Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 12

RV More of Snowspinner's Vandalism -- Discussion
I have notice that User:Snowspinner's recently vandalized several of my edits. I would like somebody to inform Snowspinner that vandalizism on Wikipedia is NOT permitted. I have reversed his vandalizism with the following edit summaries.


 * RV Snowspinner's Vandalism: The CamMenu template was deleted in TvD, not the infoboxes for the branches of AM articles. Nothing was manually recreated. Absolutely nothing!!!


 * RV Snowspinner's Vandalism: The CamMenu template was deleted in TvD. Infoboxes such as this have NOT been replaced by categories!!! Absolutely NOT!!!!  This is a brand new infobox.


 * RV More of Snowspinner's Vandalism: This article has existed since April 2004. The time has past for making this type of radical change, just becuase you feel like vandalizing articles today.


 * RV More of Snowspinner's Vandalism: Snowspinner has committed a number of clearly document acts of deliberate vandalism. I wont let this article be another one of them.


 * And, I expect that more edit summaries will be necessary as Snowspinner's Vandalism continues.

I have documented the goals and accomplishments of my recent editing activities on my talk page. And, currently am working on a write up as to why cateogories have NOT replace project infoboxes. I believe that I will finish it today.

I added this brand new infobox on Alternative medicine a couple of weeks ago [(03:05, 4 Feb 2005 John Gohde (Adding the Project on Alternative Medicine, very active Wikiproject, infobox.)] in order to very publicly announce my new editing activities that have re-activated the project on alternative medicine.  As Alternative medicine is a very public article being watched by a number of administrators and editors, I was waiting for a response to my edits.  I have received none to date.  In fact User:Geni has actually restored my edits there.  Since, I received no rejection of any of my edits at alternative medicine I have moved on to other areas and articles.  I have yet to restore any infobox that was deleted by anybody.  I do however plan on restoring a few project boxes that were wrongfully deleted by User:FoxFire and perhaps others, now an Adm, in the last phase of my editing activities.

I have absolutely no plans on re-adding CamMenu or any of the other wrongfully deleted project templates back to any of the articles, where they have have been deleted by somebody else.

I will of course continue to reverse any edit that is clearly vandalism because their assertions are factually incorrect and totally divorced from reality. -- John Gohde 19:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The CAM navigation boxes were deleted. Coming up with new CAM navigation boxes in a form where they now can't be deleted by a vote is not an acceptable solution. Furthermore, your infobox amounts to a link to a definition and a category link. This is not a useful infobox. These boxes have no place on articles. Snowspinner 19:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your infobox amounts to a link to a definition and a category link. ??? Our infoboxes for the branches of AM articles classify the them several different ways. The hyperlinks merely provide additional optional information about our classification of that article. In other words, it explains our classification.  You have deleted the CAM navigation template. Are you objecting to the recent addition of the CAM Article Index link to the category on alternative medicine or our classifications per NCCAM guidelines? -- John Gohde 17:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, only the template was deleted.  And, that template was a sub-part of the project's infoboxes in most cases.  There were a few exceptions, like alternative medicine.  And, as noted the new infobox that was placed in alternative medicine is in fact a brand new design that has been clearly here since Feb 4. It has clearly been acceptable to a number of editors and Adms who had voiced prior objections to the old template that was deleted months ago. Categories have clearly failed to replace project infoxboxes.  And, as noted before your objections have no basis in fact or in reality. I will now complete my other write up beforing continuing reverting your vandalism of my edits, except for alternative medicine which I will continue to revert. -- John Gohde 20:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes don't mesh with policy. Categories, lists, and series boxes. Snowspinner 20:11, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * All of our project's infoboxes, and I mean all, comply with the infoboxes policy:Categories, lists, and series boxes.John Gohde 21:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How? Snowspinner 21:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion in Wikipedia talk, "I don't think this "policy" has consensus support for it. I think the thinktank tag was removed inappropriately (and frankly it was done for suspect reasons ... people find the templates useful and that the "policy" as currently phrased simply does not reflect current practice and does not have consensus approval. ... the fact of the matter is that many of the templates on Wikipedia:Navigational templates are popular and in wide use." Futhermore,  User:Snowspinne states today point blank: "I'm at least willing to accept that it may not be policy. What we really need is for the "Policies and guidelines" category to become guidelines, since it currently conflicts with official policy." -- John Gohde 21:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The line between policy and guideline is minor, but as I understand it, or at least, as I used it above was that a policy is something enforced. That is to say, repeated violation of no personal attacks, any violation of the 3RR, things like that, you get banned for it. This is more in line with something in the manual of style. Nobody is going to get banned for creating a template that doesn't mesh with the guidelines. The template is just going to be removed, because it's not in the proper style for them. Snowspinner 21:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if you insist that "Nobody is going to get banned for creating a template that doesn't mesh with the guidelines," I certainly wont object. -- John Gohde 11:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Recreating deleted templates, continually edit warring on templates, or disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, it should be noted, are both not covered by that guarantee. However a good faith creation of a bad template is nothing that can't be handled at TfD. Snowspinner 15:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only line that I am interested in is that I caught you redhanded stating a falsehood in this talk forum. You made two contradictory statements in two different talk forums on the same day.  Guess what that makes you?  I know.  Do you know? -- John Gohde 23:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I can guess, but if you'd like to tell me, go for it. Snowspinner 23:32, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * or alturnativly we couldn't be bothered to fight yet another edit war with you. If you want your template back put in a request in VFUDGeni 20:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Did not, is still did not. And, vandalism committed for reasons that have no basis in reality is still vandalism.  I will be awake for the next sixteen hours.  I will be editing my newsletter, updating my website, editing in Wikipedia, and working out at a AFFC gym in Richmond, VA, USA at around 3 o'clock in the morning for about 2 and half hours.  And, I will probably do some more constructive editing in Wikipedia before going to sleep at around 6 AM in the moringing. Happy editing.  I will not let this documented vandalism go unchallenged. -- John Gohde 21:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Our Boxes are in Full Compliance
As previously stated, all of the project on alternative medicine's branches of AM infoboxes are in full compliance with Categories, lists, and series boxes for no other reason than this guideline clearlys does not cover infoboxes. An infobox is quite different from an article series box.

