Talk:Functional medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

Functional medicine is just as notable as other healthcare approaches outside the mainstream that are described on Wikipedia. Physicians are now being trained in functional medicine in order to meet continuing medical education requirements, and patients are seeking physicians with this training. To demonstrate the notability of functional medicine, I will add references to medical journal articles and Web sites that discuss functional medicine. I will also delete details in order to make the article more neutral. I appreciate your patience.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.245.225 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a platform for ideologies, it's an encyclopaedia. I will also refer you to check out the 'weasel words' and 'NPOV' sections of Wiki's guidelines. Signing in and using a name/pseudonym are also recommended - it makes contributions look less cranky, and helps protect you against phishing that can exploit your posted IP address. (TresRoque (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Criticism

Is a criticism of a company that Dr. Bland was a part of really necessary in this article? Criticism should focus on the theory of functional medicine, not on an individual doctor's diet plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.12.233 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not relevant to functional medicine. I recommend this be removed.173.168.39.10 (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This should be removed as it's not relevant. It sounds more like gossip. Especially since IFM and Bland are no longer mentioned in the rest of the article. Smartedits5 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not only is it not relevant, but it is also undue weight to something that has little to do with the topic.Smartedits5 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I added context that illustrates the relevance. The IFM is one of two entities trademarking aspects of the term. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Articles

Dr. Jeffrey Bland, founder of the Institute for Functional Medicine, has 22 peer-reviewed publications listed in PubMed, a service of the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. Here are the most recent citations:

Minich DM, Bland JS. Dietary management of the metabolic syndrome beyond macronutrients. Nutr Rev. 2008 Aug;66(8):429-444. PMID: 18667004

Hall AJ, Babish JG, Darland GK, Carroll BJ, Konda VR, Lerman RH, Bland JS, Tripp ML. Safety, efficacy and anti-inflammatory activity of rho iso-alpha-acids from hops. Phytochemistry. 2008 May;69(7):1534-1547. PMID: 18358504

Minich DM, Bland JS, Katke J, Darland G, Hall A, Lerman RH, Lamb J, Carroll B, Tripp M. Clinical safety and efficacy of NG440: a novel combination of rho iso-alpha acids from hops, rosemary, and oleanolic acid for inflammatory conditions. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2007 Sep;85(9):872-883. PMID: 18066133

Minich DM, Bland JS. Acid-alkaline balance: role in chronic disease and detoxification. Altern Ther Health Med. 2007 Jul-Aug;13(4):62-65. Review. PMID: 17658124

Minich DM, Bland JS. A review of the clinical efficacy and safety of cruciferous vegetable phytochemicals. Nutr Rev. 2007 Jun(6 Pt 1):259-267. Review. PMID: 17605302

SynthesisbyJBland (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrast with conventional medicine--"straw man"?

Information meant to illustrate the contrast between conventional medicine and functional medicine keeps getting deleted, with the comment that it is a straw man argument. These two approaches to patient care are certainly different, but I don't understand how to communicate this in a manner that is acceptable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzales1234 (talk • contribs)

It is because the (implied) claim that modern medicine doesn't consider "the whole person" is untrue, and a straw man argument. Modern Dr's may send you to specialists, but they will have case conferences, shared notes, and other regular communication - they do not work in isolation and without consideration of the "whole patient". Also, they do suggest preventative measures such as diet, exercise, lifestyle, and give what alternative medicine advocates term "holistic care". Verbal chat 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a modern doctor, a recent graduate of an Emory University Residency program.( We all have to agree, I am swimming in the main stream). I must say that in my years there as a primary care doctor, I never participated in one of these case conferences with cross talk for different specialties about a single patient. Functional medicine is the real application of a General/Family/Internal medicine model. The primary question of Functional Medicine is "when was the last time you felt good? and what was the first problem you had?" In looking to this question, be the answer joint pain or GI distress, the answer to unraveling a patients multiple problems is often to go back to this original problem. The goal of this regression to the first bad day is to address the problem that started that day. Not to "block" the receptor that is involved, but to address the underlying imbalances that led to the disease state. I have always been a believer in "Evidence based Medicine" and Functional Medicine is the best applicatio of this I have found. Not to mention I have very happy and very healthy patients. 72.152.94.210 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern day medicine does not always consider the whole person. That depends entirely on the doctor in question. Let me give you an example (by the way I work with nutrition in a clinic specializing in Functional Medicine). We routinely get patients that have thyroid disturbances with autoimmunity being the main reason. These clients often also complain of digestive problems. It is quite well-documented, that there is a link between celiac disease and autoimmune thyroiditis. Yet none of these patients have been checked for celiac disease, despite persistent digestive problems for many years. Quite a few of these patients have turned out to be suffering from undiagnosed celiac disease. Once they are off gluten permanently, their thyroiditis either improves or disappears. Had they been looked at as a whole person, their symptoms tell much of the story, but rather than looking at the potential connections between different symptoms and systems, they were only treated with their thyroid in mind…without much success. So the whole person approach advocated by Functional Medicine suggests looking at such connections, not once in a while, but in every single patient from the get go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umahro (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? Anecdote isn't evidence, and this isn't a forum. Verbal chat 07:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the issue of communication between practitioners/different specialties, here is a recent reference from The New England Journal of Medicine:

Bodenheimer T. Coordinating care--a perilous journey through the health care system. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(10):1064-1071. PubMedID:18322289 SynthesisbyJBland (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are two additional references about interdisciplinary communication, both of which pertain to countries other than the US:

Manca D, Varnhagen S, Brett-MacLean P, Allan GM, Szafran O. Respect from specialists: concerns of family physicians. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(10):1434-1435. PubMedID:18854474

Schaller P, Gaspoz JM. Continuity, coordination and integration of care: from theory to practice. Rev Med Suisse. 2008;4(172):2034, 2036-2039. PubMedID:18946962 SynthesisbyJBland (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this article very vague and nowhere near acceptable quality. It reads like a brochure for IFM. What's more, if you replace the words "functional medicine" with "standard medical practice" the majority of sentences do not lose their meaning. In other words, the statements made to distinguish FM from standard medical practice either falsely imply a lacking in (ideal) modern medicine, or there is really no difference between the two other than viewpoint.

Either the article should be updated with more specific information as to what is or isn't done in FM compared to standard medical practice, or it should be deleted in entirety. It's current form is too close to being a vanity page for IFM and is in violation of Wikipedia policy (NPV). --Doc (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

@Doc - it's funny. I think the opposite. It is currently (perhaps it changed)an inaccurate and disparaging explanation of FM, which allows critique to define the page. As for the main topic of this section, I currently live in Sweden. The doctor has (no joke) ten minutes for each patient. Conventional medicine is perhaps supposed to look for underlying causes but doctors here have very little training in nutrition. Also. If you have multiple problems in a conventional setting, you are sent to multiple doctors (and even in private practice they do NOT talk to each other). So here are two ways FM is different - 1. More time for each patient upfront and 2. A multidisciplinary approach, even with comparatively minor problems. It may be true that conventional doctors are *supposed* to work that way so we could say that FM is the ideal paradigm that is not being put into practice currently in many if not most countries (UK was about the same, private doctors a little better but still not really working in teams). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawjac (talk • contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Article needs splitting

This article has merged two topics: (1) Functional Medicine (2) the Institute for Functional Medicine.

It appears that Functional Medicine is an alternative medical discipline, and as a medical discipline, the content of the corresponding article should be restricted to the discipline, its concepts, ideas, practices, etcetera.

The Institute for Functional Medicine is an organization and should be covered in a separate article.

Limited cross-references between the two articles might be appropriate.

However, extensive criticism of the Institute within the article on the discipline is inappropriate.

Roy (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the institute notable outside the scope of this article? Verbal chat 12:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal,

Is there a case to be made that there are actually three subjects within the present article? (1) Functional Medicine (2) the Institute for Functional Medicine (3) Jeffrey Bland

The criticism does appear to be out of place as it is currently written. It is specifically related to Dr. Bland and a dietary supplement, not functional medicine as a discipline or the Institute for Functional Medicine as an organization. SynthesisbyJBland (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanations of my edits

I made routine edits involving:

• copyediting for style;
• removal of repetitious remarks ("... understand each individual patient's ..."; "... holds that the entire 'patient story' needs to be heard ...");
• removal of non-neutral ("Most chronic diseases result ..."), poetic ("Functional medicine is patient"; "patient story"), and meaningless remarks;
• removal of a WP:COATRACK section that is entirely about one particular organization that engages in functional medicine rather than telling us anything about functional medicine itself (it's as though some decided to add to the article on Podiatry a few sentences about one arbitrarily selected podiatry institute and then many more sentences about some scandal involving that institute, none of which informed us at all about podiatry); and
• reorganization of three paragraphs into a logical sequence to make them more clear,

and I explained all this in my edit summaries, but two people have now reverted my changes, one requesting that I explain my changes here. So I am explaining them here. I will now wait a couple of days to see if anyone can justify keeping the article the way it is with all these flaws and, if not, will reinstate them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All the edits sound fine apart from the removal of the section. The institute is closely tied to FM, although I can't remember the details off hand. I'll need time to look it up. I think the founder of FM was involved in the institute, and there are other connections. I'm not sure if the material was merged from another article also. For now it should remain and probably be expanded so that it links in better. Verbal chat 13:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The institute may be closely tied to FM, but, nevertheless, it isn't FM, and none of the information in that section is about FM. Have you looked at WP:COATRACK? It would be normal and beyond reproach to have a section with the title, "Organizations specializing in Function Medicine" listing all the pertinent organizations along with a blurb explaining the nature of their attachment to FM. But this isn't such a section. It's a section that says, "By the way, here's a scandal involving an organization that happens to be involved in FM". It's a digression, and it gives the appearance of having been added for the purpose of smearing FM by association. (Note: I have no prior knowledge of FM, or any beyond the information in this article, and I have no opinion regarding its validity or its notability, so my remarks do not reflect any prejudice for or against FM or the institute on my part.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If the foundation is the home of FM then it isn't a digression, like talking about Hahnemann in Homeopathy, in the context of homeopathy, isn't a digression. As I said I'll have to look into it, and if it should stay it should be better integrated, presented and explained - definitely agree on that. Verbal chat 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Source Reliability

Functional medicine is an accepted practice by many physicians, yet main definition here says it's based on "unproven and disproven theories and treatments." and backed up by http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/functional-medicine-new-kid-on-the-block/ which looks to me to be one persons un-peer reviewed rant and nothing in that rant is backed up with any other sources. I'm trying to decide for myself whether this is legit or not. Does someone have an actual peer reviewed source that shows can back this up?

This same source is used in two places, one that says "may not be well evidenced" (weasel words) and one where it says disproven. Is it disproven or not? This article talks about a FM webpage. "A look at the FM home page of the web site...", but in the comments of the discussion above someone said: "The institute may be closely tied to FM, but, nevertheless, it isn't FM, and none of the information in that section is about FM." So which is it? Is their website FM or not? I'd say no.

The citation should be removed and a proper citation, that actually shows FM being disproved or a "citation needed" tag take should be present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.131.2 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does it need to be "disproved"? Surely it's not falsifiable as a whole (maybe some of things in it are). We should simply follow what the sources say. The Science-based medicine source is a good one for us. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source particularly for a fringe topic per WP:PARITY. If you disagree take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or present a policy based argument here or perhaps provide RS that would support different content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

75.112.131.2 (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be disproved because that is the claim that is made. If it is not disproved, we should not claim that it is. I'm not saying the source should disprove as a whole, just what is claimed. The link should disprove "some number of" theories and treatments and that those which are disproven are what FM are based on.

This makes it seem like Functional Medicine is some conspiracy. Is it? If so, what is the goal? Who is benefiting from it? In what way?

I'm quite skeptical of Functional Medicine myself, but the only evidence I can find for or against seems shaky, and the articles for seem much more reputable to me. I hoped that there would be something more concrete and unbiased on Wikipedia.

If you ask why a source should support a claim that is made, and think that one persons opinion piece serves as a valid source, there is no point in arguing.

"Please sign your posts with four tildes" ... I'm not sure what that means... I'll try just adding some 75.112.131.2 (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the person claiming functional medicine is valid not with the person claiming it as junk. Without sources saying proving functional medicine's claims, it is quite valid to say that it is unproven. Your request is akin to saying, "I know 1+1=3 is not true but nobody has disproved 1+1=23491848292 and we should say so on the article until someone provides a source containing the number 23491848292 and the word 'disproved' together." I ran through the sources used on this article and all of them seem to pass as reliable sources for this topic. You'll not find high quality medical journals and science articles about functional medicine. It is junk. No qualified person would touch it with a bargepole. There's no profit in funding research on a topic that you are already convinced is false before you start. Functional medicine is a rehash of old, outdated, incorrect and false claims - sometimes with a new name attached to hide their bad-pedigree. If you check each individual claim made one by one then you will see that while the article supporting functional medicine looks good and well written it is actually full of falsehoods. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that claim that Functional Medicine is valid. The burden of proof lies on anyone making any claim, either positive or negative. My request is nothing of the sort you mention. I do not suggest that the page state Functional Medicine is valid or invalid, therefore it makes no sense to require proof of an assertion that was never made. Saying it is disproven is an assertion however. Note the difference in saying it is unproven vs disproven. Saying it is disproven is an assertion and therefore requires evidence. If I claim 1 + 1 = 3, then it should be cited. If I claim that 1 + 1 was proven to equal 2 and no other number, that should be cited as well. If the claim is that the value of 1 + 1 has not been proven, then yes, I am with you. No proof required. (If it wasn't math of course. This isn't math so it must empirically proven or disproven.) My request is simply that facts are presented as facts, and conjecture is presented as conjecture. My request is simply that we don't make claims that are not supported in either the affirmative or the negative. The article should state what functional medicine claims to be, as well controversies behind it and any cited proofs for or against it. 75.112.131.2 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You have missed the logic completely and I'm not going to explain it again. This article is suitably cited by reliable sources and the use of the word "disproven" in the opening sentence is valid based on the citation given. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no "disproof" in that citation. It is a rant on a summary of a webpage that the author did not understand. The author openly admits many times that they did not understand what they were reading. They did not seek answers to their questions, they assumed the meaning based on a couple sentences without finding someone who could explain what was meant and everyone here takes that as fact. There are several places where he openly admits he does not understand what is meant by what he read on some FM webpage and therefore deems it false. Here's just one example. I'm not going through the whole thing. He thinks "patient centered" implies that physicians do not concern themselves with the patient as a person. This, if true, would of course be absolutely ridiculous. They don't mean to imply that at all, that would be crazy. I'm not going to bother explaining what I have come to understand about beliefs of FM proponents so far, as it would obviously be a waste of time and I'm definitely not equipped to explain everything fully. (I am not studying it, but know a physician that is.) Since this person does not even understand what they are reading, they can't possibly argue against it. I really don't see why at least that much isn't obvious. I don't know much about FM, but I have learned enough to know that person, and most here know next to nothing about the topic.

