Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposed wording for RfC

• Proposed wording for RfC: (Version A) "Question: Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine? Please comment here. Notes: Please leave the page in the form of an article during the discussion. It is requested that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion after a reasonable period of time, for example 5 days after the posting of this RfC." (end of version A.)
  (Version B) "Question: Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine? (Versions before merge: psych med) Please comment here. Notes: During this discussion and while the page is protected as a redirect, article development can continue at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Temp. It is requested that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion after a reasonable period of time, for example 5 days after the posting of this RfC." (end of version B.)
  Version A may avoid complications with GFDL compliance from developing the article on a separate page, but I think it will require agreement of involved editors not to redirect the page during the discussion, and then agreement of the protecting administrator to unprotect the page. The intention is that responders to the RfC are encouraged to add their voices to this discussion already in progress. Comments are welcome on the proposed wording; if you don't like it, I would appreciate it if you would explain why and suggest alternative wording. I would also appreciate it if those editors who have redirected the page would state that they are willing to leave it in article form during the discussion, as is done during AfDs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I made this topic a new level-2 heading.

I would add to both versions an entreaty that involved editors (everyone who has recently commented here or at psych, or is otherwise not coming to the RfC with a reasonably fresh perspective) make their points above the section for new and uninvolved editors. The RfC guidelines stipulate this, but the in practice it is routinely ignored. Something along the lines of See previous section for ongoing discussion. Involved editors, please reserve this section for new editors with a fresh perspective.

We might as well be firm about closing it in five days (or whatever, though that sounds reasonable to me) to avoid future acrimony. Also, if we use a temp page it can be history-merged with the extant article; I am not an administrator, but I believe that it would be relatively easy in the case where all edits to the temp page are made after any edits to the main page. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside of the usual suspects, I see some new faces which could be moved there: Edison, DGG, Phil153, Artw, and Brotherj. II | (t - c) 18:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid disagreement and possible editwarring over moving of comments, I suggest it might be better not to move other editors' comments, especially if one is involved in the discussion. Moving of one's own comment might be appropriate for some editors. I was beginning to hesitate about posting the RfC since many comments have been received already, but I'm taking the above comments as encouragement that an RfC is not an unreasonable idea, and might post it in about 12 hours (allowing some time for further comments). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need uninvolved editors, since with the exception of me and maybe 1-2 others, the votes have aligned nearly entirely along a skeptic/quack proponent divide. I don't think we're getting a neutral view of things with current participants. Since there is clear consensus above for no merge (even if it just the CAM constabulary outweighing the skeptics), you could probaly ask the admin to revert the page to its pre redirect condition. Makes the RFC easier too. Phil153 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait are you a skeptic or a quack, Phil? ;-) Anyhow, I don't think that I've ever commented/contibuted to the Orthomolecular article, so my comments can be seen as "uninvolved". That said, I like and admire what Coppertwig is doing - as usual, he/she is ahead of the curve at keeping the peace. Thanks, Coppertwig. Personally, I think Version A is preferable, but I don't think that the difference is really all that important in the grand scheme of things. I look forward to commenting when the RfC has been posted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He said excepting himself. Phil153, if you wish to ask Ruslik0 (talk) to revert the page that's OK with me. If it remains protected I wonder whether a template could be placed at the top directing users to this discussion and/or to the temporary page, and what would be least confusing. If there is consensus for a change, we could request it with {{editprotected}} or by asking Ruslik0.

• Draft RfC (version B) is at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox3. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment: merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion stalled and no consensus for the merge has developed. However, as I said below, the results of the above discussion are clearly against the merge. Ruslik (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine?

Question: Do you support the merge of Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine? (Versions before merge: psych med) Notes: During this discussion and while the page is protected as a redirect, article development can continue at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry/Temp. It is requested that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion after a reasonable period of time, for example 5 days after the posting of this RfC.

Involved editors, please comment in the thread #Merge from Orthomolecular psychiatry above.

Comments from previously uninvolved editors

• Support the merge. I've examines the positions above and looked at both articles as they existed prior to the merge, and I have to agree with those who say there's no encyclopedic reason to have two articles here. The vast majority of the information that's suitable for one would have to by nature of the topic go onto the other. Two articles just doubles the work involved. The merged version also needs work. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Both have sufficient material to warrent articles in their own right. A merged article would be too long and confusing. Pychiatry and medicine are clearly different in their scope. Lumos3 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I personally would prefer the merge, I admit there is not consensus for it (I consider the above discussion as a part of this RFC). However, as even many opposers said, the Orthomolecular psychiatry requires major clean up. So I will unprotect the article and revert the redirect. Ruslik (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reverted as this RfC has not yet been closed and there is no compelling argument to undo the redirect and merge that has already taken place after previous discussion. Verbal chat 11:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The RFC was posted 7 days ago, and has attracted two contributors. How much longer do you need? In addition, the merge proposal shows clear consensus for no merge. I'd ask that you undo your reversion as being against consensus. I personally would like to see closely related fringe stuffed in one article too, but I can't make a good policy case for it and consensus isn't there. Best to move on and fix up the issues in both articles. Phil153 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The RfC should be closed by an uninvolved admin. Perhaps it should be relisted to engender more participation? Also, wikipedia and consensus doesn't go on votes but on arguments and what is best for the project. Verbal chat 11:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I thought I my was "an uninvolved admin" here. Ruslik (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Just to note that I haven't questioned your status. Verbal chat 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vitamin E and Shute

I added some information on Shute's high-dose vitamin E thing, which was reverted [1] by Keepcalmandcarryon for 1) removing a sentence and 2) original research based on primary studies. I'm not clear how either of these are going on.

• I removed a sentence, but it was an introductory sentence which was superflous to the next two which said the same thing: vitamin E supplements seem to increase mortality.
• I did add two "primary" references, but their coverage on the issue is secondary. The 1974 trial of high-dose vitamin E discussed Shute in the introduction, and the 1948 letter had an editorial response criticizing Shute. I also clarified that the epidemiology, and initial large clinical trials of vitamin E, were not related to orthomolecular medicine. They were mainstream studies based on the hope that vitamin E supplements could have a preventive effect. II | (t - c) 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the revert as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The original said, "Initial hopes for the usefulness of vitamin E in orthomolecular medicine were based on epidemiological studies suggesting that people who consumed more vitamin E had lower risks of chronic disease, such as coronary heart disease." II changed it to "As a lower-dose dietary supplement for deficiency rather than a high-dose treatment regime, initial consideration of vitamin E supplementation for preventing disease was based on epidemiological studies which suggested that people who consumed more vitamin E had lower risks of chronic disease, such as coronary heart disease." I don't see anything in the source (Traber) about "initial hopes" or "initial consideration"; maybe I missed it. I think a better summary of the source would be to quote or paraphrase the first sentence of the last or second-last paragraph of the source. At the moment I see no particular advantage of II's longer version of the sentence.

The original said, " Not only are no benefits apparent, meta-analyses also report that vitamin E supplementation is associated with increased death rates". Both versions have the following sentence with trivial differences: "A 2005 meta-analysis found that more than 400 units of alpha tocopherol per day was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality." I agree with II that the previous sentence was unnecessary in this context. Also, the "not only..." violates NPOV: it doesn't seem to me to be in an impartial tone, and asserts as fact something which contradicts the conclusions of the Traber reference. I therefore support deleting this sentence.

II also added the following: "In the 1940s, Vogelsang and the Shute brothers promoted the use of vitamin E in the high-dose range of 200-600 mg/day as a therapy for heart disease and other health problems, and established a center called the Shute Institute. They published uncontrolled positive studies of it as a treatment for heart disease, but high-dose vitamin E was called as "valueless" even in 1948, and the first negative double-blind controlled trial occured in 1950. In 1972 a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 3200 IU/day of vitamin E found no effect in 50 adults."

I agree with II that Anderson can act as a secondary source for some information about Vogelsang and the Shute brothers, and about a negative double-blind trial in 1950. I'm not convinced that everything II inserted is supported by the references; for example, I didn't find anything in Anderson about the Shute Institute, or about the 1950 negative trial being the first such; maybe I missed it. I don't have immediate convenient access to the Vogelsang reference so I'm not commenting on it for now at least. Apparently the 1972 trial referred to in II's edit is the main study described in the 1974 Anderson reference; if so, that's a primary source. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic. Thank you for directly addressing my edit, Coppertwig. It was quite professional. On your points: 1) the advantage of my sentence (which could be edited) is that it clarifies that the later studies were not related to OMM. 2) the 1950 trial is the only one Anderson makes note of; however, perhaps it isn't the first. Easily fixed by removing first. 3) Vogelsang and Shute sign with "The Shute Center" in that 1948 letter. If it bothers you, that part can be removed. 4) Primary references are appropriate when dealing with a little-studied area. Unfortunately, since the people opposing the inclusion of the material don't seem willing to engage the arguments, I may have to look outside to WP:RS/N. II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the "not only". Here, evidence is presented that fringe claims are not simply overblown (that is, advertised wonder cures have no recognisable effect), but that they could lead to harm. Additional recent studies with similar findings could be cited in this section if editors question the prevalence of such findings. "Not only" serves to show the apparently widening evidence gap between fringe claims and medical research results...with the latter of course defining Wikipedia's NPOV on such matters. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not direct Wikipedia to unduly emphasize the difference between fringe and mainstream science. The mainstream context should be represented, I agree, but the facts should be stated, not opinions -- and the statement "there are no benefits to vitamin E" is an opinion which needs to be substantiated. Instead, all significant viewpoints should be stated neutrally -- and in a minority science article, that includes their opinions to some extent. By the way, how do you support removing "some nutrients might be beneficial" and the Altschul/Hoffer discovery of niacin increasing HDL in this edit? The former is clearly supported by the first reference, and the second is supported by a reference.II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The current statement that there are no apparent benefits from vitamin E supplements is not a verifiable fact and contradicts some of the sources. We may be able to report as fact that high-dose supplements increase mortality, but as far as low-dosage supplements are concerned we certainly cannot make any such definitive statement. Traber says "significantly lower risks of total and cause-specific mortality," and "although two studies did show such a reduction" and "However, 15 mg/d may be a vitamin E intake that is achieved only with supplements," Cherubini et al say "and observational data in humans suggest that antioxidant vitamin ingestion is associated with reduced cardiovascular disease," Miller et al (2005) [2] say "in secondary analyses ... the pooled risk difference for low-dosage vitamin E trials was -33 per 10,000 persons (p = 0.021) ... Further research is needed". Even the sources reporting negative results of meta-analyses do not tend to make such bold statements as this, but instead make more careful, hedged scientific statements, for example stating that a particular study or meta-analysis did not find evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's analyze your statements. First of all, your claims notwithstanding, there are no benefits from E supplements. Please show one reliable source that shows it does anything. See Dietrich M, Jacques PF, Pencina MJ; et al. (2008). "Vitamin E supplement use and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the Framingham Heart Study: Does the underlying health status play a role?". Atherosclerosis. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.12.019. PMID 19195657. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) for a very well done study that has difficulty determining if there are any effects, and can't even see if the reason that Vitamin produces positive results is because healthier individuals take them. Observational data is not very useful, and is not very scientific. See Sesso HD, Buring JE, Christen WG; et al. (2008). "Vitamins E and C in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in men: the Physicians' Health Study II randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 300 (18): 2123–33. doi:10.1001/jama.2008.600. PMID 18997197. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Now Vitamin E might do something else, but it hasn't been published. Modern data does NOT show anything positive from Vitamin E. And "further research is needed" is predictive, and frankly useless to this article. Science does not make hedged statements...only amateurs and agenda pushing creationists think it's nuanced. You take from their statements that there's an outside chance it could happen. It doesn't. It's just that science doesn't work in "truth". You should read Evolution as theory and fact. Vitamin E is nothing more than an oil that you probably need in small amounts. Coppertwig, your comments here are one of the reasons I find you supportive the anti-science crowd. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there are no heart benefits from taking a lot of vitamin E, although one can find anomalous studies -- the small CHAOS trial, and the 2006 NIH consensus statement notes that a women's trial had lower cardiovascular deaths (ref 18). However, the statement "there are no benefits" implies that there are not any type of benefits for any vitamin E supplementation, which the sources don't state. For example, vitamin E might be good for people with SIRS [3]. II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you said, "there are no benefits from E supplements." This talk page is for discussion of article content based on reliable sources, not for expressing one's personal POV about the topic itself.^{(14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC))} I may be misinterpreting what you said, but you seem to be under the impression that I've claimed that vitamin E supplements have benefits. I don't think I've made such a claim in this discussion. My claim is that a sentence in the article contradicts what is said in some of the sources, which I've already quoted. I think this sentence needs to be deleted or replaced with something else. Perhaps someone can come up with some good wording. I might come up with a suggestion later, something that more accurately and precisely reflects what the sources say. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where the fuck did I employ original research? I see a couple of outstanding citations to support the Vitamin E POV pushing of yours. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that you had done original research. I was just commenting on your statement that "there are no benefits from E supplements." I may have been mistaken: perhaps your statement was related to article content after all: are you claiming that the sources support this statement? I don't think they do. A "study that has difficulty determining if there are any effects, and can't even see if the reason that Vitamin produces positive results is because healthier individuals take them" is not a study supporting a definitive statement that there are no benefits. We need to make a more nuanced statement, more similar to what's stated in the sources, or similar to what I just quoted you saying about that study, but with a bit more formal wording to replace "can't even see if"; perhaps "cannot determine whether". I'm sorry, I haven't had time to look at that source yet. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For a dissenting opinion on vitamin E, see:

• Traber MG, Frei B, Beckman JS (2008). "Vitamin E revisited: do new data validate benefits for chronic disease prevention?". Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 19 (1): 30–8. doi:10.1097/MOL.0b013e3282f2dab6. PMID 18196984. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'll let you guys read over that before I cite it. Email me if you need a copy. Also, the meta-analyses on increased mortality are poorly-cited here. In the paper, the author clearly says that his findings are not generalizable to the normal adult population (yet), and that lower doses still substantially above the RDA (100 IU) seem to decrease mortality. If this isn't fixed, or no explanation is provided for why it is not fixed, I will have to fix it. II | (t - c) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Non refereed journal with a publication from Linus Pauling Institute nutjobs. Fails WP:MEDRS. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the Official Count?

Well five days has long since passed. I count 13 opposed votes versus 6 supporting votes. That means that the bogus redirect has been properly determined to have been improper. When may I expect Wikipedia to officially remove the bogus redirect?

Is that NEVER or am I missing something? -- John Gohde (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, it is not about voting, but quality of arguments. Verbal chat 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In any normal merge discussion that would be a rejection of the proposed merge – I see no reason why this should be different. Artw (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The result of the RfC so far is 1:1, with the oppose being demonstrably false; The merge has already happened and the article is better for it. Verbal chat 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was railroaded through. That's why we're having this discussion. Artw (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any great rationales for merger amongst the supports, either. Artw (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As Verbal stated, the RfC stands at 1:1, with the opposing editor apparently having not read the merged article. Interestingly, that same "uninvolved" opposing editor is now edit warring to introduce synthesised conclusions into the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...as opposed to DreamGuy, who is a strong supporter of ScienceApologist. I'd say the RfC pretty much failed to get much in the way of outside opinion Artw (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SA has science on his side. You CAMmies have no science. Case closed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And by CAMmie you mean...? Artw (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, not an Alternative Medicine fan as it happens. That you feel the need to make that assumption and your repeated insistence on splitting things along partisan lines, in this and other articles, is indicative that something pretty grim is happening around Wikipedia at the moment, IMHO. Artw (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stay focused on improving the article and not dismissing somebodies opinion(s) because they are a "strong supporter" or whatever. Shot info (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thouroughly seconded. We need to look at the comments as a whole, not divide them up into "involved" and "univolved" on arbitary lines. Artw (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, that's correct. However, we would also generally place less weight on the opinion of a presumably "neutral" editor who weighs in as "uninvolved" during a Request for Comment...and then makes synthesised POV edits.