"An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject (An infobox is a generalization of a taxobox (from taxonomy) which summarizes information for an organism or group of organisms)."Infobox And, see our large branches of AM infobox at. Our large branches of AM infoboxes primarily exists to summarize information for a given branch of AM and for related branches of AM.

Second, our new box with a direct link to Category:Alternative medicine, such as the one in alternative medicine is clearly not an Article series box as defined by that guideline. Our box, what ever you want to call it, is in effect a very visible version of Category:Alternative medicine. IF anything this guideline recommends the use of categories which is precisely what our box uses.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that new visitors visit alternative medicine using the default user skin. Using this skin, visitors are more likely to find Talk:Alternative medicine, which has a very visible link on the very top of the page and, thus, a direct link to our project pages then they are to find the hidden Category:Alternative medicine link which is shown on the very bottom of the web page. -- John Gohde 09:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Never the less, catagories are the way we, as a wikicommunity, have decided to go. Visitors will very quickly learn to find categories at the bottom of pages, and they will look for them there. An infobox that does nothing more than give info that can be found in categories is therefore redundant. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The important point being that this specific guideline does not in fact specifically prohibit our box since it is a direct link to a major category. Further, why don't we prohibit all those pictures, graphics, and useless squiggles in Wikipedia articles?  I recall that the iridology  article is choking on graphics!!!  This box is quite tiny, and a very reasonable approach to categories.  Last, and more importantly, guidelines unlike policy are optional rather than binging. (See Spinmeisters comments above.) -- John Gohde 11:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "the way we, as a wikicommunity, have decided to go." - That sounds a lot a few Wikipedians have gotten together to decide ... Are you sure that you are not talking about a wikiproject? -- John Gohde 21:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your box is not an infobox, for one. Infoboxes provide, among other things, information. This only provides an overly prominant link to a category that is already on the page. What your box is attempting to is very clearly to organize articles into a series - in this case, the series represented by the category. As you are not organizing them in a specified linear order but rather just making a large and redundant link to a category, the box is not proper. Snowspinner 15:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * How about the infobox in chiropractic medicine that you keep on deleting? It is not a template.  And, it is a true infobox that provides information. -- John Gohde 16:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Never the less, do you have any data that shows visitors are finding these categories at the very bottom of the page? I, think, perhaps I should add these boxes to the talk pages as visitors would be more likely to find them. -- John Gohde 10:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I can live with them on the talk pages. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I still object to them on talk pages, honestly, just on the principle that if it can be done for CAM it sets precedent for it to be done by every topic. And I'd absolutely hate to see something like Jacques Derrida have twelve of these on the talk page. All the box does is link to a category. Category links serve this purpose just fine. Snowspinner 15:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Case of Snowspinner Deliberately Destroying An Article
User:Snowspinner on 13 Feb and on 14 Feb 2005 voluntarily decided for no good reason to destroy the Philosophy of alternative medicine article, one of the Core Project Articles of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative_Medicine that was created by this project in April 2004. Snowspinner moved this article to List of topics in alternative medicine in a manner that did not maintained the original links to it. In other words, nothing links to this new article. That makes it a case of vandalism committed by User:Snowspinner, an adminstrator, because the work of dozens of editors in Wikipedia have been deliberately orphaned. I have previously attempted to moved the article back both on 13 Feb and on 14 Feb 2005, but Snowspinner has reversed it back to List of topics in alternative medicine sans cross-links. Further, the Philosophy of alternative medicine article is now showing up as a completely different stub article. In other words, there are two articles physically in existence. There is no rational explanation other than vandalism that explains the actions of Snowspinner. John Gohde 23:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason was simple: The article that is now List of topics in alternative medicine was not an article on the philosophy of alternative medicine. It was thus misnamed. Snowspinner 00:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have myself renamed many an article without destroying the cross-links. Further, a few of these core articles were in fact renamed dued to captialization problems without destroying any of the cross-links. Furthermore, the new name is not discriptive (ie, where is the philosophy of alternative medicine in the new title? And, why add a new stub article that uses the old name?). Furthermore, all of the articles in the Buddha project infobox are lists.  Are you going to destroy those articles, too?  Your explanation is not acceptable as it is totally irrational, in my opinion. -- John Gohde 00:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to recreate an article at Philosophy of Alternative Medicine violated the naming conventions, plain and simple.Philosophy of alternative medicine, on the other hand, was simply inaccurately titled. -- Snowspinner


