Talk:Anthroposophic medicine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

COI and Declarations

@Chickpecking: you are required to WP:DECLARE your WP:COI conflict of interest. Just a gentle reminder. AadaamS (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

See the above discussion that begins "There is no community consensus that altmed practitioners have ipso facto a conflict of interest", posted by Alexbrn. HGilbert (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought, if it is alright with all, that I would move this to its own topic. Maybe others can comment on their COI's too.

For my answer- I am not yet an expert Anthroposophic clinician. My outpatient clinic is driven by word of mouth and I do not advertise or promote myself to my inpatients even though there is considerable pressure from them for me to "start my own clinic". I consider it a labor of love, but also an avenue where I can really feel human as a physician. Financially I lose money from my Anthroposophic clinic. Full time (or more than it), I work in a hospital as Chief of Medicine, I am the Chairman of the Infection Control Committee there. I have a Masters in Public Health. From my work there I earn over $330,000 a year. I do not feel I could do this work without the view of Anthroposophic medicine. No one comes to a hospital because they are happy and well. There is much human tragedy. Most people who do what I do suffer from severe burnout and fatigue. Not me. Somehow, I have a position in the world where I can do something to help people who are suffering- sometimes that is just by explaining medicine in a way that is not frightening. Or avoiding a treatment that may be "evidence based" but not wanted or applicable to a certain patient or conversely convincing people who can't understand doctor speak that they really need a certain evidence based treatment. I also spent time as a medical student with an Anthroposophic physician using high dose, intra-tumoral mistletoe injection. In one case series he documented multiple SR (spontaneous remissions) in advanced cancers- the patients refused chemo, even when he repetitively strongly counselled to get it too. The current rate of SR in advanced cancer is 1 in tens of thousands (maybe its all placebo...). No, it did not always work and other patients still had recurrences and progression. In my own work with mistletoe I have seen some utter transformations- physically but maybe more importantly in other areas of life- patients going from frightened to changing their lives in a self-directed way. I think these transformations are possible without mistletoe too- to me they "belong together" with overcoming cancer in general.
I made it a point to master the subjects in medical school. I graduated summa cum laude (I don't advertise that either). I do not feel in conflict with the germ theory of disease when I also think that there needs to exist a predisposition for that disease to happen in a particular case. I respect evidence based medicine and use it daily though note it has its limitations. In my experience the activity of knowing does not happen on a lab bench but the lab bench feeds an activity in the human soul- growing several "thought gardens" and not cutting back what is there, nor pulling the shoots to force it to grow we can compare the results of different ideas. This is the Anthroposophic attitude I bring to my patients. I hear all the time that I am the only doctor they met that actually listened to them.

I do not have an alternate account. I don't have that sort of time and it is not my style. It would be far easier to pay an editor under the table (there are apparently sites that claim to have paid wikipedia administrators!) but I do not believe dishonesty in any form wins in the long run. Chickpecking (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On the question of the medical evidence, surely Feynman's first principle applies. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why so much Ernst? NPOV???

I am wondering if we are getting at neutral point of view by including so many references, in places that seem to bias the entire tone of this page, by Mr Ernst. Reading as a more outside observer these references do not support their intended goal as they read more as self aggrandizement than delivering helpful information to information seekers. This also sets a tone that violates policy in Wikipedia. Even if this is pseudoscience wikipedia should not read like the skeptic's dictionary.

I suggest removing most of Ernst's references. The less obviously biased can be placed in a section called "skeptic's views" or "contrary opinions". This would improve the readability of the page greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpecking (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It is quackery based upon mystical hallucinations, ritual magic and astrology. In the reality-based scientific community that is the word for it. See applicable rules at WP:FRINGE/PS, WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS: we have to call a spade a spade, we don't give equal validity to quackery and evidence-based medicine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be debatable whether AM stands as fringe theory or something else. Attacks on the subject at hand stray off point and into the realm of violating WP:Talk guidelines- No Insults. You may have a belief that something is "hogwash" or "quackery" but that may be another person's profession. Best to just say you don't see a scientific justification for this or that. That can also be debated in a friendly manner :) Chickpecking (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As concerns give equal validity this is exactly my point here about Ernst. We are giving a minority view the main voice and tone of this article. He is a self proclaimed expert on alternative medicine but there are many problems with that. For example, my hammer might call itself a "supreme featherduster" and I might be eventually quite surprised that every time I go to dust my lamp my new tool breaks the lamp. Ernst has not proven himself to be an expert on alternative medicine. He reliably produces negative results in papers that many others in and out of the field consider quite biased.

Sebastian finds multiple points showing bias in Ernst's review of a double blind trial of homeopathic arnica Ernst gives misleading criticism of a lack of power calculations where it was already explicitly stated in the paper. He neglects to mention where a p value is statistically significant, and later calls a p value "borderline significant" because it is 0.04. This is not the convention of a scientific treatment of data.

Sharp sees Ernst's treatment of alternative medicine as a straw man argument where Ernst will attack certain practices that do not truly represent what he is attacking.

Ernst has, according to this report admitted to having had completed no real background in homeopathy.

Walach et al. note that Ernst blames a case of bladder cancer on a remedy given seven years prior. This is hardly the conclusion of an unbiased thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpecking (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a system of medicine built around the stories of one man who saw things that weren't there and heard voices talking in his head. I wonder how ridiculous it has to get before it is dismissed as hogwash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Chickpecking that the article currently gives excessive attention to a single author's (Ernst's) views. Regardless of what we think about the system of medicine, there should be a broad and balanced spectrum of sources. HGilbert (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ernst is the foremost independent expert who has studied this topic, and so his work has been published in high-quality WP:RS. Thus it is right and proper that we use it accordingly. The idea that we should have a "spectrum" of sources falls smack bang into the WP:GEVAL trap. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are other independent sources out there, and we are giving UNDUE weight to a single one with a very pronounced viewpoint. HGilbert (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If something seems ridiculous to you doesn't really matter, though it's honest of you to document your certain point of view on this topic. It's about what is written in the world in relevant sources. And there are things written. Ernst is not the single relevant author. The world may judge differently than you do. And yes. We have to call a spade a spade. If it is a spade. And if it is a spade then we have to describe it and not only say "This is a bad spade. I don't like it. You should neither." I don't like areas of the world where someone tells me not to look. I'm sceptic about certain truths. At least I want to know who said that they are certain, when and on which basis, which reputation he has and who else said so. And I think we owe the world and truth an honest trial even about (seemingly) obscure things. And this trial is not ours actually. The trial is in the world and we are mere the scribes. If the world was beginning to pray to the flying spaghetti monster. We would just document it, wouldn't we ? --C holtermann (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairvoyance

Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination.

Reference
Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, we give prominence to the mainstream views and little to no coverage to the wingnuts. Allowing the wingnuts equal time in "critiquing" the mainstream is completely oppositional to our duty to appropriately represent the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir, this is a wikipedia page that is focused on Anthroposophical Medicine. You would have a point if we were editing mainstream medicine's page and adding in some alternative views here and there but I see this comment as out of place. I do not see anywhere suggested that we mislead the public that AM is a "mainstream view", only that too much of a minority opinion (Ernst, with known and well documented bias) is speaking throughout this page, biasing it and leading it far outside of neutral point of view. Anthroposophical Medicine is practiced by over 3200 fully trained physicians worldwide per a 2012 survey. These are doctors who have qualified in their countries as physicians after years of study and training and then decided to get more training in Anthroposophical medicine. Can we simply write a neutral article on Anthroposophical Medicine? And can we have friendly discourse- again calling 3200 doctors wingnuts borders on violating WP:Talk No Insults. Chickpecking (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is neutral in reflecting the views of the serious mainstream. There are numerous AM practitioners just as there are homeopaths, Reiki masters, yogic flyers and faith healers. Doesn't mean any of these things have legitimacy. The relevant guidance is WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is neutral. Everything is skewed to the negative, and there is evidence, some of which I quoted, that a main source (Ernst) is biased and methodologically incorporates this bias in his papers. That is not neutral. My point in bringing up the number of trained practicing physicians was not to somehow prove their legitimacy (I think we can bring the relevant studies into focus elsewhere) but that we should stay civil in our discourse. Calling thousands of physicians quacks, wingnuts or charlatans as a blanket statement violates WP:Talk no insults, and does not lead to useful discourse. Again, can we lead this article to a neutral point of view? There is blatant evidence of cherrypicking- both within Ernst, and among sources.