I am obviously unconvinced that the article is reliable, but I'm not even bothering to argue that at this point. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it does not apply here. There is no logic in having a citation that does not even attempt to support the claim that is made. 71.47.60.217 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a ref by the same author, same source, but this one is a four part analysis of FM. This should answer some of your objections.Michaplot (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The link ""Detoxification/ Heavy Metals". www.centerforfunctionalmed.com. Center for Functional Medicine." is no longer valid. Furthermore, it is used as a source for "Detoxification of undocumented toxins.", and heavy metals happen to be defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_detoxification, so they don't seem to be unspecified. General medicine often talks about "unspecified" toxins when speaking generalally as a process of the kidneys. If asked, any scientist, practitioner or teacher should be able to clarify what toxin(s) they are referring to. Do we have evidence for inability to specify this in FM, or just a page where it wasn't specified?

75.112.131.2 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Article is from a biased perspective

The reason I state this is that the given definition of functional medicine in the article completely ignores the basic concept that functional medicine attempts to pinpoint and treat the underlying or root issue, rather than treat the symptoms resulting fromt the issue. This is stated in so many words by the Institute for Functional Medicine, and the American Board of Functional Medicine on their websites. Any attempts to state or add such are deleted from the article. The fact, that the article does not provide or allow this basic statement, indicates that the main purpose of the writer is to state only a subjectively negative view of functional medicine. If it was to be an objective view it would at the least include the stated meaning of functional medicine from the organizations representing the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgwriter (talk • contribs) 04:53, May 30, 2014

The reference source you added to the article does not stratify reliable source. Self published articles and blogs without editorial oversight are not considered suitable. If you can find a better source, then feel free to re-add the statement with such a reliable source. Google Books and Google Scholar are good places to start your search. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into what you consider reliable or not based on the talk topic before this, but it certainly is biased to not just state what it is as a basic statement first, and add critisims as needed. Look at the entry for Homeopathy for comparison. 75.112.131.2 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What specifically in Homeopathy? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I have no experience with functional medicine, so I have no axe to grind here. But I find the tone of the article to be dismissive and biased. I understand wanting to contrast functional medicine with standard medicine, but the language used should be neutral, allowing readers to understand the distinctions, seek further information, or come to their own conclusions. This article reads too much like an attempt to sway the reader against functional medicine. Fbonacci (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of undue content

Several editors have recently inserted content repeatedly that is not compliant with NPOV policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Fringe viewpoints, from proponents are due very little weight. See also WP:FRINGE. Of particular importance in compliance with WP:MEDRS when any biomedical information is presented on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Moved from my talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please help me perform edits on Functional Medicine. My previous edits were reverted by you and others the only reason given being "irrelevant". I want to know why these edits were removed and establish consensus on new edits.

Thank you Rsschuyler

here is a link to the diff if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_medicine&oldid=613053106

Rsschuyler 21:13, June 21, 2014‎ (UTC)

You are the one who made deletions using the word "irrelevant" in your edit summaries. Look at the revision history for this article. Look at each of your edits and all the reversions of your edits and read the edit summaries.

You received instructions on your talk page and on MrBill3's talk page but didn't follow them. Deal with this matter here, not on editors' talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. So I see where using Ibid for citations is a problem. That's easy to fix. However, I do not know what is meant by "dubious" or "poorly sourced" for my citations. Other citations in this article are from blogs and relatively obscure newsletters. Mine were from published sources and the Huffington post" Furtherhmore, NONE of the description on the page are even neutral let alone favorable to the topic. They are clearly biased toward placing functional medicine in an unfavorable light.

Also, the FTC action against Dr. Bland should be removed as being totally unrelated to the topic which is Functional Medicine, not Bland or his career. Rsschuyler (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing is an interesting subject here, since it is how the source is used which usually determines whether it's a reliable source or not. Even junk sources can be valid to document junk opinions, but certainly not for making statements of fact or scientific opinion. So, you need to be very specific. Which sources are you referring to? Are they legitimate for their purpose?

Statements and sources are not expected to be neutral. We document many things here, including points of view. It is editors who are expected to be neutral in their editing and to include what the sources say, without attempting to change the meaning in the source. Content will be biased (both positive and negative) as well as somewhere in between. We describe the subject, mention any controversies, document the subject's relationship to scientific/medical facts and knowledge, etc..

Bland is intimately connected with the subject, so whatever is related to him and functional medicine is fair game for this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It is PRECISELY the editor's entries that are negatively biased here. The statements: "Functional medicine is a a form of alternative medicine[1][2] which encompasses a number of unproven and disproven theories and treatments.[3][4]" and "Functional medicine differs from mainstream medicine is (sic) its willingness to employ treatments and drugs which may not be well evidenced by clinical research,[3] including orthomolecular medicine [5] and detoxification of unevidenced toxins.[6]" are clearly biased statements and here's why:

1. It is redundant to state a theory is unproven. ALL theories are unproven. When they are proven they they become LAWS. It's like adding "with toxic side effects" in the description of every drug since all drugs have them by definition. That's why they're drugs.

2. (Conventional) Medicine is FULL of unproven and discredited theories and treatments which are never mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Many are not only unproven, but dangerous, deadly and even horrific. Still these shortcomings are not used by most authorities to characterize it. Just a few examples are: in the 1950's pediatricians used x-rays to treat acne and routinely removed palatine tonsils to prevent illnesses while telling parents these treatments were safe and effective. More recently the American Red Cross's taught the use of mouth-to-mouth breathing in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation for decades despite NO evidence that it did any good. How about the widespread use of antibiotics to treat every cough, sneeze, sniffle and ache imaginable while at the same time lamenting their overuse AND creation of resistant pathogens? The list is long and growing.

So here is how the descriptions of Functional Medicine would look if they WERE neutral:

Functional medicine is a a form of alternative medicine[1][2] which encompasses a number of theories and treatments.[3][4]" (then list here what the theories and treatments are). AND

"Functional medicine differs from mainstream medicine is its use of treatments and drugs that include orthomolecular medicine [5] and detoxification"

See the difference?

As for the negative, and again biased, entry about Bland's sanction by the FDA, there are NUMEROUS instances of mistakes made by individuals and organizations "intimately connected" with mainstream medicine like the U.S. Public Health Service who were conducted the Tuskeegee Study in the U.S. in the 1930's and certain experiments conducted by licensed German Medical Doctors in the 1930's and 40's. Would it be appropriate to take up fully 50 percent of the Wiki article on Conventional Medicine with content like that? Perhaps, however I doubt most of the contributors to the Functional Medicine article so far would think so. Rsschuyler (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

On WP we follow what the sources say. Per the five pillars of WP, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." The current content clearly reflects what is written in the reliable sources cited.

Bland is essentially the creator/founder and main proponent of "Functional medicine" so discussion of his activities and the regulatory response is appropriate to this article.

In regards to your comparisons to WP handling of mainstream medicine, per the core policy neutral point of view, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So again we follow the sources, per due. Note the words proportionately, significant and reliable. The policy provides clear additional explanation with links to additional explanation and tutorials.

I suggest some time spent reading and understanding WP Policies and Guidelines. The core policies are WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. Important to this article is the WP:MEDRS guideline which has widespread support for application to articles like this as does the guideline WP:FRINGE.

Please present your arguments with a basis in policy and back them up with reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rsschuyler, you are right that theories in the scientific sense cannot be proven true. But you are wrong about theories becoming laws. This never happens. Theories cannot be proven true but they can be proven false. Perhaps theory is not the best word here, but whether or not we keep it, I will change unproven to unsupported.

As for your second point (ignoring the irony of you accusing traditional medicine of what you have just averred cannot be), there are plenty of mentions on WP of disproved medical claims. Medicine is, in part, so successful because it is self-correcting. As with science, the ultimate arbiter is the truth. Alternative medicine is often characterized by a lack of acceptance of negative evidence for claims.

The issue here is how FM is perceived, based on the sources we can find. It is not bias if we describe FM in a pejorative way, if that is the prevailing opinion. In any case, as MrBill3 says, if you disagree with the characterization of FM in this article, provide a source and edit the article.

I support keeping the Bland material in, as he is an important piece of the topic of this article.Michaplot (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 and Michaplot are both correct. Rsschuyler, the various mistakes and faults of mainstream medicine which you mention are (1) well known and (2) not denied (or misunderstandings and misrepresentations about them are properly explained). They are often known because mainstream medicine itself has (3) discovered and precisely (4) documented these problems, and then it has (5) self-corrected. That's how science works. These are at least FIVE things which alternative medicine (AM) does not do with its own errors and dangers. When you compound that with AM's lack of evidence for its methods, you're dealing with one hell of a mess. Wikipedia documents these things and you will find them mentioned, using RS, in their appropriate articles. There is probably an article here which lists them all in one place! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO you 3 editors listed on this page seem to not be neutral about conventional medicine. It appears clear from your comments that you are defending it; seems like the opposite of what WP is supposed to be. I am not left with the impression that you have studied conventional nor alternative medicine. Conventional medicine is self-correcting? Surely you jest. Kychiro (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Take some time to understand "what WP is supposed to be". The Five Pillars are the foundation, among them you will find three core policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. As this article discusses biomedical information the guideline WP:MEDRS applies. As the subject of this article is a fringe theory the guideline WP:FRINGE also applies. I think you will realize that neutral has a specific and precise meaning and application on WP. Regarding conventional medicine self correcting, you can find a multitude of examples, Brangifer explained the process and the examples above are actually instances when such self correction occurred, something notably lacking in fringe theories of health and medicine based on implausible concepts without examination or support of research and evidence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Improving Article

I have been accused of non-NPOV edits, so I wanted to seek consensus here. I propose the following changes

• Change the word "theory" in the first sentence to "method". The two sources given do not use the word theory, and it is incorrect as written (theories sensu science cannot by definition be proved.)

• Add a list of these dubious methods and treatments from the sources given and from the textbook of functional medicine: biochemical individuality, orthomolecular medicine, prescribing of controversial supplements, promotion of the discredited link between MMR vaccine and autism (the retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. is cited in The Textbook of Functional Medicine), organ reserve, detoxification, chiropractic (for conditions other than back pain), diagnosis of chronic occult infections (e.g. chronic Lyme disease), and disparagement of certain nutrients (e.g. gluten), and the action of piezoelectricity in healing, both physically and through such 'energetic' modalities such as intercessory prayer. This could also go later in the article.

• Expand the Concept section to include material from the textbook of functional medicine or other sources. I propose:

• "Functional medicine rejects the perceived emphasis of mainstream medicine on pathology and the diagnosis of named diseases. It strives, instead, to consider what practitioners call the patient's unique individual needs, which are believed to include, "the need to be rid of something toxic, allergenic or infectious, or the need to add something vital that is missing, or both." This is taken from the textbook of FM.
• "The concept of individuality is fundamental to the practice of functional medicine and is conceived of as having, "a spiritual as well as a biological foundation in the sense that each of us is a unique creature. Hence our patients are denied dignity when given a group identity (diagnosis) and a group treatment (the “treatment of choice” for that diagnosis)."" This is from an article by Baker in the journal Integrative Medicine.

• Add sections on certification CFMP, American Board of Functional Medicine and other references to its impact on medicine and medical education. Not sure how legitimate these are, so we would have to research this and find out if the certification is valid, if Function Medicine University is accredited, etc.

Michaplot (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting proposed edits. I suggest you just start, but do only a little bit at a time and save it. Repeat. That way individual problems can be dealt with by themselves, without any need for some type of mass revert. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll do that.Michaplot (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems a well thought out proposal with some attention to policy and support from sources. I think Brangifer's suggestion is a good way to proceed. Thank you for your engagement on talk and contributions to WP Michaplot. I look forward to seeing the article improve and to the participation of a number of thoughtful editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting little tidbit,

"European functional medicine also involves extensive use of homeopathic remedies, Western concepts of herbal medicine, and what is often referred to as "biopuncture"-including the injection of homéopathies, etc., at point locations on the body surface."

- - MrBill3 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This one says "Functional medicine" recommends selenium supplementation and there is no evidence it does any good.

