Talk:Anthroposophic medicine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Alternative? Complementary? -how to word the introduction

The NCCAM standard for complementary medicine is that this is normally employed along with conventional treatment; their example is aromatherapy. Anthroposophic medicine is neither truly alternative (rejecting conventional Western medicine) nor complementary in this sense. I have tried to adjust the introduction to reflect this, but am not sure what the final wording should be. It was created more as an extension to conventional medicine, (see here and here) and is probably practiced somewhere between this and as an alternative. Any suggestions for wording? hgilbert (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the current wording in the lead: AM is an extension of conventional medicine (as "anthroposophically extended medicine"). It is not just a therapy that's tacked on to conventional medical care, like aromatherapy. Rather an anthroposophical medical practice typically employs a number of these complementary therapies, like physiotherapy, therapeutic eurythmy, rhythmical massage, art therapy, music therapy, clay modeling, speech therapy and biography work.

If you consider the treatment of cancer as a typical example, a full anthroposophical medical treatment could include surgery, chemotherapy, xray radiation therapy (i.e. all of the conventional approaches) along with Iscador therapy (as subcutaneous injections, tumor site injections and/or IV infusions), rhythmical massage, therapeutic eurythmy, art therapy, etc. The Iscador therapy directly complements the conventional therapies (enhancing resistance, strengthening the immune system and mitigating the side effects of the chemotherapy). The other therapies work on the subtler aspects of the patient's being.

So this is not "alternative" meaning replacing or supplanting conventional methods, but rather extending and complementing conventional medical methods. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Studies of Efficacy

I made the following edit:

The multicenter PARSIFAL study, involving 6,630 children age 5 to 13 in 5 European countries, concluded that certain practices of anthroposophical doctors, such as restrictive use of vaccinations, antibiotics and antipyretics, are associated with a reduced risk of allergic disease and higher risk of measles in children.[9] (Added vaccinations and risk of measles Desoto10 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And then I actually read the study and made further corrections:

"An analysis of some of the data from the multicenter PARSIFAL study, involving 6,630 children age 5 to 13 in 5 European countries, concluded that certain factors in the anthroposophic lifestyle, such as restrictive use of vaccinations, antibiotics and antipyretics, were associated with a reduced risk of allergic disease. Measles was more common in the Antrhroposophic group children, likely because of the reduced use of vaccinations in that group. [9] "

The paper is not the PARSIFAL study, but an analysis of a subset of the data. The analysis was between parents of children attending "Steiner Schools" and a control group. Correlations were drawn between elements of the Anthroposophical lifestyle and various outcomes such as asthma. Actual treatments were not discussed. It is questionable as to whether this fits in the "Studies of Efficacy" section at all as it deals with lifestyle issues rather than medical treatments. Also interesting is that children in the "control" group had mothers who smoked significantly more during pregnancy and had parents who were twice as likely to currently smoke.Desoto10 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The following should be deleted:

"According to an on-going randomized study of mistletoe's effectiveness, "Recent basic studies reported tumor response and survival prolongation in number of treatments with Mistletoe preparations. There are evidence based data for using this drug as side effect reducer when used in combination with chemotherapy regimen treatment."[17]"

The reference is a link to a description of an ongoing clinical trial and cannot be used as a reliable source until the study has been completed and results published.

We should probably add this statement from the National Cancer Institute:

"At this time, there is not enough evidence to recommend the use of mistletoe as a treatment for cancer except in carefully designed clinical trials. These trials will give more information about whether mistletoe can be useful in treating certain types of cancer."

In reality, much of the mistletoe section should just be condensed down to a couple of sentences. Its use does not in any way validate anthroposophical medicine. Mistletoe has been used as a drug since antiquity. It would be appropriate to discuss why Steiner promoted mistletoe's use and how this use fits into the anthroposophical scheme. Currently bioactive components isolated from mistletoe are being studied, but the connection with anthroposophical medicine is long gone. Desoto10 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I obliterated most of the mistletoe stuff. The use and study of mistletoe and its extracts has lost its association with anthroposophical medicine. It is just another natural product being examined by conventional means. It would be interesting for someone to report about why Steiner started using it. I understand that it had something to do with the parasitic nature of mistletoe as it grows on trees.Desoto10 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you document the absence of an association? Mistletoe extracts have been developed out of researchers working out of A.M.. Please don't remove this section unless you can document a current lack of connection. hgilbert (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you think that these studies actually add anything to the article? Unless the details of each study are presented it is difficult to decide how important they are. It seemed to me that the summary statement at the beginning was sufficient.169.230.82.109 (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that all of those reviews report that mistletoe does not work as a treatment for cancer or that the studies are uninterpretable, right?Desoto10 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They are accurately reported here, as far as I know. The most important and by far most comprehensive recent survey, Kienle's Anthroposophic Medicine, 2006, needs to be included. I should be able to get to this at some point when my work load permits. hgilbert (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Heart Is Not a pump