WP:Fringe states"The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence."

How is placing undue weight on a vocal and arguably very biased critic of AM supported by the key tenant of WP:Fringe? If we use him at all surely it would be fair to also quote others who disagree with his analysis. And when using his papers should we cherrypick inside of them? There is evidence of this in the immunization article.Chickpecking (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, psychic is a profession. Does not mean that it is anything else than bogus. And the article psychic is not written from the viewpoint of psychics, but from the viewpoint of a mainstream encyclopedia. See also WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The only way I see this relate is that I am "seeing" the need for some editing of this article to NOPVChickpecking (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The comment was that there are some who have the profession MD, but this is not a blanket statement that all their practice is scientific or legitimate. It is just tolerated by law. It is a sophism to claim "there are thousands of MDs who are homeopathists, therefore homeopathy isn't pseudoscience". Homeopathy belongs to Category:Pseudoscience. So Wikipedia is entitled to call both homeopathy and anthroposophical medicine as being pseudoscientific, because this is what our best WP:MEDRS sources tell it. If this implies the label of quackery, so be it. Just as the article about Scientology does not have to pamper "auditing" as scientific, it just has to render the mainstream view about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My argument was that calling several thousand people a derogatory name is both not helpful for discourse, and violates wikipedia guidelines. Though it is notable that to do AM you must be an MD, this again was not an argument for legitimacy, just one of civility! I would very much like to see an unbiased, mainstream view here in this article. Though I don't think the wikipedia classification method is able to separately classify "Goethean Science" as a separate distinct method of doing science, such is the nature of an encyclopedia- it is more a thermometer of the times than anything. If we are pigeonholed as pseudoscientific that is one thing (arguments in a different arena). But it is a stretch to call names such as quack or hogwash. The word quack implies trickery and other negative connotations. Let us report on what Anthroposophical Medicine is and leave name calling and bias aside. Chickpecking (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Who's "we"? If something is nonsense, Wikipedia calls it nonsense: that's neutrality. And AM is patent nonsense. We must avoid the WP:GEVAL fallacy, abide by WP:PSCI and remember that any extraordinary claims require weighty sources. I'm sure there's plenty of quackery in AM, as well as just ignorant foolishness - this much is plain from the good source we already use. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, name calling has no place in the talk forum. Chickpecking (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC) If by good source you mean Ernst, I find him in the position of needing to defend his "extraordinary" methodology. An entire book has been written attacking the approach he uses and he is a master at twisting data and throwing out studies that do not suit his purposes- which are clear in his blog posts. Chickpecking (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As Alexbrn has been suppressing all sources that point to confirmations of efficacy, this is a one-sided argument. True NPOV would mean including those publications that meet the standards of reliable sources (i.e. academic publisher) yet are supportive of AM. (For example, Anthroposophische Medizin in der klinischen Forschung published by Schattauer Verlag.) HGilbert (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that would run against WP:GEVAL, WP:FRIND and WP:MEDRS at least. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

To include the NIH website's support of QOL benefits and the indications by reviews that some other benefits have been found, along with these reviews' critiques of some (not all) of these studies' methodology, would contravene none of these. It would simply be honest reporting of the whole situation. HGilbert (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

what high-quality WP:MEDRS aren't we using? Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That guideline suggests using review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Ernst wrote one review, but the rest of his work fits none of those criteria and should have been removed. On the other hand, we have a review, an academic work written by an expert in the relevant field from a respected publisher,<refAnthroposophische Medizin in der klinischen Forschung published by Schattauer Verlag</ref>, and guidelines from a national expert body, citations to all of which you consistently delete.

MEDRS applies to biomedical assertions; material about the nature/marketing/history of AM do not require MEDRS. The "review" you cite is from a fringe journal and fails MEDRS (and RS too). The "academic work" is a fringe (anthroposophic) text and fails MEDRS, WP:FRIND and probably WP:RS. The cancer.gov summary is utterly damning of the research into mistletoe, and so in no way contradicts the (mainstream) Cochrane systematic review we cite. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a confabulation that cancer.gov would support treating cancer with mistletoe, therefore such claims are unverifiable and have no place in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mistletoe extracts have been evaluated in numerous clinical studies and improvements in survival, quality of life, and/or stimulation of the immune system have been frequently reported. However, most clinical studies conducted to date have had one or more major weaknesses that raise doubts about the reliability of the findings. In addition, no evidence exists to support the notion that stimulation of the immune system by mistletoe leads to an improved ability to fight cancer.

— National Cancer Institute

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is anything but "utterly damning" from a mainstream source. For one it reports honestly that there were positive findings frequently reported in multiple areas. It also reports honestly that most studies have weaknesses and they question the reliability of the findings. This is what we do in medicine- we try to find the best evidence we can, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and report it and its weaknesses.

