recovery from the illness, or a fluctuation in the symptoms of a long-term condition.[5] The concept of regression toward the mean implies that an extreme result is more likely to be followed by a less extreme result.
There are also reasons why a placebo treatment group may outperform a "no-treatment" group in a test which are not related to a patient's experience. These include patients reporting more favourable results than they really felt due to "politeness" or "experimental subordination", observer bias and misleading wording of questions.[5] In their 2010 systematic review of studies into placebos, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson and Peter C. Gøtzsche write that "even if there were no true effect of placebo, one would expect to record differences between placebo and no-treatment groups due to bias associated with lack of blinding."[4]
If there's enough content to go in the 'Other factors' section, it can be split into more than one section. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [Just to be transparent, I'm the same person as 78.33.33.241. For security reasons involving a public computer, I have not logged in when making edits on that computer. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Redraft:
A placebo is a medical treatment with no intended therapeutic value. An example of a placebo is an inert pill, but it can include more dramatic interventions like sham surgery. The placebo effect is the concept that patients will perceive an improvement after being treated with an inert treatment. The opposite of the placebo effect would be the nocebo effect, when patients who expect a treatment to be harmful will perceive harmful effects after taking it.
Placebos do not have a physical effect on diseases or improve overall outcomes, but patients may report improvements in subjective outcomes such as pain and nausea.[4] A 1955 study suggested that a substantial part of a medicine's impact was due to the placebo effect.[6][4] The study was found to have flawed methodology in a 1997 reassessment.[5] This and other modern reviews suggest that other factors like natural recovery and reporting bias should also be considered.[4][5]
All of these are reasons why alternative therapies may be credited for improving a patient's condition even though the objective effect is non-existent, or even harmful.[7][1][2] David Gorski argues that alternatives treatments should be treated as a placebo, rather than as medicine.[1] Almost none have performed significantly better than a placebo in clinical trials.[8][9][3][10] Furthermore, distrust of conventional medicine may lead to patients experiencing the nocebo effect when taking effective medication.[7]
I have adjusted the wording to avoid treating the placebo effect as a fact. 78.33.33.241 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Gorski2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Novella2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference $2.5 billion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC (January 2010). Hróbjartsson A (ed.). "Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions" (PDF). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 106 (1): CD003974. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3. PMID 20091554. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ a b c d e Kienle GS, Kiene H (December 1997). "The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction?". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 50 (12): 1311–8. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00203-5. PMID 9449934.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference beecher1955 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference ATRAMM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Skep_Dic_comp_med was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Abdulla1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Proposed re-write of lede

The lede for this article is currently 7 paragraphs long with nearly 700 words. Some points are repeated, like the $2.5bn figure and the fact it differs from experimental medicine. Manual of style advice for ledes is that they should not usually exceed four paragraphs. For sure, this needs condensing. As this is a contentious topic, I'd rather float proposals and seek other editors' input. Here is a proposed plan:

  • Paragraph one: A quick definition of alternative medicine.
  • Paragraph two: This paragraph explains the difference between conventional and alternative medicine. Conventional medicine relies on trials to show medicine is effective. By definition, alternative medicines are not supported by these methods. How research promoting alternative medicine either falls short of these standards or ignores them altogether. Some of it is based off alternative views of how the human body and diseases work to modern scientific beliefs. Difference with experimental medicine.
  • Paragraph three: This paragraph looks at it from a human perspective. Briefly touches on the reasons why some people are drawn to it. The effects of taking them: at best, the placebo effect makes the patient feel less symptoms, but has no effect on the underlying illness. The real problems: it can divert them from effective advice and treatment, and some alternative medicines are actively harmful.
  • Paragraph four: This paragraph looks at it from a wider perspective. Size of the global industry? Is it growing or shrinking? Criticism includes that it diverts resources from worthier causes. Regulation and the attitudes of governments and healthcare providers (it varies by country).
  • Paragraph five: More detailed notes about defining it, which notes how it's a somewhat loose concept, and has had several names. Difference/overlap with traditional medicine. A quick definition of complementary/integrative medicine. End with the quote: "There is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't."

Let me know if think something different is needed. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this article?

I remember skimming the introductory sections of this article a few years ago and seeing a pretty nuanced description that ended with mentioning that alternative medicine is outside mainstream science and not respected by evidence-based medicine despite claims its practitioners would make. Now the entire introductory paragraphs, along with that new image about how alternative medicine 'works', read like they were ripped straight out of a RationalWiki article.

Why does every sentence in the introduction of this topic need to emphasize that 'alternative medicine is not accepted by scientists'? Why are their literally no sources for this absurdely long wall of text in the introductory section (for example, "Promoting alternative medicine has been called dangerous and unethical." Who is saying this?) except for the final line? Why arent the problems regarding the definition of alternative medicine even alluded to in the introductory section? Why is it so hard to find any reference in this article to anyone that actually believes in alternative medicine and what their responses are to critics?

Apologies, I missed the FAQ at the top of the page about the references and see that there are actual references made for these lines. In the case of the Diamond reference ("There is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't[...]"), this is almost a direct quote from him. I have made that specific citation visible for this reason. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is excessively POV and does not read at all like an encyclopedia article, but one you might find ripped out of an advocacy site (one of the only two sources for the introductory section of this article is a site literally called sciencebasedmedicine.org). At the very least, the entire introductory section needs to be rewritten and properly sourced. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...side note....WP:MOSLEAD is pretty clear that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I think consensus on this issue is pretty clear from the many many discussions about it we've had on this talk page. These are not controversial things. The minority viewpoints that believe altmed are valid are not worth it... If you want to add citations, be my guest. But I think consensus is probably against you completely revamping the lead to suit a POV you yourself say you don't have.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well apparently the header of this talk page disagrees with whatever consensus you are claiming is present here, as it clearly states that this topic is controversial. I admit to not being aware of that protocol before, but this article clearly seems to me to be a controversial one so I fail to see how that is relevant. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you add some citations? I doubt anyone will disagree with that. But I can guarantee there are people who will disagree with your removing the NPOV. And yes, I know you would disagree that it is a NPOV. But that is exactly the nature of the disagreement so many would have with you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are biased.

In the section above an editor says that he wants "allow the various competing viewpoints to speak for themselves". presumably he is talking about some "competing viewpoint" other than the viewpoint shared by most scientists and philosophers -- that quantum mysticism is pseudoscience and quackery.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[3][4]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards quantum entanglement, and biased against quantum mysticism.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read this before and I fail to see how this is relevant. Why are there now zero sources for the wall of text at the beginning of this article? Why is there not a single mention of someone like Deepak Chopra AT ALL in this article despite his name being frequently referenced when talking about alternative medicine? Why is a gigantic graphic about how alternative medicine does not work the front image of this article?
Again, this article gives the impression that its writers are trying their hardest to convince you that alternative medicine is bad and does not work which is not what an encyclopedic article should be trying to do. An encyclopedic article should be more objective, which is significantly different than suggesting that alternative medicine is on the same level of scientific medicine, an impression I do not recall this article ever giving (although I am not aware of a lot of the history of this article so correct me if Im wrong).
I am not a supporter of alternative medicine, but this article is a mess. I support removing the leading image and rewriting the introductory section as has been suggested by others in this talk page. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_medicine&oldid=889798346"