Talk:Allopathic medicine/Archive 4

Comment
This article defines precisely nothing. It only superficially addresses the existence of a notion by defining how it has been used historically. This article has no merit because no attempt is made to elucidate the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanjaq (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That definition is a bit odd
Generally, allopathic medicine refers to "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine"[7]

Whilst that does seem to be how the term is understood, but as "Allopathy" was coined by Hahnemann in order to contrast with his own approach, how does it work? Homeopathy is very western, claims to be scientific and is pretty late to the field, so is hardly not modern ?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.108 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are apporoaching 3 reverts on this issue .... I don't dispute how Allopathy is often used as a term, as I said, but a proper reference is required. So far we have a research document into standards in homeopathy that is very clear it uses the allopathy term for convenience and is not intending to suggest a definition, and a barely comprehensible article from a punjab media source quoting somebody purporting to represent an organisation known as the IMA.

These are not relevant or helpful sources.

The only sources I can find are homeopathic proponents lumping together nonhomeopathic treatment as allopathy/ic and distinguishing themselves from western/scientific/modern medicine. Even that latter term is unclear in meaning. It does help, but it doesn't provide a general definition or understanding of allopathic, only the one that might be used in a portion of the homeopathic community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.152.192 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of the term is unclear. Removing valid content doesn't help. Verbal chat

It's not valid content if it isn't properly referenced. That's been my point. 90.201.152.199 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no universally accepted definition of "allopathy", that's exactly the problem. There are only common trends that can be observed in the ways the term is used. Since it varies so much from location to location (i.e. in the UK and Germany it still means primarily "not homeopathic"; in the US it means primarily "not osteopathic"; in India it means primarily "not Ayurveda") we have chosen the way an international commission has used the word as compromise formulation for the common core of all these definitions. Does this make some sense to you? If not, please look at the archives of this talk page and the long battles we had.
 * It's extremely hard to get a compromise between someone who thinks the term "mainstream medicine" is almost as offensive as the term "allopathic", because it suggests that something that is not mainstream can legitimately be called "medicine"; a homeopath who believes only Hahnemann's original definition is legitimate; and most importantly an American osteopath who believes "the other kind of (fairly) established medicine that is not the totally mainstream one" is the only definition that matters. If you want to join this compromise and move it in some new direction, you are welcome (although I am not looking forward to weeks or months of page-long discussions about this silly topic again). But then you need to give us a lot more insight into why exactly you are removing this passage so that we have an idea of what we need to do to get you on board. Hans Adler 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, your explanation of allopathy in terms of locale makes a lot more sense than what is written, and would probably be easier to support. That document only represents a definition within the scope of itself, they are very clear on that if you read it. It is not at all clear that is a WHO accepted use of the term, for all we know the authors could have got it from a Wiki article!

So my insight is as it always was. In wiki terms we need NPOV and a secondary source, not a tertiary source.

I personally don't think a compromise is helpful, as it comes out wrong as often as right. I know what you mean about people getting upset by particular terms, trouble is allopathy is almost always applied in the pejorative, and so almost always ends up being defined by exception rather than rule. I always use the term evidence based medicine rather than mainstream or western or anything, although that can generate its own little flame wars.

By the way, my views above on "western, scientific, modern" being confusing ... are not a reason for removing the passage, and I don't intend to suggest they are ... merely a reason why the passage needs more careful handling and possibly explanation of that bit.

I'll have a read of these talk page archives, hopefully we can keep any talk focussed matters of things being encyclopedic rather than tribal wars about the content.

I feel I should revert again, on the grounds of the poor reference, wikipedia pages are not under control of any group or even democratic consensus, so I don't need to be qualifying to come on board, merely sharing an intent to improve the quality of what is there. However, I'm assuming everyone here is acting in good faith, and I don't want to take argumentative stance! 90.201.152.199 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. We are definitely making more out of the reference than it really contains, and I knew this when I first added it. However, I felt that whether the reference really supports it or not, the statement is sufficiently close to true that so long as nobody objects to it there is no harm in keeping it. Needless to say, I would be very happy if we could replace the statement with something else that is true (or sufficiently close) from a worldwide POV, and that is more properly sourced. Another solution for me would be to simply make this a standard disambiguation page that redirects the reader without any comments or attempted definitions directly to homeopathy, osteopathy, Ayurveda and CAM pages, which would then each have to discuss the term in their context. I think someone strongly objected to this once, but I may be misremembering. Hans Adler 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see where you coming from with the reference, but I think that's what wiki calls synthesis or something. If you go and read Jimbo Wales comments, he has no truck with ideas that things are so widely accepted there is no need for a good reference. Although that doesn't make it easier to find one!

The definition used is what I tend to read from homeopathic sources in the context of them distinguishing themselves from other medicine ... whether it be conventional, mainstream, EBM or whatever we want to call it. And (as I think the article makes clear) allopathy, the term, originates from a misrepresentation of other forms of medicine by Hannemann. It seems to me the term has been picked up elsewhere and used in the same way. by various alternative therapies Confusingly, they seem to accuse each other of being allopathic.

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so I don't think we need to get too carried away with definitions, and I think disambiguation could be troublesome as the reader would need to know the sympathies of the person using the term to hunt through to the correct article. I think it's more important for the reader to actually find out the term can mean slightly different things, not necessarily consistent with the original definition, and certainly not consistent with each other.