So I would propose we do that here. Let us put Ernst in full review- and there are many critics of his known bias- and also include those critics in our page, and also include the several other meta analysis on AM- I am fine with a review of the quality of evidence but it is pure bias to not include other studies. Chickpecking (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It says that all evidence there is in favor of mistletoe is low quality. Therefore its effectiveness against cancer remains unproven, judging by the standards of evidence-based medicine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does not state this. It talks about reliability of findings due to weaknesses in the studies. Scientifically, reliability is a double edged sword- these results might also be less positive than actual too. But let us call a spade a spade :) Chickpecking (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDRS we are not allowed to use low quality medical evidence inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be differentiated. What WP:MEDRS says is that anything from single RCT and below is classed as low quality. Meta-analysis is considered high quality. We can differentiate the reliability of the results in these meta-analysis separately. WP:MEDRS says that synthetic reviews are high quality. Chickpecking (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it also means that what is low-quality for the National Cancer Institute is low-quality for Wikipedia and therefore we are not allowed to use such sources. We stick to reputable sources published in reputable journals which have no major weaknesses (like no control group or no placebo or no double blinding). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not stipulated in Wikipedia. It is permissable to use the evidence available, while commenting on its potential weaknesses (this applies to Ernst too). Counter examples abound. For example, the wikipedia page on fecal transplantation lists positive results in treating clostridium difficile based on meta analysis of studies, currently only one of which is a RCT and the rest with poor blinding mostly no placebo. But there are no "squatters" on that wikipedia page, and there is a much more objective review of the subject. (honestly no pun intended! :). This is the reality of clinical medicine- and the helpfulness of meta-analysis- we won't always get our data to be beautiful- we are studying individuals- but scientifically we can all examine results.151.213.203.114 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point of WP:MEDRS: only reputable secondary or tertiary sources are allowed as medical claims inside Wikipedia articles. Therefore, no primary sources are allowed regardless of their quality. Sources which are not reputable are not allowed for medical claims, even if they are secondary or tertiary. Therefore weak sources are not allowed for making medical claims. The fact that there is other bad stuff inside Wikipedia does not give anyone blanket permission to insert low-quality sources. Fringe sources are excluded from making medical claims in the name of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My first argument was based on an editor's interpretation of the NCI summary on mistletoe WP:MEDRS cautions against this (though I think studies would refute their last sentence "no evidence exists to support the notion that stimulation of the immune system by mistletoe leads to an improved ability to fight cancer" as there are multiple anticancer compounds isolated from mistletoe and a lot of current "mainstream" research into linking this with clinical results. I am not arguing we need to include all of this, only there is reason to doubt even authoritative sources.) Using fecal transplant as an example was not to show poor science abounding on wikipedia, it was again an argument to fairness. I am active in the field of public health and I would wager that a meta-analysis that threw out all non RCT data on fecal transplantation (this used to be fringe/experimental but is no longer) would be derided in the scientific community as using poor methodology. Ernst's paper on mistletoe is no different, only he wrote in a field where there is much bias against alternative therapies. I am not here proposing we use or do not use any "fringe" article. Another editor thought the Ostermann article was from a fringe journal, but that appears false. Chickpecking (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Have we already introduced possible candidates for alternative sources ? It's theoretical to discuss about them (and their fringiness) otherwise. --C holtermann (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The only source you quoted which has the word "review" in its title is Ostermann's paper. All the others seem to be primary sources. While WP:MEDRS does not have an all-out ban on primary sources, primary sources should never be those making medical claims for Wikipedia, but may only be cited in order to illustrate a point if it has been made beforehand by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you are of course absolutely correct- though there is a multicenter trial included I will try to find a comprehensive list to put elsewhere. The other articles are for the side point that there may actually be support for a causal hypothesis, or several, linking mistletoe therapy to cancer treatment. There is little evidence in primary sources that goes against this, there are reviews of lectin and viscotoxin effects I left out purposefully as they are published in debatable journals. It is difficult to see how the last sentence of the National Cancer Institute is supported by the available evidence. And yes, finding a causal hypothesis does not equal clinical results, but it is how conventional science often moves forward.Chickpecking (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@C holtermann:, @151.213.203.114:, @Chickpecking: – you are answering as though these WP:SPA accounts are operated by the same person. Please be aware of our policy on WP:SOCKs, and probably also WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Counter hypothesis is that this article is written so biased that anyone who knows anything about mistletoe and AM would object! We could counter that the mainly 2 negative editors are in the same shoes but I would prefer to take a collaborative tone with all of you.Chickpecking (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't stating a hypothesis, but raising a genuine concern because different accounts seem to be asking/answering questions as if from the same person. I ask in case the editor(s) are unaware of policy. If you're asking if I am operating any SOCK accounts, I can answer quite plaining: no I am not. Alexbrn (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The causal hypothesis has been inferred by a psychic from medieval legends and it is accepted on faith by anthroposophical MDs, who may get sacked if they deny it (their employment depends on showing true belief). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please continue to follow the rules in WP:Talk no insults. The above assumptions have no place in healthy dialogue. They are also patently false. Name calling when you lose an argument is poor form.Chickpecking (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the reality: Rudolf Steiner was a psychic/clairvoyant, he learned about mistletoe and cancer from what he assumed to be Druidic lore, and anthroposophic medicine is heavily faith-based (on Steiner's occult teachings), as opposed to evidence-based medicine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's clear from the number and range of studies cited above, the great majority of which are from highly respected journals, that this form of therapy is under serious study by a wide range of researchers at present. Its position in medical science is one of a therapy under review and study, neither ignored nor mocked. The attitude taken by scientific journals should be reflected in the article. HGilbert (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

More likely the anthroposophic drugs manufacturers are trying to ensure their lucrative revenue streams by funding studies. By your argument Wikipedia would be legitimizing other magicks like homeopathy (which has its own Elsevier journal!) Fortunately our policies require a more neutral stance. Alexbrn (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Is that first statement WP:OR or merely bloviation? There is absolutely no evidence (and I very much doubt) that most of these studies were funded by these manufacturers.

My reasoning is that a wide range of established medical journals should be trusted. These are not homeopathic journals, but the same journals we trust in every other respect. It is a blatant violation of NPOV to block citing them here. HGilbert (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I repeat myself, but primary sources, no matter how reputable, aren't allowed to make medical claims inside Wikipedia, they're only parsimoniously allowed to illustrate medical claims already made by reputable secondary and tertiary sources. That's what the germane content guideline says. So, you may even have a list of 500 primary sources published in reputable medical journals, none of them is allowed to make medical claims here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu:please refer back to my actual point which was that it is hard to see scientific justification for the NCI claim of no causal link. I'd be happy to quote the NCI, but we should also include the landslide of causal link studies that dispute their statement. This is in no dispute with allowed usage of individual studies.Chickpecking (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: If you look at the Ostermann review you'll see that Ostermann himself and another author are funded by the Hiscia Institute – i.e. the manufacturers of Ischador[1]. Probably WP:FRIND would be in play if this source was being seriously considered, particularly since we have RS warning us about the low-quality research in this area. Also cancer.gov covers the same ground as Ostermann, but better, and has been updated this year. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is stating these things cannot be explicit in the article, though the counter argument that Ernst's paper should also be similarly disputed stands as well.Chickpecking (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical claims no matter who makes them. The Cochrane systematic review (of which Ernst is a co-author) is a gold standard source, and so a good WP:MEDRS. The Ostermann source is a weak source we must avoid. For non-biomedical claims the sourcing requirement is less stringent: WP:RS. Though this being a fringe topic WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE (including WP:FRIND and maybe WP:PARITY) need to be taken into careful consideration. Alexbrn (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) amended 06:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a wide range of studies cited above by a wide range of authors. The theme is clearly being taken seriously. Attacking Ostermann, who is not even one of these authors (he wrote the review article), misses my point above. HGilbert (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There's loads of research into homeopathy too. There's no doubt that high-quality research into the clinical effectiveness of mistletoe therapy is needed (Ernst himself has written as much, except of course he rather suspects it will not show effectiveness). But that in no way validates it. Alexbrn (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Update- Preclinical and Clinical Effects of Mistletoe against Breast Cancer by MarviBaigi et al. is actually a review article. It looks quite useful for understanding the different molecular compounds in mistletoe that are active against cancer and moves above just a primary source.Chickpecking (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A journal with an impact factor of 1.58 published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation - and an article which barely commands the English Language, let alone the science. A very weak source which we can safely avoid since we have sources at the other end of the quality spectrum from NIH, Cochrane and the ACS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This subject is not being "taken seriously". The volume of research is tiny for a purported cancer cure, and almost all of it seems to be True Believers trying to generate support for their pre-existing beliefs. What we're looking at is basically pathological science. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

GuyPlease refrain from making insults, whether intended or not. I think we can discuss this topic with open minds in both directions, and good will to each other. Steiner said more times than I can count for his readers not to believe what he said, to go out and try it in the world.Chickpecking (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The search results for mistletoe research were performed to dispute the NCI claim of no causal hypothesis. That clearly exists. The Cochrane review only used RCTs. There are problems with RCTs methodologically- mistletoe injections cause a temporary rash, often a fever. Patients who volunteered for a study have a cancer diagnosis and will often crossover from placebo to treatment, or vice versa. Yet statistically we have to do analysis by "intention to treat". This will appear to "dilute" the effect of what is studied. Blinding may also be affected. (Not saying that case controls are without their problems too, just pointing out a known issue with RCT). That being said, the article text does not reflect the conclusions of the Cochrane review.

"The evidence from RCTs to support the view that the application of mistletoe extracts has impact on survival or leads to an impr oved ability to fight cancer or to withstand anticancer treatments is w eak. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that mistletoe ext racts may offer benefits on measures of QOL during chemotherapy for brea st cancer, but these results need replication. Overall, more hi gh quality, independent clinical research is needed to truly assess the saf ety and effectiveness of mistletoe extracts. Patients receivi ng mistletoe therapy should be encouraged to take part in future trails."