As a result, the request for comment stands at one support by an apparently uninvolved editor, with reasons given, to one oppose by a rather involved editor whose given reasons indicate a lack of familiarity with the different versions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of result of RfC on merge with Orthomolecular psychiatry

I oppose this edit by OrangeMarlin to Orthomolecular psychiatry. It seems clear to me that Ruslik0's close states that there is no consensus for the merge and that the consensus in the discussion above is against the merge. Therefore, the page Orthomolecular psychiatry should be left in article form and expanded/improved, (or possibly reverted to the longer version which existed before ScienceApologist, who supports the merge, cut it down to less than half its size in November: longer version; I haven't looked at that version in detail yet). The reason OrangeMarlin gave for the edit, in an edit summary, was "No you don't." This doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to convert the article into a redirect after an RfC on that issue has just been closed. There has never been consensus for the merge; whenever the article has been converted into a redirect that has been reverted within 24 hours; it only remained a redirect for a period of time because the page was protected due to this very dispute. I think we can interpret Ruslik0's conversion back to an article against Ruslik0's stated preference as an indication of Ruslik0's interpretation of the appropriate response to the above RfC and discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC is closed, Merge vote is concluded, the clear consensus was not to merge. Lets get on with it. Artw (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC closed as no consensus, and as the merge was discussed previously and has already happened (this article has been significantly improved as a result), then the lack of consensus should mean it stays ass a redirect. Verbal chat 16:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for merge, and no policy reason for merge, therefore the merge should not happen. That a merge was carried out inappropriately in the meantime is no argument to leave it. Artw (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are good policy reasons for the merge, and the merge didn't happen "in the meantime", it had happened before this new debate started, and entirely appropriately. The RfC showed no-consensus for the demerger, hence we stick with what we have and had. Verbal chat 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think where you are going astray is the notion that only the opinions of the two people who responded directly to the RfC count. I’m not entirely sure what you are basing that on. :::::As for policy reasons - The POV Fork thing? I think that’s been shown to be utterly bogus. If it’s not then no one has actually bothered defending it.

So where do we go from here? An RfC on the outcome of the RfC? Greater escalation? A return to edit warring? Possibly a better alterative to that would be that you and orangemarlin stand down, we demerge the articles, and then if you really think an argument can be made for a merge you start the process properly. Artw (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Coppertwig's interpretation of my closure of the RFC and of other my actions is correct. Ruslik (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now reverting Orthomolecular psychiatry to article form. I suggest that discussion of content of the article be at Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry rather than here; see my comments there about the version of the article I'm reverting to.

As I see it, in the sense of bold, revert, discuss, the merge was boldly done (after a discussion in which opinions both for and against it were presented, but perhaps without merge tags or notification of the editors of this page); it was reverted; we then had a discussion, and the result of the discussion according to the closer was (a) no consensus (outside editors) and (b) consensus against the merge (involved editors). Either of these results means leaving it as an article: no consensus means reverting to the original state. There has been no redirect state of the page lasting more than 24 hours except when it was protected as a result of this same dispute. Therefore the status quo ante is article form, and especially given the consensus against the merge noted by Ruslik and Ruslik's clarification above, the page needs to be returned to that state.

For those who wish to continue to pursue the idea of merging the articles, I mention the idea of now putting merge tags on both articles with links to a discussion for a period of time such as five days in an attempt to gain consensus; however, I am merely mentioning that idea, not suggesting nor recommending it, because I make no representation as to whether the Wikipedia community would or would not consider it disruptive to place merge tags on the articles at this point in time given that this RfC has just been closed. Given the current situation, I personally would consider it disruptive to revert the article back to redirect form in the near future without first having carried out such an additional discussion and gotten consensus for a merge. Note that a recent Arbitration case (RFAR/Fringe science) said "In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual" and "All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee..." and "Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable way forward. Thank you, Coppertwig. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the last passage I quoted mentions formal mediation, here's the link in case anyone wishes to pursue that option: Wikipedia:Mediation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the merge occurred boldly and with consensus (at least at the time), I have reverted it. Consensus is not a vote, and reverting the redirect, even had there been clear consensus, would not have justified the slanted rewrite of the old article. If anyone wishes to pursue formal mediation, I am quite ready to participate, but let's do it from where we are now, not from an artificial position introduced by User:Coppertwig. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Artw (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KeepCalm. Please escalate this if you feel that is what you have to do. Verbal chat 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is just like RfC's, ArbCom rulings etc.-- the most perfect examples of maximum verbosity. There has got to be a better way.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the better way but be to accept the no consensus and the previous discussion which led to the merge. The amount of misdirection here is incredible. The RfC wasn't used properly, but it was unnecessary to start with. Can we get back to fixing the actual problems with this article? Verbal chat 08:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For those interested...

...I have reported the recent actions of User:Verbal, User:Orangemarlin and user:Keepcalmandcarryon at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here: [4]. Artw (talk)

Someone had to. Well done. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to report them too, since it's pretty clear reverting against consensus. Then I saw the recent edits done by Coppertwig that pretty blatantly go against both the spirit and letter of WP:FRINGE, which OrangeMarlin fixed. Maybe the "content fork" argument by the merge supporters had some merit. Add to that the fact the most of the opposers offered little rationale and nearly all were strong CAM supporters, and perhaps there wasn't unbiased consensus after all. Phil153 (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked by your comments at AN/I. Despite the tendentious commentary during this whole episode by certain individuals, we have been about as nice as we can be. The facts are thus:

1. There was consensus to redirect. This redirect was exclusively because OP is a content and POV fork. Essentially, any support or criticism for one belongs on the other. OP is a method to "spread the word" which is why content or POV forks are discouraged.
2. At this point the redirect becomes the de facto situation for OP. Any attempt to change requires consensus and discussion.
3. Coppertwig does an RfC, and there is no consensus on removing redirect. Despite the obvious lack of consensus, Coppertwig makes the change nevertheless.
4. Even though I didn't agree with the redirect, I took responsibility to clean up the highly POV OP article. It was a mess, poorly written, poorly cited, and violated WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV.
5. During my cleanup effort Keepcalm took it upon himself to return to the previous consensus version, which is appropriate. I just gave up, he didn't, and good for him.

This article attempted to provide POV statements about what OM does. Since it does absolutely nothing, the article is in pretty good shape. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you appreciate that multiple uninvolved editors, including admins, simply aren't seeing it that way? Personally, to me, it looked like a railroad merge against opposition then edit warring against consensus to keep the redirect. And I'm on your side as far as article issues go. I don't think any view of consensus can convince me that a 12:5 oppose, with reasonable arguments on both sides, is consensus for a merge. Especially since we're required to AGF on the part of !voters. Phil153 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine is not necessarily a synonym for Megavitamin therapy

Orthomolecular medicine is not necessarily a synonym for Megavitamin therapy and to set it out as such in the first line of the intro is plain wrong. OM does sometimes call itself Nutritional medicine , see here [5]. OM does use Megavitamin doses, but as the existing introduction states there are conditions which require this in medicine, it can hardly be said to be all of megavitamin therapy. Lumos3 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And kinesiologists sometimes call their practise "scientific diagnostics". It sure sounds better, but Orthomolecular "medicine" is indeed called "megavitamin therapy" as these highly reliable sources indicate directly: [6]. This is the second most common name. You would need reliable sources that document "nutritional medicine" (and not merely the field's own rebadging), and it would need to be inserted after the "megavitamin therapy", since this is a more common name according to reliable sources.

I am removing your changes, as well as your addition of a fringe POV. Please consider WP:FRINGE. Include the fringer's OR on the report's conclusions about the safety of vitamins does not improve the article, particularly when reliable sources already included in the article contradict the fringe site's claim (i.e. megadoses of vitamins are associated with INCREASED mortality). Please cite the report directly if you wish to include it, and please do so with appropriate weight. Phil153 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed my assertion that OM is a subset of "megavitamin therapy" and not its equivalent. A google search only means the two terms were included on the same web page.

Having considered Wikipedias policy on WP:FRINGE I have added the original source for the statement that there are negligible deaths attributed to vitamins in the USA. Lumos3 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the google news search I linked you to before reverting and replying? I have indeed adressed the naming. Let me spend 5 minutes quoting them for you (these are just from the front page of the google news search I linked):

Pittsburgh Post: And the name for the treatment has been changed from megavitamin therapy to orthomolecular treatment presumably to lend authenticity to the therapy

St. Petersburg Times: Cheraskin explained a term he uses orthomolecular medicine which, according to some scientists, is another name for megavitamin therapy

Dictionary of Psychology: megavitamin therapy n. Another name for orthomolecular therapy

Environmental Nutrition: Another common unscientific treatment used by physicians on the fringe, is orthomolecular therapy, or megavitamin therapy

These are clear reliable, independent sources that demonstrate the alternative naming of Orthomolecular medicine as "megavitamin therapy". I look forward to your similar demonstration of multiple reliable independent sources calling it "nutritional medicine" as a name and stating its equivalence. Hopefully this is obvious enough to revert your own incorrect edits in the meantime.

As for that one report, there is undue weight as it is contradicted by other reports that show that megavitamin supplementation increases mortality. You're again putting the fringer's POV in the article with undue weight. Phil153 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clearer - the report talks about acute poisoning from data at poisoning emergency centers - that is, poisonings directly attributable to a substance that were severe enough to seek medical help. It says NOTHING about the long term health risks or safety of taking megavitamins longer term, which is why inserting that biased site's misleading OR is not a good thing to do. If we're going to talk about the safety of something it should be through reliable independent sources. Phil153 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• It would be better to restore my wording "sometimes called megavitamin therapy". OMM is a lot about megavitamin therapy and sometimes conflated with it, but it also has that diet stuff, and some of the major promoters of OMM were not into vitamins at all, but rather omega-3 fatty acids and nutrients like S-Adenosyl methionine. Plus, megavitamin therapy is a broader topic which includes mainstream uses for megavitamins as well. II | (t - c) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• I consider this edit by Keepcalmandcarryon to be an improvement (putting "megavitamin therapy" instead of "nutritional medicine"). I would prefer "sometimes called" rather than "or", but don't feel strongly about it. "Orthomolecular medicine" (OM) and "megavitamin therapy" (MT) are not synonymous. OM means using molecules normally present in the body and required for health; this can include amino acids, minerals etc., not only vitamins, and can include correcting nutritional deficiencies with the aim of curing specific ailments, not necessarily always using megadoses. MT can include the use of megadoses of "vitamins" such as vitamin D2 or dl-alpha tocopherol which have vitamin activity but which are synthetic molecules which differ from the molecules normally present in food or in the body. Besides, we already have a separate article on megavitamin therapy so it makes Wikipedia look inconsistent to claim here that it's a synonym. The reason I consider Keepcalmandcarryon's edit an improvement: Google scholar hits: OM 1590; MT 1130; NM 2230; OM + NM 88; OM + MT 118. Given the higher number of hits for NM ("nutritional medicine") alone, it ought to have a greater proportion of hits together with OM if it were more closely connected with it than MT is, but it has fewer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We should be concerned with what reliable sources have to say, not with whether a carefully-reasoned argument (such as II's, as much as I appreciate it) makes sense in teasing apart MT and OMM and proving their distinction. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

News sources are not a good source for this sort of definition. Linus Pauling who says he coined the term "orthomolecular" (p. 24) says "... orthomolecular physicians. They make use of conventional prophylactic and therapeutic measures and in addition supplement these measures by the proper recommendations about the optimum intake of vitamins and other nutrients, together with the use of other orthomolecular substances." (p. 300–301; How to Live Longer and Feel Better). Mainstream sources are not necessarily reliable sources for facts about the views or practices of fringe scientists. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The terminology is not determined by what OMM practitioners claim about themselves, but by what is commonly used in reliable sources. OMM practitioners also state that a good diet and exercise are important for health. This does not mean that emphasis on exercise and proper diet define OMM, since no one disputes this. By the rest of the world, OMM is defined, fairly or not, for its emphasis on what is commonly called "megavitamin therapy" (but which we know to include on occasion substances in addition to vitamins). Whether OMM and multivitamin therapy are true synonyms makes for a fascinating discussion on a message board, but is not particularly useful here after reliable sources have already demonstrated the usage. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good argument. For now at least, I concede this point and accept the version with "or". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another synonym is Optimum nutrition, which redirects here. This phrase was used by Pauling and seems to be especially used now by Patrick Holford (who ought to be mentioned as a supporter/practitioner). It seems a good plain English summary of the central idea and so we should highlight this in the lead. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  "Orthomolecular" and "optimum nutrition" are terms used in these articles [7] [8] for example. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither are reliable sources and the first talks about malnutrition (i.e. not enough food/nutrients) and the eye...the term "optimal nutrition" is not used as an alternative name for Ortho that I can see. Phil153 (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• My impression is that orthomolecular hasn't really established itself as a term and this fits with the insistence that mainstream medicine does not use it. So, people use other terms with similar meanings such as nutritional therapy and optimum nutrition. But they are all talking about the same thing, as in this article from The Times. In a quick browse, I found one source - Alternative health care for women - which referred to "Megavitamin therapy/optimum nutrition", and so it goes. So, it seems sensible to bring all this together but, if you prefer, I can expand the article Optimum nutrition as a separate topic. Such an article would not have a narrow focus upon vitamins and so would cover the full range of foodstuffs and supplements which people like Holford now advocate - superfoods, omega-3, saw palmetto, phytochemicals, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To a degree you may be right there, Colonel Warden. However, without some reliable sources to fully support this hypothothis, it seems to me that to take this line would contravene WP:NOR.Vitaminman (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Malvaria

Currently the page titled "Malvaria" which is linked e.g. from the page of the color Mauve redirects to Orthomolecular medicine. This page, however, does not currently mention the word "Malvaria", which I find quite confusing, because you're not sure why you get redirected there. Perhaps someone could fix this. DiamonDie (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)  Done

Psychiatric Ward patients found sub-scurvy

I believe this article is very biased against its topic and attacks it without references. There are many studies on pubmed that validate the use of vitamins and fatty acids in mental illnesses. Firstly Orhtomolecular Medicine is not about 'megavitamins' and nor is Pfeiffer, and nor was Linus Pauling. Orthomolecular medicine is about evidence-based medicine. The idea is not to take mega quantities but to take what one is missing, or is not able to synthesize. Pauling found that animals who make their own vitamin C, are able to increase the production hundreds of times when needed. Studies in Europe in psychiatric wards found that MOST patients are borderline scurvy and most have low essential fatty acids. Not only that, they found that schizophrenic individuals have a higher need of Vitamin C than controls. I believe Wiki should reconsider this article altogether and basically take it down, because it attaches the term orthomolecular medicine to quackery and fad medicine. Most illnesses we know which are caused by nutrient deficiencies have mental illness as side effects, so it is logical to believe deficiencies cause mental illness. More research is needed. Calling this approach quackery is at best not fair to the public. ELMN April 8, 2009

Citations? LeadSongDog come howl 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Studies have also repeatedly found that schizophrenics smoke much more than normal controls. That's called a statistical association. It does not mean that giving up cigarettes will cure their hallucinations.