• Lacour, Michael; Zunder, Thomas; Restle, Anja; Schwarzer, Guido (2004). "No evidence for an impact of selenium supplementation on environment associated health disorders – a systematic review". International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 207 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1078/1438-4639-00254. PMID 14762969.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here Orac (David Gorski) describes "Functional Medicine" as "an elaborate bit of woo" The revenge of the return of the resurrection of the “autism as mitochondrial disorder” notion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here Wallace Sampson concludes a multipart look at "Functional Medicine" thusly,

"So with this entry I finally see what FM really is – a non-scientific, ineffective, jingoistic, cultic approach to dysfunctional somatiform, non-disease conditions.

FM: Non-treatments for non-disease"

Functional Medicine IV. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Terms trademarked by Institute for Functional Medicine

In 2009 the Institute for Functional Medicine trademarked the terms, "Functional Medicine Certification Program" and "Functional Medicine Advanced Practice Modules.

I don't know if this is worth including so I put it here.

I am also adding some possible sources to the "Further reading" section. Feel free to evaluate them, use them as refs, leave them in "Further reading" or delete them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting. One thing we have to sort out is that there seem to be at least two FM groups, and I have yet to find either acknowledging the existence of the other. They are the American Board of FM (www.dabfm.org) and, of course, IFM. This article, with its emphasis on Bland, is essentially about the the latter, but perhaps we should expand it to include other groups. There is also the Academy of FM and Genomics, and FM University. Not sure how these are related. It is also interesting to me, on a side note, that I have not found Weil or other "integrative medicine" practitioners ever mention FM by name. Internecine squabbles in the world of CAM? Curious.Michaplot (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These organizations seem relevant to the below discussion on institutional acceptance. Maybe a section on organizations/institutions is in order. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"individuality" "unique creature" "group identity" "group treatment"

These terms used by Baker in the above quoted article in Integrative Medicine are used in a misleading manner. David Gorski does a good job explaining this in "Bill and Hillary Clinton go woo with Dr. Mark Hyman and 'functional medicine'" citing a high quality source (United States National Research Council report Toward Precision Medicine). - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These FM concepts are a bit dodgy. But, as I'm sure you know, the problem is finding credible critiques. We have the Science Based Medicine blog, but not much else. I will look at this source and see if it might be used without crossing over into OR. There is also Quackwatch. I wish someone would publish a critique of FM in a mainstream peer reviewed journal.Michaplot (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Functional Medicine Matrix

The Cleveland Clinic mentions the Functional Medicine Matrix on their website, which is functional medicine's formal methodology for solving problems. This should be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.55.49 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/preventive-medicine/integrative-medicine/

It's a primary source, but might be used if we properly address the WP:FRINGE problems with other sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This would be a valuable addition.

I agree, this article could use more about what functional medicine actually is. Smartedits5 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Corporate announcements are rarely encyclopedic

Granted, the ip is finding better sources, Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, nor public relations: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - WP:NOTNEWS --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal was correct, I have removed it again as per reasons given by Ronz.--Daffydavid (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, still a little new here. Appreciate everyone's time and feedback. I'd argue that a multi-million dollar institute at one of the leading medical institutions in the country is newsworthy. I'd also like to see a little more information about the Institute for Functional Medicine. Their chairman is a medical adviser to President Clinton. This is a topic that's getting a lot of attention and influencing medical policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.39.10 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please address the policy already mentioned and quoted? --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of info, some sourced, to change pov

So a new ip and the edit-warring one mentioned above both removed this. The first without comment. The second with, "Other edits removed bias". What bias might that be and why remove a source? Seems like these deletions are rather blatant violations of FRINGE and fall under WP:ARB/PS. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And one ip is proceeding to edit-war over it... --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. No disrespect intended. Still learning how to collaborate in this forum. The article has a strong bias that should be removed. Terms like "dubious" and "discredited" are inflammatory and embrace a particular point of view that is opinionated and not necessarily factual (WP:NPOV). It's not our job to judge or prove/disprove the claims of functional medicine; it's just our job to explain what it is.173.168.39.10 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We write articles from sources, following the applicable policies. You're new here, so you may find it frustrating to find that your opinions on "bias" and "our job" actually contradict our policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It seems the sources are simply chosen to support individual user opinions. If multiple sources contradict, then both opinions should be stated in an objective way. Some of my edits were reversed because they referenced blog articles. I've since learned that blog articles are not reliable sources of information on Wikipedia. But sciencebasedmedicine and quackwatch are both blogs and referenced very frequently on Wikipedia. There seems to be a double standard. This article is not written from a neutral point of view. I see what you are saying about sources though: every statement needs to be backed up with references. I appreciate your patience and assistance as I learn more about the editing process.173.168.39.10 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, some blogs are reliable for specific topics. Quackwatch has repeatedly been found to be reliable for information on topics of alternative medicine. To repeat: WP:FRINGE and WP:ARB/PS apply to this article. To anyone that confuses or promotes functional medicine as being similar to evidence-based medicine will find this article hopelessly biased, as they should from that perspective. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I follow now. Thank you for the clarification and for spending the time getting me up to speed. I really appreciate it. So if I understand correctly, a new theory is considered WP:FRINGE until a decent majority of the established science or experts reach concensus? So weight is given based on the general acceptance of an idea and past history, and a large number of reliable sources are needed to overturn or challenge the current view? I guess this makes sense. You wouldn't turn to an encyclopedia to learn the latest and greatest theories or advances in a field. You'd turn to it to learn something established and reliable, even if the ideas are a bit dated.173.168.39.10 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything new here. It seems to be just a bunch of old alt-med approaches and ideas (all WP:FRINGE) thrown together and marketed as "Functional medicine". The goal appears to be to sell training and certification. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Dubious nutritional interventions"

It was added as a part of this edit. Let's see if we can find some sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No sources were ever given to support this in the first place. It was simply written from someone's personal opinion. The term "dubious" should be removed.173.168.39.10 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I contacted the editor that added the information. Let's give him some time to respond. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz.173.168.39.10 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, here are a few sources on gluten to get us started. The first one is from Mark Hyman, MD, who lists several studies linking gluten sensitivity with various diseases. He points out that gluten sensitivity is not a problem for everyone and should be checked for with proper lab testing.

"A recent large study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that people with diagnosed, undiagnosed, and 'latent' celiac disease or gluten sensitivity had a higher risk of death, mostly from heart disease and cancer. (i)" ... "A review paper in The New England Journal of Medicine listed 55 'diseases' that can be caused by eating gluten. (iv) These include osteoporosis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, cancer, fatigue, canker sores, (v) and rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and almost all other autoimmune diseases. Gluten is also linked to many psychiatric (vi) and neurological diseases, including anxiety, depression, (vii) schizophrenia, (viii) dementia, (ix) migraines, epilepsy, and neuropathy (nerve damage). (x) It has also been linked to autism. (ix)" http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/03/17/gluten-what-you-dont-know-might-kill-you/

David Perlmutter, MD, lists several studies on his website linking gluten sensitivity with various diseases. http://www.drperlmutter.com/learn/studies/?study_tag=gluten

Stephanie Seneff, PhD, discusses the link between the use of glyphosate and the rise in gluten intolerance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

Aristo Vojdani, PhD, explains the link between gluten sensitivity and the elevation of autoantibodies. http://www.immunoscienceslab.com/Articles/ImmunGlutSenBeyond.pdf

PubMed currently has over 450 articles on non-celiac gluten sensitivity for those wishing to look further. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gluten+sensitivity+non+celiac 173.168.39.10 (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to use original research and inappropriate synthesis of materials to decide this. More importantly, I can't find any clear statement on what functional medicine has to say on this topic. Even if they are right in recommending something, it would seem to be out of luck. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages. Dr. Mark Hyman is the Chairman of the Institute for Functional Medicine, so wouldn't his research/synthesis qualify as a statement of what a functional medicine practitioner recommends or endorses? The Institute for Functional Medicine also discusses gluten allergy here under patient resources: https://www.functionalmedicine.org/Patients/Resources/. It would seem reasonable to conclude that functional medicine practitioners recommend the testing and removal of gluten in individuals with a sensitivity to it. To call this approach "dubious" is opinionated and not supported by modern science. They are not recommending everyone remove gluten, only those with a measured immune response to it.173.168.39.10 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "dubious" has not been verified and violates Wikipedia policy. It should be removed until a "reliable source" is given. The term also violates the neutral point of view policy:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts
• Prefer nonjudgmental language
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views 173.168.39.10 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It might meet WP:FRINGE though. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Institutional/Practitioner Acceptance

Still learning the WP ways, so please be patient with me :)

I'd be interested in adding a section about institutional acceptance. I haven't done much research on it yet, but would it be helpful to have a section that cites what mainstream clinical institutions either accept or reject FM? This wouldn't be something that addresses health claims or methods, just looking at how it is treated in the mainstream clinical institutions. Smartedits5 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The main thing is good sourcing: WP:RS in general and WP:MEDRS in particular for biomedical information. Also WP:NPOV directs us to make sure we properly reflect what is published in good sources, with special considerations in effect for this topic, which is a fringe one. I suspect few (maybe no) reliable publications have written about the acceptance (or more, likely, lack of it) of FM in institutions - but would be happy to be proved wrong ... are there good sources we can use? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to look further. Maybe there isn't anything. It seems that this sort of section could help with the fringe considerations because I think it would give a good measurable benchmark of how fringe it is. Smartedits5 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Another angle could be practitioner acceptance. Can we find reliable sources on the number of FM practitioners compared to the number of other types of practitioners? This could give similar context to the institutional question. Smartedits5 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha! David Gorski has written a piece on how FM was adopted by a Cleveland Clinic in Science-based Medicine. Normally a publication on a web-site might be looked at a little askance, but because this is a WP:FRINGE topic the WP:PARITY exception applies (also, Science-based Medicine has some degree of editorial control, which increases its reliability). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good find Alexbrn - So if this is an acceptable source, what is the next step? Do we need more sources? Do we create a bare-bones section on this? Wait for more discussion? I don't want to get reverted again :) Smartedits5 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess we could said something like "The opening of a Center for Functional Medicine by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation has been cited by David Gorski as a depressing example of how quackery is infiltrating medical academia.[ref]" Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it should also mention George Washington University. Those are the biggest names I've found doing anything like this. I did find a few other sources and smaller places...

Here's another source regarding the cleveland clinic opening by local news and another on the same subject here. Heres an article on a clinic in NJ - here not sure of the size or quality of the source. Also here's a report of a local small practitioner opening in WA and one from the LA times mentioning a UFC fighter being tested by a FM lab here Smartedits5 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn what happened to this section? It looks like you created it and then deleted it without discussion. I'm confused. Smartedits5 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I added some stuff and then moved it into the "Reception" section since it seemed appropriate there (also removing some self-sourced stuff about the Blands' organization). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

AlexbrnI found a good source that shows how common it is for academic health centers to use FM so I added it because we had been talking about this here, but I got reverted. Seems like the trend here is revert first and ask questions later, maybe I just don't get out WP works... I'll post it here to since it's relevant to our discussion in this section:

A 2013 study found that functional medicine therapies are practiced by 34% of the academic integrative health centers surveyed.

Smartedits5 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FM Methods that are accepted by mainstream

I'm not sure if they exist, but are there methods used by FM that are also used by other mainstream medical approaches? Or do they have any methods that have been proven? So far, the article seems to focus on that which is outside the mainstream and that which has been disproven. Smartedits5 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Section Change

The Concept section seems to me to be misnamed. It doesn't really explain the 'concept' it seems to really explain more the criticisms of FM methods.

I propose that we 1 - create a section called Criticism or Treatments and move the bullet points there and 2 - Make the Concept section about the actual concept of FM Smartedits5 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

This bullet point appears to be original research WP:NOR: "Promotion of the discredited link between MMR vaccine and autism (the retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. is cited in The Textbook of Functional Medicine)" Don't we need a source for the statement about discredited link or about the retraction? These need to be verifiable, WP:V Smartedits5 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources for the discredited link and for the retraction of the paper are present on WP in many places, not really much need to repeat them here. It is pretty widespread knowledge that link is discredited and the paper has been retracted. See Vaccine controversies, MMR vaccine controversy or Andrew Wakefield where you can find multiple sources, if you want you can add some to this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up this article so it follows WP policy. The form this bullet currently is in appears to be original research and unverifiable according to WP:V "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This bullet is poorly cited. Please add some inline citations as called for by WP policy. Smartedits5 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The wikilinks led to articles that made this well known topic abundantly clear. Your editing behavior makes assuming good faith increasingly difficult. I have added inline citations for the two points you seem to feel needed clarification that they are not just made up. It really is a stretch of credulity, to think that Wakefields paper being retracted isn't well enough known or clearly enough illustrated at the linked article, likewise the MMR autism controversy. Refs also provided for various FM practices. It is not good practice to place cn tags and then immediately delete the content. The point of the tag is to let other editors know that a citation is needed and allow the opportunity to provide one. Also removing content more than three times in 24 hours can draw 3RR complaints, however your removals were not the same thing 3 times, there is some discussion going on here etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see that you had added the wikilinks when I posted here, but the policy seems to prefer inline citations. As for deleting those pieces, I was following your lead. I asked what the appropriate thing to do was and you ignored my question. So, I did what you do. I removed it to allow discussion to happen here. You seem to be a policy expert and stickler, so I'm just trying to follow your example. I'm acting in good faith. Please see the rest of the talk page as evidence that I'm actually trying to improve this article in good faith. I know very little about FM and I like to learn from WP. When I came here this page taught me very little and so I decided to try and help. Still reading this page gives very little idea of what FM is or how popular it is or anything like that. Smartedits5 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me step back and do a better job of AGF. I think the problem is with the subject in general, it has received little analysis/evaluation/discussion by serious academics and the mainstream medical community. This is a WP:REDFLAG that tends to indicate a fringe idea. I hope we can continue research and find more reliably sourced information on the subject. I don't know how that will work out as the subject seems to be an attempt at creating a marketing scheme for a nebulous "method" with little academic/factual/research to back it up. Most information is self-published promotional OR type material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't we improve the article in terms of what FM is without backing up medical claims? You know, like how many centers use it...how it's licensed, if at all...etc. It seems from parity and fringe, those questions should be answerable without using MEDRS or even super reliable sources. Again, this argument has been made for including a blog as a reliable source. Smartedits5 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey of practice

I have removed the following:

A 2013 study found that functional medicine therapies are practiced by 34% of the academic integrative health centers surveyed.