(Alexbrn would you direct your criticism of the command of English to the authors of the Cochrane too? "future trails" :) ). If a bridge is weak and I walk over it, no one would tell me that I am doing something impossible like floating in the air. There IS a bridge there. There is evidence as well- at this time it appears weak to the Cochrane reviewers. So we should say that there is weak evidence per the cochrane review of mistletoe's impact on survival- and temper this with the above dilutional effect of only using RCT's. Guy: I agree with you, and so does Cochrane, that more studies need to be done with mistletoe. One could look at the financial incentives differently. Standard chemotherapy agents are expensive and range from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538397/ is a good NIH article on problems with chemo drug pricing). Mistletoe costs several hundred dollars for a full treatment. There is no huge company with billions of dollars at their disposal to do research. To argue that mistletoe does not have sufficient research, therefore it is bunk, is to make a logical fallacy. I am not arguing the counter, just that we are not stating the facts that are out there in an objective way.Chickpecking (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I would distinguish between a typo and a systemic failure to get the grammar right! As for Cochrane 2008, when we "translate" text from the field of EBM into an article aimed at the lay reader, it is vital to account for the fundamental EBM assumption that treatments are considered ineffective unless and until there is good evidence to the contrary. Whereas to a researcher "there is weak evidence" means "not to be considered an effective treatment", to a lay reader it may suggests that it potentially is usable. Restating EBM language verbatim in a lay context is subtly misleading and something we generally avoid (the classic case being "researchers called for further study" as a validating comment). We also need to take account of the more recent ACS and NIH conclusions. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are four levels of Cochrane evidence: Strong evidence, weak evidence, limited evidence, and no evidence. (I guess you could say 7 because you can have 3 more levels of "evidence against"). So the Cochrane review gives mistletoe a 3 out of 4. Calling for further study is not validating or invalidating. It just means there are still questions. I suggest you look at Cochrane reviews of the influenza shot (typically no evidence to weak), and the discussion of the flu shot in wikipedia which may lean a little positive but successfully stays NPOV while discussing the studies and evidence, and how to use the evidence. That is not happening here. We have a NPOV problemChickpecking (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems a clear statement of the situation. HGilbert (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Handwaving about the wording in reviews of back pain (which is misrepresented anyway since the 4 levels of evidence mentioned there are actually: "strong", "moderate", "limited/conflicting" and "no evidence") and influenza jabs is not going to make us misrepresent the current evidence as stated in reliable, up-to-date sources about mistletoe therapy, sorry. We say there is "little evidence" and that is right, maybe even a little generous. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no handwaving here only clear thinking. I only ask- can we stick to the sources at hand instead of interpreting them in a negative light. The flu jab cochrane is illustrative of a fair treatment of a subject where systematic reviews hand us limited to no evidence of efficacy. Weak evidence is still evidence. It should be objectively reported as such, not as "disproven" and using "unproven" is tendentious. The only solution I can see to this discrepancy is a NPOV problem in the article. Instead of arguing this point further, I will from now on create better edits for this article.Chickpecking (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you have a WP:COI you shouldn't be making article edits at all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So the astrophysicists should also step out of the article on their field? Does not sound like a good way to make an encyclopedia. I can affirm that my relationship with AM does not provide me any financial incentives whatsoever.Chickpecking (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of COI is that editors with a conflict of interest are required to WP:DISCLOSE (that link is for you, Chickpecking) their COI and are otherwise required to edit by the Wikipedia guidelines concerning sources, neutrality, objectivity and so forth just as other editors. What do you think, @Alexbrn:? And no, weak evidence is weak evidence, especially when used for strong claims and so I agree with those who argue that we are required to represent sources in an understandable way for the lay reader. AadaamS (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no community consensus that altmed practitioners have ipso facto a conflict of interest, and although there are some problems here with WP:ADVOCACY from the WP:SPAs (and possible WP:SOCKing too) this Talk page is not really the place to go into that. Editors are aware of the relevant policies and that discretionary sanctions are in force. It's possible a "relationship with AM" may give rise to a COI (even if not a financial one), but it's impossible to know without disclosure. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If the law of the land allows Chickpecking to practice AM, I don't have any authority to police his practice. But an intellectually honest person in his position would be required to show some awareness that his practice is fringe, medically seen. There is a big distinction between legally permitted and mainstream acceptance. Wikipedia is strongly biased towards mainstream acceptance, not towards pampering whatever is legally permitted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The repeated claims that this is a fringe medical movement fly in the face of the fact that it is being discussed by mainstream medical authorities and published by mainstream journals and presses. To find the large number of non-fringe sources that discuss this, see above or a Google Scholar search (in the latter, mainstream sources are frequent, as are citations to journals of alternative medicine; discount the latter and you are still left with a very large number of discussions in mainstream journals and published by mainstream presses such as Springer and Elsevier).

Also, it seems worth reminding some recent editors that ad hominem arguments are neither logically valid nor acceptable on Wikipedia. Please stick to discussing the this medical approach in terms of the available high-quality sources. HGilbert (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You are not called names, despite what Chickpecking repeatedly stated, you are instead called to realize that AM is WP:FRINGE/PS. You are called to agree upon this basic fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There may have been some questions about categorization in the past, but nowadays we know pretty much what's what. Note that in 2013 Lancet Oncol. comes straight out and discusses mistletoe treatment in a "quackery" section. There really is no more to say. Wikipedia of course is aligned with this mainstream view. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lancet (think about the instrument it refers to) is well known for publishing provocative articles. It also published a 1997 meta-analysis on homeopathy that concluded that homeopathy was more than just placebo effect (they could not conclude on efficacy). The Lancet is a journal well known for challenging the status quo. In this light your article could be seen as assuming that mistletoe is the status quo. It is for CAM cancer therapy in Europe. Just as the scientific community did not "really have no more to say" after the homeopathy article, it is unlikely they will stop researching and discussing mistletoe. Chickpecking (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh well, come back if and when they publish then. For now, in the absence of further quality sources, we are done. Alexbrn (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

References

collapse list of sources
References

Netherlands

The source cited merely says that non-homeopathic anthroposophic medicines must now go through normal certification and registration procedures, as all other non-homeopathic medicines do. I am removing the misleading text recently added, that is not supported by the source and is not accurate. HGilbert (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the idea: the same standards apply to those as to any other (e.g. "allopathic") medicines. This meant in practice a ban on non-homeopathic anthroposophical medicines, since none of them passed through the caudine forks of market approval. There are some comments from the press and Dutch Anti-Quacks Society which affirm this, if needed by WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

See e.g. [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And [3]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A requirement for certification is not a ban. You are confusing very different things. The non-homeopathic medications have lost their special status. They are now treated like every other medication. HGilbert (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In Dutch "verbod" means "ban". That's what Trouw stated (Trouw is a mainstream Dutch newspaper with national coverage). I agree that they are treated like every other medication, but RS say this practically meant a ban on selling them in the Netherlands. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Their headline claims this, but headlines are poor sources for accurate information. The body of the text merely states that the medications are threatened with not being able to be sold in the future, HGilbert (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, "threatened with not being able to be sold in the future" is usually called "a ban". I know of no such anthroposophical medicine which got market approval in the Netherlands after the High Council verdict. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Immunization

This is text I removed. Reasons- the quotation portrays Offit as an expert on Steiner's views. He is not. It is quite easy to quote Steiner one place and out of context find something that says something quite different. It is more importantly also ambiguous how Anthroposophical Medicine played into the pertussis outbreak. It is not clear at all here that AM was the causal role in this cluster of cases. This needs a more precise reference.