Does that clarify why arguments like the above are less than convincing? MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And that could shed some light on why they have lower vitamin C levels, since smoking increases vitamin C turnover [9] so much that the FNB recommended they take 100 mg rather than the regular 60 mg per day. II | (t - c) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, yeah. Schizophrenics smoke more, so their vitamin C levels are lower. Someone less careful might conclude that smoking causes schizophrenia, when in fact schizophrenia → smoking → lower vitamin C levels. Of course, the unidirectional arrows indicate, it would still be a logical error to conclude that more vitamin C cures schizophrenia. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Junk science in see also?

I support removing "junk science" from "see also". Would those who wish to retain it please explain the relevance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to propose some non-controversial wording for integrating each of the see also links into the text?LeadSongDog come howl 16:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seconded. Problems in the research base should be addressed with specific citations in the body of the article and appropriate categories; if a reliable source uses the term, it would be appropriate to wikilink it with the citation. Junk science belongs as a See also on articles treating related concepts, such as Pseudoscience, Cargo cult science, &c. Even (or perhaps especially) on whichever of the tobacco-related articles deals with the canonical example of use of the term junk science, that article should be an inline wikilink with full description. This is, of course, tempered by the WP:Eventualism aspect of WP:SEEALSO, but I do not see any pressing need for this link except in cited context of the body text; though it would have been nice if the initial removal had been discussed. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Junk science is more commonly used by Stephen Milloy to describe research describing the health risks of chemicals like tobacco and global warming. It's not really related. An interesting link, but here it just serves to beat the dead horse that "orthomolecular medicine" is junk science. We already have quackery wikilinked in the lead. Pseudoscience should be removed as well, since that's for things which have no logical basis at all. There's nothing pseudoscientific about this, and it isn't called pseudoscience. The fact that this is controversial simply suggests that the people who are pushing to keep it are acting a bit illogical and have an extremely strong agenda. II | (t - c) 17:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added Category:Fringe science based on the text and references in the section Orthomolecular medicine#Mainstream medical and scientific reception. Does that sound reasonable? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. II | (t - c) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fringe science sounds reasonable; not pseudoscience or junk science. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that "junk science" has been used most commonly in a regulatory and legal framework, particularly by the tobacco industry to malign research that suggests cigarette smoke is bad for you. Don't think it really applies here. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Junk science link should simply be deleted, it is irrelevant to this article unless it came up in the judicial trial context (unlikely, but possible). The Fringe science link should move into explanatory text. The application of Category:Fringe science makes good sense. Those are the obvious ones. Pseudoscience may take some direct discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Open minded needed

This page sounds very biased towards again orthomolecular medicine. It doesn't present the many studies done by the proponents of orthmolecular medicine. I think readers would appreciate if it presents facts from both sides and not just how the current mainstream medical establishment thinks.

For example, many studies done against uses of orthmolecular medicine seems flawed. For example, the Mayo Clinic studies of Vitamin C against cancer. In the Mayo studies, only oral intake was use and not intravenous Vitamin C. Whereas, Pauling and Cameron used intravenous and oral Vitamin C.

Many effective treatment against disease in history have been ignored for a long time and many people have died unncessary. A good example is Scuvvy.

In it important for readers to keep that in mind so that they can have an open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.102.2 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it probably is too biased towards orthomolecular medicine (I guess it was in the past too). I would also agree that any studies by proponents are flawed, and that orthomolecular medicine itself is flawed, but that's why we stick to WP:MEDRS here. However, I think the article is much more balanced now and in a better state (especially re NPOV) than in the recent past. Verbal chat 10:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"

The term "conspiracy theories" has very pronounced negative connotations. As such it is not NPOV. If "alleged conspiracy" is not palatable, how about "alleged fraud?"Alterrabe (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV just says that we describe things the way the independent reliable references do, not that we whitewash anything. According Gertz (2003), conspiracy is accurate; on the other hand, I would like better sourcing (more and more prominent descriptions) before pressing the point. How about alleged suppression? - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged suppression" is great; very succinct.--Alterrabe (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged by who? Don't make the reader guess.LeadSongDog come howl 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Read here for the answers to all of your questions. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" derives from the words of the orthomolecular medicine advocates quoted in this section. They allege a conspiracy or conspiracies to suppress their findings. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Opponents"

Oops, my bad. It should have been "proponents of orthomolecular medicine". If that's still too vague, unfortunately I can't help with that as those are the words used by Singh and Ernst. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's clear enough for me now, thanks. Others might think is still weasels a bit, but in context I think the answers are there.LeadSongDog come howl 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To what extent criticised?

User:Lumos3 states that "roundly criticised" is POV. I suggest that it accurately portrays the extent of criticism of Rath's actions in South Africa. As the sources in the drug trials section demonstrate quite amply, Rath has been criticised by the World Health Organisation, the South African Medical Association, the South African courts, TAC, medical writers and columnists, academics from around the world. Is summarising this rather strong and extensive criticism POV or accurate and thus NPOV?

Also, Rath quite clearly sells vitamins and supplements and is described as a vitamin salesman by multiple reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Lumos 3 has now reverted for the third time today, stating that Rath is more than just a salesman which is a junior position , he is an entrepreneur. See Raths own WP article. The WP article is not a source, and "Salesman" is simply a man who sells something: from Donald Trump to the man who stands in the rain with a furniture closeout sign. What matters for us is what Rath is called by reliable sources. A few examples:

• Reuters, 13 June 2008, "controversial vitamin salesman Matthias Rath"
• Los Angeles Times, 25 July 2005, "Dr. Matthias Rath, a German physician and vitamin salesman"
• IOL, 26 July 2007, "vitamins salesman Matthias Rath"
• Buzzle, 12 Sep 2008, "The man was Matthias Rath, the vitamin salesman"
• Dispatch Online, 18 May 2005, Quote from the DA: "snake-oil salesman Matthias Rath"
• AllAfrica.com, 5 November 2009, "the vitamin salesman Matthias Rath"
• PlusNews, 13 May 2005, "controversial vitamin salesman Dr. Matthias Rath"
• PoliticsWeb, 16 March 2009, "Matthias Rath is a vitamin salesman and charlatan"
• Heath24.com, 27 July 2007, "vitamin salesman Matthias Rath" Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This does seem a common description, for example USA Today, The Guardian and The Lancet Infectious Diseases - Misleading salesman endorses vitamins to treat HIV/AIDS (pay-per view). "Extensively criticized" might be a more academic way of putting it. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of JCIA source

Vitaminman has asked for an explanation for why I removed a recently-added citation. My reason for removal is two-fold. First, the sentence in question seemed to interrupt the logical flow of the paragraph. Second, and much more importantly, the source, for me at least, failed to fit. Our reliable source requirements mandate that we assess the quality of evidence of our sources. The paragraph contains sources including a meta-analysis from JAMA and a review from Annals of Internal Medicine. These journals meet WP:MEDRS without question, and the individual articles are both highly-cited. In contrast, the Journal of Clinical Interventions in Aging is a rather niche publication, one that some might find biased, and does not appear to have an impact factor, at least not that I can find on Scopus. Impact calculations are also unavailable for Anti-Aging Medicine, the journal in which this article was originally published. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point.) Further, the article itself has had little impact (two citations in low-impact journals), and the author appears to be a supplement industry representative. His affiliation is listed as "Whole Health New England", a company advertising itself as a source of "nutritional and herbal supplements". I don't suggest that articles by industry representatives are necessarily unreliable, especially when peer-reviewed. But for an encyclopaedia, it seems out of balance to contradict findings published in JAMA and the Annals with this particular publication. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the latter objection. The claim that supplements have proven benefits "in diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, congestive heart failure, age-related deterioration of brain function and vision, and immune function, as well as other age-related health problems" is exceptional, and certainly at odds with mainstream scientific thought. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Keepcalmandcarryon has already noted the obscurity of this source; I don't think it represents the best scholarly work available on the subject, and as such we shouldn't feature it prominently in our article, much less give blanket approval to its rather exceptional claims about supplements. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to a reprint from the 'web journal" of the Japanese Society of Anti-Aging Medicine link. This isn't a reliable source for anything apart from the beliefs of its author. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pharma ads and dietary supplements

full text is at the link.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2008, 8:11 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-8-11

Open Access

Does pharmaceutical advertising affect journal publication about dietary supplements?

Kathi J Kemper1 email and Kaylene L Hood2 email

1 Department of Pediatrics and the Program for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

2 University of Florida, Department of Nutrition, Gainesville, FL, USA

author email corresponding author email

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11

Received: 6 August 2007 Accepted: 9 April 2008 Published: 9 April 2008

⌐ 2008 Kemper and Hood; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Advertising affects consumer and prescriber behaviors. The relationship between pharmaceutical advertising and journals' publication of articles regarding dietary supplements (DS) is unknown.

Methods

We reviewed one year of the issues of 11 major medical journals for advertising and content about DS. Advertising was categorized as pharmaceutical versus other. Articles about DS were included if they discussed vitamins, minerals, herbs or similar products. Articles were classified as major (e.g., clinical trials, cohort studies, editorials and reviews) or other (e.g., case reports, letters, news, and others). Articles' conclusions regarding safety and effectiveness were coded as negative (unsafe or ineffective) or other (safe, effective, unstated, unclear or mixed).

Results

Journals' total pages per issue ranged from 56 to 217 while advertising pages ranged from 4 to 88; pharmaceutical advertisements (pharmads) accounted for 1.5% to 76% of ad pages. Journals with the most pharmads published significantly fewer major articles about DS per issue than journals with the fewest pharmads (P < 0.01). Journals with the most pharmads published no clinical trials or cohort studies about DS. The percentage of major articles concluding that DS were unsafe was 4% in journals with fewest and 67% among those with the most pharmads (P = 0.02). The percentage of articles concluding that DS were ineffective was 50% higher among journals with more than among those with fewer pharmads (P = 0.4).

Conclusion

These data are consistent with the hypothesis that increased pharmaceutical advertising is associated with publishing fewer articles about DS and publishing more articles with conclusions that DS are unsafe. Additional research is needed to test alternative hypotheses for these findings in a larger sample of more diverse journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Widespread Condemnation of Wikipedia Bias Readers Report Suppression of Nutritional Medicine" Article May 3, 2010 - Will editors respond and discuss?

Please note, this entire newsletter is posted for benefit of those who care to inform themselves and edit per Wikipedia guidelines. Readers should also be aware of the widespread bias shown against orthomolecular medicine as currently represented in Wikipedia, so 'cleanup' as been added to the top of this Wikipedia article. Note also, orthomolecular practitioners are also conventionally educated and are often as degreed as conventional medicine practitioners, therefore do not deserve to be disregarded. If I were a conscientious practitioner of conventional medicine, I would be ashamed and professionally insulted to be associated with the misrepresentations currently posted on Wikipedia for orthomolecular medicine. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthomolecular newsletter, posted by User:CSC 42
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(OMNS, May 3, 2010) The public has something to say about a lack of objectivity at the Wikipedia page on Orthomolecular Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine : One reader writes: "I created a Wikipedia account to learn to edit in order to keep the orthomolecular side straight. If you check edits under CSC 42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CSC_42 you'll notice that after hours of editing, my edits have nearly all been replaced by original posts. Looks to be an edit war." Another reader attempted to add the following text, unsuccessfully: "Diseases that are accepted by conventional medicine to be the result of vitamin or other nutrient deficiencies are: scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, rickets, tetany, osteoporosis, goiter, Keshan disease, and iron deficiency anemia." Here is some of the other correspondence that OMNS has received: Australia: "It is clear that Wikipedia authors are biased against orthomolecular medicine. Those of us who use ascorbate and other vitamins in high doses know better. The science behind the use of vitamins as recommended by orthomolecular physicians and researchers is very well established. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v02n02.shtml There are many hundreds of MDs, naturopaths, nutritionists and others who successfully treat patients with mega doses. And there are many thousands of well educated people who use the same on their own." United Kingdom: "Wikipedia? Rubbish! I don't care what anyone writes about orthomolecular medicine. I use it and it has served me well." http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n11.shtml "Homeopaths are experiencing the same bias on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy When a person posts truth about how homeopathy works, or bona fide research into the effects of homeopathic medicine, it is immediately changed to lies. I suspect that it is the same for virtually any form of natural medicine." France: "There is no doubt in my mind that there is an organized campaign against orthomolecular research. In my experience there is one way to defeat them, and that is to do like you have done in this newsletter: let a hundred thousand eyes search for the truth." http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml California: "For over three years after being diagnosed with chronic lymphatic leukemia I have been receiving 100,000 milligrams of vitamin C intravenously, twice a week. My oncologist is extremely impressed that my white blood level has maintained a healthy level. My treatments have now been reduced to one treatment per week. I feel strong, have a great sense of well being, and I have had no ill effects from this mode of treatment." http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n09.shtml and http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n19.shtml Nebraska: "Having headed up the research centers for several national medically-related corporations, I have reviewed articles at the Wikipedia site quite a large number of times in recent years and have long been familiar with its strong biased reports disseminated quite widely throughout their system. Their extreme negative spin has convinced me that there is a no-win status in trying to influence them." http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n02.shtml Minnesota: "Creating a Wikipedia for natural medicine is the only way to ensure accurate data on the subject. I am not sure how we would manage data from Big Pharma backed authors." http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n02.shtml South Carolina: "I have noticed an almost universal Wikipedia bias against any form of alternative medicine, and against those who have well documented and reasonable concerns about the safety and efficacy of many practices of the pharmaceutical companies, especially vaccinations. ( http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n17.shtml and http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n06.shtml ) This attitude goes against the Wiki spirit that truth should be distilled through the process of debate. When labels like "quack" are thrown around so freely, when statements such as "these claims are not verified by science" (meaning the reigning establishment, of course), it does not lead to healthy debate and exposes the ignorance of those who must resort to name calling rather than intelligent conversation. There seems to be a power complex behind what was meant to be a public arena." Elsewhere in USA: "Wikipedia editors that have a long history of maintaining an article keep tabs on the content. After reading the article it seems quite clear that those holding a negative viewpoint have won the battle. The only way to get the article to be more neutral is to propose a change and cite peer-reviewed references in the Discussion tab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine . It is quite educational to read the existing Discussion to get a feel for the players involved and what their objections are likely to be." A registered nurse writes: "Wikipedia bias? Oh well, that leaves more great supplements for the rest of us!" Allan N. Spreen, M.D.: "The biggest objectivity problem with Wikipedia is that by its very concept, nothing can be trusted in any of the information. Bias is implicit. If they see something they don't like, they can remove it, without reference to qualifications. That's why I never use Wikipedia." Ralph K. Campbell, M.D.: "The old war is still intense. Wikipedia's account of Orthomolecular Medicine makes me regret that pharmaceutical medicine's stubborn defense of its practices can only be bolstered by attacking the enemy. Yet rarely does a week go by but "Medscape" warns physicians of a new "black box" label attached to a drug, due to bad side-effects. What is "normal" vitamin intake? Five to seven pesticide-laden fruit and vegetable servings a day, and processed foods virtually devoid of nutrients?" Erik Paterson, M.D.: "The Wikipedia account of Orthomolecular Medicine is quite misleading. Dr. Roger J. Williams http://www.doctoryourself.com/rjwilliams.html found there to be a wide range of variations in human biochemistry and need for nutrients, work which has never been refuted. Mainstream medical scientists and doctors do not take such variability into account when considering the nutritional requirements of patients. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of the individual nutrients only provides enough to prevent the deficiency diseases in healthy people but offers nothing about the requirements of people who are ill. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n10.shtml Orthomolecular physicians take the specialized nutritional needs of sick patients into account. Drugs, best described as deadly poisons given in sublethal doses, cannot be considered safe, since, in the USA alone, well over 100,000 patients per year die from the toxic effects of drugs given according to the manufacturers' recommendations. By contrast, deaths due to vitamins given in doses far higher than the RDA is zero http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n04.shtml ." Interested readers may contribute to the Wikipedia Orthomolecular Medicine page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine . Or can they? Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource. Editorial Review Board: Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA) Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada) Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom) Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico) Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom) James A. Jackson, PhD (USA) Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D (Sweden) Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA) Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico) Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada) Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands) Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html To Unsubscribe from this list: http://www.orthomolecular.org/unsubscribe.html CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd like us to do with this. Anonymous testimonials, at the level of blog comments, are not suitable for inclusion here. The few named individuals expressing their opinions in the newsletter appear to be largely drawn from the "Editorial Review Board" of orthomolecular.org, which is not necessarily evidence that "the public" is outraged by Wikipedia's coverage. This doesn't appear suitably sourced to include in our article; if the subject were anything besides Wikipedia, then absent the navel-gazing reflex we probably wouldn't even be discussing it. It is perhaps useful as a heads-up that we may expect an influx of editors fired up by this newsletter, so that we can help educate them about Wikipedia's policies and goals. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What I want is irrelevant, however per Wikipedia's objectives it is obvious what needs to be done with the article. What needs to be determined here, impartially, is an accurate representation of what orthomolecular medicine is and encompasses. As for opinions, there's quite enough of that in the current article. Perhaps the editors presenting and supporting bias need to be better educated about Wikipedia's policies, goals and make sincere effort to apply those. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, sources for medicine related articles are reviewed more rigorously than other areas of wikipedia that I've been involved in. In general, statements such as 'treatment X does Y' needs backing from a Review Article. Even big studies, if isolated, are most correctly written as "Study of treatment X found Y results' rather than 'treatment X does Y', so the best thing is to take statements and sourcing on a case by case basis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