This little section needs work. It reads as though Steiner knew about capillary osmotic pressure, which he almost certainly did not. The reference is from 1995. Steiner also had some unconventional ideas about the brain.Desoto10 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This article: Marinelli, Ralph and others The Heart Is Not A Pump Frontier Perspectives 5(1), 1995

does not deal with capillary pressure and is thus not the correct reference for the statement in the article. I will delete it. There are mentions of the idea of the interaction of capillary pressure and blood flow in articles such as these:

http://www.waldorflibrary.org/pg/journalFocus/journalFocus.asp?journalID=15

(way down at the bottom of the page). These are not peer-reviewed scientific articles and so cannot be used to support their claims. I am currently reading Steiner's Lecture on the heart and will provide a reference shortly.Desoto10 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use either source, per the ArbCom ruling: needs to be from a non-anthroposophical publisher and not directly from Rudolf Steiner either, which would be either a direct quote (not allowed) or original research. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sucks. I am not too fond of the "Frontiers" article about how "the heart is not a pump" but I could probably work it in. It appears to be a peer-reviewed source for "alternative" medicine. What I would really like to add is how modern day Anthroposophical medicine reconciles Steiner's early beliefs about organ systems with their current practices.Desoto10 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistletoe

This article devotes entirely too much space to discussing medicine. This article is about the spiritual occult philosophy, Mistletoe#Use in cancer treatment is only historically or peripherally related. Please try to stay on topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.71.128 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about anthroposophic medicine; how can it be devoting too much space to discussing medicine??? You may be confusing this topic with anthroposophy. hgilbert (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Likewise, I don't understand: this article is about a recognized, widely practiced system of medicine. Mistletoe therapy in cancer treatment is one of the more central aspects of this system. Your deletion, 68.101.71.128, is unjustified based on your argument. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref 23:Gunver S. Kienle, "Mistletoe in Cancer Treatment: Clinical Studies" needs to be clarified. When I click on that link I get a dead end. If I backtract to the website I find that it is an Anthroposophical website, which is fine and expected, and lists a lot of clinical trials and their conclusions. The website is not written by Dr. Kienle, nor are all of the reviews. Which review, exactly is meant?

It turns out that many reviews of mistletoe use for cancer use "Anthroposophical" and "Non-Anthroposophical" dosage. We will need to remove those reviews that include both and concentrate only on those that use the (low?) dosing regimens. For example, one review quoted in this article suggests that direct injection of high dose mistletoe extract directly into a tumor results in tumor shrinkage, which is expected from preclinical data. However, this result does not reflect the Anthroposophical use of mistletoe and should not be included in this section.

Desoto10 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the link. All of the reviews and studies cited by Kienle on the page deal with anthroposophical mistletoe therapy. The 2007 EJMR review is probably the best place to start. There is also the Kienle, Kiene and Albonico book Anthroposophic Medicine that has a limited search in Google. Finally you may want to view the 40 minute presentation (mostly in English) by Kienle in November 2007 about mistletoe therapy. She cites 35 controlled clinical trials of which 26 trials reported on survival and 11 reported on quality of life. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the state of mistletoe clinical research is a mess, as Kienle and virtually everybody else concludes. I especially dislike the claims for a "positive outcome" in some of these studies when the positive outcome is somethingl like "quality of life" or "reduction of side effects of conventional therapy". While these are certainly useful goals for clinical trials, very often the summary is worded such that it is difficult to tell why the study was considered positive. Leaving my OR for a moment: One question that I have is about the difference between homeopathic vs. anthroposophical dosages and routes of administration of mistletoe. I suspect that the anthroposophical studies use real amounts of the active ingredients of mistletoe as opposed to the dubious homeopathic doses.Desoto10 (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen and read, the potencies are typically 1x, 2x or 6x. You can generally tell (by sight, smell or taste) that there is a significant amount of active substance in the remedy. I don't know about Iscador potencies. However, I think the point of the remedy is not so much to have a direct biological effect as to induce the person's body (and subtler bodies) to overcome the illness. --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the difference between "homeopathic" and anthroposophic doses, either in general or specifically? I mean one that we are actually allowed to use ;-). Your point about why an anthroposopic practitioner might view the efficacy studies in a fundementally different light than a conventional physician is what we should be writing about in this article, I think.Desoto10 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be a difference in the specific process of potentizing but the net effect of 10-times dilution per x is the same. My point was that I haven't seen 30x used much, if at all. I may be wrong. With 30x potency there is theoretically no physical substance left (that's not quite accurate in general -- it depends on the relative formula weights -- but that's what skeptics point to). But 1x and even 6x still have quite a bit of substance in them, witness anyone who has had an injection of gencido (I think it's 8x, for allergies -- the injection is usually very painful, not a simple saline solution). In reference to a fundamentally different approach, I think Hgilbert has recently added some additional clarifications about "focusing on strengthening the patient's organism and individuality". --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the second paragraph I deleted the last half of the following sentence (after the comma):

Evidence for the efficacy of mistletoe as an anticancer drug from human studies is weak, though animal and in vitro studies indicate a possible benefit.