Paul Offit writes that Steiner believed that vaccination "interferes with karmic development and the cycles of reincarnation", and that adherence to this belief has led to a 2008 pertussis outbreak in a Californian Waldorf school, causing its temporary closure.Chickpecking (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

RS considers the anti-immunization stuff as part of AM, so we follow RS. Offit is an independent secondary source and of course an expert on immunization, so his view is due even if you disagree with it. (Also, you damaged the article by ripping out the reference leaving a named reference dangling). Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean to do any damage (I'm pretty new with this sorry). I think the RS we can use for his relevant views on immunization on which he is an expert, but we should not use him where he is drawing inferences that can not be established. There are plenty of Waldorf schools (sometimes called Steiner schools, but not as in the article elsewhere called "anthroposophical schools" as they do not teach Anthroposophy) that have nary an anthroposophist. The position of every representative body of AM I have come across is that the physician should provide objective information to parents about immunization that allows the parents to make the choice for their child freely. Also, the immunization stance is interesting to me, as most position papers actually advocate for certain vaccines (like tetanus). Soldners book "Individual Pediatrics" has quite a long section on immunization. It is possible that AM had a role in the cases, but not established by what the RS says. Waldorf schools usually have students with parents with non-vaccinating views for their own reasons and there may have been a large group of parents who followed Wakefield or other philosophies (in my experience this is more likely)Chickpecking (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson is a RS on neurosurgery- but we do not quote him as a RS on middle east conflict!Chickpecking (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that AM had a role in the cases, but not established by what the RS says ← This is simply wrong, as both the Ernst review of AM and Offit specifically link AM to non-immunization. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect line of argument. I said it is not established that AM had a role in the cases. AM has an independent approach to vaccination, but again Offit does not establish that the cases were children attended to by Anthroposophic physicians, or even children of Anthroposophists for that matter. It is the equivalent of saying that a person must be guilty of running a certain red light because they have a fast car. There is no evidence he is a good source on AM views (hence my comparison to the famous neurosurgeon). In all this is very poorly used. Per Offit:

"Although Vashon Island is an excellent example of what can happen when parents stop giving pertussis vaccine, it isn't the only example. On May 10, 2008, an outbreak of whooping cough occurred at the East Bay Waldorf School in El Sobrante, California. The Waldorf School follows the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, author of Fundamentals of Anthroposophical Medicine. Steiner believes that vaccination "interferes with karmic development and the cycles of reincarnation." As a result of this philosophy, at least sixteen students, mostly kindergarteners, suffered the disease; virtually all were unvaccinated. When health officials investigated the outbreak — and discovered just how many children were left vulnerable — they did something that rarely occurs in twenty-first-century America. They closed the school until the epidemic subsided. "
He also is mistakenly giving equivalence to "follows the teachings of Rudolf Steiner" in terms of taking up educational indications, versus "all the things Rudolf Steiner said". There is good evidence this must be removed as simply biased writings of this author. If you find an actual source showing causal linkage, please replace.Chickpecking (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ernst's paper on measles also blends the factors of parental decision, tolerance to the choice not to vaccinate in Waldorf schools, and the stance towards vaccination in Anthroposophical medicine (which he does not relate in a comprehensive way). He suffers the same logical flaws as the above author, and at least in this article on anthroposphical medicine the claims made do not stand. This is a poor source.Chickpecking (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you wish the paper didn't exist because it conflicts with your religion. Sadly for you, it does exist, and is by a widely known expert, so it stays. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your line of rational thought. When losing a logical argument, if you wish to turn next to attack the source of that argument, I think you could use actual facts. (My religion is Christianity- aside from thou shall not lie and the general pursuit of truth, I am not sure how that relates.) But friend, please let us decidedly not do so in this forum- you seem like you are wanting to throw insults around. I am actually quite open to the possibility that there may be a reliable source for the inference that AM contributed to an epidemic, but Ernst, as well as Offit fail to provide this. Putting them here is, like I have argued, like using Ben Carson as a source to argue the Chinese are in Syria because he is a RS in neurosurgery.Chickpecking (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Anthroposophic "medicine" is a belief system, a religion, and is largely an offshoot of the Steiner cult. It is not anchored in empirical reality. Your statements make it clear that you are a True Believer, which is nice for you, but Wikipedia reflects the world as it really is, not as True Believers wish it to be. This is by design. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy: Your comment above seems consistent with the logical errors of assumptions I discussed above by Ernst and Offit (also changing the subject). I will assume your comments are from assumptions and not ill intent. You assume that AM is a belief system, thus it is a religion. The only way I can really understand your statement is to be able to also state that modern science is a belief system, thus a religion. AM is based on a more comprehensive science of knowing that Rudolf Steiner made explicit in his book "The Philosophy of Freedom". Can we really draw a circle and state that everything outside that is unknowable? It is our thinking that is making that distinction. But how can we think about things we can't know anything about? Epistemologically to say "I know something about the spiritual world" rather than "I believe something about the spiritual world" is a different thing. Steiner probably repeated "don't believe the things I am saying, go out and find their truth for yourselves" more times than anything I have read. There is no "true believer" approach in both AM and in Anthroposophy- people such inclined in my experience generally do not like to work their thinking so hard as to read difficult Anthroposophical texts. "Steiner cult" is an odd term in this light. Do we assume that people who gather together because they find certain ideas stimulating and fruitful must be members of a cult? It is with this thinking we also assume that children who were unvaccinated, with no documentation of seeing an Anthroposophical physician, and went to a waldorf school, (but whose parents had no documentation of being Anthroposophists- a few parents in my kids school are, most are not), and came down with an infectious disease did so due to Anthroposophical Medicine- just because Offit or Ernst said so. You might think that such "anti quacks" might encourage more logical, independent thinking than this "cultlike" thinking indulged in here (believe this because I say so). Again- I am very open to the possibility that every single child in those outbreaks was doctored by an Anthroposophical physician, and that the physician swayed the parents to forego vaccination. I am saying these sources are very poor. Find one that actually documents the connection.Chickpecking (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to come back when you have WP:MEDRS compliant sources stating that the basis of anthroposophic "medicine" is empirically proven as valid. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The presence or lack of WP:MEDRS seems irrelevant to this topic which is about the use of sources that may be reliable in one domain (immunization) as sources in areas they have no experience and making inferences that if quoted, should be described as inferences at best, not fact. Most of my other discussions on this page have revolved around the lack of NPOV. Adding sources of review articles, systemic reviews, and meta-analysis seems allowable even under strict WP:FRINGE rules. Using textbooks to illustrate, not prove, what AM does, where AM stands on issues, also seems allowable.Chickpecking (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In the year 2000, there were fifteen Anthroposophical medical practices in the United States (ASA 2000, 57). Waldorf schools are primary recruiters of new patients.

— Dan Dugan, "Anthroposophy and Anthroposophical Medicine" in Michael Shermer (ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2002, p. 32.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We will accept this as a reliable source? Mr Dugan was so biased against Waldorf education and Anthroposophy he was banned from wikipedia. Chickpecking (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the position paper of European Waldorf Schools on Immunization. Chickpecking (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)ref>http://www.steinerwaldorfeurope.org/downloads/statements/ecswe_vaccinationstatement.pdf</ref>

Dugan was banned as editor, not as writer of reliable sources. The quoted source is relevant since it satisfies WP:PARITY, and maybe even WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If Michio Kaku would edit Wikipedia and repeatedly violate its rules, then get banned, it would not mean that Kaku's writings are no longer reliable sources for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Stroked out unsubstantiated statement, no evidence for it at User talk:Dandugan1. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thank you, I think I confused him with Pete K. Chickpecking (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case, Dugan has absolutely no qualifications as a RS on this subject. HGilbert (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

He has, because WP:PARITY applies to WP:FRINGE subjects. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happier with a better source then Dugan, I have to say. It's only that he's been legitimised by Shermer's editorship here that makes me think it's kind of okay. Intriguingly, I think it was Hgilbert who added this to the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I only used Dugan in the talk page, for evaluating other sources, and I did not state that he would pass WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh he'd not be MEDRS, but we're not using him that way (in the current article), so that's not a worry. He's used for a statement that AM is pseudoscience, and for some detail of anthroposophic drug making. Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources

The following are a small sampling of the non-fringe sources available for AM. Some are individual studies and thus not preferred as direct sources for this article, but these being published in mainstream medical journals also demonstrate that there is a mainstream recognition of the medical approach.