That {{cleanup}} tag is pretty general. What needs to be cleaned up? Wording? Sourcing? The tag is meant to be used when a more suitable tag is not required; I can't tell from just the bare tag and no edit summary.

If the issue is that the page is critical of OM, then there really isn't a problem - the page is heavily cited. Neutrality doesn't mean we tread gently, it means we represent the page as seen by the relevant experts - who think OM is long on promises and short on evidence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference History for reasons why the cleanup tag is justified. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a scattergun approach. Now as we have inline references everywhere - a much better way to proceed is using tags here at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources - if you scroll down to Inline with article text subsection, you can see a host of notations to put after references you feel are problematic, which can then be discussed here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup being too general and scattergun, this article is now tagged with 'weasel words'. I'll begin working on the first tomorrow, May 5. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask, what weasel words? What claims are biased or unverifiable? Nearly everything is sourced, and contentious information is sourced multiple times. If the root objection is that orthomolecular medicine is portrayed as quackery with no scientific basis, then this is the criticism made of it by mainstream researchers; it is both scientifically well-founded, and unrefuted by orthomolecular research, which tends to be methodologically shoddy, lacking rigour, and insufficient to support the wild, hyperbolic claims made by practitioners. Note that "see the history" is not adequate, it is not reasonable to ask anyone to review an article's history in great detail. If specific complaints can not be addressed, then the tag should be removed as it is not a badge of shame.

I see a couple instances - the History section uses the words "some individuals", but is describing orthomolecular practitioners in a way which is very much in keeping with how they actually practice (and is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal). Orthomolecular psychiatry also uses "proponents of orthomolecular psychiatry" but with the same issue - it's a belief of OPists and it's got a reliable source. Principles states "Lifestyle and diet changes may also be recommended. The battery of tests ordered includes many that are not considered useful by medicine" with a {{fact}} tag, but that could simply be removed. Ditto for "...but megavitamin treatments are increasingly found in over the counter retail products and naturopathic textbooks" in Prevalence. If these items were removed or verified, could the tag be removed?

The article is heavily sourced, to reliable sources as far as I can tell, attributes the criticisms directly, plainly, and with citations to authoritative sources. If the issue is that the article does not deal with OM charitably or uncritically, this is because it is a fringe claim that has been heavily criticized by mainstream medical sources for making exaggerated claims with a dubious (or outright contradictory) evidence base, rather than adopting the conventional approach of demonstrating benefits before recommending treatment. This is appropriate per wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. "Neutral" does not mean the faux-neutral of news reporting. This is neutral in terms of verifying contents in direct proportion to their prominence in mainstream sources. The problem may be that OM is actually quackery, and its portrayal of such is offensive to practitioners and true believers. This is not wikipedia's problem, as we are bound to report things per the mainstream scientific opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am working with the intro offline to word it such that anyone should be able to agree with its presentation and so readers might actually be able to glean a remote idea of what Orthomolecular Medicine is from the midst of bias. This article is about Orthomolecular Medicine, not just bias or controversies against it which is how the MAJORITY of this article reads. Or maybe the article should be renamed "Adversaries of Orthomolecular Medicine" so Orthomolecular Medicine might separately have an accurate representation on Wikipedia. I have been asked to edit the 'whole page' so as to keep it in context, so bear with me because this is not a shallow endeavor. As stated, I hope to have the intro completed by tomorrow. Thank you. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As for statements above about criticisms, if reversed there is plenty orthomolecular advocates might dispute regarding efficacy of certain conventional medicine practices. However, that is not the point of writing an article intended to objectively inform a reader about a practice. Conventional medicine and orthomolecular medicine are two sides of the same coin. Presenting controversies and disputes is clearly valid and necessary but, as previously stated, that should have its own section rather than litter an entire article so that it becomes little else. After a week, I remain in the process of parsing specific points and vetting sources. This article is a train wreck, has been so for some time and is unlikely to be fixed overnight. Please be patient accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSC 42 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please present it for review and comment before replacing the page wholesale. I suggest drafting it on a sub-page of your userspace for this purpose, chances are any straight-up post into mainspace will get reverted in short order. And again, "bias" is subjective - wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth and it is easily verified that orthomolecular medicine is viewed skeptically by most researchers and scientists. The fact that the article gives majority weight to criticisms is almost certainly due to our policy on neutrality which gives due weight to the mainstream point of view - the point is made repeatedly that OM makes unsupported cliams on the basis of thin or overstretched evidence. That doesn't make the page wrong, it means the science, in the opinion of experts, does not support the sorts of interventions advocated by OM practitioners. Calling this, or any page "criticisms of..." creates a POV fork and is inappropriate; the page should not ghettoize criticisms to a secondary page while lovingly discussing the unsubstantiated opinions of OM practitioners.

Criticisms of mainstream medicine, in addition to being frequently spurious (and thus, thus, and probably more) doesn't make the case for OM stronger; that's a false dilemma. The evidence base for one in no way affects, validates and invalidates the evidence for another; if modern medicine has its flaws, that doesn't mean faith healing, acupuncture, witch doctors, dowsing, prayer, homeopathy or yes, orthomolecular medicine is automatically stronger. It's an illogical position often adopted by pseudoscientific approaches, in an effort to butress themselves in the face of weak or absent evidence for their own efficacy. It's both logically wrong, and completely inappropriate for the current page. If you want to criticize modern medicine, find the appropriate mainstream reliable sources and go edit medicine. No-one here cares that evidence-based medicine is flawed and incomplete, because we're talking about OM, which substantially lacks a comparable evidence base at all. Medicine has a history of rigorous self-criticism that attempts to actively test claims and insisting on independent confirmation rather than retreating to a walled garden of echo chamber, self-referencing journals. Orthomolecular medicine and conventional medicine are not two sides of the same coin - conventional medicine (or just "medicine", since it will adopt any intervention that has been proven to work based on its risk:benefit profile) relies on scientific research to remove and offset as many biases as possible - control groups, sample sizes, single, double and triple blinding, statistical analysis, randomization, stratification, matching, convergent evidence and systemic reviews - in order to come up with the best evidence for both whether an intervention works, and whether it is superior to existing interventions. OM propensity for single case studies and failure to rigorously test their hypotheses in the same way, within the same vicious, self-critical environment of scientific peer review, is by far its greatest failing and the reason the approach is not taken seriously by people who actually do research or rely on results. It also appeals to consumers through direct advertising with vague claims rather than peer-reviewed research; even drug companies with their myriad flaws and track record of bias, greed and conflict of interest, who also advertise direct to consumers, are forced by the FDA to demonstrate evidence their drugs actually help through well-controlled trials.

So don't attempt to use tu quoque here - in addition to being unjustified, inappropriate per WP:NPOV and WP:OR, the two approaches can't even be compared through a research base because OM lacks anything even remotely comparable. If proof existed that megadose therapy was worthwhile, it would be adopted due to the independent convergence on a single conclusion (for instance, the use of niacin in cardiovascular disease). If the proof doesn't exist, it is up to orthomolecular practitioners to do the research and publish it; if the proof exists and it's negative, it's up to these same practitioners to drop the intervention and stop selling the vitamins. When tests showed that the use of vitamin E and multivitamin supplements actually increased death rates, did OM publish an editorial pushing for a re-evaluation of their practices, or did it try to poke as many holes as possible into the evidence that criticized their very lucrative practice? OM doesn't seem to change in response to the evidence base, the interventions remain the same - huge doses of vitamins assumed a priori to work, spurious tests, a lack of rigorously-controlled research to validate individual interventions and a lack of adjustment in the face of contrary evidence.

Take as long as you like, but don't bother pasting it into the main page without a review first.

Also note that the ghetoization of criticisms into a separate section is inappropriate. Criticisms of specific points should accompany the initial text presenting the point. If OM claims megadoses of vitamin C can cure cancer, but there is no evidence for this and this is pointed out in a reliable source, then the lack of evidence should appear right after the initial statement. It is not a bad thing that criticism immediately accompanies unsubstantiated claims, in fact that is the preferred structure. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1) The POINT of writing an article is not ONLY for presenting skepticism about the topic. That is the current effect of this article. As it stands, there is little that clearly explains what orthomolecular medicine is. If no attempt to do so is made, why not just delete the entire article? Anyone familiar with orthomolecular medicine as it really is, can clearly see why this article should be tagged with weasel words.

2) The amount of "majority weight" given to criticisms specific to this Orthomolecular Medicine article negates neutrality. Non-orthomolecular practitioners and even non-medical professionals writing this article as if there are nearly nothing but criticisms is hardly neutral. When anything factual is written about orthomolecular medicine, it is repeatedly reverted by adversarial or ignorant editors. It won't be long before enough readers skim these pages to see this for themselves. Good job ;.)

3) Who determines expertise on the subject of orthomolecular medicine?

4) "The evidence base for one in no way affects, validates and invalidates the evidence for another". No doubt. If those words are applied to all topics, including this Orthomolecular Medicine article, we have a good springboard from which to begin actual discussion rather than continuing this farce. No area of medicine is an island unto itself, nor an expert on another. Each deserves to speak for itself, granted pertinent input without spin from other professionals can be useful.

5) You are SO right. No one, including readers, cares if evidence-based medicine is flawed and incomplete, because we ARE talking about Orthomolecular Medicine. Why is it so difficult to discuss exactly that?

6) "Medicine has a history of rigorous self-criticism…", except would be self-criticism by orthomolecular practitioners is overshadowed by the presence of numerous Wikipedia editors who are not orthomolecular experts, or anything close, and apparently so unfamiliar with the field they are unable discuss anything but their opinions and so only seek adversaries of orthomolecular medicine to support their views. Talk about a weak, transparent strategy.

7) "Orthomolecular medicine and conventional medicine are not two sides of the same coin". Familiarity with the education of orthomolecular physicians and the realization most of them have been conventionally educated and often hold the same degrees as 'adversaries' might alleviate some of the friction here. Indeed, I don't see them as adversaries at all, though I keep responding to that in kind just so we both know we're talking about opposite approaches in a way adversarial editors will acknowledge. Conventional medicine and orthomolecular medicine are different approaches to resolving diagnoses each recognizes, often using the same education and much of the same research. Adequately informing one's self can prevent ignorant knee jerk responses.

8) Tu quote? Isn't that exactly what has been being done with this article by ignorantly opinionated, adversarial Wikipedia editors?

9) Discussing orthomolecular medicine as if it is only megadosing is willful ignorance. Again, adequately informing one's self will shed immediate light on this fact. Orthomolecular Medicine is determining deficiencies and treating them with diet and nutrition first taking the right amount of the right thing when it is needed, using conventional medicine as a last resort. Conventional medicine and orthomolecular medicine complement EACH OTHER, not one over the other except as individual needs dictate.

10) And again, "If proof existed that megadose therapy was worthwhile,…) Conventional medicine megadoses patients every day. Please. Research treatments for cancer or osteoporosis for excellent examples.

11) Controversies with vitamin E would fit nicely in the single section that should be dedicated to controversies and disputes. That's been said repeatedly, yet it continues to be ignored. Again, this article is about orthomolecular medicine, not vitamin E or spin.

12) "…criticisms into a separate section is inappropriate." According to which Wikipedia guideline? Please show me because I have looked for just that and not finding it anywhere. Separate sections for criticisms have been openly supported by editors here and elsewhere. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing the tag doesn't change anything, rather it reinforces the extreme bias held here by adversarial editors not abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. Noted. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what you think the weasel words are. But if you say you are working on an improved article (or lede) that you feel is acceptable, that's great - simply improving the content would be much better than haggling over whether or not there are flaws (ie. bias or weasel words) in existing content. Let us know when you have finished your improved version - if it's compatible with what reliable sources say, I would be more than happy. bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's try taking one perceived issue at a time, expressing it succinctly, and discussing it. I don't think we're going to make any progress fighting over a tag, or with 80kb posts. Moreover, given that CSC42's changes have been met with significant concerns from a variety of editors, I'm not sure that having him develop an "alternate" lead in isolation is going to be the best way forward. It's likely to contain numerous issues of concern, and it's probably easier to address those here, in small chunks, one at a time and specifically. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

CSC, you are misunderstanding neutral. It doesn't mean "tell both sides", it means "tell the controversies within the expert field". In this case, OM is a fringe theory with no real "experts" as the actual medical experts consider it quackery. The "experts" would be the medical researchers who treat the conditions OM is alleged to treat - and they think it's unsubstantiated claims (as demonstrated through multiple reliable sources that converge on the opinion that OM fails both plausibility and proof). You didn't substantiate any good reasons for the tag to remain, and it's not meant to "warn readers", its meant to flag issues for editors to correct - using reliable sources. Please note the statement at the top of Category:Articles with weasel words - "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts. After you have made any necessary edits, remove the template." If OM practitioners have criticized their own practices (as based on evidence-grounds rather than ideological), that could be included. Mainstream doctors treat with medicine (which has a risk:benefit ratio, not a megadosing effect), orthomolecular treat with vitamins as if they were medicines (which in sufficiently high doses, they can be but are mostly just toxic). And again, on an evidence basis - what is the evidence basis for "deficiencies" treated with OM? Flawed tests? And as for vitamin E, doctors recommend getting your RDI and leaving it at that, they don't recommend (in fact recommend against) geting 10 to 100 times the RDI. I've repeatedly pointed to the policies that justify my criticisms and comments, they're in the links in my posts.