 * Your attempt to cover up your vandalism has failed, plain and simple. My attempt, as an non-administrator, was to undo your vandalism. That is the only failure that I admit to. I tried, but it did not work thanks to your vandalism. -- John Gohde 00:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * How on Earth is moving an article to a more accurate title vandalism? Snowspinner 00:37, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have figured out a quickfix to the mess created by Snowspinner. I have moved everything to List of topics on the philosophy of alternative medicine. The name of the article now has the word List in it, which presumably is why Snowspinner waited almost one year to change the name. Any more moves with a stub article rather than the standard re-direct will most certainly be contested by me as another case of deliberate vandalism/harrassment. I think Snowspinner's original move was a total waste of my time. -- John Gohde 08:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine is making good progress
Alternative medicine is making good progress. -- John Gohde 00:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I detect a problem
The criticism section is very weak, and needs to be developed more. The references are really poor and of low quality. -- John Gohde 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the confusion arises because you are both partly right and partly wrong
Both statements in the disputed paragraph are at least partly wrong, as follows.

Many in the scientific community define alternative medicine as any treatment that has not been verified through peer-reviewed, controlled studies. This is simply false. Most in the scientific community do not define alt med that way because it fails to distinguish conventional and alt med, since much of conventional medical practice has not been "verified through controlled studies."

This is in contrast with conventional medicine. The real difference between conventional and alt med lies in the nature of the theory and evidence for the practice. Conventional practice is (1) compatible with known scientific facts and theories, and (2) controlled trials are universally accepted as the highest level of evidence of efficacy. In contrast, the practices of alt med are often (1) based on theories incompatible with the rest of our scientific understanding of the physical world, and (2) controlled trials, falsifiable hypotheses, and compatibility with known science are nearly universally rejected as evidence of efficacy or lack thereof by alt med practitioners.

Do either of you have an objection to these clarifications? Please don't offer rare exceptions as a refutiation. alteripse 23:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Many in the scientific community define alternative medicine as any treatment that has not been verified through peer-reviewed, controlled studies." I agree that that assertion is false and should be changed.  What do you propose? Edwardian 05:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My proposal was in the immediately succeeding paragraph. ''Alternative medicine is distinguishable from conventional, scientific medicine, by one or both (usually both) of the following characteristics:


 * 1) it is based on theories incompatible with our current understanding of our current understanding of the material world: biology, chemistry, and/or physics;
 * 2) its practitioners reject scientific measures of efficacy (controlled experiments, falsifiable hypotheses, refutable prediction) or lack of efficacy, and rarely support scientific investigation of the phenomenon.''

One of the several difficulties of improving this article is Mr Gohde's peculiar insistence upon broadening the definition of alternative medicine to the point of meaninglessness by claiming that it includes noncontroversial aspects of prevention, wellness, and medical care-- sort of like arguing that one should vote Republican instead of Democratic because Republicans are willing to participate in peaceful elections instead of because of what makes Republicans different from Democrats. I don't really blame him for not wanting to defend all the nonsensical aspects of alt med, but his problem is that most doctors don't have any problem with the things he wants to defend (e.g., the value of eating right, or the 99% of modern osteopathic practice that is indistinguishable from conventional medicine) and don't even consider it alt med anymore. alteripse 02:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

biopsychosocial interventions

 * Neither! Tell me, Mr. MD where does the OBSSR fit into this discussion?  Why is the OBSSR not even mentioned in the NIH article?  How come none of the physicans participating in Wikipedia have written an article, let alone articles, on health screenings and other preventative health services?  Do you consider the topic of OBSSR / Mind - body connection / biopsychosocial interventions as part of the quackery of alternative medicine? -- John Gohde 00:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Editors of Alternative medicine:


 * Now, you know why I brought the subject of the OBSSR and biopsychosocial interventions up. You kind fun loving editors tend to treat biopsychosocial interventions / placebo effect as quackery regardless of the evidence.  I have free access to about a dozen full text restricted access studies on the placebo effect. But, it of course would be a total waste of my time to write on this subject in Wikipedia because your all education apparently stopped some 200 years ago. Every 5 minutes of editing would take an additional two weeks of my time to defend.


 * You didn't get it in talk. You didn't get it on my user page. And, you are not going to accept it in alternative medicine, because all you want to do is tear down this subject for totally irrational reasons.


 * It is no accident that Wikipedia does not have an article on the OBSSR.
 * -- John Gohde 12:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, let's eschew invidious stereotypes. It is obvious to most people that there are both biological and social dimensions to most diseases. Optimal care pays attention to both dimensions. The OBSSR was set up to support investigation into psychosocial dimensions. It never occurred to me that a psychosocial perspective was alt med. The OBSSR isnt part of NICCAM and isn't hampered by the same obstacles in alt med culture to scientific investigation of the topic. There are only a couple of MDs who have been writing here, and I suspect that we tend to write about what we have the most expertise about. Our medical coverage is very spotty and uneven with a wide range of quality, so don't make too much about our not writing about this-- we haven't written about the NIDDK either.