The fact that preclinical research suggests a potential role for mistletoe in treating cancer has no bearing on the fact that there does not appear to be any effect on tumors (except, perhaps for direct high-concentration injections into the tumor) in humans. The fact that preclinical research does show some anti-tumor activity is interesting and can be mentioned, but the conclusion must be that there is little or no evidence for tumor fighting abilities in humans, based on the results of the clinical trial reviews. Maybe inverting the sentence would be better, something like: "Although preclinical (animal) studies suggested a potential role for mistletoe extracts in cancer therapies, no such effects have been convincingly reported".Desoto10 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the video, Kienle referenced tumor remissions in human subjects, I recall, in connection with direct injection in the tumor site. I don't recall the specific journal reference, but I'm pretty sure it's not just animal studies, although it's probably not blinded clinical trials either (can you imagine control subjects subjected to injections of saline into their tumors for such a trial?) I like the version with the inverted sentence, so I'll put it in. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the subsection, reviews, most of the points refer to scholarly reviews of studies however I note that the last point refers to an opinion piece in a daily newspaper. However eminent the author may be this clearly does not belong here. Accordingly I propose its deletion. Daffodillman (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

Should this article be renamed to "anthroposophic medicine"? This seems to be the prevailing standard these days. hgilbert (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ernst

I removed the criticisms of Ernst as I feel they were given undue weight considering the weight of Ernst vs the weight of the criticisms, and not from a reliable source for the claims being made. Verbal chat 12:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is a monograph on the subject that includes analyses of all studies and reviews to date - this not only conforms to the reliable source criteria but is easily the most reliable source available to date. hgilbert (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this one. Ernst is himself a professor of complimentary medicine and suggests that many non-conventional therapies have great value and some are underused because of their associations with quackery. His concern about all therapies is that they should be tested and demonstrated to be safe and effective. I don't think that he is picking particularly on anthroposophical medicine, although he does use it as an example. He does not seem to have a dog in this fight, in other words, except that he believes in evidence-based medicine. The counter to his review was written by anthroposophical medicine practitioners, correct? In that case, my understanding is their criticism holds much less weight and may render the source unusable for this purpose. A far better source would be idependent of anthroposopical connections, but I suspect that such a source does not exist. If anthroposophical medicine proponents have an issue with evidence-based medicine, then that is a major major difference from conventional medicine that needs to be emphasized.Desoto10 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The practitioners do not have a problem with evidence-based medicine; they have a problem with misleading statements and gaps that they cite in Ernst's work. For example (see pp. 55-6 in Anthroposophic Medicine):

1. "[Ernst] claims to have asked 'experts in this field' and 'professional organizations of anthroposophic medicine' to contribute relevant articles, a claim which subsequent inquiry research showed to be incorrect."
2. Ernst's review cited "well-documented risks" associated with anthroposophic remedies; his reference refers to side effects of mistletoe therapy, but the reported effects were from high concentrations not used in these remedies in animal studies of mistletoe toxicity and from plant extracts other than Viscum album.
3. He only reported studies that covered the entire range of anthroposophical medicine; most studies specialize in one particular area (i.e. pain reduction or cancer treatments). Therefore his conclusions are only applicable to a very small subset of the published studies.

The Kienle/Kiene monograph was work commissioned by the Swiss government and published by a mainstream academic press. It meets every criterion of a verifiable source. hgilbert (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear clear to me that Ernst is a much stronger source on the efficacy of anthroposophic medicine than Anthroposophic Medicine. Whilst this source would be excellent to confirm beliefs and practices of practitioners, it has no reliability as a scientific source. With the monograph we have a slightly harder job, however, and should consider it's weight in more detail. More on this once I've have some time to look into it. Jefffire (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffire's preliminary conclusion about the weight of the monograph as a rebuttal to Ernst. To Hgilbert, is there any possibility that a non-Anthroposophical source can be found that supports the monograph assertions about Ernst or that directly addresses Ernst's assertions? A source that is available via Medline from a peer-reviewed journal would be best, of course, but that also raises the question, was Ernst's criticism from a peer-reviewed source? If not then it boils down to a he said, she said argument in which case neither should be included. The less we rely on book chapters, monographs, and other non-peer reviewed sources, as well as commentary from anthroposophical sources, and the more we rely on actual studies the better, as far as I am concerned.

As far as anthroposophical medicine not having a "problem" with evidence-based medicine, I was actually asking, in my usual poorly stated way, whether or not anthroposophical practitioners embrace evidence-based medicine as a primary determinant in the validation of certain therapies.Desoto10 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wallace Sampson reference is an excerpt on a website from what appears to be an opinion piece on a variety of alternative therapies. On the website, anthroposophical medicine is mentioned only once at the beginning as one of these practices. Perhaps in the original article he is more specific. In any case, probably not peer-reviewed.Desoto10 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthroposophical practitioners affirm the value of evidence-based medicine; there is no argument there. There is a lively discussion, however, over whether double-blind studies are appropriate to evaluate a medical approach that stresses the individuality of a patient's treatment. The anthroposophical practitioners' argument is as follows: as our medical approach would apply different treatment regimens to different people, then giving the same medication to a group "blindly" is not actually a test of the medical approach - only of the medication used apart from the approach. This caveat aside, everyone agrees that the anthroposophical medications and therapies should be supported (and supportable) by studies of efficacy. hgilbert (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Sampson piece barely mentions anthroposophical medicine, and not directly in the context cited; I have removed this reference. hgilbert (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Double blind studies are perfectly compatible with even totally individualized treatments, one simply exchanges the recommended procedure with placebo in half the patients at the end of the decision process. It's quite an simple application of double-blind procedure really. I gather that "double-blind won't work for us!" has become rather a bit of a mantra for a number of alt-meds now though, despite the fact that it is abundantly obvious that the claim is nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeffire beat me to it. There is no justification for the claim that you cannot do a blinded study in this case. Virtually all therapies are addressable in double-blinded trials.