Ultimately it is up to editors to document the controversies discussed elsewhere, not decide if they are justified. We find, parse, and summarize sources. The discussion then becomes are the sources unreliable, incorrect, supplanted by later discussions, inaccurately summarized, or given excess weight. There is a consensus of many bodies and people that OM has little merit, it's not up to any editor to say whether or not that conclusion is correct - that's original research and advocacy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1) The intro is the first discrepancy. That has been stated more than several times. How might I effectively convey that the intro does not say what orthomolecular medicine is? As simply as I know how to state it, again, the current intro does not accurately reflect what orthomolecular medicine is. Plain and simple. Even medterms.com is more neutral and provides a more succinct, closer to accurate definition than currently exists for this article. Note also, the lack of bias and focus on controversies, which are not characteristic of a definition. Don't tempt me to post a barrage of other sources which better define orthomolecular medicine than currently exists on Wikipedia, because I will and as someone has pointed out, it is counterproductive to keep kicking the same ball around in a circle jerk. Anyone for moving forward yet?

2) How or why is quoting a direct excerpt from the orthomed.org page introducing and defining what orthomolecular medicine is, provided by an orthomolecular researcher and expert medical professional in the field of orthomolecular medicine, insufficient?

3) How are conventional 'actual medical experts' who do not practice orthomolecular medicine qualified to offer expert input on what they do not practice? Brain surgeons do not, could not, vet heart surgeons any more than an ophthalmic surgeon, endocrinologist, and so forth.

Can we begin with these three points? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got it backwards - per WP:LEAD the intro follows the body. Adjust the body, then alter the intro. And again per LEAD, the lead summarizes the body - extensive criticism in the body means extensive criticism in the lead. The controversies are part and parcel of OM.

No field defines itself as "A tradition that lacks substantive evidence and justification for its beliefs." But anyway, there are three references for the sentence, the only thing that seemed to be missing was the goal of "optimal health", which I added.

One reason to stick to non straight-up OM sources is they acknowledge the controversies of the field, while OM does not (or papers over it with objections but not evidence, or biased evidence).

The point, again, is that OM lacks substantive research - any researcher with experience in methodology can point out a lack of control group, randomization, etc. as well as mis-quotations or over-extensions of the existing research base. A brain surgeon could point out that a research protocol is flawed, irrespective of the actual domain. And ultimately it comes down to a large number of very respectable, reliable sources that state quite bluntly, that orthomolecular medicine is unsupported and based on flawed premises. I also see no consensus for substantial changes. Sources first, then discussion, then changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service notes Wikipedia article April 26

The orthomolecular folks issued a bulletin on their website on April 26, 2010 entitled What's Going on at WIKIPEDIA?, so I imagine there'll be an uptick in traffic. CSC 42 (talk · contribs) appears to be the first instantiation. Might want to semi-protect or something. Still, I think we should be open to hearing what any visitors have to say if they are civil and present sources/evidence. I think this article could use some work as it glosses over the details, neglects citing key facts, and generalizes in a which violates WP:NPOV. Earlier I had trouble with unreasonable editors but I do plan to come back to it at some point. In the meantime pretty busy. II | (t - c) 07:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should welcome everyone interested! Please give them some leniency too, if they dare to try (or even figure out that it is possible) they will necessarily do many mistakes. --Dittaeva (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if there is concerted effort going on to recruit editors to this article from supporters of alternative medicine. The One Click Group, a campaigning alt med organisation, is telling its members to make edits here just to see if they are removed. Twiga Kali (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One foot is kicking the other. Quite a bit of bias needs to be weeded out in an effort to serve Wikipedia's purpose. Even the categories assigned to Orthomolecular Medicine show distinct bias. I attempted edits earlier, however it appears there will be an edit war, so I stopped. If other professional medical entries were so interfered with, counteraction of some kind would be righteously due. How might we best proceed allowing the Orthomolecular Medicine entry to be accurately and objectively reflected clearly? 'Clearly'is emphasized because a number of current comments appear designed to confuse and persuade readers that Orthomolecular Medicine has little validity simply because it complements conventional medicine with a different approach. CSC_42: Trust but verify ~ Damon Runyon 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no great mystery about how to edit WP. I'd suggest you start with reading the five pillars. Then, identify the highest quality, most impartial reliable sources that you can find discussing the topic. Cite those sources as you go using the style established in the article. Because this subject is often contentious it can help to discuss the sources and your intended edits here first, though it is not mandatory. It's great to be bold, but the combination of bold and hasty tends to raise hackles. If you find yourself getting upset, it probably means its time to take a break or switch to working on something else. WP has over 3 million articles that need work, just click "Random article" to find one. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, please be careful about "undoing" versus restoring a previous version. If an editor makes a series of problematic edits, it's best to just restore... in this case, you let one of CSC 42's controversial edits stand, and it still exists in the article. I suggest we go back again to the April 22 version I restored - you can do this easily with Twinkle or you can edit an old version and save it. II | (t - c) 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. Corrected. LeadSongDog come howl 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't restore the April 22 version - why not? You're letting edits like this stand. II | (t - c) 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to re-order comments so the entire article does not read like a 'give with one hand take with the other' endeavor. The most useful articles on Wikipedia are well organized, pertinently and categorically. Currently there are numerous comments requiring relocation or omission in order not to confuse a reader who is unfamiliar with controversies. Surely any reader seeking to know more about the controversies and opposing views would appreciate finding that information in one section. There are repetitive comments which, when moved to an appropriate location, become more apparently repetitive which does not help the reader at all. That is when bias is most prominent, which serves no purpose. There are a few places where controversies and opposing views might be clearly stated, so as not to make the entire article about opposing views. Indeed, this article is not about controversies and opposing views at all, but rather intended to enlighten anyone interested in knowing what orthomolecular medicine entails. There are also 'citations' pointing to newspapers such as BBC and NY Times, which are known to be more opinionated than objective and do not contribute to informing readers as factually as possible. Perhaps someone else is interested in eliminating repetitive comments and more purposefully relocating opposing views and controversies. If not, I shall continue. CSC_42: Trust but verify ~ Damon Runyon 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find the BBC News and the New York Times are both well established as Relible sources with excellent track record for fact checking. You can easily verify this at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Restructuring to better comply with WP:Structure should be welcome. LeadSongDog come howl 03:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Generally, BBC and NY Times are discouraged as medical references under WP:MEDRS, but for a topic with fewer sources they can be acceptable. I think you've made some progress already in editing neutrally, but you should edit more carefully. If you're going to move things around, please do it in a single edit so we can see it in context. For example, in this edit you removed reliable references (although you created a sentence that doesn't make sense - doses larger than conventional medical practitioners??). Then you did the right thing and added them back in the next edit. However, it would be easy for people to get confused and get the wrong idea. Also, do you know how to use edit summaries? And you can sign your posts using ~~~~ - we would all appreciate it. If you know how to do that, why did you make it so your username is not wikilinked? It's better if people can access your username easily. II | (t - c) 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested ground rule - note when adding/deleting refs in edit summaries

I think this is a reasonable ground rule for editing this article (and any article). I would also ask that if you're going to edit multiple sections, edit the entire page rather than moving things around in several edits. This makes it easier to see things in context. II | (t - c) 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

II | (t - c), I stopped editing in the middle until this discussion determined how to proceed. As for the signature, I typed the tildys in rather than selecting the feature that inserts the active link. Now I know typing it in doesn't cut it. I'll find out about edit summaries, and edit the page as a whole rather than in pieces from here forward. Thank you. CSC_42: Trust but verify ~ Damon Runyon (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that CSC has altered the default signature in his user prefs, and in the process omitted to preserve the links to his talk and contribs pages.LeadSongDog come howl 06:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited the definition and history sections as described in the edit summary. The entire page was too much to edit within a 12 hour period using the sandbox. Will complete a few more sections each time and quickly as possible.CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently editing the whole page or even large sections is not an option. It flagged the cluebot. Though the cluebot instructs how to locate the revert ID in two places, there is no number in parenthesis after 'thank you cluebot'. If I need to ask for help with that elsewhere, please let me know. However it was suggested here that the entire page be edited, so it seems appropriate to let it be known that doesn't work with large edits. CSC_42: Trust but verify ~ Damon Runyon (talk)

That would be technically be a User:ClueBot/FalsePositives. You can still edit the entire page. But right now I think the Cluebot revert was a good warning - you shouldn't be deleting so much stuff so fast. Please try just moving things around first, and then do your deleting gradually, with focused edit summaries. Try to limit the amount you delete per day and give us a day or so to review if you can. And you don't need to make your edit large, just make it so that when you're moving stuff around, you edit the entire page. What I mean is that if you want to move stuff from one section to another, edit the page rather than a section so we can see how and that it's being moved. If you edit a section and delete, then add in the next edit, it is harder to see how things changed. Also, when you edit, try to preview and see how things change - in that last edit, you removed a lot of refs which were used elsewhere - look at the version and scroll through to the bottom. Although these usually get cleaned up by bots, it's better to prevent their occurrence since bots aren't perfect.II | (t - c) 04:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can understand how helpful it is to take things slowly - we're all volunteers, and this article has been built over time with a lot of discussion. As I said in the introduction, I think the article is too harsh in some areas and could use work, but I don't have time to get back into the nutrition and health literature right now. II | (t - c) 05:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin D and straw men

I essentially reverted LeadDogSong's April 29 edit (diff). Generally, the trend in mainstream medicine right now is to advocate more vitamin D supplementation. I've read a fair amount of orthomolecular literature and I don't get the impression that they advocate anything more than what is now being advocated in mainstream medicine. We need to be careful that we're not creating straw men. OMM (orthomolecular medicine) does not advocate that people take doses larger than conventional medical practitioners (i.e., upwards of 100 kilograms for the larger model of practitioner). They have specific recommendations, and we should be tracking those recommendations to note the effects present under their recommendations. That's why original research can violate NPOV in this page. In general, previous editors took the position that original research was OK in this article. I still don't really agree. Fortunately, much of original research currently in the article is fairly accurate - that is, it is focused on the potential negative long-term effects of high-dose supplementation of vitamin C and E, which are what OMM people advocate megadoses of. The vitamin generally cited as highly toxic, the fat-soluble vitamin A, is not advocated at all for megadosage by OMM people, who are well-aware of the toxicities. Keep in mind that the published OMM advocates often have both MDs and PhDs. Also keep in mind that despite OMM, last time I checked vitamin toxicities reported to the CDC are negligible if you take out iron. II | (t - c) 05:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources are preferable to impressions, even those left behind by large practitioners. Also, let's be careful about "conventional" as a pejorative. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that mainstream medical thought is currently moving in the direction of advocating a greater degree of vitamin D supplementation. It's not hard to find recommendations of 1,000 or even 2,000 IU/day of D3 in current mainstream sources. What's not clear to me is the range of doses recommended by orthomolecular practitioners - does anyone have any sourced info on that? MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalm: Indeed, and without sources which specifically tie vitamin D to orthomolecular medicine, we can't add it to the article per original research, which is a basic and important concept that you should understand at this point. As far as mainstream vrs conventional, I would think that mainstream is less pejorative and therefore preferable. Keepcalm, I don't want to make this personal but to be frank you are again being unreasonable and showing your usual habit of aggressive agenda editing and violation of WP:NPOV. I dropped you a note on your talk page a while ago warning you that I don't think it is acceptable to act like this, and if you keep it up I'll have to think about doing a RfC/U. And while you would no doubt survive it, do you really want a page documenting all the mistakes, original research, neutrality violations, and misleading statements you've made?

MastCell: I don't think vitamin D was really a part of OMM people's program until it started being noticed by mainstream medicine. It's not hard to find recommendations for B vitamins and vitamin C in specific dose ranges i in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. I don't have time at the moment, but if you can't find any, let me know. Unfortunately the secondary sources on this topic, with the exception of Melanoscino(sp), don't really reference sources or go into much detail. II | (t - c) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Following up on MastCell's question, the JOM is the first external link on the page. It is full-text searchable. A search for "vitamin D" pulls up several relevant articles. In 1975 someone argued that D2 was much more toxic than D3, which appears to be a consistent position of OMM people which our encyclopedia article could discuss/rebut. The second result argues for doubling folic acid intake based on a VDR polymorphism (vitamin D receptor). The fourth result discusses vitamin D from a more modern (2003) perspective; the author ultimately concludes that "An optimum health recommendation of 1,000 to 4,000 IU/day, in total from all sources, is not unreasonable for the vast majority of healthy adults" but also suggests much higher results therapeutically. It also states that "When employing large doses of vitamin D, periodic testing is highly advisable". Keepcalm is here on agenda: to show everyone that a bunch of people are dangerous, ignorant, and highly destructive. Unfortunately, he's just pulling from his own impressions, which aren't based on in-depth research on the actual topic but only related topics. I've let the vitamin E and C original research go because I think it is applicable to OMM recommendations. But we should be doing background research to be consistent with that applicability. While Keepcalm's campaign might be laudable, it's analagous to the campaign against marijuana, where the effect of the drug is exaggerated, leading to a lack of trust and more abuse. Plus, there are plenty of people who feel deceived if they are presented an inaccurate and inflammatory picture of a topic. II | (t - c) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Spare me your usual lecture on the housing market and the evils of international authorities. I didn't add the Vitamin D information, but I object to its being deleted without first asking for a citation and giving editors some time to consider it. Isn't it interesting that the Vitamin D sentence was deleted just as Gary Null's Vitamin D overdose lawsuit was reported? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears this Orthomolecular Medicine page is mostly written with total disregard to the subject matter and purposes outlined by Wikipedia pillars. Quite a few of the sources cited are beyond questionable. Did use the sandbox, then copy/pasted the end result to the main page. Immediately afterward the cluebot flagged it. So today I've corrected only the first section, though that did require removing more than a few outdated and inappropriate sources. I get the reference to 'straw man', but as for vitamin D, isn't that off topic? If not, I'll add mainstream/conventional medicine has no problem at all megadosing with prescriptions. Orthomolecular Medicine approaches megadosing differently by testing for deficiencies before recommending dosages or treatment plans in order to immediately treat root causes of symptoms that result in diagnoses recognized by both orthomolecular medicine and conventional practitioners. That's the primary difference above all else. I thought we were not supposed to discuss the subject itself on this talk page. What am I missing? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See my above ground rule note again - please note when removing/adding references and why. I suggested you start slow - that is, start by moving things around if you think things are disorganized, and if you're going to remove refs remove them one or two at a time. Use edit summaries. II | (t - c) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no note explaining why the last edit was replaced. If someone will explain, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead is carefully crafted to not say that orthomolecular medicine knows the right molecules and that it treats diseases, because the evidence suggests that it's not effective. Your wording reversed that. II | (t - c) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was straight from the horse's mouth and was already correctly cited as a source, still is, though the explanation currently provided is inaccurate and unclear. Did no one check first? It matters not what our opinions are about what is stated, as much is as what is stated is fact. Whomever deleted that edit is obviously not an orthomolecular physician and or has little understanding of what Orthomolecular Medicine is. Someone who doesn't grasp what Orthomolecuar Medicine is and does not check sources should not be deciding what stays or goes contextually. Or, are some of us exempt from checking sources and being better informed before editing and making permanent changes? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia pillars, please check source and citations before ovewriting again. Thank you. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN, the original inaccurate description with inappropriate commentary and citations for Orthomolecular Medicine has been restored and again without reason. Anyone care to explain? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the last edit I performed because it is an accurate description and accurately cited. If this continues, I will next follow up with whomever arbitrates these disputes. Thank you. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is vitamin D included in the lead/intro? This article is about Orthomolecular Medicine, not fringe anything. What happened to discussing this per Wikipedia pillars? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin E and the BBC