Although you might be right, a disambiguation of some sort may be the only way forward. I read the archive, seems to me there might be some refusal to accept that the term does have diverse and incompatible meanings. Certainly, I've spoken to some who adamantly use it, but are unaware of it's origins. 90.201.152.199 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please log in with your account, and do not remove the valid reference for the quote. I have left your cn tag there, even though I do not feel it is required. Stop edit warring and stop making destructive edits. Verbal chat  18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal, I am unhappy with what 90.201 is doing, but I must tell you that you are actually being more disruptive. The IP is right: The reference is an instance of quote-mining. For pragmatic reasons quote-mining is acceptable so long as it is used only to source uncontroversial statements. However the IP disagrees with the statement in good faith, and for good reason. Now we have a problem, but it's unfair to blame it on 90.201. Hans Adler 19:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems he's not of the same view and has put his views back in place and had the article locked. All for want of explaining his thinking. Difficult to assume good faith with that kind of behaviour. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are unhappy, feel free to let me know why, either here on my talk page ... either of you. I wish to see the article quality improve, I became involved in it only because it is obviously of lamentable quality at present. I'll admit I should have redacted the reference and not the statement intiially, as I happen to think that the sentence is not that inaccurate, and certainly in good faith, it's just unsupported. It is also my opinion the statement is factually wrong, contradicts the original definition of Allopathy, and that the "generally" part is weasel wording to get around the multiple understandings and usage of the term. But my opinions count for little, other than a desire to research where they are challenged. I have already discussed the edit warring on this article on the page protect forum, as I don't wish to see it go that way. If you'd like to join in a constructive debate here, you are very welcome to do so. I used to use an account once, years ago, I really can't be bothewred now, and don't see what difference it makes. My IP is fixed. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unhappy, not in the sense of a euphemism for anything that you might be doing wrong, but literally because I am not looking forward to another war involving Hopping and not sufficiently interested in the topic to do any research on my own in the near future.
 * It's fine if you just want to use your IP. With a user account you would get a few advantages such as a watchlist, the ability to change some settings, and generally less assumptions of bad faith by other editors. I only have to log in once a week or so, by the way; there is an option to stay logged in from one session to another. But it's up to you. Hans Adler 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've an ominous feeling that, while I don't quite understand all that at the moment, I will end up learning in due course. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

some references
Many of these are bad links, but the original sources may be available on WayWayBack. Most of these reference refer to US sources, and point at a US-specific usage. Bryan Hopping T  01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, they also demonstrate a wide variety of differing definitions

Also that the term has not only (for some at least) evolved away from Hannemanns original when he coined it, but now is being defined by some in a way which would make homeopathy allopathic. Ironic, if nothing else.

It does seem there is a very specific and definable usage in the field of American Osteopathy, which deserves presenting in its own right (the article has this).

The difficulty with the statement in the article is that non of these references can support the notion there is a generally accepted understanding of the term. I tend to the view it has differing meanings to differing groups, according to the locale and particular alt. med leanings of the person using it. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So far I've looked at three of these references ...

Florida state legislature makes no attempt to define allopathic, and it is only possible to infer from the usage it is something which is not osteopathic. A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine is a dead link Johns Hopkins (42) leads to an article that makes no mention of the word Allopath, though I suppose it might have once.

I don't really want to spend time looking through the rest, although I suppose I could. With the greatest respect, is this just a list pasted here from somewhere else? That's a lot of links, so many that for it to be helpful someone will have to spend a lot of time to wade through them all. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't swear that I have seen this exact list of links before, but the words "many of these are bad links" suggest that it is simply one of those that Hopping dropped on this page earlier. This looks like an attempt to use the "walls of text" technique for dominating a discussion with minimal effort. Since antisocial behaviour shouldn't be rewarded I am hiding the list in an "archive". Hans Adler 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * United States Dept of Labor - "There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians."
 * American Medical Association Journal of Ethics Research Funding Favors Allopathic Medications: "The enormous disparity between research funding for studies on conventional pharmacological therapies and nonconventional modalities reflects entrenched biases that promote Western allopathic medicine at the expense of promising treatments from non-Western systems of medicine."
 * Journal of General Internal Medicine (Harvard Med School Faculty) "Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical schools' support for primary care."
 * Journal of Vet Med Education "Part I: twenty-year literature overview of veterinary and allopathic medicine."
 * John Gever. Med Page Today. Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.  "Nearly 13,000 graduates (84.6%) of allopathic medical schools in the U.S. landed one of their top three choices for a first-year residency slot, according to the National Resident Matching Program."
 * Journal of the American Medical Association. "National survey of deans of all 125 accredited allopathic medical schools in the United States."
 * Journal of American Geriatrics. "Attitudes, experiences, and interest in geriatrics of first-year allopathic and osteopathic medical students."
 * National Residency Matching Program "The NRMP classifies SMS applicants into 6 applicant types: [Type 1] Graduates of U.S. allopathic medical schools. A graduate of a Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited U.S. allopathic school of medicine."
 * Illinois State Legislature. Osteopathic and Allopathic Healthcare Discrimination Act.
 * Michigan State Legislature "A health care corporation certificate shall provide benefits in each group and nongroup certificate for the following equipment, supplies, and educational training for the treatment of diabetes, if determined to be medically necessary and prescribed by an allopathic or osteopathic physician:"
 * Florida State Legislature "The bill requires each Florida-licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician, in conjunction with the renewal of his or her license under procedures adopted by the DOH."
 * American Medical Student Association. "AMSA RECOGNIZES the equality of osteopathic and allopathic medical degrees within the organization and the healthcare community as a whole."
 * American Medical Association "Allopathic med school enrollment rises 2.2%"
 * Annals of Family Medicine 4:182-184 (2006) "Aligning the Interests of Osteopathic and Allopathic Teachers of Family Medicine."
 * American College of Physicians "But that growth is causing something of a schism between osteopaths and their allopathic counterparts. . . "
 * Dept Health and Human Services, National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program "Allopathic Medicine: For students of schools of allopathic medicine pursuing the MD degree - MD"
 * University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey "The National Resident Matching Program matches applicants with allopathic residency programs."
 * Journal of the American Medical Association. "In this article we report the specialty choices of 2 groups of entrants to US allopathic residency programs: graduates of osteopathic schools of medicine and those of non-US medical schools."
 * Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) "How much does ERAS cost? Allopathic programs: ERAS fees are included in your annual membership dues to the AAMC."
 * New York Times. "Nationwide, there are 125 allopathic (traditional medicine) medical schools and 23 osteopathic medical schools."
 * Yale University Undergrad Career Services. "Allopathic (M.D.) Medical School: The following information is in regards to Schools of Allopathic Medicine . . . "
 * National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions
 * Student Doctor Network "Some students feel that they need to take the USMLE in order to get accepted into an ACGME* (allopathic) residency."
 * allopathic medicine:A system in which medical doctors and other healthcare professionals (such as nurses, pharmacists, and therapists) treat symptoms and diseases using drugs, radiation, or surgery. Also called conventional medicine, Western medicine, mainstream medicine, orthodox medicine, and biomedicine. National Cancer Institute.  U.S. National Institute of Health.