Hgilbert--The question is not whether or not "everyone" agrees that the anthroposopical medications and therapies should be supported by studies of efficacy, but rather whether or not anthroposophical practitioners agree. So far you have provided an argument for why they don't think that a double-blinded approach is feasible, which is not what I am trying to determine, and, in any case incorrect.Desoto10 (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...let's try again. Yes, anthroposophical practitioners agree that empirical research should be the basis for evaluating any medical approach. Kienle, et al. (p. 26), for example, states that an evaluation of complementary medicine should be based upon "all available types of evidence, ranging from practical experience based on individual physicians' judgments to randomised, double-blind studies." hgilbert (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hgilbert--thanks for that. I suspect that viewpoint is not fundementally different from most conventional physicians, although it clearly is in contrast to the supporters of "evidence-based medicine". It seems to be a weighting issue: in EBM, case reports are treated as anecdotal evidence and not worth much, while in anthroposophical medicine case reports seem to be considered as valuable as controlled clinical trials.Desoto10 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Studies of Efficacy

I contest the following unreferenced statement:

"Nearly all studies of anthroposophic medicine have found clinically relevant improvements resulting from the treatments used; a number of the 195 studies identified in 2006 had methodological weaknesses, but a significant number of well-designed studies remains."

This is an outrageous statement and needs an independent reference. In other words, the claimant must not be an anthroposophical practitioner. The mistletoe studies, described in this article, do not show clinically relevant improvements as a rule, so much so that neither the NCI nor the American Cancer Society endorses the use of mistletoe.Desoto10 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the range of outcomes (at one end, simply subjective reports of improved quality of life), but since the cited reference analyzes every one of the 195 studies, frequently in some detail, and since the study was funded and supported by the Swiss government, and published by a mainstream academic press, it appears to be a reliable source.

The mistletoe studies are described in the corresponding section, which also mentions that the organizations you mention, though they do not claim that there is clear clinical evidence of tumor reduction in humans, see the worth of further clinical studies on the basis of the positive results of in vitro and animal studies.

Feel free to add any balancing information to either of these sections. It is important to have a full picture. hgilbert (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Science

We need to work Steiner's concept of "spiritual science" into this article, especially in the first paragraph. Virtually every other description of AM has some mention of this in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence. I am not sure what kind of sourcing is appropriate for this. Since I assume that the concept of AM being based on Steiner's spiritual science that it is not controversial, therefore AM or non-AM sources could be used.Desoto10 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kienle's Anthroposophical Medicine has a significant section devoted to this, "Anthroposophy as a spiritual science" (in Chapter 3) - as one possible source. hgilbert (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are too quick, Hgilbert! I had a few examples of intros from other sources, but they were lost. I do not have access to this book and am unlikely to acquire it in the near future. If you would like to come up with something for the early part of the article that emphasizes the spiritual science concept that would be great. Otherwise I will find some more readily available sources such as PAAM.Desoto10 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I had cut from the PAAM site:

Anthroposophic Medicine is a holistic and human-centered approach to medicine. It recognizes and uses the vast information acquired by modern medicine in the fields of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and diagnosis. Then it goes one step further, adding a knowledge of the laws of the living organism, of the psyche, and the spirit. This knowledge of the spirit is derived from a spiritual scientific methodology which expands on the conventional scientific theory. This requires - besides an ongoing professional, personal, and moral development - the active inner participation in spiritual scientific studies outlined by Rudolf Steiner.Desoto10 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again the PAAM site is not citable according to the ArbCom ruling. However, the Kienle, Kiene and Albonico book Anthroposophic Medicine is citable, readable on-line and has an authoritative description of AM as spiritual science (pp. 4-14, especially) and also some statistics for hospitals, clinics, etc. but not numbers of doctors (that I saw). --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The PAAM site is citable, of course, as long as the material is not controversial; in this case I can't see that there would be a problem. The above sounds fine; when I have time I'll see if the Kienle book adds anything significant here. hgilbert (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hgilbert that PAAM is citable for non-controversial topics. I think that the spiritual nature of AM is not controversial in the slightest.Desoto10 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, more clearly: the spiritual orientation of the philosophy on which it is based. hgilbert (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

Another topic that we should discuss is how many AM physicians are there relative to the total number of physicians and where are they located. It seems as though there are hardly any (~100) in the US but that there is a concentration in some parts of Europe. The worldwide total number from the IAAM site is about 2000, with a much larger number of non-AM physicians prescribing AM medicines.Desoto10 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I note that in the article Pseudoscience, Anthroposophical medicine is included as pseudoscience. Should this be put in the "Categories" section? Desoto1066.120.181.218 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not in that article as far as I can see. Anthroposophic medicine has substantial empirical basis (as reviewed in peer-reviewed journals) and is subject to on-going empirical verification. It is certainly not mainstream, but there are clear guidelines for categories that recommend "If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate." I suggest this is pretty controversial. hgilbert (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is here: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. I am just looking for consistency. One part of Wikipedia has a section saying that AM is considered pseudoscience, so we should either fix that entry or add it to this one. It seems to me that AM is based on the "spiritual science" of Steiner, is it not? If not, then what is it based on? That some aspects of AM have been evaluated in an empirical manner is not evidence that the fundemental underpinnings of AM is not pseudoscientific. Desoto1066.120.181.218 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The list you refer to doesn't claim its topics are demonstrably pseudoscience, or that there is any consensus that they are pseudoscientific, merely that someone somewhere has claimed this. Such claims belong in this article, of course, when drawn from verifiable sources. The category inclusion has a higher standard; see the guidelines I linked to above. hgilbert (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My view is that this should be included per the references on the list of PS page. Verbal chat 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with hgilbert. A discussion of the status should be included in the article along with reliably sourced views of those who feel it is ps. But to categorize it, and therefore present it, as in actual fact pseudoscience seems to me to go well beyond what we should be doing in portraying one view as true.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