References

The selection bias of "academic integrative health centers" makes this rather undue. A sample size of 136 also. A survey is not really a credible basis for a study. The due weight of this is negligible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1 - I don't understand how this is bias? The statistic clearly states from what centers the data was taken. It's not claiming that 34% of health centers use it, it's talking only about integrative health centers at academic institutions. Which was clear by the text you quoted. Very clear and I think quite relevant to the topic since there was discussion about giving perspective on how accepted FM is. Maybe instead of reverting, you could work to collaborate and improve this. Maybe you could find a statistic of how many integrative health centers at academic institutions there are compared to how many academic health centers there are without them. This would give even more perspective and would be in the spirit of WP:ROWN.

2 - A sample size of 136 isn't good? You must consider the population size of what is being studied. How many academic integrative health centers do you think exist in the United States? 136 is probably close to 80% of them or more.

3 - "A survey is not really a credible basis for a study." What other means would you propose to determine the statistic produced in the study? Surveys are very credible for some types of data. Remember this isn't trying to establish some medical claim, it's just establishing how many integrative health centers at academic institutions are using FM. This is a perfectly sound way to measure that. Please see Survey methodology.

4 - Please re-read WP:DUE, it is clearly referring to the article as a whole not having a large portion of the article focused on a topic that is of minor significance. One line can hardly be considered undue weight especially when it is contributing to a section on "Reception" and speaks directly to how a specific and important population related to the topic.

MrBill3 - On a policy-related note, the use of WP:BRD and the accusation of WP:EW seem to be selectively applied. I posted this edit and it was reversed without regard to WP:BRD "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun." - The was a discussion in talk on finding sources on institutional acceptance of FM. It doesn't seem that the original reversion was necessary and neither was the second. WP:ROWN was also not followed by either reversion. Did I do the wrong thing by reverting and asking for discussion instead? If so, what is the appropriate thing to do and why? If not, then... MrBill3, you asked that I follow WP policies and I'm trying to do that, but I respectfully ask that you do the same. It was my understanding that instead of just reverting things we should discuss them and work collaboratively to improve WP. That's what I'm trying to do. Smartedits5 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A study of academic integrative health centers is extremely limited and selective (selection bias). This study doesn't give perspective on how accepted FM is, the selected group being surveyed is not represenative of anything of significance. We are talking about a survey sent to people who work at 30 clinics already identified as integrative. What is the due weight of one third of practitioners at thirty clinics in terms of health care practices in the US? If you are talking about how accepted FM is what kind of a percentage of health care practitioners are we talking about here 40 out of how many in the US??? And as I said selected from integrative health centers, that's like assessing the acceptance of veganism by surveying vegetarians (see how it is selection bias). So there is no due weight in terms of significance or validity. Lets consider methodology, a survey is this a validated instrument or a survey made up just for this study by the authors of this study? Has anyone else used this survey? A survey is a very low quality of evidence for a "study", much less a single use, single purpose, self composed survey sent to a miniscule group of highly selected participants. What is the due weight of a survey of 30 selected clinics? Negligible as I said, it makes no significant contribution and has no validity in discussing the level of acceptance of FM among any notable portion of health care. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To quote WP:DUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" 40 practitioners at integrative health clinics is pretty clearly a "tiny minority". Also from DUE, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It seems absolutely clear to me that the due weight of a primary study, not commented on or evaluated by a secondary source, of a highly selected very small minority, methodologically mediocre at best is neglible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of that line and statistic is to say that it's extremely rare for FM to be accepted! You can read that line and very clearly see that it's a tiny minority! You're reading into this edit that I'm somehow trying to make it sound bigger than it is. I'm not. I'm trying to improve a terrible article. Also, WP:DUE has to do with 'views' not statistics. It is not someone's opinion that this tiny minority of practitioners use FM, so your quote from DUE doesn't apply. I think you grossly mischaracterize WP:DUE. It is relevant to the topic, and deserves weight, that a very small minority of practitioners use FM. If you can find a better source, then please use it. But don't delete my contribution. You're supposed to be working to improve this article and each edit. Again, I reference WP:ROWN - "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit." Smartedits5 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The position of the authors of the study is not of significant prominence for it's representation to be due. It just doesn't warrant inclusion. The position of a tiny minority (acceptance of FM) should not be presented at all per DUE. Read the NPOV policy from the top and you will get a better understanding of what is meant by views. Consider what is appropriate proportional representation of the information of a primary study with no secondary comment or analysis of a tiny minority. We are talking about the views of 40 people within a selected group of 136 people at a selected group of 30 clinics as reflected by a survey of them which has only been published by the people who composed and conducted the survey. What policy do you think supports that? I can tell you NPOV a core policy clearly does not. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually respond to my points rather than just restating yours. I've cited policy several times and I've asked questions on how to handle this and you've just ignored them. The citation was used elsewhere in the article but you let that stand. Please be consistent. This is a study from a journal and it should be considered a good source due to parity according to other arguments you've made here for other sources. Smartedits5 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is clearly talking about view points. The results of a survey is not the author's viewpoint. From NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

This edit did none of these. Please show me in NPOV where it says that a survey is equivalent to a view point. It's a datapoint. Apples and oranges. Again, I think you're twisting policy to suit your self. Smartedits5 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is used elsewhere for descriptive facts about FM. For those facts the peer review and parity support the contention that the description of FM provided is accurate. The content you are attempting to insert is the view (acceptance of FN) of 40 individuals responding to a survey. These individuals are a subset of a highly selective sample. The view is appraised by a survey (not published with the study, not validated by anyone but the authors of the study). While peer review supports that the survey may be passable the results of the study represent the view of a tiny selected minority. That minority can be placed in context as health care practitioners making it clear they are a miniscule minority and by virtue of selection not representative of the general medical community. The factual description of FM is not the same as the results. Generally in a study that is peer reviewed the descriptive facts (not results) are evaluated as reflecting accepted facts in a wider community than the subjects. For example a study about opinions on a treatment for a condition will describe the condition in factual terms (representing the existing scientific consensus) then present the opinions of the subjects (representing the views of the subjects in terms of the structure created by the authors). Frequently parity requires using reliable descriptions based on the background material from a source, but the due weight of the results is a different issue. What policy would support representing the views of 40 subjects in a study of a selected group of 136? Background information is different from results. Hopefully peer review would assure background information is accurate. The methodology, sample size and selection while peer reviewed for soundness (although again use of a unique, unvalidated instrument) are evaluated for due weight. What weight do you think 40 practitioners from an involved group has on the subject in general? The view of practitioners at clinics that are identified as involved in alternative medicine is a minority view in terms of the subject as a whole. If you think this is crucial content, please propose an alternative phrasing that more clearly places this group in context including how "integrative medicine clinics in academic centers" stand within the community of clinics at academic centers. I think this context makes clear what a highly selected minority the very small sample represents. Thank you for a continued focus on content and collaborative engagement.

Edit conflicted with the previous content. To reply to your amended comment, presenting the view of 40 individuals responding to a survey as significant is the issue. There is no factual statement in their acceptance. As a data point a health practice employed by 40 practitioners among a selected group of 136 is not significant. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As a point of fact the original statement was not accurate. The 34% is of respondents to the survey, not the academic centers, multiple respondents from a single center are not differentiated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The entire point is that it's a small number. It is significant to demonstrate that FM is so small. This makes sense in a section on reception. Also, you say "The source is used elsewhere for descriptive facts about FM" It seems to me that the number of practitioners is a descriptive fact about FM. Smartedits5 (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, it appears to me that "While peer review supports that the survey may be passable the results of the study represent the view of a tiny selected minority." you're wrong here because it's asking if they use the treatment. That's not a view, it's a practice. Smartedits5 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a primary source. It would be fine if it were being used to expand upon related content verified by better sources. Otherwise we don't know what context it belongs in and is undue. It's also promotional in nature, so should be given extra scrutiny. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it promotional? It shows that the acceptance of FM is diminishingly small! Instead of deleting it and accepting the status quo it should be expanded upon by others... WP doesn't favor the status quo Smartedits5 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ronz - WP:PRIMARY clearly states: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The edit that I made had no interpretation, analysis or synthesis. Smartedits5 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Without a non-primary source, we've nothing besides editors personal opinions that it deserves mention. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again... "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." please cite a policy that contradicts this. Smartedits5 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is built by digesting accepted knowledge; a survey result in a primary source is far from that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This might be inappropriate since two additional individuals have since joined the conversation, but it seems the bulk of the disagreement was hashed out by MrBill3 and Smartedits5. The context of the Ehrlich et al study is not obvious to a casual reader. The main contextual point that needs addressing is the proportion of academic health centers that have integrative medicine clinics (or the total number of academic health centers). If a reliable source can be found for this, it would provide an appropriate balance to the information. Otherwise, it is not at all clear whether 34% of 136 represents a large or small statistic. But it is better to find that source that puts the 34% into context than to remove the information entirely. Also, please sign all of your comments and make only one indentation per reply. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I apologize if I messed up any formatting, I'm still learning. I agree it's better find another source than to delete. Unfortunately, it seems that editors on this article tend to immediately delete/revert rather working to improve. I hope everyone here will heed your advice because it's pretty discouraging for someone like me who's trying to help. Smartedits5 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Functional Medicine Certification

This article continues to be sorely lacking in information about the actual subject of the page. I'd like to see a section on whether or not or how FMs are certified.Smartedits5 (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. How about a MEDRS source that describes what FM is and discusses certification, training etc? - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My reading of MEDRS is that it is for biomedical information. I don't think that applies to the question of whether or not FMs are certified in any way. Asking whether or not hairstylists need a license isn't a question about how to cut hair, for example. Smartedits5 (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Who issues and on what basis any certification in a health care practice falls under MEDRS. The key questions would also involve who recognizes any such certification and for what purpose. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why it falls under MEDRS. Licensure isn't biomedical information. It is likely that no one recognizes whatever certification there is. This is also worth noting. Smartedits5 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Licensure of a medical practitioner is a MEDRS issue. It deals with a medical practice, a treatment set, a biomedical theory etc.

I think we are running into a bit of a loggerhead with this article in general. FM is a popular scheme that does not have an academically, medically or professionally accepted definition. Without this we are essentially trying to define a concept that is undefined except as a marketing tool. I think a posting to WP:MED would be useful.

To me it seems as if there are two possible ways to consider FM. One is a vaguely defined marketing scheme that promotes a variety of fringe ideas. The other (which may develop over time) is a matrix approach to preventative medicine/holistic health. This may be something that requires waiting for academia/the medical community to define, analyze and study FM. At this point the expert assessment we have leans toward the prior. I would hope that Cleveland Clinic and Georgetown would lean to establishing a matrix/process to apply a broad range of evidence based practice. It would seem to me that outside the phrase FM (getting trademarked, marketed and used in a proprietary way) the idea of applying a multisystem approach is within the current practice of medicine. The coordination of Endocrinology, Immunology and Nutrition and the use of a variety of diagnostic tests is not unique to FM but actually common place in the practice of medicine. The concepts of preventative health and promotion of health including multiple disciplines and body systems is also a part of current medical practice. How is FM defined or practiced that makes it distinct? If the medical community or academia defines and analyzes FM as a practice, matrix or theoretical framework there will then be content for an encyclopedic article on the subject. If FM remains a marketing tool promoting questionable practices the content on WP will continue to reflect that. Perhaps the lack of clarity in the article at this time reflects the lack of clarity about what FM is in the academic/scientific/medical community. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Another example of unacceptable sources

Quackwatch appears to be a self-published source, according to WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people..."Smartedits5 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is RS for altmed topics, as had been discussed repeatedly at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it shouldn't be used as a source about a living person. I'm assuming Bland is still alive, I guess I don't actually know that. Smartedits5 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

From WP:SPS "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If a source is reliable on altmed, it doesn't mean it's reliable on biographical information on living people. Smartedits5 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

QW is a recognized expert source: WP:SPS does not apply (and the narrative it gives of the Blands' legal travails is not controversial in any case, since there are public records verifying it). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So even though it's self-published, the policy that selfpublished works should never be used about a living person is abrogated just because it's considered reliable for a different topic? Please cite policy. The public records should be cited in accordance with policy not a selfpublished work. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

On the seubject of quackery and legal issues surrounding health fraud it is hard to think of a better source than Quackwatch. What particular piece of information do you find improperly sourced? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The information about bland seems to be information about a living person. Which seems to me to violate policy. Just because a source is deemed credible in one area doesn't mean it's no longer subject to SPS rules when talking about other things. Maybe this is just a technicality and I'm getting into the woods on it, but it seems that all my edits are reverted on such technicalities and I'm trying to understand how to comply with policy on my edits and to ensure an article complies with policy. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is fine. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable..." Maybe WP:BLPSPS should be clarified a bit in parallel with WP:SPS. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, SPS uses the word Never in bold... so you can understand my concern... Smartedits5 (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative to Quackwatch (just so we can move forward through some of these issues), here is an AP article that describes at least some of the FTC issues. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tags

Alexbrn I'm growing weary of trying to help...getting my edits reverted or deleted...taking it to the talk page and getting nowhere. But, alas, I will try again even though this latest reversion is most frustrating. Why were the tags removed?