Why bother listing poor sources (some screamingly so)? For biomedical material we need WP:MEDRS; otherwise we need WP:FRINDependent sources. We have some really good ones so there's no need to scrape the barrel (unless trying to push a POV of course by trying to include the very biased & poor research which the scientific community has identified). Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. The only POV pushing currently actually happening is by those with negative bias. I find this to be a good start to a list. Chickpecking (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:MEDRS from top to bottom. You'll find the answer there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have read it 6 times now. I am not sure we can exclude published textbooks in AM or other peer reviewed research.Chickpecking (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Textbooks in AM fail WP:MEDINDY and WP:FRINGE/PS. All primary sources are to be avoided (so the whole collapsed list is meaningless to this article). Only reputable secondary and tertiary sources are allowed to make medical claims in Wikipedia's voice. That is, not all reviews and medical textbooks are reputable. We follow scientific consensus not pander to bizarre minority views (such as effectiveness of medicines being influenced by astrological configurations). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The same applies to textbooks of homeopathy: these don't change the pseudoscience category for the article homeopathy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mistletoe has been used to treat cancer patients for a century, and this era, which has been mostly one of therapeutic impotence, is now ending. ... In the 1920s, the New England Journal of Medicine published multiple articles on the treatment of hypertension with mistletoe extracts (12), but, as the pathophysiology of hypertension became clearer and effective treatments for it were developed, mistletoe disappeared from cardiovascular medicine. Something similar may well happen in the domain of oncology.

— Florian Lordick, "Mistletoe Treatment for Cancer—Promising or Passé?", Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111: 491–2

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories / See also links

Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Quackery are being repeatedly removed. These categories are sourced - and reading the article, I can see why. It seems that some people are determined to interpret any finding of any potentially useful compound in mistletoe as a validation of anthroposophic "medicine". That's a bit like finding an aluminium thread in a carpet and asserting that because aircraft are also made of aluminium, so you have proved that carpets can fly. I think the edit-war over these categories needs to end, and they need to remain. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these make really good MOS:SEEALSO links for readers who want to explore these topic areas. They are obviously relevant: "quackery" is mentioned here in the article, and "pseudoscience" is a CATEGORY for it (so the refinement of "pseudomedicine" is relevant). Remember, we need to be in line with the good sources' take on this topic, setting aside any personal view. Alexbrn (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting link with Sigmund Rascher

Edzard Ernst blogged about Sigmund Rascher's links to anthroposophic medicine, and tests he ran on copper chloride biocrystallisation at Dachau: http://edzardernst.com/2015/12/the-sickening-story-of-an-alternative-cancer-test/. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting with a connection between the anthroposophic movement and the nazi movement. On a tangent, the article on Medical University of Vienna is quite sparse on its World War Two section but Ernst has written about this somehwere else. AadaamS (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is some interesting Ernst material around this topic, but it appears the Nazis weren't much interested in AM's particular magicks after the schism with the movement. They were however very interested in homeopathy (of course a component of AM). The only connection I have got sniff of is that there was a 1924 Steiner experiment where rabbit body parts were made into a spray and used on a farm as a like-cure-like rabbit repellent. I have read that taking inspiration from this, the Nazis made similar sprays out of Jewish cadavers and used them for spraying parts of the Reich. However I haven't pursued this partly because the sources are a bit marginal and partly because I haven't the stomach for reading the literature in this area. The trail starts at http://doi.org/doi:10.1016/S0007-0785(96)80056-1 . Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The german anthroposophic doctors association is doing a historic research project on the question of the involvement into nazi topics these days. I couldn't find a source for that in the web. When I find one I will quote it here. The homeopathic movement had a research project: http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=155370. The article is in german though. --C holtermann (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthroposophic medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630090414/http://www.lukasklinik.ch:80/cms.asp?IDN=133&H='106'&T=0&Sprache=en to http://www.lukasklinik.ch/cms.asp?IDN=133&H='106'&T=0&Sprache=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

August 2017 changes

There have been SIGNIFICANT changes in the past few days which have introduced serious POV and MEDRS issues into the article and are largely sourced to documents behind a Harvard paywall. I tried to revert/npov each edit one-by-one, but it gradually dawned on me that it would be a Herculean task to correct all of the mistakes myself. If users @Sharmapa:, @C.Cimarusti: and @Karindee: want to get their sh*t together and correct the mess they've made then I suggest they read up on WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:V before continuing to edit. Famous_dog (c) 09:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting one way or other other on the substantive issues, keep in mind that whether articles are behind a paywall doesn't affect whether they are WP:RS. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, without reference to the substantive issues, I note that all three users began editing within a few days of one another (two on the same day), and are exclusively editing this article. Socks? I have notified all 3 on their talk page of the WP policy. Clean Copy^talk 13:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes and restored what seemed to be well-referenced (about half the material). This should still be looked at critically, for example verifying references (libraries exist!). Clean Copy^talk 13:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of language clearly in source

The following was removed, though it clearly represents exactly what the source says, and in no way is "brochure language":

• to build upon three Western medical traditions, naturopathy, homeopathy, and scientific medicine.

The work cited is a NIH publication; I have corrected the publisher and author according to this publication information Clean Copy^talk 18:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Ledes must summarize articles, so should not contain novel content not covered in the body. Calling homeopathy a "Western medical tradition" without any qualification is obviously WP:PROFRINGE and completely counter to WP:NPOV. A text reporting the outcome of a "workshop on alternative medicine" from over 20 years ago is not WP:FRINDipendent source. Also, as you have been told many times, as an editor with a glaring COI you shouldn't be editing this article, particularly in such a blatantly promotional way. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What quality of sources would suffice for this? And if I find sources that meet a standard you set, will you not remove the information?

On the second point, as COI is defined as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships," I have no COI, glaring or otherwise, in relation to AM, as I have repeatedly told you. Please stop repeating this claim. Clean Copy^talk 19:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You have a COI as a matter of record (see e.g.[5]); you should also read WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine), particularly as regards advocacy. We need independent preferably secondary sources for fringe topics - and ledes need to summarize articles. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for bigging-up the daft notions of Steiner and his followers. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you and some guy decided such things. Clean Copy^talk 22:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthroposophic medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208125032/http://www.medicinesresources.nhs.uk/GetDocument.aspx?pageId=777217 to http://www.medicinesresources.nhs.uk/GetDocument.aspx?pageId=777217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

University Witten/Herdecke

Picking up a discussion about fairness from one year ago from the archive Talk:Anthroposophic_medicine/Archive_3#Fairness. I stopped discussing the matter back then as it seemed as if it was not possible to have a discussion with @Alexbrn: To reply to your argument "You're just trying to bury criticism based on your own views of matter." I could have just replied the same. "You are just trying to promote criticism and bad talk about an institution." It seemed absurd to do so as this is the niveau of children fighting in a sandbox and totally inadequate for grown up talk or science. But as this sentence just seems to not meet the standards of wikipedia I return to this discussion. I have read multiple times through the information regarding sources in wikipedia and I stick with the judgement that citing this newspaper article in this uncritical way is absurdly inadequate. It is relying on hearsay and meets no scientific standards. --C holtermann (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.