See the related discussion on this talk page; WP:PSCI indicates a high bar for controversial categorizations. hgilbert (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just commenting here that I commented there that while the perspective that AM is at least partially pseudoscientific in basis and practice is sufficiently prominent to the topic to warrant discussion here, it is not so overwhelming as to justify unnuanced inclusion in Category:Pseudoscience. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide acceptance

This title is a real stretch and should be changed. The fact that AM is practiced in a variety of countries does not indicate that it is "accepted" unless you mean "legally allowed" or something. AM represents a tiny, almost negligible fraction of medical practice worldwide. I would change this section to something like "Distribution" and point out how AM is concentrated in some European countries and has a very small number of practitioners in other countries. PAAM could be used as a source for this, I think, as it is not too controversial.Desoto10 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yours is the third title for the section; it seems fine. Legally allowed and receiving governmental support are, of course, two different things; both are mentioned in this section. hgilbert (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical statement in Studies of Efficacy section

Placing this statement under studies of efficacy seems entirely gratuitous. It does not relate directly to any study and appears to exist only to work a negative comment into this section. Accordingly I propose its deletion.Daffodillman (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, in its essence, a critique of the lack of studies performed. I have reworded it to make this clearer and to make it more neutral. It may be valuable to include as well a statement about the kinds of proofs of efficacy preferred by practitioners within this discipline, if a coherent one can be put together. hgilbert (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of AM

Given that there are criticisms of AM, that many of the points raised in this discussion page arise from those criticisms and their subsequent rebuttal and that a substantial part of the article does not discuss what AM is but rehashes arguments over its efficacy, I suggest that a section of the article entitled Criticism or Criticisms and Rebuttals be created and that such points be confined to that section. Perhaps reference needs to be made to Ernst's article in Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift and the subsequent response in the same journal by Kienle et al.

Currently, from a neutral point of view, the whole page reads like a restrained argument rather than an encyclopaedic article, moving this debate to its own section would allow the rest of the article to be cleaned up and useful information to be provided.

N.b. I am not associated with either conventional or anthroposophic medicine (nor any form of complementary or alternative medicine) and do not have an axe to grind either way. Daffodillman (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, and this article has far to go to create an adequate and balanced representation. We should consider that WP:Criticism suggests that the form here - analyses of different aspects, including, critiques, of a subject within the appropriate sections, rather than a separate criticism section - often works better. So the question is, can it be done well in this in-line format, or do we have to change it in the proposed way? In any case, if the section is isolated, titling it "reception" or "critique" and including both positive and negative views is recommended.

We could, of course, do both: integrate criticism into areas where this is relevant, and have a general reception or critique section that could include more general views that are not easily incorporated into particular sections. hgilbert (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant amount of material critical to anthrophical medicine which is not reflected in the article at all, i.e the unscientific nature of Anthrosophy and its status as an Alternative Medicine IRWolfie- (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but the same standard of reliable sources must be applied to criticism as to positive evaluations. The arbitration review of articles on anthroposophical themes emphasized the use of publications (books and journals) by mainstream academic publishing houses and academic presses that have gone through a conventional peer-review process. That's the standard by which we should continue to judge sources.

The content IRWolfie removed is published by such a press; I am restoring it according to the arbitration principles. hgilbert (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The books first authors Gunver Sophia Kienle http://www.escamp.org/structure/members/gunver-s-kienle.htm . She is heavily involved in this alternative medicine, also she is the author of http://wissenschaft.mistel-therapie.de/?lang=1 which you also use as a reliable source. She is a member of Physicians' Association for Anthroposophic Medicine in Germany. Do I really need to continue, the article is riddled with unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been through all this in the arbitration; you might want to read the proceedings (see link above). Conclusion of the arbitrators: There is nothing wrong with an author having affiliations; if her work is published by peer-reviewed, scientific journals and publishing houses, it is considered a reliable source. Obviously we should also include sources written from other perspectives, as well. WP:NPOV explicitly states that the policy doesn't mean only to include neutral sources, which don't exist anyway (everyone has some point of view), it means to include a balance of sources. hgilbert (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Research on AM

For those interested, here is a list of research articles on AM published in standard medical journals. hgilbert (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy can perform the same cherry picking of results for example. (the papers you show are hosted on an unreliable source) IRWolfie- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