Why does this BBC News article 23^"High dose vitamin E death warning. BBC. November 11, 2004." remain cited? If it does not comply with WP:MEDRS and is dated 2004, what point is there in keeping it? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If the BBC is not considered reliable enough, we could get the study from the horse's mouth: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15537682

2004 is not a very long time ago; but if you think other scientists have since overturned that finding, feel free to suggest a more up-to-date study.

bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict)It's a supplemental source. The two preceding cites definitely support the assertion, but that BBC News item cited puts it in language that is more accessible to the general reader. Removing it would not change the assertion. Thank you though, for pointing it out. It lead me to an interesting read at PMID 19667029 (or here), in which comment Harri Hemilä first dissects the methodology and meta-analysis logic of the Cochrane CD007176 review by Bjelakovic et al., then proceeds to concur with the main conclusion based on different reasoning! LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

++++++The Vitamine E was a non-issue raised by the use of Synthetic Vitamin e vs the Natural variety+++++ My own assessment of Orthomolecular medicine is that it is has some valid applications but is not a cure all. Clearly the Vitamin E citation is more about scaring people than actual science. The NIH issued a warning and it was largely based on synthetic Vitamin E in high doses. Clearly anyone who has looked into this will point out the problem. I deal with an MD and a Clinical Nutritionist and both have verified that the whole Vitamin E issue was largely a non-issue. So you want references on who has done a study that shows that high doses of natural Vitamin E are "safe". Well you will not find one that easily because there is systemic bias in the testing of vitamins. Populist writers like Suzanne Summers (who are not MD's) also point this out. So I think the issue becomes finding a study that points out the flaws in the Vitamin E NIH study to balance the NIH citation. Using terminology such as "Megavitamin" which was rejected by Hoffer and others early on. So that term should be taken out as it is not the terminology that they wished to be used.

Quack Watch is not a reputable source of unbiased data- a court case showed that Stephen Barret is not a Licenced MD. So this should also be mentioned. I can reference Tim Bolen's site. Essentially Mr. Barret has done some good work, but is appears that he has also been sued by a Chiropractor and an alternative MD, and that is when this came out.

Rvirmani (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Two t's in Barrett. See the discussion below re QuackWatch. After extensive discussion it has been accepted as a WP:MEDRS. Are there reliable sources that back up Mr Bolen's conspiracy theories? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To LeadSongDog, it is interesting that Wikipedia allows people not to use their real names. From a logical perspective, Mr. Barrett is not an MD, he has been sued and is continually being sued for misrepresenting himself. So how do I prove this? What I find interesting is that you are using the terms "conspiracy" , so to address this I will have to get the court documents, and reference them. This will then have to be placed on the Quackwatch site. What has become clear to me is that Wikipedia suffers from two problems 1) Lack of personal accountability and 2) The general lack of proper site curation. So some policy changes will have to be examined (such as insisting that people use real names , and if an individual is proven to be misrepresenting themselves like Mr. Barrett, then that has to be stated on the Quack-watch site.

Does this sound like a conspiracy?

Rvirmani Rvirmani (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about orthomolecular medicine. If you want Barrett's biography, it's here: Stephen Barrett. I would, however, point out that Quackwatch is widely cited as a good source on alt-med, and has frequently been the subject of garbled criticism from those who take alt-med seriously.

Although some people do use their real names in these parts, I think that compulsory use of real names is neither necessary nor desirable on wikipedia. This is because wikipedia content should be built on reliable external sources, rather than on the personal authority of individual wikipedians; this is because we do not have a mechanism for ensuring that any given wikipedian will always be right every time they say something in future. Any given piece of text should be judged on whether it agrees with reliable sources, not on the name of the person who typed it in an edit box. bobrayner (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The allegation of conspiracy is not mine, rather it is made on Mr Bolen's website, which Rvirmani linked to. Such allegations are, of course, widely recognized as one hallmark of fringe science. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition

There are several definitions attempted here, none of which are much good. What does "the right molecules in the right amounts" mean? Does anybody in "orthodox medicine" advocate using the right molecules in the WRONG amounts?? This is so wishy washy as to be very nearly equivalent to "doing the right thing at the right time." I'm for that, too! Just for the record. But it's not very useful.

What is a "right molecule" anyway? It's obviously not something found in nature, since the orthomolecular people "claim" niacin (nicotinic acid), which is not found in food. The molecule that is found in food (niacinamide and derivatives of it like NAD) does not work to lower triglycerides. So why should niacin not be considered a simple drug? Certainly it is not its nutritional qualities that are responsible for its action on blood fats, or else niacinamide WOULD have some effect. Furthermore, gram quantities of either of these cannot be obtained in the diet, and produce blood levels that are completely unnatural.

Some of the same things can be said about vitamin C, which is made by different animals in different amounts. Dogs, for example, make 40 mg/kg/day of vitamin C, an amount which for a 60 kg human would be 2.4 grams per day. There are claims that animals infected or under stress make several times the normal amounds of vitamin C, but if humans synthesized the vitamin in the amounts of dogs this would still be less than 10 grams a day. So where is the naturalness of giving humans 50 grams of vitamin C intravenously? How do we know that humans need to makebe given vitamin C like goats and not like dogs-- particularly since the same dose of vitamin C results in far higher blood levels of the vitamin in humans than it does in dogs. Is not vitamin C in such amounts for humans also being used as a pharmaceutical, not a vitamin? So again, how does this fit with the definition that orthomolecular medicine sets for itself? Are the right substances in the right amounts also sometimes completely unnatural substances in completely unnatural amounts? If so, then what's so special about OM? Regular M.D.s can do THAT. SBHarris 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What source-based alternative would you suggest? Your comments do highlight some of the mainstream objections to OM, it's anything to anyone, while not pursuing a rigorous research base that would validate the interventions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a soapbox

Reference "humans need to make vitamin C", stated above by SBHarris - Humas do not make vitamin C. This is a prime example of the ignorance that abounds both in discussion here and throughout the article. If you don't have a clue as to what orthomolecular medicine is, let someone who does state that. Bill Sardi is an excellent investigative journalist however, SBHarris, citing your personal misinterpretation from his article posted on Lew Rockwell's website is inappropriate. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, are you, or anyone for that matter, able to justify your general inference that orthomolecular physicians are not regular M.D.s? In fact, all are and degreed well beyond, so let's start here. How is a regular M.D. defined? Maybe, if that is resolved (by Wikipedia editors?) we can move forward. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A regular M.D. is defined by having a diploma from an accredited school which grants "M.D." degrees. But I don't think I said anything about whether "orthomolecular" practitioners had such a degree or not. To me, it's irrelevant, so why should I care?SBHarris 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misreading SBHarris' post. He's not claiming that humans synthesize vitamin C. He's comparing the amount of exogenous Vitamin C administered by orthomolecular practitioners to the amounts synthesized by various animal species. I think his point is that different animal species synthesize greatly varying amounts of vitamin C, so it seems nonsensical to suggest that a specific dose is "right" with reference to the animal kingdom. CSC 42, I think you'd be well-served by calming down, reading more carefully, and shooting from the hip a bit less eagerly. If you're going to accuse someone of "ignorance", then it's best to make sure you understand their argument first. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, SBHarris did phrase it that way, "How do we know that humans need to make vitamin C..." Humans are incapable of making vitamin C. That is taught in elementary grade school. Might we also address the inference that orthomolecular physicians are not regular M.D.s? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hid tangent. This page, like all wikipedia pages, is about verification of neutral content through reliable sources. This is not the place to debate or prove that OM has any merit. Stop talking about OM, start talking about and providing sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My post was linked as a soapbox item and now called a 'tangent', though SBHarris clearly stated, "How do we know that humans need to make vitamin C..." My response: Humans are incapable of making vitamin C. That is taught in elementary grade school. Those are irrefutable facts. Again, might we also address the inference that orthomolecular physicians are not regular M.D.s? No one has responded to this. CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC) CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That was simply a badly written thought, capable of being misunderstood because I wrote it poorly. I meant "how do we know that humans need to make vitamin C at the same amount as a goat vs. a dog vs. something else, IF THEY COULD MAKE IT." Which means how do we know how much vitamin C they need to eat, or be given intravenously? I'm well-aware that humans don't make vitamin C and what animals do-- I wrote a large fraction of the vitamin C acticle that discusses that point.

And while I'm well aware that this is not the place to discuss whether orthomolecular precepts are valid, it is the place to discuss if there really ARE any such thing as orthomolecular precepts. Pauling says that "orthomolecular" means that humans should have the "right amount" of vitamin C. Well, I think so, too, but that's a pretty short article, if you stop there. And perhaps we should stop there. SBHarris 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is orthomolecular medicine a board-certified medical specialty? I can't find any mention of this. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. This appears to be another one of those articles (compare Health freedom movement) in which the concepts and names themselves are somewhat fringe. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

CSC - the point is not to prove OM works. None of us care. The point is to provide sources for the page. I ask again - Do you have any sources to discuss? If the answer is "no", then please don't bother posting on the talk page again until you do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sbharris, admitting to a poorly written statement does not remedy how it is interpreted by readers. If my feet are to be held to the fire, should not all editors be treated equally? Are you, or any of the adversarial Wikipedia editors aware there is currently an extended chair at University of Kansas specifically for Orthomolecular Medicine? Should the University of Kansas and the physicians it produces who become board certified in their own specialties be discredited because they approach treatments differently? If so, why is an unlicensed, non-board certified individual allowed to be cited as a source in this article? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the NCCAM funds homeopathy but that doesn't mean homeopathy is justified. Being certified in unproven therapies doesn't validate the therapy - only high-quality research can do that. Please point out any we may be missing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources and Citations

Beginning with these four:

• ^ Barrett, SJ (2001-05-05). "The dark side of Linus Pauling's legacy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
• ^ a b c Barrett, Stephen (2000-07-12). "Orthomolecular therapy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-01-02.
• ^ Lipton M, et al. (1973). Task force report on megavitamin and orthomolecular therapy in psychiatry. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.; as cited in Barrett, Stephen (2000-07-12). "Orthomolecular Therapy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-01-02.
• Barrett Stephen (1980). The health robbers : how to protect your money and your life (Second ed.). Philadelphia: G. F. Stickley. pp. 52. ISBN 0893130230. OCLC 6994138.

With all the Wikipedia parameters governing citations and sources, how is this person allowed to be cited as a valid source in this article? CSC_42 ~ trust but verify ~ (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is an award-winning website that has long been an acceptable source regarding fringe health claims. Its expertise is recognized and respected. It's Stephen Barrett is equally recognized as a relevant expert. Barrett's book is a book, he's a recognized authority, I can't find info about the publisher, but given his expertise, he's a valid source. There's no reason to remove them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU is correct. As I stated earlier today, Quackwatch is considered a reliable source on these topics. See also WP:FRINGE: fringe claims about medicine and science should not be given weight simply because they have not been addressed directly by articles in Nature. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, the relevant guidance can be found at WP:PARITY. If we're going to accept sub-par sources when they promote orthomolecular medicine, then we can't set a higher bar for sources that fail to promote orthomolecular medicine. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that "Orthomolecular medicine" brings up around 73,000 results on Google, attempting to describe it as a fringe theory is surely stretching things somewhat, MastCell, even by your standards? Vitaminman (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, "alien abduction" brings up ten times that. What's your point? LeadSongDog come howl 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By this measure, the credibility of orthomolecular medicine lies somewhere between "Bigfoot" (5 million results on Google) and "Elvis is alive" (a mere 48000 results).

But none of those google stats matter, because argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Personally, I'd rather we used WP:FRINGE as a benchmark for what is/isn't a fringe theory.

bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Based upon the discussions that have been taking place here over the past few days or so, it is clear that CSC 42 is disputing the article's neutrality. I strongly support his/her concerns on this aspect of the article and have therefore added the appropriate tag. Vitaminman (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware of the usage notes at {{NPOV}}, particularly:

• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

It's now incumbent upon editors who believe the article is not neutral to demonstrate this using high quality reliable sources. So far I have seen a series of complaints, but no new sources suggested or added. There are lots of sources that criticize orthomolecular medicine for being unfounded, for promoting quackery, for being dangerous, and so on. There is a difference between editors not liking the contents of the page, and the page being non-neutral. If people are going to tag the page, please place much effort and time into demonstrating with mainstream, high-quality, recent reliable sources that the beliefs and perspectives on OM are somehow misrepresented, unbalanced, or erroneous. Approaches that should be avoided include lengthy talk page postings that proclaim OM to be valid (that would be soapboxing and advocacy) or extensive citation of primary sources that "prove" OM has merit (which violates our policy on original research). What are necessary are explicit, mainstream, high-quality secondary sources that support the approach and efficacy of OM. Sources come first, always. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I support WLU's statement and interpretation of tagging guidelines. It is clear that CSC 42 and Vitaminman harbour strong feelings about this topic. It is unclear that they have specific objections supported by sources. Unless and until they provide a detailed, well sourced critique of the article's neutrality, I consider the tag invalid. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree to review any source-based discussions and comments about this issue, but simply removing, ghettoizing, or downplaying well-sourced criticisms is unacceptable, as is unsourced or poorly-source promotion of OM claims. That so many research and medical juggernaught agencies have criticized OM means there is no reason for these criticisms to not be voiced, and is again evidence that OM lacks mainstream credibility, evidence to support their claims, or research support. Neutral does not mean conciliatory, positive or sympathetic. There is clear evidence OM is considered quackery by at least some notable and authoritative groups, ergo this remains in the article. One thing I wouldn't mind adding is why the approach is seen so negatively. There should be no a priori assumptions or statements that OM works, doesn't work or must be treated charitably. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily I support the use of tags to attract interested editors, but along with placing the tag there must be a serious statement of how the article differs significantly and systematically from an accurate summary of the available sources weighted by their reliability. The current article looks pretty okay, and a deuce of a lot better than it was around two years ago. We might should diffuse section six as I am not sure Medical and scientific reception is the best heirarchy here, and maybe the AIDS and vitamin E subsections could be reduced, but I am really not seeing any major problems here. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that this page already has over 100 watchers [10] there doesn't seem to be much need of tags for the purpose of drawing attention. A simple talk-page statement of what the problem words are should be enough to get a discussion moving. If accompanied by a sound rationale, we might be able to get somewhere. LeadSongDog come howl 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That argument is a new one to me, I must admit. Could you perhaps be so good enough to point out the specific WP policy or guideline that supports your claim here? To be honest, I would have thought you were on pretty shaky ground in making this assertion. If you're correct, however, there are clearly many thousands of WP articles, from which, due to their having large numbers of watchers, tags can justifiably be removed. Vitaminman (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The usage guide for that template is at Template:POV/doc, though WLU quoted the key points above. If is it your contention that the tag should be used without any talk page explanation, I would suggest that you make that proposal at WP:NPOVN. It seems to me that that would be a singularly counter-productive approach. LeadSongDog come howl! 09:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, CSC 42's points have substantially failed to garner support, and as I and others have tried to demonstrate, fail substantially on policy and source-based grounds. The sticking point on this, and similar articles, seems to be that the page doesn't give orthomolecular medicine's position on "orthomolecular medicine". That's appropriate, we are supposed to give the mainstream position on orthomolecular medicine. Which is to say, the page correctly points out that OMM is not a well-respected, and well-supported discipline within mainstream scholarship. Editors may not like that fact, but policy supports that being how we deal with it. You are welcome to try to change the policy, but I doubt you'll get much buy-in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should mention something about the clear motivation of drug companies to sell drugs, and it should also be pointed out when citations used in the article are pointing to drug company funded and controlled studies. If the argument here is eat healthy food without chemicals, take vitamins, and avoid taking drugs - and drug companies obviously have a problem with that because they make billions of dollars off long term drug based treatments - this perspective should lend credibility just because its obvious the deck is stacked against any organization that would cast doubt on drug therapy and the billion dollar drug industry. Mrrealtime (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"A drug lag update"

Regarding this undo, I've removed the "European" statement per WP:PROVEIT and added a url to the "Japan" article that claims orthomolecular treatments have been sanctioned. The article, sourced to Drug Information Journal, does not appear to be pubmed indexed and I can't find a full text online. Does anyone have a copy of the article in question? It's 15 years old, I've never heard of the journal, and seems to deal with North American (per the subject keywords). I can't even see an abstract. Looking at its use online, it seems to be about the lag in approval of drugs, not vitamins. [11][12][13][14] On the other hand, a search in google books for the title + orthomolecular turns up nothing [15]. A websearch for the same seems to turn up mostly wiki mirrors.