More references

 * Allopathic schools of medicine grant a doctor of medicine (MD) degree. American Medical Assoc
 * Allopathic Physician (MD) University of Illinois
 * The projected supply of allopathic physicians, 1997 to 2020. After a period of rapid growth, the MD population in the US is entering a period of relative stability. National Library of Medicine, American Medical Association
 * Allopathic Physicians Licensed in Maine Maine Dept of Health and Human Services
 * To apply for licensure as an Allopathic Physician (MD) in the state of Nevada State of Nevada,  Board of Medical Examiners.
 * A licensed allopathic physician (MD) practices allopathic medicine University of New Hampshire
 * Thomas G. Breslin, M.D. Allopathic Physician Representative Rhode Island Dept of Health
 * The most common is the M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) degree, offered by the nation's 125 allopathic medical schools . . . prescribing drugs and performing surgery, used by allopathic physicians (M.D.'s). Xavier University, Louisiana
 * How are the osteopathic physician (D.O.) and allopathic physician (M.D.) different? Wittenburg University
 * M.D.'s are also known as allopathic physicians. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.), Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, a U.S. Department of Labor publication
 * University of Missouri, St. Louis
 * Allopathic Physicians (MDs): Approximately half of Florida M.D. licenses expire every January 31st. Florida Medical Assoc
 * A medical doctor (allopathic physician) (M.D.) and a doctor of osteopathic medicine( D.O.) generally have the same educational background and length of study. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center
 * Time to Accept Allopathic Physicians Into AOA-Approved Residencies? J Am Osteo Assoc PMID 16717364

Even more references
     
 * American Medical Student Association:

     
 * American Medical Association:

    
 * New England Journal of Medicine:

    
 * US Department of Health and Human Services:

  
 * Center for Disease Control (CDC):

 
 * Johns Hopkins:


 * Harvard Medical School:

 
 * UCSF:


 * Cleveland Clinic:

 
 * Columbia Med:


 * Yale Med:

  
 * World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used)

 
 * Others:


 * American Medical Association

Professional embrace of the term "allopathic" in South Asia ?
"All doctors felt that throughout the world the ALLOPATHIC system of medicine is well recognized and organized under Medical Councils. The standards of clinic care of ALLOPATHIC system cannot be set and monitored by National Council constituting of non ALLOPATHIC systems.

We as ALLOPATHIC doctors refuse to surrender our dignity and profession. Out of the total of 18 members of National Council only two may be medical graduates(one from MCI and second from IMA). Bryan Hopping T  05:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems an indian newspaper is reporting someone using the term, although it's not clear what they mean by it, and I struggle to understand anything in that article. Can someone better with Indian English explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.59 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Ayurvedic medicine is popular in India and thus the use in some papers of the pejorative term for evidence-based medicine is not surprising. --Red King (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Red King, imho you are being pejorative in implying that allopathic medicine is the only "evidence based medicine" and that by implication anything else is pseudo-science.


 * Pharmacies in India likewise advocate advertise "homeopathic" and "allopathic" medicine. Clearly it's not a pejorative term in that context. 169.231.53.195 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Depends what they mean by allopathic and whether they intend to sell it. Odd though that sounds, I've visited central asian pharmacies where they have regular medication advertised but only intend to sell herbal or homeopathic equivalents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.124.250 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Ucucha 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine → Evidence-based medicine — The term 'allopathic' is a neologism, invented by homeopaths and used only by them, to give credence by association to their faith-based practice. Red King (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support. In support of my view that the term 'allopathic' is not the recognised term for mainstream medicine, Google links to over 1.2 million pages for "evidence-based medicine", and just a sixth of that for "alopathic medicine", many of them being mirrors of wikipedia pages. Clearly, "evidence-based medicine" is the primary subject title and thus the one that complies best with Wikipedia's policy on article titles. --Red King (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Um, did you notice that there's already an article at Evidence-based medicine? Did you mean to propose a merge?
 * As a general comment, I think that efforts to equate 'allopathic medicine' with 'evidence-based medicine' are doomed. They are not the same thing.  There are not only historic, but also modern allopaths around the world.  A homeopath uses extremely dilute onion juice to 'treat' watery eyes during hay fever season; an allopath uses onion juice to treat dry eyes; mainstream medicine uses antihistamines to treat watery eyes due to pollen allergy.  That's three systems of medicine, not two.
 * Many mainstream physicians strongly object to equating modern medicine, much less evidence-based medicine (which is a subset of modern medicine) with these discredited and outdated ideas. Additionally, this proposal seems to equate "the most common modern use of this term in my own country" with "the sole possible use of this term, at all times and places".  Our readers need the whole story, not one part of it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see what you mean. In the light of your explanation, I withdraw the request. --Red King (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem relevant any more, but a word that was coined in 1810, can be found in all dictionaries and which produces 152 Google Books hits when you search for books that have it in the title hardly falls under "neologism". That's not to say this article isn't a problem, because it is. But so far nobody has found a simple solution. Hans Adler 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Describing the usage of Allopathic ...
At present the section reads like this;

Unfortunately there are numerous problems, not least bits of the statement seem to be from a global perspective, and others from certain locales. The structure causes confusion for the reader as to which applies and under what circumstances.

There are referencing problems, including the one I've been raising (7) where a source is being used not only out of context, but to structure a different meaning than the one originally intended. It's also tertiary with no clue as to where they got it from.

The comment itself contradicts the original definition which precedes it in the article (see above on the talk page). Which needs some observation if it is to be used without causing confusion.

The final sentence is using the wrong definition allopathic, what Hanneman would refer to as antipathic or something.

The problem is the term is a bit fluid in meaning according to time and locale, but I think the article should help a reader see and understand that rather than mire itself in the confusion.

I've used the NPOV tag, not because that segment is biased in any particular direction, but because it seems to be a collage of different POV statements.

My view is that readers come to an article like this because they have encountered ther term for the first time and want to know what it is, or because their understanding of it has been challenged and they are checking/researching.

Allopathy can be used to mean all of the things described, and more. I personally think a short bulleted list or even a table would make more sense, for each SOURCEABLE definition. There also should be a short paragraph noting that the term seems to undergone a divergent evolution to the point where some new usages are incompatible or contradictory. Although sourcing that will be a challenge.

Just based on what's in the article now, this would look something like this ... and I do hope somebody can come along and suggest a more wiki friendly presentation method!;

I also noticed on the Naturopathy talk page that one author seemed to use the term Allopathic in a pejorative sense to refer to aspects of Herbalism and TCM which weren't in accordance with Naturopathy. The author's definition didn't match any of the ones here, and he was unaware of the origins of the term. I didn't get far enough to get a sourced definition from him so I can't add it. It does, however, tell us there is more out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.131.21 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of a table. I think it needs to be in addition to a well-written prose discussion of the topic.  I also think its needs to be sourced.  Clearly, there's a challenge with sourcing this topic.  There are sources that state the term is pejorative, and usually emphasize its historical origins. There are other sources that suggest acceptance and regular usage by a variety of academic, governmental and professional groups, mostly in the US, but also in India.  There aren't any sources that say "it isn't pejorative," they just use it in a way that is obviously not pejorative.