— User:Kww, [6]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I have been talking about ? Well I guess I need to read the article Acupuncture and the probably 300long pages of discussion to understand the context. I got to know the pattern of discussion here. A specific point is made and a general answer implying something that has not been talked about. I'd like to do scientific discussion. Please do me the favour to answer specifically to my points. To your favour. My points are still the same I made one year ago. I never got a reply. Except for discrediting my motives. Which is somehow fitting because I criticized the discrediting of an institution. --C holtermann (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I think basically the argument boils together to: "Whatever You or I say. I have the righteous scientific position. You don't." which doesn't really sound like science to me. More like a dogmatic belief system. But let's talk about the points I brought up instead. --C holtermann (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @C holtermann: From what I can see, the issue is that you think the sources are not reliable to support the statements in that section and other editors think that they are. I also agree with them that the sources are reliable. If you still don't agree, this is fine obviously, in that case I would suggest that you take it to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --McSly (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The situation is indeed asymmetrical: mainstream, evidence-based medicine vs. alternative medicine based upon clairvoyance (read: hallucination). For a university is dishonorable to teach such rants as medical science. As the Dutch expression: trust comes by pedestrian footsteps and goes riding on a horse. To tell it as it is, the mainstream view is that Anthroposophic medicine is quackery. If Mr. Holtermann has doubts about that, he is in the wrong place. This is a place for singing hymns like A might fortress is MEDRS/mainstream science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You are not adressing my critic. You are using ad hominem arguments. Please don't attack my person / what you suppose I believe in. --C holtermann (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@C holtermann: I was stating the obvious, it is not an attack against you (unless you deny the obvious, namely that mainstream medicine considers AM to be quackery). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I beg you to not WP:HARASS or threaten anyone because of their point of view. --C holtermann (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Stating that AM is widely regarded as quackery isn't harassment, it is rendering the medical consensus. What about Reiki, acupuncture, faith healing? These are quackery just as AM. Should I stop calling them quackery because acupuncturists may scream harassment? These are all quackery according to the Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij, which I am a member of. But forget about my opinions and about your opinions: as Wikipedia editors we should agree that in the real world AM is widely regarded as quackery. I think that every editor has to acknowledge this basic fact. There can be no constructive dialogue between reality-based editors and editors engaging in denialism. Don't engage in denialism, that's all I ask, render Caesar's Caesar's. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You have been threatening me by stating "If Mr. Holtermann has doubts about that, he is in the wrong place.". Me if I have doubts about your statement or supposedly anyone having doubts about it. What do you mean by "is in the wrong place ?". I understand that as you will do something harmful preventing that person to voice his or her position on wikipedia. Doing edits on the page of the encyclopedia as well as on the discussion pages. Do I get that right ? That is a threat and harassment based on a statement. Everyone that is not accepting the position "the mainstream view is that Anthroposophic medicine is quackery" is being threatened. I see that as unacceptable for a collaborative platform at least a scientific one. If we were in some sort of cult here then that would be ok. Then I'd probably leave on my own. --C holtermann (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Brief admin comment: C holtermann, none of the things you have pointed at constitute a personal attack. Au contraire (or, following Tgeorgescu, integendeel), those false accusations you are making are a violation of WP:AGF and, indeed, WP:NPA: accusing someone of a personal attack where none has been made is a personal attack. I see that in subsequent posts you have refrained from those accusations: I hope you will keep it that way. Now, I hope you all have a fruitful discussion at RSN. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The threat upon everybody who edits this topic consists of discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision. We're not a cult, but there is some amount of WP:COMPETENCE required of all editors. Pushing WP:FRINGE/PS POVs could become disruptive and it can be sanctioned. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, it is heavily based upon mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, thus inherently biased against pseudoscience and quackery. It is quite odd that you don't see that in the stronghold of WP:MEDRS AM is in the same boat with acupuncture, Reiki and faith healing. Maybe a WP:COI is preventing you from seeing that, e.g. having your income derived from practicing AM.

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear fellows editors and admin. Thank you for your responses. I will think about them and decide about the perspectives I see for myself in this setting. --C holtermann (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @McSly:. Thank you for suggesting that Noticeboard. That seems actually helpful. Before going there I will try to make my point clearer here because I don't think that my critics regarding the use of that respective source at this point have been understood. Even if people like what it says because it fits their worldview it needs to fit encyclopedic standards. I brought up points showing that that is not the case. I will make that point clearer. And if the only arguments against my points are that it fits the common view of anthroposophic medicine then that is not scientific but dogmatic. --C holtermann (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Dogma (especially in science) literally means what it can be known with reasonable certainty. It is opposed to the all-out skepticism that nothing can be truly known by science. E.g. Newton's laws are a dogma which is useful in most practical situations, even if they have been superseded by relativity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream medicine has no point of view. There are many individuals and WP tries to reflect a neutral balance of their points of view in proportion to their actual representation. That's why actual reliable sources are more valuable than arguments. Clean Copy^talk 16:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has a point of view, and it has been spelled out at WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Medical degree

It does seem that the Wikipedia editors who frequent this entry have a definite view on the subject. But don't you think the entry would be more credible if it mentioned the fact that all anthroposophic doctors must also be fully qualified in conventional medicine? Using pejorative language to describe AM while not mentioning this fact at all is a pretty big hole. Also, Elsevier (publishers of The Lancet and Science Direct) would by any measure be agreed to represent mainstream science. Yet their publication assessing whether AM fulfilled the criteria of being science - which is easy to source and which found that it did (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229917308804) - is not mentioned while the view of the relatively little-known Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij is quoted above as evidence that AM is "widely regarded as quackery". I can understand that Wikipedia chooses to represent the "mainstream" when navigating tricky waters, but who decides what is mainstream, especially these days? There is a danger of entries veering away from being balanced appraisals albeit viewed through an overt "mainstream" lens. This inevitably colours the usefulness of Wikipedia, which is already disregarded as a reliable source in many schools and universities. Please accept this is a genuine contribution to the debate, and excuse any clumsiness on my part as a new visitor. I really hope Wikipedia can find a positive way through these very difficult problems. Hermesian (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hermesian: Please read WP:RGW: it is not our task to undo the fringeness of AM. MDs could have extremely bizarre views and still practice medicine. E.g. there is a Romanian MD who thinks that the treatment for cancer (does not matter what sort of cancer) is fruits and vegetables, while chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy be damned. There are MDs who treat for energetic bodies. There are MDs who apply regression to past incarnations. There are homeopaths, and around here homeopathy is considered pseudoscience and there is no way to appeal such sentence, since that has to change in the real world, Wikipedia merely reflects the medical orthodoxy. These being said, Rudolf Steiner was basically a psychic, he had some sort of visual and auditory hallucinations and was very gullible, e.g. he trusted Druid folklore about mistletoe and AM MDs consider his insight some sort of message from the Archangels, evidence-based medicine and critical thinking be damned.