Thoughts? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in introductory sentence

The introductory sentence [fragment] "Orthomolecular medicine, or megavitamin therapy, ..." is inaccurate.

Linus Pauling defined the term "orthomolecular" as "the right molecules in the right concentration." While in some cases megavitamin therapy is called for to bring nutrient levels to optimal, orthomolecular medicine is not synonymous with this (or any specific) form of treatment; OM deals with optimizing nutrient levels, generally.

See Pauling's 1967 paper, "Orthomolecular Psychiatry" (Abstract [16]; original [17]), where he suggests that in some cases levels of nutrients are too high and intake must be reduced to return a patient to optimal health. This makes clear that "orthomolecular medicine" does not mean "megavitamin therapy", which could only increase nutrient levels.

Per OrangeMarlin's suggestion, I'm posting on this talk page to notify all concerned that a simple error has been made: The definition of the term itself has been altered in a way that biases readers.

Unless there are specific objections, I'll correct the sentence over the next few days.

BGortney (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to bring more than a 50 year old article per WP:MEDRS. They are one and the same. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article itself, in the second sentence, confirms my (Pauling's) definition of OM: "Orthomolecular medicine focuses on what it sees as the right nutritional molecules in the right amounts for the individual." This definition is in wide-use and says nothing about [megadosing]vitamins or therapy; it only implies optimization, be it through [increases or decreases in nutrient intake through modification of] diet or supplementation.

No additional sources are required (though plenty are available), as "megavitamin therapy" was attached in error. There's no source to support the assertion that "orthomolecular medicine" is "megavitamin therapy"; and there can't be, because they aren't the same.

Adding to the definition is misleading, and unless there's some credible objection I'll modify it over the next few days.

BGortney (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's absurd. Given that there is no WP:RS to support it, I've reverted it per WP:DISCUSSED and WP:CCC. Vitaminman (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. It hasn't been discussed. Reverted POV edits by COI user. Give me a break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no "simple error". For all practical purposes, orthomolecular medicine is synonymous with megavitamin therapy. I don't understand why this is such a big issue: does it detract from the cool-sounding name? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

American Cancer Society, currently source 11 lists megavitamin as an alternate name for orthomolecular. The etymology is different, as is the philosophical approach suggested by the name, but in practice they are different names for the same set of practices. Unless there has been some schism in the community that reliable sources have thought significant enough to make comment? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OM deals with optimization of nutrient levels to maintain and improve health; sometimes that involves increasing levels of vitamins, sometimes it deals with increasing levels of amino acids, minerals, or, chunked up, specific types of foods; other times it involves reducing levels of these vitamins, minerals, aminos, foods. Pauling himself directly states this, and basic research confirms it. As you correctly note, 2over0, the approach and etymology are entirely different. MVT is a form of treatment that falls under OM. If you have multiple, credible sources that define OM as MVT (and exclusively as MVT), let's see them (more than an "aka" reference by ACS); otherwise, Pauling's original definition of the term should stand. This article can be neither neutral nor accurate when it starts off with a skewed definition of the term itself. And there's no need to cuss or be sarcastic. BGortney (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pauling definition is presented in the lede already. As 2/0 correctly states, and sources to the ACS, the two names are practically synonymous. With proper sources, one could perhaps go into more detail elsewhere, but for the lede, this is fine. That, and I see OM has provided additional sources anyway. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Pauling definition" is *the* definition. He *created* the word. Keeping MVT as a part of the definition because ACS does it is misleading at best, and dishonest at worst. Definitions of OM at: Wikipedia's category description [18]; Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine [19]; Orthomolecular Society [20]; Foundation for Alternative & Integrative Medicine [21]; Pfeiffer, Carl Dr., Nutrition & Mental Illness, an orthomolecular approach [22]; MedicineNet [23]; WebMD [24]; Dr. Richard Kunin [25]; Dr. Barrett at QuackWatch [26]. This is a simple change based on simple logic. OM != MVT. MVT is a specific type of therapy that fits within/under OM. See Megavitamin Therapy for its definition, which is decidedly *not* OM. Sentence 2: "It is typically used in complementary and alternative medicine by practitioners who call their approach "orthomolecular medicine", but also used in mainstream medicine for "exceedingly rare" genetic conditions which respond to megadoses of vitamins." BGortney (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you getting so upset by this? They are one and the same thing. We've been over this over the past 5 years. Notice what is still here. Every few months another editor thinks they want to change what is completely accurate. You're looking for the couple of articles that support your POV. Even Megavitamin therapy says its OM. Anything else? Can we move on. And can you please read WP:NOTAFORUM please.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. MVT is a specific therapy that falls underneath OM. The MVT article specifically states that it's *used* in OM/by practitioners of OM, making it a *part* of OM. If MVT is OM, why are there separate articles? I cited/linked 9 references, none of which mention MVT in the definition of OM. You cannot equate MVT with OM when MVT is a part of OM. And I'm not using this as a forum; I'm not chatting, discussing, preaching, soapboxing, or arguing for or against OM, I simply want the article to be as accurate as possible and the lede unbiased. We'll move on when it is. BGortney (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussing it here and gaining NO consensus whatsoever does not mean you can engage in edit warring. You are now at 4RR. Read WP:3RR to understand what the consequences of continuing your edit warring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, using Wikipedia as a proof of anything is silly. It cannot be a reliable source for itself. We have placed reliable sources that convince most readers, just not you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Orthomolecular medicine focuses on what it sees as the right nutritional molecules in the right amounts for the individual." That's fine-sounding, but it hardly qualifies as definition that sets OM apart from anything. Every health discipline, including the most staid conventional medicine, would like to the right nutritional molecules in the right amounts for the individual! Can I see a show of hands for health care people who want the WRONG amounts of the wrong nutritional molecules for individuals?? I certainly don't. (Perhaps Dr. Barrett secretly does, and he's not telling?)

Look, the focus of the debate is not here. The focus of the debate is between people who think that the optimal amounts of a lot of nutrients are a lot higher than you'd get from the RDA/DRI or whatever. Hence, MVT or whatever you want to call that.

The issue is one of philosophy between people who suspect your body is a lot like a car that doesn't run any better or faster or last longer if its oil and gas tanks are kept totally full all the time, vs. (say) half full. The other side argues that the body isn't like a car, and needs to be kept topped off all the time with everything, and will tell you when it has too much by spilling oil or gas on the ground, so to speak. In the absense of evidence one way or another (which we still don't have for much of this) the default-philosophy (default hypothesis) matters in a very Bayesian probability way: see [27]. We all have prior assumptions that can't be defended as objective-- even the people who make the DRIs and RDAs have prior assumptions, and most of these are a lot like the car one (have you noticed?). The opposite idea is just as indefensible. Some things in biology apparently run like cars with respect to optimal nutrient pools, and some do not. We haven't really done enough life span experimentation (and certainly not in humans) do be able to construct such stuff. We do know (or are pretty sure) that diet matters, and we'd like to know how closely the US diet (for example) can be made to look metabolically like the French or Japanese diet by addition, rather than subtraction. That means supplements in addition to restrictions, unless you're a chef with access to really expensive import items. The name for such supplements is whatever you'd like to call it, but it's not conventional nutrition. "Conventional nutrition" the handmaiden of modern medicine in the US, is the Food guide pyramid, which is heavily USDA and US farm policy influenced-- there a lot of corn based stuff, and fish and olives look just like beef and soybean oil. So where is one to start when one still knows little, for sure? There is (for example) evidence that age-adjusted prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis has gotten a lot worse. What are we doing wrong? If you believe already that we're doing something wrong life-style wise (not just eating at MacDonalds too often), then you're likely to see a given bit of evidence in a different light than if you believe in quick fixes like more fruits and vegetables, and only rare fast-food. "Reliable sources" have their own biases also, remember. They even have their own biases about which sources are reliable. SBHarris 06:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the commenatary in the April 6 JAMA about the vitamin clinical trials? Based on the way that researchers have been designing their clinical trials, it certainly does not seem as if they think that humans are cars. Supplementing large doses of vitamins in a haphazard manner to those who are already replete in them has been a big business for mainstream research medicine, which certainly shows that there has not been a lot of confidence, at least in the research community, that large doses of vitamins don't have some potential to have extra beneficial effects. Unfortunately, testing the long-term effects of micronutrient deficiencies in a controlled manner might still be in an infancy stage - especially for the most common deficiencies such as magnesium. II | (t - c) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on there II...you pointed to a commentary in JAMA, which is slightly above a letter to the editor in the scale of publications in a medical journal. The amount of clinical trials looking at various nutrients and dementia have shown nothing, even the simplest correlation. And your comment that "supplementing large doses of vitamins in a haphazard manner" is belittling the quality of a lot of the research without evidence of that. Well, other than the letter to the editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Arguments that orthomolecular medicine is not equivalent to megavitamin therapy would be more convincing if specific examples of orthomolecular proponents advocating for moderation and restriction of a certain micronutrient were shown. For example - vitamin E clinical trials have shown increased overall mortality. Therefore, looking for the "right amounts", we would expect orthomolecular medicine proponents to advocate that vitamin E supplementation be reduced or even avoid entirely. But so far they haven't said that. II | (t - c) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple. OM is not just about vitamins, mega or otherwise. (OM includes herbs, minerals and who-knows what - all types of molecules, I guess). Conflating the two would an elementary category error. (If anyone has sources that say othewise, they'd better be damn good (i.e. conform to WP:MEDRS, which they don't) and actually imply an identity (which they don't! The same terms in the same sentence implies a distinction, in my mind), and get consensus on the megavitamin therapy page for a merge.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the references used to support this claim does not actually do so. In chapter 1 (entitled: "What is Orthomolecular Medicine?") of the Hoffer & Saul book, paragraph one states the following:

Orthomolecular physicians use all modern treatments, including drugs, surgery, and physical and psychological methods, when these are appropriate. For example, when antidepressants or tranquillizers are needed, they are used in conjunction with the nutrients and nutrition. The drugs are used to gain rapid control over undesirable or disabling symptoms and are slowly withdrawn once the patient begins to respond to orthomolecular treatment.

And then this:

Orthomolecular nutrition, in contrast to "eat the food groups" nutrition, emphasizes the use of supplemental vitamins, minerals, and other accessory factors in amounts that are higher than those recommended by the government-sponsored "dietary allowances."

Bottom line then, is that not only do orthomolecular phsyicians use other categories of nutrients alongside vitamins, they also use drugs.

Finally, I would also point to the "Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy: Future and Philosophy" paper by Eric Braverman[28], which states quite categorically in its first paragraph that: Megavitamin therapy has become a sub-category of Orthomolecular medicine.

Guys and gals, they ain't they same thing, really, and trying to pretend that they are is, well, simply absurd. Enjoy your weekends and ponder. Vitaminman (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, a plain and simple error. Note that OrangeMarlin is reverting without further dialogue, claiming non-existent PA. I leave it to others to decide whether this warrents a trip to AN/I. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple solution. Bring current reliable sources to establish that they are different. A 1979 paper from a walled-garden journal doesn't cut it. Until then, the long-established text should stand, as it is suitably referenced.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not suitably referenced, as I explained above. Where does any ref say they are identical, as opposed to one being a subset of the other?

I see you are a trained physicist, like me. You therefore know the difference between molecules and vitamins. Please end this absurdity!

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If your only objection is that of confusing the superset with the set, then how about the alternative "Orthomolecular medicine, an extension of megavitamin therapy to include other nutrients ..." instead? Surely a RS can be found for that? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a rather cruical difference.... but which came first (I'm not sure). And there'd be no need to bold "megavitamin therapy", since it is already a separate article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hoffer and Saul book is current (2008) and, whilst being used as one one of the supporting references for the claim that Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy are one and the same thing, clearly states that "Orthomolecular physicians use all modern treatments, including drugs, surgery, and physical and psychological methods, when these are appropriate." The fact that some editors are clearly attempting to disregard this bothers me greatly. But what worries me even more is that the proponents of the notion that the two are one and the same thing have apparently not even bothered to research the relevant literature before jumping to their conclusions. For example, the opening of the second paragraph of the article - which I don't see anybody here disputing - states that: The term "orthomolecular" was coined by two-time Nobel laureate and chemist Linus Pauling to mean "the right molecules in the right amounts" However, if you examine what Pauling actually said when defining the term it is abundantly clear that he was not at all confining its use simply to vitamins. In Chapter 11, page 118, of his book "How to Live Longer and Feel Better", entitled "Orthomolecular Medicine Defined", he states the following: "An example of orthomolecular medicine is the treatment of diabetes mellitus by the injection of insulin." As such, WP is in grave danger of misleading people if we allow the claim that Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy are one and the same to remain in this article. Vitaminman (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I got nauseous quoting that piece of shit book, but I had to do what I had to do. Treatment of diabetes with the injection of insulin is orthomolecular? Oh that is rich. No, treatment of diabetes with insulin is endocrinology and REAL medicine, not your pseudoscientific thing. You know, I am seriously amused by you guys. Orthomolecular medicine and megavitamins are both pseudoscientific, snake oil medicine. You're fighting with real scientists over minor semantic differences, because it might insult your carefully constructed POV that this stuff does anything but waste people's money. The sentence has been there for over 4 years (I believe, but it could be 3). Now, you get upset. Well, prove to us with a current reliable source that they're different. And cutting some tiny semantic line between the two is just not going to pass the smell test. The fact is they're both junk medicine. PERIOD. And the article says so. It's amusing this is the edit war you want to fight. I'm here to make sure medical articles don't trick people into thinking they work–I'm pretty certain that people confusing the junk science of multivitamins and the junk science of orthomolecular aren't going to care one wit. Nevertheless, bring some real sources. I'm open minded to revising this junk medicine article to point people to the other junk medicine article, but only until you convince us all with reliable sources that they are somehow different.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Orange, I don't see an argument here, just rhetoric and bias. You'll have to do better than that to stick a major logical fallacy in the lede. Anyway it seems the consensus is against you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Typical of the Fringe pushing crowd, you resort to personal attacks against the editor and have nothing to bring to the table regarding the information. Your personal attack will be used as I see fit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For someone who boasts of being incivil that's quite a laugh. Thanks. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. OrangeMarlin is biased and conflicted, is blatantly arguing his POV, and is, I believe, intentionally trying to influence, mislead, and/or bias readers by making inaccurate, and altering the tone of, the lede. This is reprehensible.