 * The question is, is the current common usage in the US, a nonpejorative distinction from osteopathic medicine, to be considered as a error, one which, while perhaps common, nevertheless somehow ignores the "actual" meaning of the word? There are certainly sources that would support this argument.


 * This situation has been unchanged for several years. I certainly think the article is better today than it was several years ago.   Bryan Hopping  T  03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Allopathic "nothing to do with" or "opposing" the patients symptoms?
In the first paragraph, it is stated that the definition of allopathic medicine is that which has "nothing to do with the symptoms created by the disease". But in the final paragraph it says that some aspects of traditional Chinese medicine is allopathic because they oppose the symptoms of the disease. So which is it? Because taking an action directly opposed to a symptom is definitely not "nothing to do with the symptoms". Onlynone (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not very well worded, should be improved. Verbal chat  16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Allopathy and its Difference with Modern Scientific Medicine
The modern practice of Western Medicine is commonly mistaken as Allopathy. In reality, allopathy, the precursor of Modern Scientific Medicine, was a grossly unscientific practice which created severe social reaction. As a matter of fact, the new method of treatment called homeopathy, originated as a reaction to it. Modern scientific medicine subsequently absorbed many medicinal principles from what was known as allopathy. But it is grossly different from the unscientific practices of allopathy (which had lead to huge number of casualties at that time). It is common to think the two as equivalent but as matter of fact they are dramatically different. As alchemy, the unscientific practice that gave rise to the experimentation with various chemical principles and thereby gave birth to the modern scientific study what we now know as Chemisty, its needless to mention that chemistry can never be regarded as alchemy, Allopathy is radically different from Modern Scientific Medicine. I have made edits to the article with proper references. You can feel free to study the references in order to judge whether this is a justifiable act or an act of vandalism.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I must tell you that I agree with Verbal in this case. You should not have rewritten the article so radically without discussion, since the previous state was the result of long consensus-building work.
 * I think there are several factors of which you are not aware. One is that already Hahnemann himself, although he coined a "precise" definition, used the term allopathy both in a loose sense that was so general that it probably covers modern scientific medicine and also in the most general sense of medicine that is not homeopathic. Another is that the term has evolved since Hahnemann. In a homeopathy context it is now officially defined as by Hahnemann, but it is used as a term for scientific medicine. Moreover, several other fields of alternative/complementary medicine have also taken over the term with the same meaning. And then there is osteopathic medicine, a notable branch of scientific medicine in the US which uses the term allopathic to refer to standard scientific medicine.
 * I think some of your material may be suitable for our article on Heroic medicine, though. I think that's a more precise term for the kind of medicine you have in mind, and it should be easier to write about that without giving the impression that you are really trying to advertise homeopathy. Hans Adler 21:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans-I understand that I should not have made such a gross edit without discussing it. As you have correctly pointed out, it concerns mainly Heroic medicine. As far as I know and understand, Hahnemann had coined the term in order to cover almost any branch that does not encompass homeopathy. I have not tried to advertise homeopathy. What I have tried to divert the erroneous practice of deeming Allopathy or heroic medicine (these two are actually equivalent) as Modern Scientific Medicine. What is taught in Universities and practised today, is the evidence based modern scientific medicine and I am a practitioner of that. If I am to advocate (wikipedia is not a place for advocating), I would definitely go for Modern Scientific Medicine which is erroneously referred to as Allopathy. Please let me know where I am going wrong.
 *  D ip ta ns hu Talk 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you are wrong. This article, or disambiguation page, or whatever it is, has some very special problems:
 * The terms "allopathy" and "allopathic medicine" have at least two different definitions – Hahnemann's definition and the definition as scientific medicine that is not osteopathic medicine. For both these topics it does not make sense to have a separate article. Such an article would overlap too strongly with homeopathy, history of medicine and heroic medicine in the first case, and with osteopathic medicine, Comparison of MD and DO in the United States and medicine in the second case. :
 * The term is normally used for all kinds of medicine that are not homeopathy, or for scientific medicine as opposed to all kinds of complementary/alternative medicine. The distinction between these two uses is very clear, and this use is hardly ever made explicit. (In a sense this use is incorrect, but incorrect language use becomes correct when it is very widespread.) We also do not need an article on this topic, because it is simply covered by medicine and by homeopathy or alternative medicine (depending on which more precise use we have in mind).
 * There has been a huge conflict about this page. The current state is a compromise between many parties. It is a fragile compromise, but it seems to have terminated the huge war that we had here. (Read the talk page archive if you are interested in the details.) Occasionally someone changes a single word, and suddenly all participants of that war are here again, ready to fight. Your changes were so huge that this hasn't happened yet – but I believe that's purely because nobody thinks your changes have a chance to stick anyway, so editors with a strong point of view what this article should be about, or how to present it, are just waiting.
 * All of this is not your fault, obviously. If you feel very strongly that your information must go on this page I can't prevent you from trying. I can only appeal to you not to try, based on my experience telling me it will only lead to a huge brawl between many parties, which will not even stop if at some point you decide to withdraw. At the article heroic medicine, for example, there is no such contentious environment at all.
 * People who practise alternative medicine need a term for regular, scientific, mainstream medicine. There is no such term that is accepted as neutral by everybody, and in this situation it is easy to understand how the term allopathy has acquired this wide meaning. I agree with you that this is highly problematic, but it is a fact. But I don't think that the attacks by Hahnemann and other homeopaths against "allopathy" have any negative influence on the reputation of regular medicine today. Hans Adler 12:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans- I clearly understand what you say. As you have rightly pointed out, homeopaths deem any other branch of medicine as allopathy. It could be held logical had the unscientific practices of allopathy or heroic medicine continued. But as a matter of fact, the modern scientific medicine or evidence based medicine stands in sharp contrast to the earlier unscientific practices. Had Homeopathy made attempts to make itself evidence based, it would have far evolved from where Samuel Hahnemann had left it. Its needless to mention how far Allopathy has evolved from where Benjamin Rush or James Gregory had left it. What I would suggest is to have a proper disambiguation page and instead of having three articles namely - Heroic medicine, Allopathic Medicine and Evidence-based medicine, Allopathic Medicine be merged with either the former or the latter, with a proper disambiguation mentioned at the top of either pages. Its not a question of fighting to establish ownself. Its just to make people aware of the common misconception. For example the Caduceus is often but erroneously used as the symbol of medicine, while the Rod of Asclepius is what is meant to be used. Even top medical institutions are unaware of the difference. But does that mean that Caduceus would or should replace Rod of Asclepius as the medical emblem? I am not an expert editor, and am rather unaware of the practices, so I would seek your suggestions as to what should be done (with respect to this article) and how the issue should be dealt with. I had painstakingly made edits with proper referencing. Does outright reversion removing such encyclopaedic edits not equal to vanadalism in itself? Is it not strange that the people who are supposed to be protecting Wikipedia from vandalism, are vandalising Wikipedia and you are saying that trying to fight them is useless? You decide. I am in no mood for fighting.
 *  D ip ta ns hu Talk 19:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the term "vandalism" in this context. It implies bad faith, and I think it's pretty clear that there is none. You have done much work on this article and received nothing but negative feedback. That's unfortunate and frustrating, but not vandalism. In case you are not aware, your edits are not lost, even if they may not be restored permanently in this article. You can click on this link to get back to your version, then click "edit", and add the source code to a different article where it may be more welcome.
 * The people I was talking about are ordinary editors like you and me. The problem is, there are many of them, most of them with strong feelings about some particular aspect. For example, you obviously feel very strongly that the term "allopathic medicine" can only apply to heroic medicine. On the other hand, we have an editor who feels very strongly that it can only apply be used to distinguish standard modern medicine from osteopathic medicine. I feel rather strongly that neither of you is completely wrong or completely right. But I don't get to decide this any more than anybody else. That's why we need compromises. Since you were not a party to the current compromise you are not obliged to accept it. I told you what I think will happen in that case, but you need not believe me. It's up to you to take your chances or not.
 * Hans Adler 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your views and feel them justified. I also understand that I have been wrong in using the term 'vandalism' as 'good faith' is involved here. One thing is clear that the term 'Allopathic Medicine' carries different meanings for different individuals and many of them might not be aware of the picture on overall basis. I am not saying that I am completely right in what I say. I just say that there needs to be a consensus and there isn't any. So, what can ensue is a discussion in order to bring out what can be done to justify both the past and present of allopathy. I would be glad if you can give me the details of the user who justificably uses the term for distinction with Osteopathic Medicine, so that I can personally communicate with him. May be that it would be wiser if we could involve him (as well as others) in the discussion so that we can bring out a consensus about what should be done. As of now I feel that we have the following terms involved in this context:
 * 1. Allopathic Medicine
 * 2. Heroic Medicine
 * 3. Evidence-based Medicine or Modern Scientific Medicine
 * 4. Osteopathic Medicine
 * 5. Homeopathy
 * While I had been equating 1 with 2, what I actually wanted is to distinguish 2 from 3. At origin, the term 1 was used as an umbrella term to distinguish anything that was not 5. And of course Neither any of 1,2 or 3 are equal to 4 and so need to be distinguished. What I would propose is to merge the term 1 either with 2 or with 3 (and have their identities reworked) to maintain the proper distinction. A proper disambiguation can be put above the pages for each of the terms involved. Please let me know your views and also welcome others to join the discussion. I think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to make people aware of the facts. I understand that at places facts are opinionated and this is one such context. We need to objectify what should be done and for that we need a proper discussion.
 *  D ip ta ns hu Talk 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think equating 1 and 2 is in accordance with WP:NPOV. There are simply too many modern homeopaths who equate 1 with 3, for example. (The status of homeopathy as fringe is not relevant in this context, because the term is primarily homeopathic and this is only a question of language use, not of science.) Of course others are invited to join this discussion. My personal guess is that many see your comments (after your complete replacement of the article) as an attack against a long-standing consensus and are happy to see me dealing with it so they don't have to get involved. But maybe I am under the influence of the false consensus effect? Short comments from the lurkers would be cool, especially if they were not inflammatory and wouldn't start a brawl.
 * One thing that has become clear to me is that this article should really have a link to heroic medicine, because in the original context that's what the term was really about, more or less. I will try to get that into the article. Hans Adler 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hans for your response. In the present scenario it is probably more justified to equate 1 with 3 but a link for 2 (Heroic Medicine) indeed needs to be placed in the context of 1 (Allopathic Medicine). I propose to transfer much of my edits to 2 but think that 1 needs to be rewritten to indicate the transitionary factors between 2 and 3. I am definitely waiting for others to comment upon this. The False consensus effect needs to be eliminated which cannot be done without the participation of others.
 *  D ip ta ns hu Talk 15:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