1. According to the talk page, this article's POV is disputed hence a tag is warranted.
2. According to the talk page the inclusion of the section on bland's business misadventures is also disputed.
3. The sources on this page are weak and it's hard to find good ones. This has also been discussed on talk several times.

Aren't tags meant to help invite others in to help improve the article? That's what I'm trying to do. I'm not sure why you would revert them immediately rather than allow others to see them and come in and participate in improving this page.

Adding these tags is an improvement to the article based on the discussion which means they should not be reverted according to policy. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This article's POV is not (meaningfully) disputed, and no specific POV issue has been agreed; we should try to avoid "badge of shame" tagging. We have some pretty good sources on the page (Quackwatch, Science-based Medicine) already, and there simply isn't much out there in academic RS (I have searched thoroughly). There's a lot of stuff in fringe publications (e.g. the Townsend Letter), but it's not usable since this falls afoul of WP:FRIND. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to two of my concerns. I disagree with the POV point, but I appreciate your response. Please explain why you removed the undue tag on the bland section. In talk there are clearly people who think it should be removed. No clear consensus was reached on that, so the tag should remain while it is discussed further. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think the policy allows for fringe sources to be used if there are not other reliable sources. Not for medical information, of course, but for information about what FM is or purports to be. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no active disagreement about POV. We can't use fringe sources for anything at all unusual. This article is already subject to a posting at WP:FT/N. Perhaps if you want wider input ask the fringe experts there? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Define active. It was being discussed fewer than 30 days ago. Smartedits5 (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

An NPOV discussion requires RS that is not represented proportionally. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, what about the section on bland's businesses? This wasn't a POV tag, it was mentioned on talk in multiple places that it's not appropriate for the article's topic.It was an undue tag. Smartedits5 (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the content I added makes clear that the IFM is a division of one of Bland's businesses which has run afoul of the FTC. It is also clear that IFM is one of the few major players in FM, they hold trademarks, conduct training and are cited by practitioners. As IFM continues trade in FM the issues of the parent company are relevant. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're projecting what you know onto the article. From the article it is certainly not "clear that IFM is one of the few major players in FM, they hold trademarks, conduct training and are cited by practitioners." Smartedits5 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content, altering attributed statements, EW

Repeatedly removing sourced content after being reverted is edit warring. Refactoring attributed sourced statements violates policy. Discuss changes on talk and get consensus first. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes 8th Dec

This page is inaccurate and negatively biased. I also made sourced changes, which cited more recent published journal articles than the current description. My edits were immediately removed. I do not have the time or the inclination to fight about this because I am simply a member of the public wanting to improve the page, but think it is a shame that those with time and energy to edit negatively are stopping anyone from being able to edit to improve the page. I have reported this as vandalism.Cawjac (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You have not reported this as vandalism. You need to read the message Alex left on your talk page. You know, the one you deleted. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I sent an email reporting it as vandalism because there seems (to me) to be a campaign to prevent editing of this page. Why else would you keep reverting comments that update the page in a neutral way? Maybe you would like to break down the following and explain to me what is wrong with it. I don't have much experience of Wikipedia so maybe you can guide me how to improve it but I would like to know exactly what you disapprove of (and why). Also - why is it edit warring if I change back to my preferred version but not if you change back to your preferred version? Cawjac (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cawjac: The cited article PMID 24278827 was published in the journal Global advances in health and medicine: improving healthcare outcomes worldwide which is not a MEDLINE indexed journal, and appears to have an impact factor of zero - both of which are WP:REDFLAGs. It is an "in-universe" view written by a naturopath, meaning it lacks WP:FRINDependence. We need to reflect good independent sources for this WP:FRINGE topic. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The author is the editor of a peer-reviewed journal. Many citations on this page are blog links to articles written by two individuals (David Gorski and Wallace Sampson) who are clearly anti-functional medicine. They are not authors of peer-reviewed journals to my knowledge. They both appear (to me) biased against functional medicine as physicians who practice conventional medicine. So this seems to be a matter of opinion about which are sources are biased and which are not? How about we remove the links to their blogs as well and use more independent sources on both sides? As currently written you are allowing biased sources but only in one direction. [ [User:Cawjac|Cawjac]] (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@alexbrn By the way, thanks for helping educate me about the author of the paper I posted. I didn't see that he had links to Functional Medicine. However, I think his description of Functional Medicine is more accurate. I think the description should reflect what Functional Medicine actually is and the way it is practiced today, not in 2002. I also think 'criticisms' should go under a separate section.Cawjac (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Because of our policies and guideliness on how we treat WP:FRINGE topics. Gorski and Sampson are well-reputed commentators on a variety of altmed topics. The scientific, respectable, mainstream view must be predominant here and any fringe views placed within its context. If you believe those policies are being misapplied (or don't apply to this topic), maybe raise a query at WP:FT/N. There may be some role for PMID 24278827, but so long as its views are placed within a proper context as being an "in-universe" view from a proponent of FM. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

e/c, twice. comment redundant. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok well read the rambling, inarticulate article Sampson wrote about Functional Medicine not long ago - very little substance to his complaints, just a long rambling article. I don't have time otherwise I certainly would object to them having godlike status. There are Functional Medicine clinics in mainstream hospitals in the US as I understand it, hundreds if not thousands of doctors and nutritionists trained in Functional Medicine worldwide and here in Europe governments are implementing or considering implementing Functional Medicine principles. In the UK authorities are currently overseeing proposals to include a Functional Dietetics qualification. I have to wonder at what point something ceases to be considered 'fringe'. And I have to hope that someone has more time than me to look into this for the sake the general public reading about Functional Medicine on Wikipedia because they deserve an accurate, unbiased explanation of what it is - obviously with complaints and criticism noted. Cawjac (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Cawjac (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are strong independent reliable sources, then produce them. Any such sources would be an obvious starting point for improving the article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the New York Times considered reliable? The main starting point to address is the description of Functional Medicine as Alternative Medicine. The definition of Alternative Medicine is a practice or a theory which does not originate from evidence gathered using the scientific method or is contradicted by scientific evidence or established science. First of all, functional Medicine can be better described as a practice or process or method. It is not a treatment in itself. Secondly, functional medicine doctors DO prescribe conventional medicine, but they also take a systemic view of illness. Even if conventional doctors ought to take a systemic view of illness, they rarely have time or resources to do so, at least in countries with socialised healthcare systems. That is the main departure from the conventional system but it does not make Functional Medicine 'alternative'. It can be described as an alternative approach. It is though true that some of the tests used in Functional Medicine are not standard and some of them are controversial so some of the tests might be described as coming under alternative medicine. It is also true that it is a new approach and complex to test, so there are not that many journal articles to back up the treatments when taken as a whole (that is the biggest weakness of the process/system). That's what I believe that the edit I wrote was a better and fairer explanation of what Functional Medicine really is. NYT has described it as 'the practice of addressing the root causes of chronic diseases (from diabetes and arthritis to insomnia and fatigue) through dietary and lifestyle changes, rather than diagnosing them and prescribing traditional medicine to treat the symptoms'. But the latter part is not accurate because FM physicians do prescribe medication. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/fashion/dr-mark-hyman-clintons-health.html Cawjac (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cawjac: The NYT piece doesn't tell us much more than that Mark Hyman is involved with FM, and we already say that (in more detail than the NYT in fact). Hyman believe his "wellness philosophy" addresses root causes etc. - but we have better sources for what proponents believe than the "Style & Fashion" section of the NYT. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@alexbrn - as I have tried to say, the main problem I see with the current page is that you are allowing two individuals who are totally biased against the functional medicine approach and do not like it at all to define it. A truly unbiased page would start by describing what FM is or at least what it says it is or strives to be (and I believe that the best source for that should be the IFM itself; if Wikipedia does not agree that makes for a rather strange outcome when it comes to the content). Then you can have a criticism section and all criticism should go in there. You are, as currently written, allowing critique of the approach to take over the page. When someone visits Wikipedia, they want first and foremost to know what something is and then they can also be interested in what others have said about it; To my mind as a reader, that's what I want, rather than what a critic of something SAYS it is. If that is the outcome of Wikipedia's rules then I can understand why some people criticize the site.Cawjac (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your ambition for a fuller article is sound, but we need independent sources for describing what FM is, not in-universe sources, especially since this is a fringe topic. From one such independent source we learn FM is only "vaguely defined". Shrug, maybe that's just all we can say. But to repeat: if there are strong independent reliable sources, then produce them. We are bound by Wikipedia's WP:PAGs here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@alexbrn I understand. I also see now that I am not the first to try to improve the page and my frustrations have been echoed before. I sent an email to IFM as well, suggesting the need for better sources of information about their endeavours. Cawjac (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@alexbrn - On reflection and having studied the Evidence Based Medicine Wikipedia page, I wonder why different rules apply to that page. There is no back-up independent source when describing what Evidence-Based Medicine is. There are only two references in the description section and the main one is a study by the 'Evidence Based Medicine Working Group'. That would suggest to me that a similar approach should be allowed here and a prominent independent source would not necessarily be required for a description of what something is (?) Cawjac (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

I am not very familiar with that article. If it has problems, then fix them. Remember however that unlike here, WP:FRINGE does not apply. That other pages may have problems is no reason to make this one worse. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Lacking Neutrality

This article is not neutral, particularly given the categories which it is associated with. It also needs an expanded definition instead of labeling it as a form of "alternative medicine" Ccstewart25 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I got to this topic through having watched a talk on the subject, and the above is also my impression. My impression from the talk that I watched was that these practices are by and large firmly based on science, and that were they properly reviewed they would be found to be as well based as conventional medicine, which as we know is based on 'evidence' that frequently turns out to be in error. I have encountered this kind of problem before in topics designated as WP:FRINGE. The difficulty as far as WP is concerned is that hostile editors, whether belonging to the Guerilla clan or not, can use WP:NOTRS as an easy way to get rid of text that they do not approve of. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversial topic; multiple viewpoints should be accommodated

This article was (and still is) in need of cleanup to get rid of biased language and untrustworthy sources (e.g. Current Science journal (cited in article) has an impact factor less than 1; sciencebasedmedicine.org (cited numerous times) is a conjectural opinion blog—not peer-reviewed science). Wording is highly biased with strong NPOV. The topic is best described by the official proponents at least as much as by detractors. Therefore, proponent wording and links to official functional medicine sites need to be included for completeness.Synthopedia (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

To maintain WP:NPOV I prefer reliable sources, per policy. Roxy the dog. bark 11:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted Synthopedia's changes because of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL. You are also applying a double-standard when you criticise sciencebasedmedicine.org for not being peer-reviewed, but are happy to link to the websites of business that promote this claptrap and therefore have a WP:COI and are not WP:MEDRS. Famous_dog (c) 11:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I had already changed the article because of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL. Please re-read those pages so you can understand what they mean. Multiple users have already complained about the biased nature of this article. I petition respect for the contribution I and others are attempting to make to wikipedia on this topic. The article as written is clearly heavily biased and not written according to wikipedia guidelines or ethical standards. Seeing as this article is so controversial, I would argue it shouldn't even be on Wikipedia until some mainstream "trusted" consensus can be had. Also, in reference to the "double standard" please note that I left the sciencebasedmedicine.org references in there and left both points of view. I'm not employing a double standard; please read thoroughly and think before deleting and commenting. I implore respect and thoroughness, please.Synthopedia (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the dogs have consensus here. your nonsense about undue and promotional fundamentally misconceives what WP is about. I don't believe you understand what WP:NPOV means. I percieve no bias according to policy. We do not pander to nonsense, but simply report what reliable sources say. We don't report nonsense as fact. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't demand that I treat you with respect and then state that I am ignorant of WP's standards and policies. That would seem to be another double-standard. Your edits were biased towards advocacy of a (actually not very controversial) viewpoint and the links you added were to websites that promote the very object that is in question. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can edit the article as you see fit once you provide some. Famous_dog (c) 13:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Synthopedia your changes were not policy-compliant. NPOV doesn't mean what most people think it means when they first come here. It is clear you are passionate about this topic; you are also new to Wikipedia. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality needed

The article definitely does not have a neutral viewpoint, pushing one point of view, and seems to rely heavily on a single source, Dr. David Gorski for its claims. A less biased overview is needed. I added the POV template. --Sanya3 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

SBM is an excellent source for fringe medical topics, so we make good use of them. Don't put POV tags when there is no POV issue. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Functional medicine "disproven"

The citation for the "disproven" label in the introduction to this rather slanted article (4) is actually an editorial by Dr Sampson and is itself basically unreferenced. An opinion piece is hardly appropriate as a citation for making a claim that something is "disproven". Such language needs to be removed or cited as an opinion and not an implied scientific reference.

That sentence doesn't say functional medicine is disproven, it says that it "incorporates a number of unproven and disproven methods and treatments." --tronvillain (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Replace Gobbldygook quote?