Ok, back to that paper: the community its authors mean is not the medical/scientific community at large but only the AM medical community. Evidence: However, for the application of the criteria, sufficient knowledge of and insight into AM is mandatory, just as only quantum physicists may be able to judge specific issues of quantum mechanics. This is what we call around here a walled garden. Double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often cannot be applied Oh, at least this is honesty! What the authors do not realize is that they have thus defeated bringing AM in sync with evidence-based medicine: they honestly realize that it cannot be done. From a position claiming that such holistic forces cannot possibly exist or cannot be empirically and rationally assessed, the axiomatic and conceptual basis of AM can be contested. No, the scientific community doesn't have to prove that holistic forces cannot possibly exist, the AM community has to prove beyond reasonable doubt their existence to the scientific community. Like there is no evidence that qi and fairies do not exist. I don't have to prove that qi and fairies don't exist, the burden of proof is upon those who claim these do exist. The scientists who claimed the existence of electricity have proven it beyond reasonable doubt, the same hurdle exists for proving the existence of the astral body. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful for your extremely rapid response, especially at such a late hour, including links which I have read thoroughly. I also saw you had posted a sanctions warning on my User Talk page. Please understand, I had already recognised that Wikipedia decided it was justified in being biased in favour of a particular opinion in some fields. I was more trying to point out that evident hostility to a subject could damage Wikipedia's credibility. There are many Wikipedia pages devoted to subjects where the mainstream view leans strongly one way, but the entry nevertheless quotes one side saying one thing and the other side a contrary view. In other words, it presents the information but remains balanced, which is surely a requirement of an "encyclopedia". I do not think I am alone in fearing that the Wikipedia AM entry could fairly be described as unnecessarily pejorative and hostile. The logical consequence of such a trend may be that Wikipedia becomes viewed not as an encyclopedia but as a Wikipedia-branded information/opinion outlet, and I have seen evidence of this already happening. I recognise the enormous dedication and commitment of Wikipedia editors and can imagine how draining constantly maintaining standards must be, so I hope this is a useful contribution and does not contravene any rules. Just to be clear, I do not work in AM but I do have some knowledge of it. Finally, I would agree that electricity is a good example to cite here, in that its existence cannot be proven by showing it, which is impossible, but by showing its effects. Hermesian (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This problem has been discussed thousands times before, on different subjects. I think that you should read the "official" position at WP:LUNATICS. As I have stated elsewhere, we describe what ISIL stood for, but we do so from the perspective of the WP:MAINSTREAM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, which I read with interest. You've made Wikipedia's position abundantly clear and I really have no wish to impose on your time. But, further to the points raised in WP:LUNATICS and WP:MAINSTREAM, I would be grateful if you could clarify what constitutes evidence from reputable sources. A quick search revealed this: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865373/) which is published under the auspices of the US National Library of Medicine, described by Wikipedia as the world's largest medical library, operated by the United States federal government. The article is published in their section: Global Advances in Health and Medicine. It touches on various aspects of AM and includes references to dozens of related articles from recognised sources (for example the European Journal of Medical Research). In the section on clinical efficacy and effectiveness, it reports that 253 out of 265 studies (including 32 out of 38 randomized trials) found AM achieved a comparable or better outcome than with conventional medicine, or a clinically relevant improvement often in chronic conditions after unsuccessful conventional treatment. On the use of mistletoe in treating cancer, a randomized controlled trial is reported as finding its use extended median survival from 2.7 to 4.8 months in advanced pancreatic cancer patients not eligible for chemotherapy. So my question is: Does this qualify and if not, why? Hermesian (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't for several reasons. First, there are red flags indicating the journal is not high-quality. For example, it is not MEDLINE-indexed. Second, it appears to be written by people who work in anthroposophic medicine. At a minimum, we should strive to find sources written by independent experts for a more objective view. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, he cannot eat his cake and have it, too: the first source he mentioned above declared that for a variety of reasons AM is not amenable to randomized control trials (double blind). So much for it having objective validity. We should note that the argument "homeopathy is not amenable to RCTs" only served to make homeopathy more ridiculous than it already was. Why should it then cut ice with AM instead of homeopathy? After reading such solemn declaration, people from the reality-based community will conclude that AM is based on faith, not science. Some people easily get the point that their pet theory has gotten rejected by mainstream science. And we certainly do not need troublemakers who are genuinely unable to get this point when they are told by several people (including Jimbo's official statement). See WP:CIR for details. To give him an example, I distrust the medical consensus upon the health effects of salt, but I'm no troublemaker at that article. I basically think that abortion is murder, but I readily acknowledge that this is a subjective opinion, so I'm no troublemaker at the abortion article either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Many thanks for your helpful reply. So it's not so much publication by a reputable organisation as meeting specific Wikipedia criteria, which seems fair enough. I subsequently found WP:RS and if I'd seen that before I wouldn't have needed to post the question. I read the top line and knew I was in the right place: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Hermesian (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: First you assume I am "He". Then the assumptions abound: "pet theory?", "unable to get the point?" "Troublemaker?" Crikey. We have another saying in English: "Never assume; it makes an ass out of u and me." Read my posts again. I have been very clear that I understand why Wikipedia takes the position it does. Is it then unreasonable to suggest that making an entry less pejorative and hostile might actually make Wikipedia a better resource and improve its reputation without needing to compromise any standards? I have also stated my respect for the work of Wikipedia editors responsible for maintaining standards, and that I genuinely did not wish to impose on your time. I see you made eight edits to your post above over the course of more than two hours and if it was that use of your time which caused you to be so rude, well, I apologise. But I will say this: in almost any organisation a visitor subjected to rudeness has the option of asking to speak to the manager. This is not available in Wikipedia, which places a huge responsibility on editors to remain civil. And not to make assumptions. Hermesian (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hermesian: Well, the first source you have cited above goes against WP:RS/AC (medical orthodoxy). I don't think I've got this wrong. So it seemed to me quite like WP:PROFRINGE. WP:FRINGE stuff gets discussed inside Wikipedia, but not in terms fringe pushers would like. And, yup, IMHO "Hermesian" sounds male. About "who decides what is mainstream" there is a lot to read: Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Searle, Feyerabend, etc. Hint: Wikipedia never decides that, but it takes it for granted from proper authorities. Also, I do not intend to be mean with you, but I prefer to be extremely clear about WP:RULES, to the point of saying it bluntly. As Zefr wrote, Read WP:MEDRS - the encyclopedia requires high-quality reviews of completed clinical research, which don't exist for curcumin. As a new editor, you should spend time with MEDRS and WP:MEDHOW for orientation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hermesian, I'm curious to know what your experience with anthroposophic medicine is. Are you a practitioner of it or have you received treatment from it? I ask because I notice the AM article is the only one you have edited since you started here on Wikipedia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I already stated above I do not work in AM and you know I am a newcomer so, what actually is your question? Have I done something wrong? Hermesian (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

His point is explained at WP:SPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. Have I done something wrong? Hermesian (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, as I have already stated, citing that source smacks of WP:PROFRINGE. E.g. comparing AM with quantum mechanics and inferring that both are legitimate academic fields is hubris. To be sure, you have done nothing irremediably wrong. But editors who only edit a single article or narrow subject are regarded as somewhat suspect by the core community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I came to this page to discuss improving the article. So come on now, let's be clear, I did not "cite" either reference, they were both mentioned in posts in which I was posing questions. I did not make any edits to the article, nor suggest that the references should be cited. By focusing on them you seem to have rather missed the point of my posts. When I have had ailments, I have experienced with varying results a wide range of treatments including conventional and anthroposophic. You imply I am an activist pushing a fringe view, although I expect by now you will have noticed I am neither a single-issue nor narrow-field contributor. Actually, what I have been pushing is BALANCE and the idea that Wikipedia could be the better for it, and it wouldn't even have to sacrifice its institutionalised bias. If I am walking down the street and I see someone I know taking a beating, I don't need to be married to them or employed by them to want to do something. My experience of anthroposophic medicine tells me a very different story from the article as written. I don't know how it could be rewritten to satisfy us both but it doesn't matter because Wikipedia editors won't allow it, nor will they even discuss it objectively on the page specifically set up for that purpose. When I look at the guidelines at the very top of this page I am saddened by the gulf between those ideals and the reality. The world is not so black and white. There are many nuances to developing a mature approach to editing, and splicing to scholastic science has its own pitfalls. Like most things, science follows the money, and money and truth are poor bedfellows. So Wikipedia editors will have to decide whether you are bravely manning the barricades against dissenters or chasing away with catcalls and back-slapping potential contributors who could and would make Wikipedia better than it is. It's not likely that many fair-minded newcomers will stay and donate their time. To be frank, whenever I drop back in to this page I feel less inclined to stick around. And please don't feel you need to post any more; we can leave it at that. Hermesian (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually hadn't seen that you mentioned not working in AM higher up. That was simply an oversight on my part. I was just asking what your experience with AM is. I'm not accusing you of anything. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Hermesian (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Offensive and Misinformed Description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This kind of presentation of a form of science that has proven results is one of the reasons I will not support Wikipedia. To suggest “Anthroposophic medicine (or anthroposophical medicine) is a form of alternative medicine based on pseudoscientific and occult notions” is both unfortunate and reeks of Salem witch trials.

Modern medicine has its place and value, but certainly not all the answers. 2600:6C40:4C00:31F9:8430:EB86:FA9B:86C8 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, content on Wikipedia is not determined by what people would support or not. It is determined by what reliable sources say on the subject. Which is the case here.--McSly (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.