The papers are published by standard medical journals. It doesn't matter where the list is hosted: I'm not claiming that this is necessarily a representative showing - merely that there is clearly a significant body of research on AM and to claim that there is no research on the subject is simply false. If there are yet more papers that are not included in the list it makes the point all the more sharply. hgilbert (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly "standard medical journals". They are mostly, OK, I only checked on three, complementary or "integrative" medical journals. By the way, and maybe this is already covered, but can you, Hgilbert, provide a high-quality reference from a Medline journal which demonstrates either a reduction in cancer progression or increased lifespan in humans due to anthroposiphical treatment? I am not interested in measures of quality of life. Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

AM jounrals are not MEDRS; burden is on editor wanting to include, not to

There are medical claims of efficacy, but I find none of the sources cited to be WP:MEDRS. Before massively deleting things, I would like to ask if there is a reason for this. PPdd (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't give editors much chance to respond to your query before you removed half of the article. Following the WP:BRD cycle, please tell us how exactly the sources don't follow WP:MEDRS. Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

BRD is not requied for NRS. It is up to the inserting editor to show RS, not the deleting editor to show they are not. That said, medical claims must be based on peer reviewed publications in medical journals, which none of these were. A similar attempt to include alternative medicine journals as RS for medical claims was just voted down by unanimous consensus here[1] at homeopathy, (homeopathy is part of AM). PPdd (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Burden. PPdd (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You removed references to a book published by an academic publisher as well as to the European Journal of Medical Research. Please follow your own guidelines. hgilbert (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Where can I get details about this journal you mention? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, EPadmirateur, please provide the website for the authoritively titled "European Journal of Medical Research". It appears that it cites itself as much as all other medical journals plus all other alternative medicine journals in the world combined (Cites per Document vs. External Cites per Document). It does not appear to come close to WP:MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The journal is included in the PubMed database: [2] with well over a thousand articles. I don't know if PubMed guarantees citability, however. hgilbert (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed does not bestow WPMEDRS. A unanimous consensus vote in the homeopathy article found that a peer reviewed alternative medical journal or book can sometimes be used to describe practices and beliefs of the alternative medicine, but it can never be used to support a scientific or medical claim, which would require peer review by scientists or MD's. (What is the website for EJMR?) PPdd (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Model of cooperation on alternative medicine articles

Note; the following block of comments are from my talk page - PPdd (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your input on this article could be beneficial. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of anthroposophical medicine before. After reading the article, I still know nothing at all about what it is. I now know a minute number of things that it is not, but the article is otherwise devoid of content. The article says it was developed in association with homeopaths, but it says noting about whether it uses homeopathic remedies. PPdd (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the article, but there is no content. For all that I can tell, it seems to be a group of doctors who are also adherants to a minor religion, but in no other way differs from Christian medicine, Islamic medicine, or Singularitarian medicine (I am a Singularitarian). What is Anthroposophical Medicine? PPdd (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted nonWP:MEDRS medical claims which had as sources self-published, self-promoting in-house "medical" journals. My deletions were reverted with a request "to discuss". It is my understanding that the burden to find MedRS is on the editor who wants to insert the claim, not on the deleting editor. The editor provided no talk page assertions as to how any of the sources met WP:MedRS. PPdd (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I did some work on the article and think it is NPOV enough that both sides will like it, and a reader will have some idea about what it is. PPdd (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

cheers for the good work on the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it makes the article more understandable. PPdd (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great job! I think the article finally reflects what AM is. I especially admire the even-handed manner in which you handled your edits. Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: the following comments were added on this talk page - PPdd (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions; they are helpful. hgilbert (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to be as NPOV as possible. I actually believe that there is something to an attempt to treat vague "spiritual" concerns (e.g., angst or existential crises) as a medical problem, and I know psychological factors impact the immune system. PPdd (talk)

I concur with Hgilbert: thank you for your additions to the article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. PPdd (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the "neutrality" tag be removed now?

At the acupuncture talk page, an editor commented that the fact that POV editors from both sides were unhappy, is an indication that something was right about the article's balance. I think that a much better indication is when editors from different POV's are happy, not unhappy. PPdd (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the "neutrality" tag be removed now? It seems like editors of differing POV's are now happy. PPdd (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. hgilbert (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To anti-pseudoscience editors: Why my edits did not include a "criticism section"

I did substantial revision to the article, and did not include a "criticism section". Instead, I organized according to topics, and included crticism at the end of each topic. This is a matter of edting style. My own style derives from a belief that a user should not have to read entire "theory and practice" sections to get to criticisms, delivered all at once, rather than topic by topic. PPdd (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I have reworked the introduction; please look at it and check for NPOV, especially. But please use citations for changes; this key section should be based on third-party, peer-reviewed descriptions. hgilbert (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

All balance has been removed from the lede: You removed reference to the Doctrine of Signatures, you removed reference to Alternative medicine and make it sound mainstream and acceptable, you also added in unreferenced claims that it's linked with reincarnation and you removed "Anthrosophical medicine does not focus on the theory of germs, nor on using the scientific method to examine measurable physical quantities, as does science based medicine." IRWolfie- (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry, but it seems like this is a very dramatic shift away from a neutral tone. A13ean (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find sources and use them, rather than just give unsourced opinion, which was what was there before. The phrase about reincarnation was there already. Not my addition, and as far as I'm concerned it can be removed.