Furthemore, with respect to the health screening question: the core of medicine and medical practice is the attempt to alleviate illness for an individual patient, not preventive medicine. Preventive medicine has developed fairly recently as an aspect of primary care in the last few decades. Immunizations are probably the most striking success in terms of a preventive treatment administered in the context of an individual doctor-patient relationship. It isn't that doctors don't think it is better to prevent disease than treat it, but that isn't what 99% of us do. An example in my specialty is the recent epidemic of type 2 diabetes in children. The rise appears to be a result of changing cultural practices that have made children less physically active and consuming an unhealthy diet. The best prevention would occur long before the child was referred to me and would consist of a healthy diet and minimal television. It takes an entirely different kind of person, with different training and skills, to work on the social and cultural basis of this problem than it does to treat the diabetes when it appears. There is certainly no conflict between preventing diabetes and treating it--- just like there is no conflict between improving schooling and home environments to prevent crime-- improving schooling and home environments is important but no one expects the police to do it. I have never understood why some alt med proponents think doctors are somehow doing the wrong thing because we treat individual people when they get sick and come to us, instead of somehow preventing something that is not in our power to prevent. Or am I missing the point of your questions? alteripse 04:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) alteripse 03:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Biopsychosocial interventions are just as much a part of alternative medicine as 19th century homeopathy is. See and  in particular.  Both OBSSR and NICCAM are scientifically investing Mind-Body Interventions. Yet, you people insist on pretending that all of alternative medicine is still operating in the 19th century. Is that when your schooling stopped? -- John Gohde 05:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The insult is unwarranted and your assertion is bizarre. If most practitioners, both conventional and alternative, agree that the psychosocial dimension to a patient's health is important, where is the argument? It makes no sense to call the aspects of psychosocial care that are compatible and congruent with science "alternative" if they are supported by everyone. There are, however, specifically alt med forms of psychosocial care, just like there are alt med treatments for diabetes. They are the ones that fall into the definition I offered: they are incompatible with our current scientific understanding and their proponents reject controlled trials as evidence that they work or don't work. An example of a specifically alt med psychosocial treatment is the forehead tapping treatment for trauma. It makes no sense, fits with nothing we know about the way the mind works, and its proponents reject the idea that a controlled trial might demonstrate its lack of efficacy.

As a general point of debate etiquette, it is both annoying and an admission of intellectual and logical bankruptcy when you use the phrase "you people" and proceed to argue against something that your opponent didn't claim. This is called a "strawman argument" and is the kind of behavior that can make people think you are not worth conversing with and have nothing valid to say. alteripse 12:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I rarely respond to only just one person on talk:alternative medicine. It is a waste of my time to be just talking about what alteripse wrote on talk:alternative medicine. "You people" certainly refers to the activities of many editors since about Nov 2003 on alternative medicine and on talk:alternative medicine. On other talk pages, I tend to respond to comments made by a specific person. But, on talk:alternative medicine it generally is a total zoo. -- John Gohde 21:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, the primary reason that I was addressing more editors than just alteripse in my replies is that alteripse was not personally involved in the recent edits to alternative medicine. Alteripse, IMHO, was simply trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill since alteripse was not directly involved in the editing disputes.  This fact, of course, should have been self-evident to alteripse. -- John Gohde 04:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "You people" is short for "physicans participating in Wikipedia" plus shall we say "editors who think that they are scientists," for example: RK.


 * And, of course it is not me making the assertion, but NCCAM. See and  in particular.  Yet, "you people" keep on pretending that alternative medicine is only about NCCAM's Alternative Medical Systems or Energy Therapy.  NCCAM (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/) has classified CAM therapies into five different categories, or domains. Actually, it is 7 domains, but I saw no reason to break Energy Therapy down into two separate domains. It already is too complex for "you people" to handle.


 * And, need I remind you that one of NCCAM's Manipulative Methods has become mainstream with 19 medical schools of its own? Yet, it is still considered alternative medicine and "you people" are still pretending that it is quackery even though it is just as strongly based on science as conventional medicine is.


 * And, it is "you people" who once again have brought this stupid subject up, NOT me. -- John Gohde 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abuse from John Gohde
John Gohde, previously known as Mr-Natural-Health and once banned for three months, brought a request against Snowspinner, who has been monitoring Gohde's activity for several weeks, for systematically reverting Gohde's addition of infoboxes to articles dealing with alternative medicine. The arbitrators rejected this request, but agreed to consider Snowspinner's "counterclaim" that Gohde had "returned to the behavior which got him in trouble twice before."

I suggest that you join Snowspinner, and perhaps set up a new Request for Comments in regards to John Gohde. Sadly, he is again harassing any Wikipedia user who dares disagree with him. I am saddened to see that he is harassing you, and lying about me. (BTW, I actually am a scientist, and Gohde's claim to the contrary is libel.) RK 20:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you RK for proving my point about exactly who "you people" are and for operationally defining what they are and just how "you people" act in resolving disputes. -- John Gohde 21:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "'You people' is short for 'physicans participating in Wikipedia'...."


 * This group includes me.


 * "Yet, 'you people' keep on pretending that alternative medicine is only about NCCAM's Alternative Medical Systems or Energy Therapy."