characteristics
I Think we are missing some very crucial points. I heard a quote once, i dont remember litterally, which went like this: In allopathic medicine, the drugs will kill you, they are very potent, in fact they may kill you even if perscribed correctly. (iatrogenesis) Please refer to examples of a few presidents (washington) being perscribed what we now consider pure poisons (arsenic and mercury) when they were sick, which in fact may have caused them to die. http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/history02.htm In homeopathic medicine, the disease may kill you, but the medicine will not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.88.154.64 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, homeopathy won't do anything, and you probably die anyway if you were ill enough. The question is about claims of efficacy and warnings of risk.

This article is a point of reference for those who want to know what is meant by the term allopathy when they encounter it, not evangelism of one approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.124.250 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Kusername's Edits of 5 Oct 2010
Hello, Hans Adler. Thank you for explaining the reversion and welcoming me to this discussion page. Anyhow, you commented about my edit, "Introduced likely error (term not initially used only by homeopaths) and changed the previously correct text of a literal quotation, so I am not trusting the rest".

The edit page made unclear that it was a direct quote, as in was not placed in quotation marks—nor was it italicized. The original quote was wordy, and so I made it swifter. Yet, when reviewing my edits, I noted that it was an original quote, and so my final edit had already restored the original quote to its original wording (at least I thought).

I'm unsure what you mean by Introduced likely error (term not initially used only by homeopaths).... I don't know whether the parenthetical remark is meant to restate my likely error, or to correct my likely error.

The Wikipedia page now bears ''Originally intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century (and especially the practices now known as heroic medicine), these terms were rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. During the 19th century it was used widely among irregular doctors as a pejorative term for regular doctors.[1] In the United States the term "allopathic" has been used by persons not related to homeopathy,[2] but it has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals apply to themselves.[3][4]''.