The doctrine of signatures is just one part of homeopathy, which is one part of anthroposophic medicine; I'm not clear why this sub-aspect of a sub-aspect of AM needs to be in the lead, but if you can justify it, fine. It is certainly true to say that it is used.

No basis whatsoever was provided for claiming that AM does not focus on the theory of germs or employ scientific method. As doctors employing the method must have traditional medical degrees, one can hardly claim that they are not taught the theory of germs, and they clearly expect that diseases are contagious, etc. If there is a valid source for this, we could say in the lead that AM has been critiqued on this basis, and then give a differentiated picture in the body. hgilbert (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one issue is that we need to clearly differentiate between what AM physicicans do that is different from conventional practice. That they have trained in conventional medicine does not necessarily mean that they practice conventional medicine or even that they consider conventional medicine as valid. The most interesting part of AM, I think to most people, would be what they do that conventional MDs don't. In other words, what is the claimed "extension". In any case, my specific issue is 1st sentence:

Anthroposophical medicine is a complementary medicine[1] that extends conventional forms of medicine[2] through the use of homeopathic medicaments and physical, biographical and artistic therapies.[3]

Can we find a more neutral source regarding whether or not AP "extends" conventional medicine? Otherwise I think we will need to add something on the order of "...that proponents claim extends..." Desoto10 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph references "biographical" therapies twice, but biographical does not occur again in the article. Is there a more familiar word we could use? I don't know what biographical therapies are, so I am no help.Desoto10 (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite - looks good. I added back a dropped independent source and clarified biographical...I think biographical counseling is clearer, as this is always regarded as therapeutic in nature. hgilbert (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about deleting the source ref. I try to be careful but... Desoto10 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am just dense, but I still don't get the "biographical" bit, nor is it mentioned anywhere else but the introduction. Unless it is absolutely necessary I would delete it. If you want to keep it then I think you need to add something about it to the body of the article.Desoto10 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite right - it needs a body section. As it is quite a central aspect of the medical approach, and one that distinguishes it from other approaches, it probably should be expanded on rather than deleted. I've tried a first go, using one or two sources - I'm sure there are others. Let me know if it needs clarification...it was written in haste, I'm afraid. hgilbert (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That helps. In conventional medicine that might be described as a detailed patient history.Desoto10 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistletoe

We have a statement in this section to the effect that there are AM and non-AM mistletoe treatments. The statement implies that AM mistletoe treatments are homeopathic, but I find several sources (not too reliable) that claim that Steiner's mistletoe treatments are NOT homeopathic (for one thing, according to the ACS, mistletoe extracts are injected). I care only so that we can insure that we are evaluating AM-sanctioned mistletoe treatments in this article and not others. Does anybody have any clues about this?Desoto10 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be good to clarify. BTW: Homeopathic solutions are often injected, so this is no guideline. hgilbert (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who put in the bit about AM and non-AM preparations of mistletoe, but it would be great if that editor could provide some evidence of this. Otherwise we should delete it.Desoto10 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a citation supporting the difference between phytotherapeutic and anthroposophic uses of mistletoe; it refers us to Kienle, Kiene, and Albonico, the standard reference on AM. hgilbert (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. I do not have access to that reference. In any case, that there are AM-sanctioned mistletoe preparations, and non-AM-sanctioned mistletoe preparations is the issue. Is this the only source for this? Does it provide the criteria for differentiating between the two? If only homeopathic preparations are the only ones allowed in AM then what is the homeopathic dilution. What are the approved solvents? I want this information so I can know which of the mistletoe studies to keep and which must be deleted and placed elsewhere.Desoto10 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 2006 list of studies of anthroposophic mistletoe preparations with analyses of the results. In addition, here is a non-anthroposophical discussion of mistletoe use in oncology treatment.

Finally, this is a site that discusses various mistletoe treatments, and this list gives abnobaVISCUM, Helixor, Iscador, Iscucin, and Isorell as anthroposophic, and Cefalektin, Eurixor, and Lektinol as the phytotherapeutic varieties.

There's a lot there that would serve this article, if someone has time these days...otherwise I'll get to this at some point but not immediately. hgilbert (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I am gaining a little clarity. It seems as though "AM" mistletoe therapy is only done using AM preparations: of anthroposophical mistletoe preparations: Abnobaviscum®, Helixor, Iscador®, Iscar, Iscucin®, Isorel®. How the dosages relate to "homeopathic" dosages is still unclear to me. The solutions are not all that dilute. I'm still working on it. Thanks again. Desoto10 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to take this in little bits. In the Intro we have:

"Anthroposophical medicine is a complementary medicine[1] that integrates theories and practices of modern medicine[2] with alternative, nature-based treatments,[3] including the use of homeopathic medicaments"

I take it from this that mistletoe therapy falls under "nature-based treatments" and is NOT an AM implementation of a homeopathic medicament but the use of a plant extract. Is this correct?Desoto10 (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This depends upon how you define homeopathic medicament. (1) The choice of mistletoe was probably arrived at at least partly through consideration of the "doctrine of signatures". How defining is the process by which a medicament is proposed? (2) At what dilution level does a medicament pass from being an extract to no longer being an extract? (3) The dilution process is itself presumably not a simple mixing with water in the correct proportion. Is this relevant to the classification of a medicament?