 * Have you seen this article?


 * Did you read this section: "Some physicians are willing to embrace some aspects of alternative medicine. Dr. Russell Greenfield states: "I tell them 'I'm one of you' and that we have the data - we have the studies, we're not making this up," when talking to other physicians."?


 * "It already is too complex for 'you people' to handle."


 * Gratuitous insults detract from any serious points that you make.


 * I am surprised that you [John Gohde] are so angry about this article. In my opinion, it is well-balanced. It is also extensive, detailed and well-referenced. This is why I have not edited the article. I wonder if there are any other CAM proponents who would like to comment on the article's balance? Axl 07:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless, you are an editor that has recently edited alternative medicine, your comments don't mean anything to me. RK has a long history of editing this artice. I am familiar with RK's tactics. RK finally got himself banned. It was about time. And, his tactics nolonger work on me. -- John Gohde 00:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Unless, you are an editor that has recently edited alternative medicine, your comments don't mean anything to me."


 * Other readers will realise how narrow-minded he [John Gohde] is. Axl 07:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Who the heck is Axl? Beats me. -- John Gohde 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benedetti et al. (2003) - Discussion regarding "the placebo effect"
I am not sure this is the best choice of paper to cite as evidence of the efficacy of the placebo effect.

It uses a less conventional definition of the "placebo effect". Specifically, in this paper, conventional medical treatment is given or removed without the knowledge of the patient, and their responses are compared with patients to whom treatment is given or removed with an explanation of what treatment they are undergoing and what results would be expected. Conventional placebo-controlled studies compare the reactions of patients that receive or do not receive treatment, but all believe that they are receiving appropriate treatment.

Even in the discussion of the paper, Benedetti et al. note that it "is probably wrong to call placebo effect the difference between open and hidden treatments, since no placebos are given". They also conclude that "the open-hidden approach [which is how they refer to the experimental technique that they present in this paper] might be a valid complement to the classic placebo-controlled studies".

It's certainly an interesting paper, and should be referred to in the placebo effect article, but it might be better if the citation in alternative medicine was a traditional placebo-controlled study, in my view. - MykReeve 11:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition, one paper does not, and no one paper will ever, conclude that placebo effects are 'always' beneficial, and the paper does not state this at any point. All this paper indicates is that among the sample sets, this definition of the placebo effect was generally observed to be effective.


 * I am not going to descend into an edit war on this subject with John Gohde, over his insistence on the use of the word always, and claims that its removal is "crap that tears down rather than builds up this article". He does not seem to understand that the scientific method can never conclude that something is always the case - merely that consistent results have been seen for every observation that has been made.


 * Would one occurence of the placebo effect being ineffective reduce the significance of this paper, or indeed the placebo effect? Of course not. But it does mean that the word always doesn't apply. I have had this discussion before with him, regarding the results of a different paper. - MykReeve 12:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to John Gohde's comments at that this is a minor point; this is not minor. He is asserting in the article that the placebo effect is always effective according to the findings of Benedetti et al. (2003), and has reverted my amendment of the article accordingly. Firstly, Benedetti et al. clearly do not state this in their paper. And, secondly, no scientific paper would make such a claim. Are there really no examples of the placebo effect not being observed in the case of an individual? If there is even a single one, then the word "always" does not apply. This, as stated above, does not affect the significance of either the paper's findings, or the validity of the placebo effect as a signficant phenomenon.


 * It should perhaps also be added that I do not know whether Edwardian's edit was related to this specific issue.


 * The reason that this has been elevated beyond mere discussion of a single word is that John Gohde's response has been typically aggressive, stating that I have created "crap that tears down rather than builds up this article" (edit summary: ) and accusing me of "crying", without addressing my point. Consequently, I have presented this evidence to the arbitration committee's case against him, since it shows that his behaviour has not changed during the course of the case. - MykReeve 15:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My comments were indeed directly related to this issue. If the article regarding "the placebo effect" is not important, then it should be dropped. If it is important enough to keep, then it should be accurate. In context, that one word (i.e. "always" vs. "generally") is very important for the accuracy of the information provided. --Edwardian 10:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the last few paragraphs at for my reply,  and  for background information. I correctly predicted todays events back on 11 Apr 2005. -- John Gohde 15:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This response does not address my point regarding John Gohde's insistence on the use of the word always in this article. In the link he provides, the only reference to this is his statement that "MykReeve's change to my revision ... was forced to be significantly bigger [than necessary, and] is a clear violation of WP:POINT...[,] disrupting the smooth operation of Wikipedia on an extremely minor point in a minor article over one word."


 * I am not attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, I am attempting to resolve two issues:


 * 1) To find the explanation for John Gohde's reversion of my edit (from generally back to always), for which I still await an explanation addressing my points above.
 * 2) To ensure the arbitration committee are aware of John Gohde's continued rudeness and aggressive tone in editing, to assist in their resolution of their case.