In my view, the terms irregular doctors and regular doctors seem to imply some objectivity that does not exist. The first citation, which is a book, itself applies irregular and regular, but also explains the context of this usage. Here, on this page, such explanation of context is excessive information. It seems more informative to me to simply apply neutral terms to begin with.

Thus my edit was Originally applied by unconventional physicians to describe practitioners of conventional Western medicine—and then of its emergent heroic medicine—the label allopath'' was generally rejected by conventional physicians. During the 19th century, the term was used widely by practitioners of varying forms of unconventional medicine, not merely homeopathy, as a pejorative term for conventional doctors''.

Indeed, homeopathic doctors were unconventional doctors.

I think that if there is a likely error, it is the closing indication: ...but [allopthic] has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals apply to themselves. I cited a paper in the journal Lancet—whose logo is a lancet if ever there was a symbol of conventional medicine—specifically using allopathy in its title as a synonym for conventional medicine. Also, someone else's citation, already on the page, quotes the World Health Organization using the term allopathic medicine as a synonym for conventional medicine.

I think it was neutral of me to specify that some conventional practitioners reject the term, indeed, yet that otherwise the term has gained a fair amount of acceptance. The first citation on the page—which applies the term irregular to homeopaths but also qualifies it in mere social context—itself says that conventional physicians nowadays tend to be relatively uncomplaining about the term allopathy. Actually, I had inserted into the body of the article (not leaving it merely in the citation) the main argument why some conventional physicians reject the term.

I think that all my other edits—mainly just imparting neutral wording, swiftness, and organization—were all evident and can simply be assessed. If you have particular disputes of them, please, offer the disputes.

Kusername (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion
When I look at my last edit, I don't see the restored original quote; somehow I failed to save the restoration, it seems. Also, although I at first edited the original quote because it was unclear to me that it was an original quote—and so I edited it as perhaps inflated or at least wordy text (there is a clear trend of increased use becomes the trend is increased use)—the quote was in fact within quotation marks, what I failed to notice. I think it was fair to revert the Wikipedia article to its earlier version.

Yet actually, the greater quote says, "Just when did I become an allopath? I am hearing and reading this term more and more lately. ...  Nevertheless, there is a clear trend of increased use of the term among mainstream physicians".

The Wikipedia article does not reflect this, however, and claims merely that allopathic "has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals [conventional doctors] apply to themselves".

In any case, there is a definite error in the Wikipedia article, whose correction got lost with the reversion. In the final paragraph, the term scientific medicine is hyperlinked to evidence-based medicine. The so-called scientific medicine arose in the 1800s [Webpage: “From Quackery to Bacteriology: The Emergence of Modern Medicine in 19th Century America: An Exhibition”—section “Introduction”. University of Toledo Libraries. http://www.utoledo.edu/library/canaday/exhibits/quackery/quack1.html]. Evidence-based medicine, on the other hand, is a movement that began in the 1980s and the term was coined in 1990 ["Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine". JAMA. 1992 Nov 4;268(17):2420-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1404801 = http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/rehabilitacion-temprana/evidence.pdf].

I intend to revise the article, mostly the way I left it, yet without altering the original quote. Please, offer any disagreement.

Kusername (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you get any signals that suggest there will be a consensus for this change? You can try it anyway, I don't support it (I think much of it is not clear at all), but I won't revert. Hans Adler 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted for discussion, as directed to do, but got no response within a couple of days (though the earlier reversion of my edit was rapid). So I posted again to signal my intentions—which I would follow if I still got no response.

An encyclopedia is not a place for "consensus"; it for digestible yet accurate information as supported. Please, let us remember that. The page as it is contains inaccuracies and bias, which I've pointed out. I would like to think that we all intend for the page to be accurate and not merely "consensus". Consensus is a political matter, not a historical matter. Please, even though this is page on a medical topic, let us leave the politics aside ["On medicine and politics". Yale J Biol Med. 1992 May–Jun; 65(3):243–249. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2589602].

I await responses to the points that I raised: (1) the falsehood that allopathic is outright rejected by conventional physicians and by the so-called medical establishment (when even the citations on the page contradict such notion), and (2) scientific medicine, by now a historical concept, is something quite different from evidence-based medicine, still emerging.

If there is anything unclear about my edit, and someone can improve it, I'll be glad. I do not think, however, that my edit was a worsening of accuracy, clarity, neutrality, and organization.

I'll await a reasonable amount of time for responses.

Kusername (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In a wiki, when nobody responds it can mean one of four things:
 * Nobody noticed it. (Extremely unlikely in this case: 63 editors have this page on their watchlists, that's a very high number.)
 * Editors agree but think that's so obvious there is no need to mention it.
 * Editors disagree but thinks that's so obvious there is no need to mention it.
 * Editors feel it's too much hassle to look at the details because on the proposal isn't very transparent and on first sight just doesn't look promising. They may decide to get involved later, when there has been some clarification or escalation.
 * I am in the fourth category. My main problems with your proposal: (1) I don't really get the problems you want to address and am afraid that you are going to recreate others that had already been addressed. (2) It would take much longer than a minute or two to analyse what your proposed change would really do. That's more than we usually spend for that kind of thing here, even for proposed edits that we think might be worthwhile. Hans Adler 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is it you want to do? Long rambling paragraphs don't usually get read.  Remember, you might think whatever you're doing is the most important thing on Wikipedia, but most of us watch thousands of articles.  As I have been accused on numerous occasions by Hans, I have the attention span of a drosophila, so I'm not going to plough through your prose to figure out what you want to change.  Try bullet points.  Or what Hans did above, a numerical list.  One point however:  I see this a lot on Wikipedia, people don't realize terminology evolves.  Scientific medicine, science based medicine, or evidence based medicine are all approximately the same thing.  You ask a physician today to describe scientific medicine, and you'll get "evidence based medicine."  Just because the University of Toledo (fond memories there) has one source from the 1800's to describe Scientific medicine, that is not a source to say that the term is static.  If words never evolved, then reading Beowulf would be a piece of cake.  Actually, Hans probably can read Beowulf better than I can.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

State of the article
Revisiting this article after getting bored of the incredible flame fight a couple of years ago.

I must say, whilst now a bit boring to read, it's much better in terms of trying to render the term. It's lacking a bit in the modern usage of Allopathy, but I'm not sure how anyone would deal with that as it's one of those words that runs away when you try to pin it down.