Let me preface this by saying not only am I not a proponent of functional medicine, but I pretty much abhor everything about its approach, false promises, and masquerading as science to sell hope to people who are desperate. Please believe me when I say it's the worst form of parasitic opportunism. HOWEVER, I think the gobbldygook quote in the lead is a little much. I personally think it's spot on, but I differentiatie between personal feelings and encyclopedic style. I don't think it's encyclopedic, and feels like it's unnecessarily provocative. I think we can say in plain language something like "opponents consider it to be a collection of unproven methods (dubious practices, etc" or whatever general summary we want without getting into glorified namecalling. It also cheapens the opponents position to summarize it with a salacious quote instead of a hard summary of the real points of opposition. It doesn't juxtapose well with the description of the propoenents, which is written in a more encyclopedic tone. I worry that we make it more platable by making opposition sound more hyperbolic. Jbower47 (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to avoid being mealy-mouthed. WP:SPADE and all that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jbower47: agreed, gobbledygook is not a good word to have here - but the word I object to more critically is "opponents". Saying that functional medicine practitioners have undefined "opponents" and quoting a skeptic magazine is creating wp:false balance. Their opposite number are people who practice actual medicine and these people aren't their opponents just as people who claim to help you learn teleportation aren't the opponents of car salesmen. People who tell lies to hawk crap get valid opposition from the people who regulate the sale of things, which in this case would be medical bodies and regulatory organizations within that industry. This is where the quote should come from and it should be properly attributed. Edaham (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing problematic about describing skeptics as "opponents" since they are frequently the ones doing more to oppose nonsense than the "opposite number." Besides which, there's nothing preventing someone from being both - the quote comes from Harriet Hall, a retired family physician. --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not with you on that one I'm afraid. Casting Flim-flam merchants as the opponents of respected health care providers like Harriet Hall is false balance. It creates the idea that there is relative equality amid a forum where people who believe in this muck get as much air time as the people who oppose them. The word "opponent" should be altered to "medical professionals", and in order to have a quote which represents a consensus among professionals, a quote from a large scale advisory body would be ideal. Saying that (unaccredited) skeptics are their opposition detracts from the fact that the world of health care at large advises against the use of untested medicines. I'm not going to alter it till I have a better option, but I am researching further. Aside from any of this the actual wording she used is a bit comical and we might be setting up a bit of a straw man there by giving the space-heads who promote alternative medicine the chance to say that if this is the sort of poetry and prose we are bringing to the discussion then the rest of the article is also flawed. At the very least lets consider some alternatives on the talk forum, which we can add to this thread, and if you wish, open an RfC on the matter. Edaham (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now, that describing those opposing nonsense as opponents is giving false credibility to the nonsense. Fair enough. --tronvillain (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks. I wasn't doing mental gymnastics to get this sense from what's written either. I think attributing that criticism to someone (with apologies to the doctor from who the quote came, because to be fair, it's a wonderful and literal way she put it) so relatively minor, and accrediting her merely as a "skeptic", overlooks and detracts from the body of weight which actually does dissuade patients from using fake medicine. It makes the opposition to functional medicine seem small and less well founded. I recommend we change it to something which is more representative of a larger advisory body such as a national health organization. Edaham (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if such a statement actually exists.--tronvillain (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm searching. It's an enlightening pursuit. Have come across pages like this, which emphasize the scale of the issue and the audacity of some of the health claims out there. Some of the letters, aimed at more notable firms may be of use. Edaham (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased

no edit request made
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothzg (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 no edit request was made Edaham (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Complaint

wp:not forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Out of Date: This article has little value due to its ill-informed and out-of date information. There are top-notch researchers at great research universities doing outstanding work on on what you would consider Functional Medicine. Here are just a few: Vincent Fortanasce, Neurologist – is a Clinical Professor of Neurology at University of Southern California, Lecturer at Yale Dr. Dominic Agostino Assistant Professor in the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Physiology at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, and a senior research scientist at the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC). Dr. Angela Poff (University of Tampa) - Cancer researcher. Dr. David Katz – Yale University Prevention Research Center, 15 Books, 200 scientific articles Dr. Dale Bredesen – President Emeritus Buck Institute for Research on Ageing; He served as Chief Resident in Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) before joining Nobel laureate Stanley Prusiner’s laboratory at UCSF as an NIH Postdoctoral Fellow. He has held faculty positions at UCSF, UCLA and the University of California, San Diego Though there are so many others, but this resume will keep the gatekeepers of this article busy for a while: Dr. Perlmutter received his M.D. degree from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed scientific journals including Archives of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and The Journal of Applied Nutrition. In addition, he is a frequent lecturer at symposia sponsored by such medical institutions as Columbia University, Scripps Institute, New York University, and Harvard University and serves as an Associate Professor at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. His books have been published in 28 languages and include Grain Brain, The Surprising Truth About Wheat, Carbs and Sugar, with over 1 million copies in print. Other New York Times bestsellers include Brain Maker, The Grain Brain Cookbook, and his most recent book, The Grain Brain Whole Life Plan (November 2016). He has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated television programs including 20/20, Larry King Live, CNN, Fox News, Fox and Friends, The Today Show, Oprah, The Dr.Oz Show and The CBS Early Show. He is also the recipient of numerous awards, including: the Linus Pauling Award for his innovative approaches to neurological disorders; the National Nutritional Foods Association Clinician of the Year Award; the Humanitarian of the Year award from the American College of Nutrition; the Media Award from the American College of Nutrition; and the Healthy Living Award from The Invisible Disabilities Association. I believe this should be enough to throw the credibility of this entire article into a tailspin. However, one more concern that is disappointing to see the Wikipedia Medical Editors allowing the quoting of subjective statements and juvenile terminology (this is not a description of the author but only of the work) such as "gobbledygook" rather than the provision of substantive evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7quiver (talk • contribs) 05:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 not done no specific request. This isn't a forum to talk about your opinions or commentary about the subject. Edaham (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed comment identical to collapsed comment above - There's no need to keep adding the same comment. People can still see the closed discussion above Edaham (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Another complaint

Collapse to respect WP:TPG

Yesterday You deleted my post on the discussion on Functional Medicine. [Actually you did it twice as I was in the process of deleting the first one after I realized I did not properly sign it and was going to repost it.] My comments did not advocate for a position. Rather, I noted the article was very ill-informed on the subject and I simply supplied the names and short bio for several research scientists that would be critical for the discussion of the article. Like you, I know a little bit about research, having completed 2 master's degrees and am half way through a PhD. No matter what position one takes, they must deal with relevant voices on both sides of an argument. To blindly say that there are no reputable scientists advocating a position when, as I barely scratched the surface pointing out, there are world-renowned scientists at schools like Yale, USC, and others, is shoddy research and would merit an "F" in any master's level course. I said nothing to argue for a particular kind of treatment, supplement, outcome of Functional Medicine research, clinic studies, anecdotal evidence, etc that might argue that Functional Medicine was useful. That would have been debating the content of the article. But to bring up the ill-informed nature of the research presented is simply an academic comment on procedure. Please note the difference between advocating for a position and noting errors in research methodology and fully reinstate my post. Secondly, I note that you may feel that the comment on the Wikipedia Medical Editors may well be directed at you. it is incumbent upon yourself and others to employ meaningful self-reflection. The allowing of the comment "gobbledegook" was useless in the article. It served no academic purpose and was a Juvenal attempt to merely castigate the opposition with names rather than present actual objective research to the discussion. Wikipedia editors are better than this. I am disappointed to see that this was allowed to get past the Wikipedia editors for so many years as this article has been mulled over time and again by those editors as evidenced in these discussions. 7quiver (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Patrick D

 Not done Not a forum. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@7quiver: you wrote this on my talk page (which is also not a forum). I've referred you to some policies and guidelines relevant to what you are trying to achieve here. We don't make "complaints" about articles on our talk pages. We use them to discuss article improvements. Information on how to submit a complaint to Wikipedia can be found by clicking here Edaham (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Juvenal is rolling over in their grave, or maybe just jiggling it from giggling. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh you are so right. But he never had spellcheck popping up to "correct" his misspellings with worse misspellings. I guess that was when the Times that New Romans dominated the literary world and we barbarians had gone over to the dark side with our Mc and Mac. Thanks for the good laugh on myself.7quiver (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Patrick D

:) Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Organ reserve

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

Removed as unsourced material. --Malerooster (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bulleted list of "treatments"

During my recent attempt to clean up the bulleted list of "treatments" under Description, I noticed a few issues with the poor quality of this section. Primarily, this is not a list of treatments. It is a list of treatments, other types of medicine, concepts, and contributors to disease. As I describe below, detail about the Institute for Functional Medicine's use of the retracted Lancet paper is completely mischaracterized. There is information not backed up by reliable sources (as I have mentioned above). I realize this is a sensitive topic, which makes it all the more important to get right. I am certain there is a way to clean up this page in a way that is accurate and useful to readers. This is not everything, but here are some of my observations:

• Orthomolecular medicine: This is not a treatment so much as another type of medicine.
• "Biochemical individuality": Not a treatment, but it is indeed a principal of functional medicine.
• Diagnosis of chronic occult infections (e.g. so-called chronic Lyme disease): By definition, diagnosis of something is not a treatment. Here again the source does not mention the information it purports to verify.
• Homeopathy, including "Biopuncture", the injection of homeopathic remedies: This is not a part of functional medicine.
• Antivaccine advocacy including promotion of the discredited link between MMR vaccine and autism (the retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. is cited in The Textbook of Functional Medicine): This is not a treatment of functional medicine. Also, the "original research" saying functional medicine promotes the discredited link between MMR vaccine and autism is incorrect. The Wakefield study is cited twice in The Textbook of Functional Medicine. Once in Chapter 30 to support the statement: "Gross and microscopic gut inflammation is very common in autism (see Table 30.5). Corresponding symptoms—pain, constipation or diarrhea, gastroesophageal reflux,(111) and increased intestinal permeability(112)—are also frequent. Inflammation of the distal ileum with adenopathy can be particularly prominent.(113),(114)" It is reference 113 in this chapter. It is also cited in Chapter 10: ""We now know that autism is a multifaceted disorder associated with gastrointestinal inflammation, nutritional deficiencies,…65". It is reference 65. So while that paper is cited, the alleged vaccine connection is not.
• Leaky gut syndrome: This is not a treatment, but something functional medicine talks about as an important contributor to disease, and borne out by several studies. The issue noted in the references is a semantic one that differentiates "leaky gut" from "intestinal permeability"; in reality they are synonyms.

At the very least this list needs work. It very well may need to be split into different sections and rewritten to discuss medical conditions and treatments. I might try this myself, however the topic will benefit from discussion and views of others. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References

I see User:Alexbrn edited a sentence to clarify that the bulleted list contains not just treatments, but also practices and concepts. This is a small step forward but, put simply, not nearly enough. There is still much room for improvement. It would be great if others can weigh in and share their thoughts on how we can move forward? As I have mentioned above, this bulleted list contains inaccuracies and mischaracterizations that make this a less useful resource for readers. Absent any discussion, I may choose one and start working on it. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What are functional medicine doctor pre-requisites and training, for instance to be eligible to be members of the American Functional Medicine Association?

What are functional medicine doctor pre-requisites and training, for instance to be eligible to be members of the American Functional Medicine Association?

Hi, a friend was telling me that functional medicine is all quackery, but actual doctors have told me it was good in some cases, and all the functional medicine doctors I've seen online before I think were regular MD's first.

I was trying to find out if there are any prerequisites to being a functional medicine doctor in the USA or Canada in particular, because apparently according to my friend from an uncited source, it is NOT actually required to be a full practicing medical doctor first?

Is this something someone could research and follow up with in the article? Or even a comparison of what different associations or regulating body's standards are, if there are numerous and they differ widely?

I'm new to editing wikipedia but I think wikipedia is a great resource! Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.31.111 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Undocumented toxins"

To User:Alexbrn, I saw you reverted my edit removing "of undocumented toxins" from the list of treatments, because it's confusing, and not included in the link referenced. Your explanation about it being a "gloss of the term" is confusing as well, and doesn't explain the revert. Can you explain what you mean? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Since there hasn't yet been a response from the editor who reverted my edit, and because the term is not in the source referenced, I've removed this phrase again. Based on my understanding of WP:MEDRS, sourcing should be quite strict, which is also a problem with other areas of this page. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Establishing what fringe claims are doesn't require MEDRS sources, or we'd never be able to do it.--tronvillain (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To User:Tronvillain: What do you make of the warning on MEDRS that says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." This is the blog of one doctor, and does not count as a secondary source as I understand it. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That the "toxins" of detox are a load of BS is not WP:Biomedical information, but is more in the realm of common sense / health fraud / basic science. Pretty much any source will do for it. Alexbrn (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't get away with such hand-waving arguments (calling something names like you just have) when it comes to a topic with controversy. You must be more specific. If FM were addressing the major toxins known to medicine (such as the ingestion of insecticide), it would still have to prove that its treatments were safe and effective, which it apparently has not yet done by standard experimental testing for any accepted toxin. But if FM actually addresses vague "environmental toxins" that "can feed cancer, ...induce insulin resistance and obesity through multiple mechanisms..." then the burden of proof is on FM big time to actually list those toxins, show that they exist in harmful levels in the average environment, prove that they cause these particular disease effects at the level they exist in the average environment, and then show that FM's treatments are safe and effective. If FM wants to be accepted as a valid medical therapy, it must pass the same stringent tests of evidence that all other medical therapies must pass. That is why a WP article must emphasize the negative side of the controversy for any school of treatment that claims to be a branch of medicine. If WP is not safe, then it can harm people, and if WP is not effective, then it is fraud. Wishful thinking is not science. And wishful thinking is generally harmful because it keeps people away from doctors who might help them early in the course of their disease. David Spector (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The blog of "one doctor", who happens to be one of the primary figures at the Institute for Functional Medicine. We aren't establishing biomedical information, we're establishing the details of a fringe claim, which is literally "Toxins!", but not specifying what they are - see this 2018 IFM seminar. --tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wakefield citation in IFM textbook

Yesterday I made a bold edit to remove the following from this article: "(the retracted Lancet paper by Wakefield et al. is cited in The Textbook of Functional Medicine)". The statement's placement in the text of the entry alongside a statement that functional medicine incorporates anti-vaccine advocacy appears intended to give the impression the paper is cited in the textbook as support of anti-vaccine material or discussion of a link between vaccines and autism. Neither of these are the case. The paper is used to support the following, quoted directly from the textbook:

"We now know that autism is a multifaceted disorder associated with gastrointestinal inflammation, nutritional deficiencies"

The statement was re-added after my edit by User:Ronz who said: "might need an independent source though". Ronz, are you saying an independent source must be shown to assert that functional medicine practitioners promote a link between autism and vaccines? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that an independent source would help us determine if it is worth mention, and with what context. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That the FM crowd has latched onto Wakefield just double-confirms they're a bunch of crooks. But has this been discussed in sources I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I again removed misleading information about the Wakefield citation in The Textbook of Functional Medicine. The paper is cited in the textbook once to support a link between autism and gut issues. The book does not discuss vaccines and autism. I have not found any sources to support this article saying so, nor have other editors offered sourcing, so I have gone ahead and removed the content. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted promotional material. You are now warned about discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn: You notified me on my talk page that "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Can you explain to me what this means? I'm trying to constructively edit Wikipedia to expand its useful knowledge on medical topics, among other things. What is the best way for me to continue to contribute to this article, and others like it, in a way that will not be seen as disruptive? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That discussion belongs on your talk page, not here. This page is for discussion of this article. Please ask there. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have yet again removed the misleading phrasing about the Wakefield citation in The Textbook of Functional Medicine. If this information is to remain in the article, it should be cited to a secondary source. My understanding of Wikipedia's rules are that this current usage is akin to editorialization or synthesis. I have thoroughly reviewed the textbook and its use of the Wakefield citation and it does not say anything related to a link between vaccines and autism, which is what the wording and its placement in the sentence regarding anti-vaccine advocacy had misleadingly implied. The Wakefield paper is cited in the textbook once to support a link between autism and gut issues. Again, the book does not cite the paper in relation to vaccines and autism.