 * I trust this clarifies my recent posts to this page, and to Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde/Evidence. - MykReeve 16:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You obviously have not thought through this. The really funny thing about this whole totally unnecessary affair is that the original version was simply defining the placebo effect. To state that the use of always is incorrect is to state that you believe that in alternative medicine the placebo effect does not work. And, is tantamount to not attributing any successes in alternative medicine to the placebo effect. Do you really want to conclude that? -- John Gohde 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * John, that’s a false alternative. The alternative is not a choice between the placebo effect existing or alternative medicine being effective.  The reason most AM treatment is ineffective is because the placebo effect exists.  Regarding your most recent addition:  “While a patient is being treated, however, the patient's knowledge of treatment, otherwise known as the placebo effect, is beneficial.”  First of all, “the patient’s knowledge of treatment” is NOT the definition of “placebo effect”.  Secondly, the placebo effect MAY be beneficial to a patient receiving treatment, but not always.  It is certainly not beneficial for a patient to spend thousands of dollars on some treatment when they could have received the same results with a sugar pill costing pennies. --Edwardian 10:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current quote from Benedetti
First of all, this quote should reference the specific paper/study from where it came, preferably with a link, so that the reader can have full context for the remarks. Secondly, the quote invites the possibility of others posting lengthy rebuttal quotes. Thirdly, lengthy quotes such as these are out of place in an encyclopedia article. Finally, attempts to educate readers about the placebo effect should be made at... placebo effect. These lengthy quotes need to go. If it would help to resolve the dispute, I would accept something along these lines: "Advocates of alternative medicine believe that the placebo effect is substantially beneficial to those receiving alternative therapies." That statement is true and fits concisely into the section of why there is support for alternative medicine. John? --Edwardian 11:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advocate of AM says things can't be measured
Personally as a licensed practitioner of an "alternative medicine", Chinese Medicine in my case, I find this article to be biased and ill informed. Using Chinese Medicine as an example I would like to point out the Alternative medicine is not in conflict with Western Drug Based medicine, and it has 2,000 years of scholarly discussion to support it's theories. The fact that many things can NOT be measured by blinded studies, and placebo controlled experiments does not negate their existence. Example - LOVE. I have yet to hear about a compassion meter, but no serious healer would deny the importance of compassion to the process of healing. --Jeffrey Goodman 03:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You must be a humor writer, attempting to show why certain alternative medicine advocates are silly. It would be dangerously irresponsible to explicitly deny the proven use of the scientific method, and instead use wishful thinking about "LOVE" and other non-testable and non-measurable phenomenon to "heal" one's patients. This "technique" always leads to people becoming sicker, or even dying, and that is no joke. RK


 * Chinese traditional medicine does not have 2,000 years of critical scholarly discussion. That kind of extremist claim is akin to the claim made by religious fundamentalists that the Bible, Quran or other scripture is useful for predicting modern scientific and medical discoveries.  Sure, I understand why some people get so wrapped up in their cultural or religious worldviews, and worship the "ultimate widsom" of their ancient, wiser ancestors.  They imagine that everything of worth that can be discovered is already in their culture's ancient texts - even thought those ancient writers themselves made no such claim.  This tendency is not uncommon, and can be found among Jews, Muslims, Christians, adherents of traditional Chinese belief systems, etc.  But understanding this common psychological tendency doesn't make the error any less dangerous.  Relying on the religious-cultural teachings of the ancient Chinese, or of the ancient whomevers, to treat actual diseases can make people sick, prevent them from getting proper medical care, and has in fact led to death.  This is well documented.  RK


 * Writing attacks against studying whether or not a therapy actually works (i.e. controlled studies) shows that one acutally is not interested in helping a patient. If that was the goal, then why would certain alternative health advocates be so terrified of a fair and open test of their proposed treatments?  Their attacks on testing their treatments betrays their real agenda: They want to feel like they possess some "ultimate truth", and see everyone else as the heretic who must be defeated.  This isn't medicine, nor is it alternative medicine.  It is simply a different form of religious fundamentalism, one that causes medical damage - and in extreme cases, even death.  RK 13:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

2 things - I did not say things cannot be measured -I said things which can be measured by "scientific" means are not the only things which are real. Second Chinese medicine does have a longer larger body of scholarly discussion than those who are involved in this "psuedo scientific medical" ranting seem to be knowledgeable about. I detect there is some fundamentalism here and I have no reason to fight with people whose minds are clearly set to see things in such good vs evil ways. I am not interested in struggles with persons who would characterise me as a "humor writer' etc. So I think I check in on this article in a year or so to see if there is something I can contribute. Jeffrey Goodman


 * When it comes to treating a disease, we must deal with things that can be measured by scientific means. Anything in the physical universe in which we live is measurable by physical means. Anything else is supernatural or a religious miracle.  It confuses the issue to talk about measuring "love" or anything like that.  While I know that love is "real" (I am in love with someone) I also know that this love is actually a neural and hormonal state within my brain.  It is not some extra "force" or "power", as many New-Agers imagine, that can be used to treat or heal disease.  Of course - as mainstream medical science acknowledges - the love that one gives and receives may significantly affect one's mental state.  As mainstream science acknowledges, one's mental state can have a real effect on one's body.  The fascinating science of the mind-body connection has been a slowly growing part of conventional science for a generation now, and the pace of research on this useful topic is only increasing.  In this sense much of which was once considered alternative has now become mainstream. RK


 * Love is easily measured. as is compassion. Discussion is nice, such as the many discussions about why the earth *might* be flat.. but... Why discuss the known as if it was somehow a mystery? Since the many years of past quackery are now over, we can (and should, IMHO) move onto current quackery, rather than discussing past mythos as if it had modern substantiation, basis in fact, or substantiaton in reality.Ronabop 10:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Placebo Effect
This is the original version:


 * Any positive effects on patients, even if only based on placebo effects, still provides benefits to overall patient health that traditional medicine may not have provided.