There's still a problem with this evidence-based term. Homeopathy does attempt to use a scientific method and claims to prescribe according to evidence. Much as many (including me) might find that laughable, it does present a problematic contradiction. The heroic medicine distinction works absolutely for when Hanneman was using the term, but not at all in modern parlance.

Oh, and just for the sake of pedantry;

"As used by homeopaths, the term allopathy has always referred to the principle of curing disease by administering substances that produce other symptoms (when given to a healthy human) than the symptoms produced by a disease. For example, part of an allopathic treatment for fever may include the use of a drug which reduces the fever, while also including a drug (such as an antibiotic) that attacks the cause of the fever (such as a bacterial infection). A homeopathic treatment for fever, by contrast, is one that uses a diluted and succussed dosage of a substance that in an undiluted and unsuccussed form would induce fever in a healthy person. Hahnemann used this term to distinguish medicine as practiced in his time from his use of infinitesimally small doses of substances to treat the spiritual causes of illness."

Is diluted correct? when nothing exists of the original substance, I'm not sure what Hanneman thought but "infinitesimally small doses of substances" we now know to be wrong ..... further more, the example given is tending to antipathy, not allopathy. But maybe it doesn't matter that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.124.250 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WHO definition of allopathic
OK, this came up before, more than once!

The WHO publication referenced is very clear it is not attempting to provide a global definition and does not really say why they use the definition they do.

They aren't being vague, they are just using a term for convenience sake in their publication and defin ing it within the scope of that publication solely.

Their definition is consistent with what some say is the meaning of allopathic, but at the same time contradictory and conflicting with some other widely used understandings.

I don't dispute the definition is relevant, which is why I left it there, it just needs better, or more, citations.

I did not dispute the reliability of the source, just the relevance of why it was being used. That was very clear. Editors should exercise the civil courtesy of reading the reason attached to an edit before reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.124.250 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the text is accurately supported by the reference, then the tag is not appropriate for what you seem to be saying.  Certainly you are welcome to add more definitions from other reliable sources, bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, but that particular tag is not appropriate for what you seem to want to say. Yobol (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The text is not properly supported by the reference. The reason I added cn, is I think the statement is OK, it just needs supporting better than by a reference that very clearly is not trying to define.... it's merely in example of one usage in  an obscure report. Why don't you actually check what the reference says?

"Allopathic medicine, in this document, refers to the broad category of medical practice that is  sometimes  called  Western  medicine,  biomedicine,  scientific  medicine,  or modern medicine. This term has been used solely for convenience and does not refer to the treatment principles of any form of medicine described in this document. "

The cn tag is appropriate as someone really needs to find evidence that the term means this or is popularly understood to mean this. Not just find example of who one person used it on the back page of a little known report. Or is that good enough for you? You can put as many WP: things as you like, but it's still rubbish. WHO is not an authority on terms used in CAM circles, and all we see there is quote mining. Look on this talk page and you'll see the problems. Not least that Homeopathy is Western, Modern and claims to be Evidence based, and that's where the term was originally invented!

The problem is not that the definition is wrong, but that it is too specific as the term is used in all sorts of different, contradictory ways. It seems you prefer edit warring, so help yourself.

I merely wanted to encourage people who have the view that allopathic means what is said there (or maybe not) to seek out some supporting evidence.

I know I should assume good faith, but you seem to have aptly demonstrated you are not interested in improving the quality of the project. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.124.250 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, there is no need to "find evidence" of anything. The evidence is the citation, whether you agree with it or not. It is a reliable source. If you want to expand on the definition by introducing other reliable sources, then do so. As far as the rest of your diatribe about what you think my intentions are after one post to the talk page: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Yobol (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement is quite obviously true, but that this is not the kind of information that one easily finds reliable sources for. Dictionaries usually add words with a definition once they are first coined, and then tend not to update the definition for a long time after the usage has changed. Therefore (as far as I remember) the dictionaries basically still have only the 'opposite of homeopathy' definition.

In other cases, where I strongly disagreed with a statement because it was obviously untrue or too imprecise for an encyclopedia, I have rejected sourcing that was similarly weak to the one here. Clearly this single mention doesn't directly support "often". On the other hand, it seems a bit pedantic to insist on strict sourcing for a common sense statement. The source here doesn't serve so much for 'verification' of the claim as it explains where the quoted words come from.

I am sure appropriate sources must exist somewhere, but locating them amidst all the homeopathy, osteopathy etc. stuff on one hand and the irate "when did I become an allopathist"-type stuff on the other hand is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Hans Adler 07:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

E.g. this book defines "allopathy" as "conventional medical/healthcare", which is basically what we are saying. Hans Adler 07:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

'Allopathy' used on a dot gov website to distinguish from 'Osteopathy'
I can see there is a large debate here, but I came to this page by running into the term allopathy on National Health Service Corps website for the US Government. The text reads, "Students to Service Loan Repayment Program is open to allopathic and osteopathic medical students in their fourth year at an accredited medical school." 

It seems to me this term is becoming an increasingly common way to distinguish between these two branches of medicine. This article currently focuses mainly on how it's a derisive term only used by homeopaths, which is clearly not the case anymore. From the standpoint of a consumer who came to the article to learn something, I found the article to be confusing, misleading, and completely void of helpful information. Lux (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oversimplification
I can see from the talk page and the article's history that this has been a hot potato. I think the article as it stands is clearly an oversimplification. Johns Hopkins has one of the top-ranked medical schools in the U.S. They have a web page at http://web.jhu.edu/prepro/health/allopathic.html that explains the history of the term and states without qualification, "M.D.s practice allopathic medicine." A google ngrams search on the word "allopathic" shows a big spike in the 19th century, after which the word fell into almost complete disuse, followed by a revival in the second half of the 20th century. A google book search for the 19th century shows nearly 100% usage in contradistinction to homeopathy. 20th-century usage seems much more varied. Sometimes it's used in contradistinction to osteopathy, sometimes just as a synonym for "what an MD does." It seems to be used more in India than the rest of the English-speaking world. This discussion may be of interest: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/100319/why-is-allopathy-not-an-accepted-synonym-for-mainstream-medicine/100320#comment335583_100320 --75.83.65.81 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Misleading article
This whole article seems very misleading and/or biased to me. While the origins of the term "allopathy" may have stemmed from the homeopathic movement, in current times, allopathy really has nothing to do with homeopathy. This article seems to be biased toward alternative medicine; many of the citations are from alternative medicine sites. The truth is that allopathy is a term used today to essentially describe the treatment of an ailment by targeting its actual cause. It is widespread term that is accepted among the medical community; doctors who hold an MD degree are trained in allopathic medicine, and accept the term as describing what they were trained in. The only real fair comparison to allopathy (MD) is to osteopathy (DO), which attempts to take a more holistic approach to treatment of disease. Regardless, homeopathy and alternative medicine have very little to do with allophathic medicine. This whole article probably should be rewritten, and/or a marker should be added stating that some of the information may be biased.
 * Can you provide some refs to support your statements. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Bioregulatory medicine
Hello all, What do you think of Bioregulatory medicine? I'm concerned that it's mostly synthesis and spam, but my attempt to remove that problem got reverted, so obviously somebody feels differently about it. Any suggestions? In particular, I was surprised to find a lengthy article with lots of citations of sources that don't actually mention "bioregulatory medicine". bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no mainstream
This does not represent a world-wide terminology. Medicine is split to "mainstream branch of medicine" and "alternative branches of medicine" in USA and probably some other countries. Allopathy is designated as the mainstream there. But that is not true elsewhere in the world.