I understand that editors here wish to ensure that medical information on Wikipedia is accurate, but issues like this undermine those efforts; this is simply manipulation of sourcing to make a point that is biased against functional medicine, something that is clearly against Wikipedia's guidelines. Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Bias

This article does not feature NPV. It was written by someone with contempt for functional medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhudgins (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This page has been written by someone with a bias against Functional Medicine and does NOT actually discuss or describe Functional Medicine with any accuracy. It should be deleted. Metalzombiegirl (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources (WP:RS) and since this is also medicine-related, WP:MEDRS. Per WP:PSCI topics about pseudoscience should also clearly be described as such. These are part of Wikipedia policies and are not individual editor opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Links to proponents not appropriate as sources

Links to the website of proponents of the subject are not appropriate sources. This article is at the intersection of MEDRS and FRINGE sources and links should follow policy and guidelines.MrBill3 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, BIAS

This article is extremely biased, citing only one doctor who uses outdated language such as "quackery" to describe clinics at well-established institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and George Washington University Clinic. MANY users have repeatedly tried to fix these claims but changes are always reverted back to the original article. Tried adding information from the National Institute of Health's branch, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, and was told that my information was "too biased." The NIH is arguable the most objective health organization in the United States. Article uses the pejorative phrased "so-called" to describe Chronic Lyme's Disease-- while there have not been traditional scientific studies that prove this, it is unnecessary (and NOT objective) language. Can someone help me understand why information from the NIH has been deleted? I received a message saying it was "biased"-- again, having a hard time understanding how a governmental body is considered not objective.

132.162.95.60 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)d

See WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:Lunatic charlatans. This is well-sourced as nonsense/quackery and Wikipedia isn't going to be pretending otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain how the fact that the NIH has an institute for integrative medicine is "quackery." You're not answering my question, you're just spewing your opinions. Are you more certified to provide information about this medicine than the NIH? Or the Cleveland Clinic? Or George Washington University? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.95.60 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the references at the bottom of the page! Nithin Danday! (talk)

I think the question should be how one decides that David Gorsky is a more "reliable source" (in the wikipedia terminology) than, say, George Washington University. If you can point to a wikipedia rule or listing of sources that puts Gorsky ahead of GWU, then i suppose according to the wikipedia standards the article should stand as written. If this cannot be done, then i think voices from the NIH, GWU, and others cited above should have some weight in the article. Son of eugene (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We're citing Science-Based Medicine which is generally a good source (especially for fringe topics). What other source are you talking about, specifically? Alexbrn (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gorski is biased. Why is he featured in this text at all? He has his own opinion, it is not a randomized controlled double blinded opinion. It is one man who knows very little about the actual practice at hand. His representation of function medicine is false and should not be represented here. Opinion articles from Science-based Medicine published 10 years ago leave much room for improvement. The field has grown over the years and should be reflected here. All Gorski references should be deleted in this post. His opinion is biased and outdated. Elisaclay (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Gorski is an established source for nonsense like this. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m not being silly. Gorski is not an established source in Functional Medicine. Why would you say that? He has established an opinion on this field that he knows very little about and chooses not to update his information. He is allowed his opinion, but his false assumptions don’t belong here if this is supposed represent reality. You are allowed your opinion as well, but dismissing something you know nothing about as nonsense is not good logic either. Elisaclay (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As already mentioned, Gorski is a well-established source for fringe topics. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

One does not need a PhD in woo in order to write WP:RS on woo. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

BIAS

I am looking for objective, factual information on what Functional Medicine is. Not a biased criticism and discrediting of every claim and every aspect of the concept of what functional medicine is. Thank you but no thank you. Useless entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.236.102 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this entry does not serve the purpose of defining, explaining, or educating the reader on this topic. It is fine to allow criticisms, but it should not be replacing the actual definition or explanation. Elisaclay (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted to correct this page and provide a simple factual definition of the subject and it was immediately removed.

The original post was not factual and instead was a collection of defamatory and inflammatory false information which I replaced with a basic definition, not tainted towards a pro or con opinion.

My edit was straightforward information not biased in either direction.

It's repulsive that it's ok for Wikipedia to contain a page of inflammatory judgmental opinions rather than an unbiased factual description of a topic. I had actually donated to keep Wikipedia going but I now regret it and will no longer be using Wikipedia as a source of information. HealthAdvocate7 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete

When previously trying to post an article, I was informed (by a very pleasant editor) that content had to be balanced, informative and non commercial. As an engineer working in an early stage medtech company, I'm bemused to find this article is none of that. Who signed this off? It's no good to bully minorities, but fine to belittle a bunch of registered doctors governed by medical councils all around the world and working very hard at significant personal cost to treat chronic conditions? Anything about WHO forecasting a 57% rise in chronic conditions by 2020? Nope . Are the former Whitehouse physicians who started the company Patronus Medical and employ functional medicine Quacks? Anything about the medical articles discussing treatment of chronic conditions falling between the cracks of the various funding schemes? Nope . Even Goldman Sachs are citing personalized medicine in the context that the next 50 years of medicine will look completely unlike the last 50 years . Whether this posting is derived from malice or commercial interest, it seems to demean wikipedia, which isn't usually rubbing shoulders with Pravda or Fox News for content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilm35 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Neilm35:. Do you have a specific change that you want implemented in the article? If, so propose it in the form of "Please change X by Y" or "Please add X between Y and Z" followed by the sources used to backup the change. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @McSly:. Hi and thanks for the message. I'd have to completely re-write the article, because it presently contravenes "Avoid personal attacks" by using highly emotive (and unscientific) language and then associating that language with Dr Mark Hyman on the same page, presumably relying on doctors being too busy with patients to have time to bring libel proceedings. I'm prepared to write a balanced article, but unless Wikipaedia follows its own rules and deletes the hate speech first, I'm reluctant to spend the time. At the moment, "I can smell the uranium on the breath" to paraphrase David Lange's famous speech. Thanks. --Neilm35 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NLT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2][3][4]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:NLT. Neilm35 (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Some understanding might help. Functional doctors tend to be registered doctors with post-graduate qualifications and many years of clinical experience. Functional doctors tend to get referrals for patients with chronic diseases in the same way that a cardiologist might get a referral for a patient with heart issues. Dealing with the new phenomenon of a large increase in the presence of chronic conditions, functional doctors tend to be early adopters of the latest published research e.g. advanced testing and the use of compounded medications. In my observation, much of the early research used by functional doctors is applied 10-15 years later in the funded medical system. I have not observed a functional doctor propose a vaginal wash as suggested by the lobbyist (it sounds uncomfortable given I don't have a vagina). I have observed meaningful long term reversal of chronic conditions (often largely via targetted nutritional and lifestyle changes). Neilm35 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia is merely a mirror of the medical orthodoxy. If you won't happily sing with us "a mighty fortress is mainstream science", you won't like it here. And mainstream science is organized skepticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Neilm35, if you have a concrete change to propose, please do it here. If not, we can close this discussion. As a reminder, this page is not a forum. --McSly (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Please take out all references to Gorski. His opinion is not relevant in this discussion as he does not practice this method and his opinions are not evidenced based. His opinion does not belong here. Elisaclay (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, Science-Based Medicine is is good source for WP:FRINGE topics like this. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Publishing an opinion piece in a journal called Science-Based Medicine is still just an opinion piece. Sorry. If you read the article referenced, it is mostly conjecture and does not belong in the first paragraph being referenced as fact. gorski’s opinion could be relevant here, but it should come after a discussion of what functional medicine actually is. Gorski does not define the field of FM and having him do so is not only errant, it is irresponsible of WP. Elisaclay (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my response to you in the section above, "dont be silly". -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a useful 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.

---

I came here looking for a neutral description (and neutral sources) for functional medicine. There is nothing neutral about this article. This entire article would work well in the "Controversy" section that wikipedia aptly includes in its articles. Most of the sources are from Science-Based Medicine which specializes in medical controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.9.101 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems a single person’s opinions (Gorski) carry more weight than a variety of well established institutions, and even a recent peer-reviewed study in JAMA is removed by an editor calling it ‘vapid content from bad source’?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.40 (talk • contribs)

Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite. And the "bad source" was indeed bad as it was not WP:MEDRS, which would be needed for content on FM's health effects. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSP lists JAMA as follows: "JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.40 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We discard WP:PRIMARY medical studies by default. See WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that is far more useful insight than labeling it 'vapid content from a bad source.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.40 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Except a previous reverter's comment was "needs a WP:MEDRS review". So all this information was to hand. Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

SBM actually specialises in analysing quackery. Which this is. Guy (help!) 10:29, 14 December 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

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.

---

I am a medical provider practicing lifestyle and functional medicine. This article depicts a one-sided and biased impression of functional medicine. Functional medicine is a broad term, but there are numerous evidence based practices that are utilized by practitioners like myself within its domain.

For example I am an independent researcher who has conducted peer reviewed clinical research utilizing the principles of functional medicine that can be seen here

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6592837/

There was also a recently published retrospective article looking at functional medicine at the Cleveland Clinic compared to standard care

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2753520

This current wikipedia article appears to have been constructed solely by individuals of the webpage/organization science based medicine including gorski who have a clear grudge/bias/agenda to paint functional medicine as pseudoscientific.

I humbly ask for the opportunity to provide a thoughtful and balanced perspective for this article.

I have seen individuals practicing "functional medicine" that I do not support and so feel I have a balanced perspective and will be more capable than the current version of this article to educate without creating a bias of favorability or unfavorability as is currently the case.

Best Rob Abbott 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Rda4zf (talk)

 Not done: As the template states, an edit request "must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it", and needs a WP:MEDRS review to support it for verifiable medical content. The article in Cureus was primary research, the journal is not Medline-indexed and appears not to have an impact factor, so would not qualify as a source in the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a request to edit the page because it was semi-protected and I haven't met the qualifying descriptors to edit a semi-protected page. The reasons you provide why something cannot be a source are absolutely preposterous and have no relevance to the veracity of clinical research. You obviously have little understanding of the clinical research process and I find your reasons comical. You clearly are part of this scheme to have an biased page. I am not wasting my time with you guys anymore. So much for unbiased neutral content. This is a joke.

Rda4zf (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019

You will find an accurate definition for Functional Medicine here: https://www.ifm.org/functional-medicine/

The accurate definition for Functional Medicine is found here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam Desertphile (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

David Gorski has not disclosed his conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and stands to gain by discrediting and "trolling" other effective approaches to healthcare. Wikipedia needs to get its facts straight. 184.186.225.45 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"... discrediting and 'trolling' other effective approaches to healthcare." Er, this article is about defrauding stupid people, not about healthcare, nor about an "effective approach to healthcare." If you are unsure why people warn others about scams and do so without remuneration of any kind, read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism Desertphile (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus before using this template, per its usage instructions. We are unlikely to use self-serving fringe sources for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be because he doesn't have any material conflicts of interest. Guy (help!) 23:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

The writings on this sounds like mostly someone's opinion. The first 3 references in fact reference the same auther. I suggest the whole thing be taken down at at least balanced with an opposing opinion if opinions are to be posted on wikipedia.