The bottom line is that the accepted definition of OM is very broad, and MVT, as a specific form of nutritional therapy - supplementing with megadoses of vitamins - very clearly fits underneath it. There's no RS for OM == MVT, just an "aka" reference by ACS that erroneously conflates the two. And to put this to bed, I've added an analysis section immediately below - please modify/populate/commentate so we can achieve consensus, if we haven't already.

I am, also, on board with LeadSongDog's suggestion to reference MVT in this article, as MVT is very often prescribed by practitioners of OM (though not always); see sentence two of paragraph two. To be thorough, should we [attempt to] list all forms of therapy associated with OM? Thoughts?

Glad to see there are other physicists involved.

BGortney (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. Good luck with this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's a reasonable/fact-based conclusion given your 21:02, 16 April 2011 post. You said it yourself. BGortney (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Analysis

• RS supporting conflating the definitions of OM and MVT:
  • American Cancer Society Source 11;
    • Orthomolecular Medicine; Other common name(s): megavitamin/megamineral therapy, nutritional medicine
• RS supporting OM as distinct from MVT, excluding MVT from definition of OM entirely, or describing MVT as a subset of OM:
  • Linus Pauling
    • "Orthomolecular Psychiatry" [29]: Orthomoleculer psychiatric therapy is the treatment of mental disease by the provision of the optimal molecular environment of the mind, especially the optimal concentrations of substances normally present in the human body. An example is the treatment of phenylketonuric children by use of a diet containing a smaller than normal amount of the amino acid phenylalanine.
    • Chapter 11, page 118, of his book "How to Live Longer and Feel Better", entitled "Orthomolecular Medicine Defined", he states the following: "An example of orthomolecular medicine is the treatment of diabetes mellitus by the injection of insulin."
  • Hoffer & Saul - Source 1: clearly establishes that OM and OM practitioners recommend/use multiple modalities to treat patients, including modification/optimization of vitamins, minerals, nutrients generally, drugs, surgeries, etc.
    • Chapter 1, paragraph 1: Orthomolecular physicians use all modern treatments, including drugs, surgery, and physical and psychological methods, when these are appropriate. For example, when antidepressants or tranquillizers are needed, they are used in conjunction with the nutrients and nutrition. The drugs are used to gain rapid control over undesirable or disabling symptoms and are slowly withdrawn once the patient begins to respond to orthomolecular treatment.,
    • Orthomolecular nutrition, in contrast to "eat the food groups" nutrition, emphasizes the use of supplemental vitamins, minerals, and other accessory factors in amounts that are higher than those recommended by the government-sponsored "dietary allowances."
  • "Orthomolecular Medicine and Megavitamin Therapy: Future and Philosophy", Eric Braverman [30]
    • Paragraph 1: Megavitamin therapy has become a sub-category of Orthomolecular medicine.
    • The article title itself implies a distinction.
  • Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine [31];
    • Per website: Orthomolecular medicine is defined as the therapeutic use of substances that occur naturally in the body. Originally defined in the context of treating and preventing psychiatric diseases, the intent of orthomolecular therapy is to provide the optimal molecular environment for the brain and other tissues by altering the intake of nutrients such as vitamins (and their metabolites), minerals, trace elements, macronutrients, as well as other naturally occurring metabolically active substances.
  • Orthomolecular Society [32];
    • Per website: Orthomolecular medicine describes the practice of preventing and treating disease by providing the body with optimal amounts of substances which are natural to the body.
  • Foundation for Alternative & Integrative Medicine [33];
    • Per website: The goal of orthomolecular medicine is to restore the body's optimal environment by correcting imbalances or deficiencies based on individual biochemistry by using natural substances such as vitamins, minerals, trace elements and amino acids.
  • Pfeiffer, Carl Dr. (former Chair of the Pharmacology Department at the Emory University), "Nutrition & Mental Illness, an orthomolecular approach" [34];
    • Synopsis: Believing that drugs and psychoanalysis were not always the best course of treatment for a variety of mental illnesses, Dr. Carl Pfeiffer began an extensive program of research into the causes and treatment of mental illness, and in 1973 opened the Brain Bio Center in Princeton, New Jersey. Here, with a team of scientists, he found that many psychological problems can be traced to biochemical imbalances in the body. With these patients, he achieved unprecedented success in treating a wide range of mental problems by adjusting diet and providing specific nutritional supplements for those conditions where deficiences exist. This book documents his approach.
  • MedicineNet [35];
    • Definitions: Orthomolecular medicine: 1. A term coined by the chemist Linus Pauling who defined it as "the preservation of good health and the treatment of disease by varying the concentration in the human body of substances that are normally present in the body. The treatment of diabetes by the injection of insulin and the prevention of goiter with iodine are instances of orthomolecular medicine. 2. A form of alternative medicine that aims to prevent and cure disease by using specific doses of vitamins, amino acids, fatty acids, trace minerals, electrolytes, and other natural substances.
  • WebMD [36];
    • Definition: A medical practice based on providing the body with optimal amounts of substances natural to the body, in optimize health or to treat disease.
  • Dr. Barrett, QuackWatch [37]
    • "Orthomolecular therapy" is defined by its proponents as "the treatment of disease by varying the concentrations of substances normally present in the human body." Its proponents claim that many diseases are caused by molecular imbalances that are correctable by administration of the "right" nutrient molecules at the right time. (Ortho is Greek for "right.")
  • And, particularly, "Principles That Identify Orthormolecular Medicine: A Unique Medical Specialty", Dr. Richard Kunin [38];
    • Meantime, Orthomolecular Medicine retains scientific reason for being: its basic science foundations of nutrition, biochemistry and clinical nutrition have grown at a prodigious rate.
    • The following therapeutic modalities fit the definition of orthomolecular: 1. vitamins, 2. minerals 3. amino acids, 4. essential fatty acids 5, fiber, 6. enzymes, 7. antibodies, 8. antigens, 9. cell therapy, 10. chelation therapy, 11. dialysis, 12. plasmapharesis, 13. hydrotherapy, 14. thermal therapy, 15. phototherapy, electrotherapy (including electroconvulsive therapy), 17. air ion therapy, 18. light therapy, 19. solar therapy, 20. acupuncture, 21. massage, 22. exercise, 23. biofeedback 24. hypnotherapy and other psychotherapies.
  • [Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine - Source 4 ]; BGortney (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • [Orthomolecular medicine is the prevention and treatment of disease by administering nutritional supplements.]
  • [American Cancer Society - Source 11]; BGortney (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • [Orthomolecular medicine is the use of high doses of vitamins, minerals, or hormones to prevent and treat a wide variety of conditions.]
  • [Megavitamin and megamineral therapy in childhood. Nutrition Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society - Source 14]; BGortney (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • [Page two: Some claims for behavior results are based on Pauling's orthomolecular theory: "the provision of the optimum molecular environment for the mind especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the human body"]

BGortney (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This does not qualify as a consensus, so why don't you do something else, like edit other articles. Right now, you appear to be a single purpose account. You are also quite tendentious. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My account, while not new, has not been used much. This is, in fact, my first attempt at editing an article. I saw an inaccuracy and attempted to fix it.

In any case, the lack of response (from you or others), and agreement by three editors implies consensus. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."

Stop reverting without discussing, edit-warring, pushing your POV, and disrupting the editing process. You've still not provided any credible/substantial RS supporting your position, but seem to think 'I don't agree' is enough. This is your last warning. BGortney (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are in the wrong here, Bgortney. You should review wp:BRD, it is the basic process used on WP. So long as the discussion proceeds, OrangeMarlin is correct that the longstanding text should remain, not the recently introduced change.216.239.95.160 (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 216. Bgortney, I have no POV, I'm completely NPOV based on WP:RS, which you have utterly failed to provide. You have no consensus to make a change. And you continue with personal attacks. I would suggest you quickly stop this behavior pattern. By the way, please take my suggestion and edit some other articles. Single purpose accounts have little meaning. Oh, and I'd take a math course. I read several editors who have reverted your changes. So, please stop your attacks, your edit warring, and your out and out misrepresentation of facts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bgortney for the useful analysis, which I concur with. Re. the first-time IP editor's claim about wp:BRD being "the basic process used on WP", this is simply an essay, not a WP policy or guideline. As for Orange, some of his comments here are in clear contravention of WP:CIV. As civility is a policy on WP, we must all adhere to it.

Back to the discussion at hand: Based upon the comments thus far, it is absolutely clear that there is no consensus regarding the current wording of the introductory sentence. As such, I propose that everybody calms down and that we begin to look for a rewording that we can all agree on. Vitaminman (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. LeadSongDog's proposal is a basis for the way forward, I think. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that there can be a consensus that involves equating MVT with OM, as it's a factually incorrect assertion. I am, however, open to rewording any part/all of the article, provided the changes improve accuracy.

A few things:

• My last set of edits were very 'gentle' in almost every regard; I rearranged a bit of the text (correcting what I saw were minor precision, grammar, language, and bias issues), but left the prioritization/emphasis of criticisms in place and gave MVT two full paragraphs in the first section. Those edits were reverted without any discussion, which is a violation of WP:DISRUPT, WP:TEDIOUS, and is in contravention of WP:TALKDONTREVERT and other policies. Diff.
• 216: I believe we're already effectively following WP:BRD, as the major sticking point is the inclusion of the clause "or Megavitamin Therapy" in the introductory sentence, and that's what we're discussing. Also, arguing that a factual error should stay simply because "it's been that way a long time" isn't in keeping with WP's stated goals. People make mistakes, and we should correct them when they're recognized. There's no RS or policy to support any other course.
• Orange: In your post yesterday, you essentially (both directly and indirectly) stated that you're biased against OM, and want to protect people from wasting money and from believing that "snake oil" "junk" works. While I can respect that you're trying to do the right thing (as you see it), I don't believe that it's appropriate to skew facts if clearly stated WP goals are that articles be accurate and neutral. A significant amount of RS that does not comport with the perspective currently expressed in the article has been posted, though I've not seen any that confirms it. Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding the basis of your argument, and would appreciate your help in understanding. Can you provide RS that states that OM is MVT? If so, please provide it and/or edit the 'Analysis' section and include it, so we can evaluate it.
• For the record, I fully support including any and all RS criticism of OM and/or MVT in this article.
• I've added several more RS to the 'Analysis' table. These were taken directly from the article itself.

What are the best next steps? If this isn't resolved soon, is it appropriate to refer it to WP:NPVON? WP:RSN? WP:COIN? Mediation? WP:RFC? WP:ANI? I'm fairly uncomfortable with a process where editing is done by those who are so clearly, so strongly biased; and I'm equally uncomfortable with being told to take a math class, that I need to edit other articles so my contributions will be taken seriously and to get rid of me, with edits - mine and others' - being reverted without discussion or any supporting RS, being accused of creating original research (on my talk page), with the [to me] apparent presumption that editing is in bad faith, and with the general lack of professionalism/civility.

BGortney (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to SPA. No, I am not biased against OM. I find no evidence whatsoever supporting it's usefulness. Therefore, it is junk medicine, which is a waste of money. I do not invent my positions by pulling shit out of my ass. I am, and always will be, a scientist and a medical researcher. So if you want to continue your personal attacks by making pathetic accusations, they will not go unnoticed. Furthermore, I've provided more than enough RS. That you choose to ignore them is your issue, not mine. Despite my issues with your editing style, incivility, lack of interest in consensus, and several other issues, propose something useful. Or not. It's up to you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You believe OM is ineffective ("junk"), which is fine, but that means that you're biased against it (i.e. your opinion is fully-formed and you're not in favor of it). I have no problem with anyone believing it's junk; we all have our own opinions and I'm not suggesting anyone change theirs, or that we do anything other than properly inform readers by writing an accurate article, and by including relevant facts and properly sourced support and criticism.

Re RS: I've reviewed this talk page and the article several times, and I'm sorry, but I don't see it. As has been requested several times by several editors, can you list/provide sources that show that OM is MVT (not just that MVT is a part of OM) either in the consensus section, or in the table above? That will help greatly.

To be clear: My intent was and is to correct a mistake in an article. I've no agenda and no conflict; I'm not a proponent of MVT except in cases where it's backed by science and makes sense given the circumstances (absorption or genetic deficiency, etc.). But I won't accept labeling OM MVT, as it's simply not true.

Let's call a truce and continue in the consensus section?

BGortney (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to start consensus forming

BRD is simple. Once reverted we stop changing and discuss until consensus forms. Now can you suggest wording that might find consensus? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, LeadSongDog.

Prior to working on wording, I think the issue of whether OM is MVT should be resolved conclusively (using RS). After that, the rest will come naturally. Agreed?

BGortney (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you obviously don't understand what forms consensus, go read WP:CONSENSUS. Once you can adequately describe it here, then I'll play along here. In addition, I expect full apologies for your attacking comments above. Then we have a basis to fix it, because consensus require an assumption of good faith, which I can't give right now. It's up to you now. Because pushing your crappy sources on us will never lead to consensus. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of what we should expect here, let's all agree that we will observe WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Without singling out any individual editors for criticism, some of the comments above very clearly lie short of what we should be striving for in these areas.

Back (again) to the matter at hand, I support the suggestion that LeadSongDog's proposal is a basis for the way forward. To my understanding, LeadSongDog's proposal is not to equate MVT with OM, but to say that OM is an extension of MVT that includes other nutrients. OM physicians do not only use vitamins, and why would they? And anyway, where is the WP:RS material that definitely proves they have set aside minerals, amino acids, essential fatty acids and other food components in the treatment of their patients?

Incidentally, to address one editor's stated claim that I am a COI editor, I absolutely do not support the notion of supplementing large doses of vitamins in a haphazard manner. I do support a rigorously scientific assessment of the evidence, however, in which respect I wholeheartedly agree with some of SBHarris' comments re. the issues being discussed on this page. Vitaminman (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the matter at hand: I agree, and RS seems to support, that megavitamin therapy is used by practitioners of orthomolecular medicine, not the other way around. Unless there's solid RS showing that MVT is generally defined as, or equated with, OM, I don't see any reason to mention it in the introductory sentence or conflate the terms. I'll certainly concede that it's widely used (as are megamineral, megaamino, mega* therapies) and will gladly stipulate to its inclusion in the opening section, but I can't see my way beyond that. Any thoughts/suggestions, anyone? BGortney (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As there are no comments and no RS to support current wording, per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:CCC I've updated the article, disjoining OM and MVT and adding megavitamin, megamineral, and megadose therapies to the lede. I've also replaced 'traditional' with 'mainstream' per the discussion below, and made several other edits and minor language cleanups. BGortney (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the redundancy & conflict, Michael. BGortney (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the 3rd paragraph (about megadosing) be deleted? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with taking it out of the intro, though perhaps it should get its own section (which refers to the MVT article) as an oft-used modality? BGortney (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)