As far as I understand, there is no mainstream branch of medicine or alternative branches of medicine. Allopathy is just a branch like Ayurvedam, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Acupuncture, Siddha, Unani, ...

If someone can cite references that worldwide only allopathy is the mainstream, please cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payyan-2000 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 August 2014
 * You are sort-of right. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Advocates of "alternative medicine" (which would more correctly be termed "alternative to medicine") have labelled "evidence-based" practice as "allopathic" at least since Hahneman. They aren't about to stop doing so. Having an article here at least provides a place to explain the term to those who come across it. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughly biased and misleading article
Since one can find numerous references on the National Institutes of Health website using allopathic as equivalent to mainstream medicine in the U.S., this article is false and misleading (at least in the U.S.A.) and should be removed. Ascribing "Allopathic" as a pejorative term created by the founder of homeopathy to mock mainstream scientific medicine is confusing and inappropriate, in my opinion. Granted, I have a connection with complementary and integrative health, but my use of the term "allopathic" is not derisive and I use it because that's what the National Institutes of Health use when comparing mainstream medicine to osteopathic or other complementary systems of medicine. Divineprimates (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it incomprehensible that mainstream medicine uses such an insulting term to describe itself. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion by redirect
This page was redirected to a short section after (by my count, which may be wrong) about 17 hours of discussion at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just noticing this. I undeleted the text. The conversation was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_90. made this a redirect. CFCF, can you say something about how the discussion there resolved? I might have expected an WP:AfD for this. Do you think that what you did might be at all surprising?   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Typical use of term "allopathy" in India
This article is a bit confused. In some ways it talks about history. Other sources present the term as describing something contemporary.

Consider this recent article from India's newspaper of record -

Nothing equivalent to this use of the term exists in the Western world. Whereas this term is less important in Western countries, it is an important distinction and commonly used term in India and in countries served by India's medical industry. If somehow this information is harming Western audiences, then I am sympathetic for making changes without erasing the article. "Allopathy" is an everyday term in India, and I would like to call for some compassion for non-Western cultures and their representation in Wikipedia.

Sourcing could be better, but somehow, I wish that the cultural concept of allopathy could be better presented in this article. It means something more than being the equivalent of medicine. I have trouble finding a source, but in India, something that people will say repeatedly is that they want no side effects. There is a strong awareness of any drug possibly doing anything other than removing symptoms, so if for example a pharmaceutical has a side effect, many Indian people are quick to say, "allopathic" and that communicates a set of cultural implications.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  22:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am from India and am certainly aware of the use of the term allopathy as an equivalent for modern medicine. You can check point 1.2.2 of this document of MCI. When they write 'allopathic medicine' they actually mean modern medicine. Even in case of the names of the medical colleges 1 as well as 2, they actually mean that alternative medicine is not practiced here and that they are talking about modern medicine. The synonymous or interchangeable use of the terms is actually a pseudo-insult by homeopaths and practitioners of alternative medicine on the practitioners of modern medicine.


 * Long back in 2010 I had tried updating this article on Allopathic medicine. The version of the article that I had rendered with the references and resources was immediately got reverted in the next edit. The present version of the article does not remotely resemble my earlier version but at least it is in much better shape. In my version I had been referring to was the precursor of modern medicine. The term had possibly been introduced by Hahnemann (would have to look it up) and while homeopathy remained practically static, its 'allopathic' counterpart has far evolved into an entirely different entity altogether. Similar use of the term is observed not only in India but also other countries like Ghana and Korea. I am currently in the process of writing the article v:Draft:WikiJournal of Medicine/Modern medicine as an evolutionarily distinct entity from Allopathy (currently I have just laid down the points and I am yet to add the text). I would like to ask if anybody has any objection if I directly use portions of text that I had contributed to the earlier version, the version that was entirely reverted. I assure that my article would be highly referenced and would not comprise of personal opinions or unsubstantiated claims.  D ip ta ns hu  &#128172; 16:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any text that you contributed is still yours and you retain rights to use it elsewhere. If you wish to use text that has been altered while on Wikipedia, you need to stay with the licenses as specified on the page. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

POV fork
This article appears to be a POV fork parallel to evidence-based medicine. Any worthwhile content at this article should be merged into that article if not already covered, and this article should become a redirect.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. However I would rather say it is a POV fork of Medicine. The specific term "allopathic medicine" is used in India to indicate what the rest of the world calls "Medicine". This does not make for an article IMO. Carl Fredrik  talk 09:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Medicine, Medicine (...) is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Allopathic medicine is a subset of this definition, not a fork, as is Evidence based medicine. Whether they are the same subset is another issue. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Use of the term "allopathic medicine" probably warrants no more than a bullet point in the list at Evidence-based medicine. I agree with Pbsouthwood that the article is not directly analogous to the main medicine article. Use of the term in India for what most people refer to as 'medicine' does not warrant an entirely separate article. It's also not especially clear which countries are "like Ghana or Korea".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would first be necessary to establish that the topic is not notable and/or is actually a POV fork. Then assuming that it is agreed to merge into an existing article, it would be necessary to agree that the content is so undue that wholesale deletion is justifiable. Considering the number of people in India, and probable number of references available, this might not be justifiable. Sometimes one has to live with the fact that other things exist. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that it isn't an 'other thing'. It's just a pejorative name for evidence-based medicine in contrast to unproven homeopathic pseudoscience. The import of the term and its development are already properly covered at homeopathy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is true where you come from. Have you actually read the article? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)