We could simply call it an anthroposophical medicament, which is clearly accurate for the original and most of the present treatments, and describe the processes by which the various extracts (the term used by the National Cancer Institute) are produced. hgilbert (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AM departments at universities, published papers on AM

I gathered this info for Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but I was told it should be put in this article. So here it is. A list of references that may be useful for different purposes:

1. Stenius F, Swartz J, Lindblad F, Pershagen G, Scheynius A, Alm J, Theorell T. Low salivary cortisol levels in infants of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010 Nov;35(10):1431-7. Epub 2010 Jul 2. PMID 20580492.
2. Rosenlund H, Bergström A, Alm JS, Swartz J, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Johansen K, Brunekreef B, von Mutius E, Ege MJ, Riedler J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Waser M, Pershagen G; PARSIFAL Study Group. Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection. Pediatrics. 2009 Mar;123(3):771-8. PMID 19255001.
3. Büssing A, Ostermann T, Majorek M, Matthiessen PF. Eurythmy Therapy in clinical studies: a systematic literature review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Mar 31;8:8. Review. PMID 18377647; PMC 2322948.
4. Bar-Sela G, Atid L, Danos S, Gabay N, Epelbaum R. Art therapy improved depression and influenced fatigue levels in cancer patients on chemotherapy. Psychooncology. 2007 Nov;16(11):980-4. PMID 17351987.
5. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Wegscheider K, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy for chronic low back pain: a prospective comparative study. Eur J Med Res. 2007 Jul 26;12(7):302-10. PMID 17933703.
6. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Anthroposophic medical therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007 Apr 23;7:10. PMID 17451595; PMC 1876246.
7. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Eurythmy therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2007 Apr 23;7:61. PMID 17451596; PMC 1868723.
8. Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H. Health costs in anthroposophic therapy users: a two-year prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun 2;6:65. PMID 16749921; PMC 1513220.
9. Alfvén T, Braun-Fahrländer C, Brunekreef B, von Mutius E, Riedler J, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Wickman M, Benz MR, Budde J, Michels KB, Schram D, Ublagger E, Waser M, Pershagen G; PARSIFAL study group. Allergic diseases and atopic sensitization in children related to farming and anthroposophic lifestyle--the PARSIFAL study. Allergy. 2006 Apr;61(4):414-21. PMID 16512802.
10. Alm JS, Swartz J, Björkstén B, Engstrand L, Engström J, Kühn I, Lilja G, Möllby R, Norin E, Pershagen G, Reinders C, Wreiber K, Scheynius A. An anthroposophic lifestyle and intestinal microflora in infancy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2002 Dec;13(6):402-11. PMID 12485315.
11. Bettermann H, von Bonin D, Frühwirth M, Cysarz D, Moser M. Effects of speech therapy with poetry on heart rate rhythmicity and cardiorespiratory coordination. Int J Cardiol. 2002 Jul;84(1):77-88. PMID 12104068.
12. Matricardi PM, Rosmini F, Rapicetta M, Gasbarrini G, Stroffolini T. Atopy, hygiene, and anthroposophic lifestyle. San Marino Study Group. Lancet. 1999 Jul 31;354(9176):430. PMID 10437907.
13. Alm JS, Swartz J, Lilja G, Scheynius A, Pershagen G. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle. Lancet. 1999 May 1;353(9163):1485-8. PMID 10232315.

And a list of universities with departments on Anthrosposophic Medicine with some details on their research

Universität Witten/Herdecke

Lehrstuhl für Medizintheorie, Integrative und Anthroposophische Medizin [Department for Medicine theory, and Integrative and Anthroposophical Medicine] http://www.uni-wh.de/gesundheit/lehrstuhl-medizintheorie/

Research Fields: Theoretische und physiologischen Grundlagen der Komplementärmedizin [Theoretical and physiological principles of complementary medicine]

Psychophysiologische Grundlagen der Komplementärmedizin [Psycho-physiological principles of complementary medicine]

Komplementär- und Integrativmedizinische Systeme [Complementary and integrative medical systems]

Ausbildungsforschung Integrative und Anthroposophische Medizin [Research on the training for integrative and anthroposophical medicine]

Forschungsmethoden und Informationssysteme in der Komplementärmedizin [Research methods and information systems in complementary medicine]

University of Bern

Kollegiale Instanz für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM) Institute of Complementary Medicine http://www.kikom.unibe.ch/content/index_eng.html

Research topics: 1) optimisation of homeopathic pharmaceutical procedures 2) elucidation of the mode of action of homeopathic remedies.

I hope someone finds it useful. Asinthior (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1st para

I returned the complete UMICH statement, which is essentially verbatim from their summary. They thought that the "spiritual-scientific" bit was important in their description of AM.Desoto10 (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, the sources introduced to support AM's unscientific nature were inaccurately quoted; comments were attributed to authors who did not make them (Shermer never terms AM pseudoscientific or any equivalent, for example). I have tried to bring the authors' actual wording into the lede rather than editors' OR-reinterpretations. hgilbert (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistletoe

This [3][4] source may be of interest for the article: The University of Aberdeen ducked any further accusations of promoting "quackery" by deciding against establishing a chair in a form of alternative medicine that advocates mistletoe as a cure for cancer. The chair in "integrative health care and management" would have been funded primarily by supporters of Austrian spiritualist Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)