Which I changed to the following in April 2004.
 * The placebo effect is a problem only when conducting research. When it comes to actually treating patients the placebo effect always benefits the patient (Benedetti et al. 2003).  Alternative medicine always tries to capitalize on the positive effect of the placebo effect while conventional medicine tends to see the placebo effect always as a problem.

So, it seems to me that the problem is the editing process in Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 14:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is today's version:


 * When a patient benefits from alternative medical treatment, the benefit can be accounted for by a number of different factors: the placebo effect, the treatment itself, or from a combination of both. Hence, the placebo effect is really only a problem when conducting research, because when a patient benefits from it, it is obviously a positive factor that aids a patient's recovery. Furthermore, the "close interaction of the health care provider with his or her patient is likely to enhance the perception of the treatment that is being performed."(Benedetti et al. 2003).  Alternative medicine strives to capitalize on this effect, while medical doctors generally consider the placebo effect only to be a negative factor that should be minimized during treatment.


 * This will need to be changed. The following reasons come to mind:  1) The assertion that "the treatment itself" may benefit the recipient of an alternative treatment is a matter of opinion.  2)The assertion that "the placebo effect is really only a problem when conducting research" is a matter of opinion.  The placebo effect is a conclusion reached by research, not a problem to research.  3)The assertion that the placebo effect is "obviously a positive factor that aids a patient's recovery" is a matter of opinion.  This is simply not an absolute in every context.  4)The Benedetti quote is provided without specific context or reference to mislead the reader.  5)The assertion that "medical doctors generally consider the placebo effect only to be a negative factor that should be minimized during treatment" is false.  Medical doctors often use the placebo effect to their advantage when and where applicable. --Edwardian 16:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go waste somebody else's time. Your purpose here appears to be simply argumentative. -- John Gohde 18:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I just want a NPOV. --Edwardian 20:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, I have better things to do with my time. As stated on my user page all my future edits on wellness and alternative medicine will be made on my own fork edition of Wikipedia. Accordingly, 3 separate pages were updated with the above change which I wrote.

Furthermore, there has been more activity on alternative medicine and talk since April 19th than before April 19th. Just thought that you might want to know.

Editing anything on Wikipedia for me, would be a total waste of my time. Unlike RK, I happen to have an alternative. It is called the Dictionary of Alternative Medicine. Bye!

Gee, I did not even bother to revert the recent changes once! Could it be a total waste of time? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! -- John Gohde 00:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Efficacy
Can someone confirm the following assertion?
 * "[A] PubMed search revealed over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published in Medline-recognized journals since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database..."

I couldn't find where PubMed actually classified studies, but a search of "alternative medicine" found 2369 items. Thanks! Edwardian 07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, and what should this article really be about?
This article is a joke and needs to be completely rewritten. For starters: --Leifern 15:40, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
 * It uses as its assumptions that:
 * "physicians" are synonymous with medical doctors and surgeons. In fact, practitioners of "alternative" medicine also consider themselves physicians
 * there is more legitimacy to one than the other; this is in violation of basic precepts of modern medicine and science, which acknowledge that the state of the art is still very primitive.
 * All conventional medicine comes from peer-reviewed, golden standard studies. That's not accurate - much if not most of medical care comes from clinical experience, which may or may not find confirmation through studies.  Further, there is lots of experimental medicine within conventional medicine that requires further study
 * That it's a shortcoming of "alternative" medicine that there is a shortage of studies. The truth is that funding is much more difficult to obtain for such treatments because of the economics of the health industry.
 * Terminology is bias or perjorative in favor of "conventional" medicine
 * The claims of supporters of "alternative" medicine are overblown.


 * Changing physician to medical doctor? I have better things to do with my time. I believe that User:Larry Sanger published an article on this type of editing at the end of last year. I am going to take a walk in the sunshine. Then I am going to do 45 minutes on a $6,000 Ellipical fullbody trainer.-- John Gohde 18:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leifern writes "All conventional medicine comes from peer-reviewed, golden standard studies. That's not accurate - much if not most of medical care comes from clinical experience, which may or may not find confirmation through studies.  Further, there is lots of experimental medicine within conventional medicine that requires further study."