Proposed definition:

In the functional medicine model, the word function is aligned with the evolving understanding that disease is an endpoint and function is a process. Function can move both forward and backward. The vector of change in function through time is, in part, determined by the unique interaction of an individual’s genome with their environment, diet, and lifestyle. The functional medicine model for health care is concerned less with what we call the dysfunction or disease, and more about the dynamic processes that resulted in the person’s dysfunction. The previous concept of functional somatic syndromes as psychosomatic in origin has now been replaced with a new concept of function that is rooted in the emerging 21st-century understanding of systems network-enabled biology.

ref: Defining Function in the Functional Medicine Model Jeffrey Bland, PhD, FACN, FACB, Associate Editor 2604:3D09:2A83:5B00:3D04:7147:B6D4:A5B9 (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Proposed definition is pseudoscientific babble from fringe source. We need to be using independent secondary sources as the basis of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Proposed definition:" Please cite a peer reviewed paper published in a relevant trade peer reviewed science journal, for a valid definition of "Functional Medicine." (Your "proposed definition" does not define the scam.) Please do that as soon as possible: thank you. Desertphile (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello we need to include TCM as a inclusion to the ICD by the World Health organisation

Hello we need to include in the lead please that TCM has been added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" Shenqijing (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, TCM is generally speaking very cheap. And very ineffective (when not outright poisonous). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Hello we need to include in the lead please that TCM...." At the moment I cannot think of who your "we" is/are; "we" (humanity) need demonstrably effective medical care--- not ancient occult superstition peddled as "medicine." Desertphile (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. "We" don't generally do bullshit. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

PROD?

Article seems okay. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT tactic. There's no way this is being deleted. --Hipal (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the gaps - How Alternative Medicine gains traction

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 article does a good job of addressing the risks of Alternative Medicine including Functional Medicine, but completely ignores quite valid attempts to speculatively extend the scope of medical methodologies in order to address serious gaps in the domain of scientific medicine which owes its roots to the intersection of empirical and the full scientific method.

For example if someone practicing alternative medicine claims that chewing Willow bark helps with headaches it is not wrong simply because it hasn't gone through the refinement, purification, generalization, and extensive carefully constructed double blind studies which gave us aspirin. Furthermore, Functional Medicine at its heart is an attempt to formalize an approach to holistic medicine and health. This approach is focused on a very real gap in the arena of applied scientific studies which attempt to reduce a biologic issue to a single variable. Nice for simplicity in scientific research, but for highly evolved biological organisms with microbiomes the scope of which we are just now becoming fully aware this type of reductionism introduces its own risks.

So, yes, the pseudo scientific babble should be called out for what it is, and certainly the degree of provability, quality of research, and nature and scope of speculation should be identified and called out. But, this tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water has to stop. It's typical of the arguments of political extremes which attempt to completely invalidate entire scope of the other side by identifying imperfections and bias in the conclusions without considering the full range of root cause drivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia doesn't do "both sides" when one side is bollocks - and in this case the health fraud is accurately described using cited reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Was the talk responded to too complex to understand? Do you think that aspirin is valid therapy and discredit its origins as natural medicine in the form of Willow bark? It's not a matter of two sides. It's a matter of incompletely researched areas especially regarding complex contextual interactions of the biome, environment, and full anatomical and physiological context.

If you're talking about mysticism obviously it's fantasy regardless of origin, but diet *does* affect disease. Some plants do have some medicinal benefits (where that heck to do think these refined or purified medicines originate?) Exercise, stress, allergens, etc. all impact systems far and wide in the body. The bollocks here is the assertion that none of these methods or mechanisms hold any validity simply because somebody threw in some magic numbers, mystical words, and pseudo scientific psychobabble.

<satirical reference>Just because someone says that the "Force" guided their missile to it's target it doesn't invalidate the fact that the missile worked or that it hit its target destroying the Death Star. Obviously the "Force" is mysticism and it's explanations are pseudo science psycho babble, but the missile was real even if we don't fully understand the chemistry of the explosive.</satirical reference> Alternative medicine is not BS by definition as it's characterized here. However, medicine is an incomplete science with many things not yet fully understood, and by dismissing all avenues of alternative medicine as if they consisted of nothing but mysticism simply inhibits the integration of broader scientific understand of these complex systems. And, heck, we live in an era where sexuality politics counts as science in the areas of psychology and psychiatry where solid data from the middle of the 20th century is trashed in favor of pseudo science. Go after that stuff if you have the guts to stand up to those politics.

Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine. You're defending a bunch of cosplayers in a re-enactment where they sincerely believe that it's still the middle ages. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, why is the key point here not getting through? Not everything that *might* work has been through the rigorous process of a fully vetted set of large scientific studies. That doesn't mean that it will work or that it won't. Certainly that is the bar that should be met in order to be evidence based medicine, but it doesn't invalidate that some chemicals that appear promising or integration with a partially researched process of diet, exercise, and selected "supplements" might genuinely help people. As a scientist myself it would be absurd to dismiss every speculation much less hypothesis simply because it wasn't yet considered a standing theory or proven fact based on definitive evidence and study. Too many dissimilar processes and methodologies are lumped together here some of which are little more than religious psychobabble while others are largely evidence based medicine with holistic or nutritional hypothesis integrated in to the mix (and maybe a small amount of "spiritual" mysticism). It is not pandering to allow new ideas into the process. It's just good science, but one simply needs to identify where it qualifies in the process and the potential for risks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2021 (UTC)

People can "speculate" all they want (not in Wikipedia articles mind). But once speculation starts being sold with unjustified claims it becomes quackery/health fraud - an instance of which forms the topic of this article. Is there any actual proposed change here? Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a major proposed change. Be very specifically detailed within Alternative Medicine sub topics in distinguishing models, processes, methods, and materials which qualify as rank mysticism, disproved ideas, pseudo science, unprovable concepts, untenable hypothesis, tenable ideas, tenable hypothesis, promising hypothesis, speculative theory, retrospective theory, accepted fact.

Currently many people have a tendency to accept or dismiss these things wholesale and providing objective granularity can help people to understand the process of vetting while avoiding the process of trashing potential innovation blindly which has a tendency to turn people off. The entire handling of Alternative Medicine in Wikipedia is unhelpful as it lumps together potentially valid (but not yet well researched) ideas with pseudo scientific psychobabble and mysticism without offering a way to distinguish the possible from the absurd or the risky from the neutral. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to publish this "Talk" as an article, but it absolutely is Wikipedia's job to correctly report the nature of culturally known methodologies using an objective voice. The reason this discussion is taking place here is that Functional Medicine includes significant plausible elements whereas something like phrenology probably has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We just follow the sources say about FM. Quackeries often mix in some sensible advice (e.g. get some exercise) but it doesn't make them any less quacking. Better for people to get sensible advice from sources not trying to defraud them. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the advocates of FM, not with debunkers. Nobody knows that FM works as intended and there are many red flags that it cannot work as intended. According to Mertonian norms, organized skepticism defines science, and therefore it defines what we can posit as known facts. Some very specific approaches of FM could work, but since no one offered any evidence for it, we know of no FM approach that works. It's the same as Artemisinin: that drug is not the paramount proof that Traditional Chinese Medicine works, of the thousands of cures it purports to heal people, it takes a billion dollars to identify the working substance and the success percentage is 0.1% (if not 0.01%). You do the math. Same applies to FM. And since we don't conflate testimonials with scientific evidence, there is no shred of evidence that FM actually improves health outcome, except for the merely trivial statement that exercise is good for health. According to WP:LUNATICS Wikipedia does side with those who actually fulfill the burden of proof, not with wannabes who can't do that. So, no, Wikipedia isn't unbiased, but it sides with real evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, "Wikipedia does side with those who actually fulfill the burden of proof", and the negative breadth of the anti AM rhetoric reflected in the broader context of FM does not meet that standard. The unbalanced "proof" consists of comparatively minor nits which don't even apply to the mainstream majority of its advocates while the bulk of its holistic element integration is actually built upon a combination of proven, probable, and possible elements. The primary sources would be a combination of research studies for medicine, nutrition, and physical fitness integrated in a way that doesn't exceed the typical discretionary reach of physicians who off label prescribe medications and nutrients. Seriously, we are not talking about Christian Science, Wiccans, or Phrenology, FM is predominantly an common sense integrated approach to accepted elements that are holistically applied than the FM documentation generally supports that. Smearing it as if it were some type of pseudo scientific mysticism by cherry picking a few points is not meeting the burden of proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk • contribs)

You're trying to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world problem - the lack of acceptance of what (I presume) is your field. Wikipedia doesn't fix real-world problems. Fix the real world first, we follow along. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You presume incorrectly to the extent that as a researcher founded in paleontology, physics, biology, and engineering my concern is that people will not trust in science if bold overly broad assertions are made in the name of science. This can, and does, cause people to equate purely speculative, unproven, and weak scientific hypothesis (like the vaccine autism coincidence) as equivalent to profoundly solid evidence based theories (like evolution). Ergo, when someone lumps in FM with its (for example) perfectly reasonable hypothesis that systemic allergens might trigger auto-immune responses with some sort of AM mysticism involving calling on spiritual idols to cure cancer it discredits the "science" advocate who tars them both with the same brush. As an advocates for science it behooves us all to teach people how to distinguish and vet for the difference. FM is nothing special other than for the fact that it is *mostly* a blend of plausible and to varying degrees research evidence based medicine. It is worth providing information to allow people the ability to see the difference between that and ouija boards, crystal balls, and peyote. I'm personally more interested in CO2 levels tracking behind global temperatures over the past 90 million years up through the interglacial maximums across the past 6 million years, but you can't even have a discussion on a scientific topic when people aren't taught to distinguish between populist speculations and scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk • contribs)

Quick advice: find WP:MEDRS-compliant sources or be gone from this article and its talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is that FM is a brand, and, regardless of the inherent plausibility of any part of it, the brand contains the usual SCAM hallmarks of wildly inflated claims, assertions of some unique insight that $WEASELWORD medicine doesn't have, and, of course, grifters. Any part of FM that is legitimate, is already part of medicine.What sets FM aside from medicine is not the bits that are used in medicine, but the bits that aren't. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Referencing "WP:MEDRS" as if it were not itself controversial is disingenuous (and the nature of the reference constitutes a personal attack which is explicitly against WP rules.) To be clear: It explicitly dismisses primary sources without recognition of the fact that lack of financial incentive to perform large scale double blind studies in cases not resolving to patentable solutions via chronic treatment protocols is actually the most significant factor in meeting its conditions. While obviously primary sources without follow up are intrinsically less authoritative it sure seems as if the big pharma advocates might have influenced a desire to dismiss altogether any source without access to the massive funding required to create a large scale double blind study for every detail. 2. The point that FM is a brand with marketing exaggerations is a valid point, but just because it shares some such elements with scams does not invalidate the value add it offers in the area of plausible holistic protocols. Technically the bulk protocols are simply a collections of ideas from medical, nutritional, and bio-mechanical research and practices that some might argue are simply "medicine" (technically true), but how many medical practitioners actually bother to consider and apply such an integrated view? In my experience almost none outside of the research community bother to look beyond very specific complaint driven symptomology in isolated context. Thus FM (and like a few other AM protocols) should contextually be considered as medical protocols rather than competitors to "medicine". I'm completely in favor of calling out the difference in all cases, but like the "Trager Approach" it does seem to offer some intrinsic value from a protocol perspective. Heck, even the Chiropractic protocols have some valid uses of positive effects despite the mystical double talk around the spine's role in the body. This is not an argument to give anyone a free pass, but since conventional practitioners ignore so many potentially valid holistic protocols or less effective protocols that still have efficacious elements it seems as if a more nuanced approach to defining these AM terms is valid and correct.

WP:MEDRS is not "controversial" except (usually) with WP:PROFRINGE editors. Just because some quacks piggy-back on a few respectable idea doesn't mean their quackery ain't quacking. All we can do is use appropriate sources to describe FM and what they say (executive summary) is that it's bollocks. Unless those sources changes Wikipedia shall not either. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Any discussion which is limited to circular justifications that define any source who calls any aspect of messaging as inherently invalid unless that source supports a fully exclusionary mode of interpretation it effectively circumvents the very open minded model upon which Wikipedia is based. In this case the whole point is that any "quackery" should, in fact, be specifically and explicitly identified where there are seemingly perfectly good protocols which extend and innovate good practice while not reaching for hyperbole, pseudo scientific blather, or mysticism. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource and usually does an exceptional job of balancing viewpoints for controversial topics, but somehow that open minded collaborative methodology seems to have been explicitly subverted by those who want to make it clear that AM is not legitimate medicine since it is not scientifically vetted and therefore should not be given any oxygen because idiots and quacks cause confusion and harm. I get it. However, this intolerant overly generalized viewpoint throws together too many things some of which are pure mysticism while others a predominantly extensions of conventional practice. Thus the lack of tolerance for a more nuanced approach amounts to a well meaning dictatorship as with Plato's Republic and its philosopher kings who know better than its populace. It is also undemocratic, unjust, and likely to have exactly the reverse of it's intended affect since its unnuanced intolerance is so obvious that people will give MORE credence to and decreased skepticism of AM rather than actually educating them as to how to evaluate things. Perhaps George Orwell could have made a more effective case but those who control the keys to publication are never wrong, or so one would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.65.77 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I recommend closing this discussion and give the ip a final warning. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (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.

Obvious Bias!

If you are so obviously bias against functional medicine than you should not be contributing to this article. 24.254.130.77 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is what Wikipedia is all about. It is not the place to argue with what the authorities say. Further, Wikipedia accepts academic and scholarly authorities, not religious and dogmatic authorities. Anything else is original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Functional Medicine

Why should I believe this over WebMD who has a much more positive perspective? I feel like they would know more than Wikipedia? Maybe someone should update this with real information? Makes me realize how unreliable Wikipedia is. 2601:584:300:28E0:88F9:F658:269:253F (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Look at the refs, that's why!-Roxy the dog. wooF 07:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

So, when you have to choose between two websites contradicting each other, your criterion is "positive perspective"? That is very weird. With that method, you will probably end up believing in lots of bullshit because the anti-bullshit websites are "too negative". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kvtokar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)