 * But isn't this further study precisely what differentiates conventional medicine from alternative medicine. Physicians, scientists and medical doctors actually do studies of new therapies and drugs. It takes time and money to set up peer-reviewed studies, especially if you want a large, double-blind peer-review, but the point is that the setting up and carrying out of such studies is the defining line between alternative medicine and conventional medicine. In fact, alternative medicine by definition is the set of techniques which are practiced by people who cannot offer any controlled, peer-reviewed studies, and usually refuse to do so.  On those rare occasions when someone says that their alternative medical technique has been studied by a number of groups in controlled experiments, then at this point the technique ceases to be alternative. RK


 * The problem is that most adherents of alternative medicine sadly see themselves at war with science and medicine. The converse, however, is not true. Scientists and doctors don't really care at all whether a technique is labelled "alternative" or not. They only care about "Is this real, or just a placebo effect."  As such, medical doctors and scientists constantly test techniques that you may be thinking of as "alternative".  For instance, the medical properties of the Pacific Yew tree were confirmed by the discovery of the anti-cancer drug Taxol, and it was mainstream science in peer-reviewed journals that showed the effectiveness of biofeedback in a number of situations.  Hundreds of drugs now used by mainstream doctors were at one time "alternative" remedies.  I am not aware of any bias that mainstream science has towards testing claims put forth by adherents of alternative medicine. The only bias I am aware of is that adherents of alternative medicine demand that we accept their claims without proof. I believe that the article describes this accurately and in accord with NPOV policy. RK 01:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not as if "adherents to alternative medicine" reject double-blind studies, either. But as anyone who has been close to clinical studies will confirm, they are very difficult to design and execute; and even when they're done well, the results are constantly questioned.  On top of that, most trials only measure long-term effects.  Long-term effects, causality of adverse events, etc., all contribute to a great deal of uncertainty about "conventional medicine."  I am not sure if there is a single definition of "conventional" and "alternative" medicine, unless you're dealing with extreme examples on both ends.  In the meantime, this article should be recognizable to people on both sides of the debate, as it were.  --Leifern 01:49, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Ok, here is some disagreement, but then agreement: Unfortunately, most adherents of alternative medicine do reject double blind studies. That is precisely why their methods are "alternative". Think of all the crystal healing claims, crystal power claims, pyramid power claims, iridology, rhinocerous horn elixirs, and "energy-charged" water therapies. None of the people promoting these therapies have anything to do with any form of blind studies or scientific peer review. In fact, they often rage against science in general.

On the other hand, in what way are you defining "alternative"? It seems to me that the subject you are writing about is very different from the content of most alternative medicine articles on Wikipedia. You seem to be writing more on proto-medicine, on new techniques that have not yet been fully evaluted by multiple double-blind studies. Well, you would be correct. There are a lot of medical techniques out there that are not pseudoscience, but are also not yet proven or disproven. It takes many people many years to fully test new therapies, especially when effects are subtle, or take years to realize. Some within conventional medicine are too quick to dismiss new thinking. (They are correct not to blindly accept new claims; scientific skepticism is healthy. But some move from scientific skepticism to cynicism, which is not scientific.)

Leifern's comments bring me to a problem that I have had with this specific article for some time. There is no such technique as "alternative medicine". Similarly, there is no such technique as "conventional medicine". It makes little sense to have an article arguing data for or against "alternative medicine", as a whole, in the same way it makes little sense to have an article arguing data for or against "conventional medicine". When we go to a hospital to treat asthma, does the doctor order "One unit of medicine for the patient!" Nope. The doctor orders a specific drug, to be given in a specific fashion. Well, one can have an article analyzing evidence for and against any one given approach. The same is true for the very wide set of therapies and treatments that are considered "alternative".

Thus, maybe this article should remove all sections on data for or against alternative medicine. We can have a list of links to alternative medicine topics, each of which can be evaluted individually within their own article. This article could concentrate on defining the term: Who uses this term, and how do they use it? Thoughts? RK 02:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that is an excellent idea! How do we put it to a vote?


 * The validity of any particular therapy, whether "alternative" or "conventional", should stand or fall by its own merits... not by generalized support or criticism for the broader category. In and of themselves, "alternative" and "conventional" medicine have no merits.  Although it may be possible to briefly state generalized support and criticism of the broader categories (e.g. "Critics of alternative medicine generally cite issues of safety and efficacy among the various therapies."), the current state of this article is a mess because it keeps getting expanded by details that have more relevance to articles about the individual therapies. Edwardian 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Edwardian, the good news is that we do not need to put this proposal to a vote. We aren't changing the topic of the article. We would only be removing information that is not really relevant to this specific article. Instead, we would direct people to articles where such specific information would better be incorporated. Generally when we do change the content of an article like this it is best to discuss it on the Talk pages first.  Since in the past week no one has had any problem with it, we can start making such changes right away. RK 18:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's do it! I do think we will still need to include a brief statement of why some turn to alternative therapies and why others reject them, but much of this can go. I think we should start by weeding out the information in the Criticism section so that those in favor of alternative medical therapies can see we are cleaning our own house first. Should we archive this and discuss what's next?  Edwardian 19:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that any particular therapy can be evaluated on its individual merits. Beyond that, however, there are definite differences in overall approach between what's loosely called "alternative" and what's loosely called "conventional" or "orthodox".  We can usefully explain those differences, and the arguments for and against each general approach.  This article shouldn't try to get into the pros and cons of particular therapies.  By and large, though, it doesn't.  It's useful to mention in passing that the scientific establishment rejects some alternative therapies, like homeopathy, as a violation of the laws of physics.  That point is elaborated in the Homeopathy article, along with homeopaths' responses to the argument.  For this article, the passing mention of the issue is useful as an illustration of this type of dispute.  In sum, I think the article as it now stands handles these issues fairly well. JamesMLane 03:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)