Talk:Complementary medicine

Merge 1
I see absolutely no need to merge this article. Under the umbrella article complementary and alternative medicine, both alternative medicine and the complementary medicine article cover different topic areas.

It is simply a matter of expanding this article to the point where it is no longer a stub. And all that takes is a little bit of writing skill. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Subscript text
 * In all three articles, but especially this one there was next to no discussion. The above is the only discussion that took place on the first merge proposal on this article. No discussion means no banners.


 * Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine is where a consensus was reached on developing the CAM article from the perspective of an umbrella term. There was absolutely no opposition. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge 2
The merge banner was both posted and removed by Jack-A-Roe. There was absolutely no discussion of it on this talk page. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reaching A Consensus at Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Reaching a consensus on the merge proposals after a long period of advertising the proposals which resulted in little or no discussion from whoever made the proposals and placed the respective banners on the respective articles. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Separation of 'complementary and alternative medicine' article from 'alternative medicine' article
Copied from Talk Archive #1 at complementary and alternative medicine. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seperated these two articles as the 'CAM' article should (obviously!!!) be the parent article of both 'complementary medicine' and 'alternative medicine' articles. After doing this, I have removed all direct reference to CM in the AM article, and vice versa.

There is now room for the CAM article to be general, and the other two to be more specific, and it gives us scope to clearly define between AM and CM. The literature is out there for us to acheive this, but it will take time to accumulate this.Davwillev 20:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be three disctinct concepts here which I believe each deserve their own articles: 1. Alternative Medicine (Medicine outside of the Conventional Medicine) 2. Complimentary Medicine (Medicine not quite conventional done in conjunction with Conventional Medicine) 3. Complementary and alternative medicine (A popular umbrella term).


 * I like the umbrella concept! Both alternative medicine and complementary medicine exists as separate concepts. Whereas, this complementary and alternative medicine article could take the umbrella prospective.  That way the issue can be resolved once and for all. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My thought is that the first two are the main articles; whereas the umbrella term should discuss the notable use and application of the term in the world. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)---*

Topics of the respective articles

 * Complementary and alternative medicine -- An extensive set of definitions, contemporary usage of CAM, as well as the branches of CAM per the NCCAM classification system.
 * It is a top-level, umbrella, or parent article. Top-level articles always present a broad overview of the topic without getting bogged down in details that are covered in the sub-topic articles per the rules of good hypertext document design.
 * Article cleanup and development for any specific branch of CAM belongs on the respective articles.
 * Criticism, Effectiveness, etc should be mention if at all by referring to the respective sub-section of the respective articles that covers those sub-topics. Skeptics really need to bone up on how to write a well designed hypertext document.
 * Alternative medicine -- The pro or con debate or everything negative about practices used in place of conventional medical treatments. The practice of alternative medicine is illegal in many jurisdictions.
 * When not inappropriately used as slang, it is a low-level or sub-topic article. World class encyclopedias like Wikipedia always should stress the correct definitions of terms over their slang usage.
 * The professional practice of alternative medicine by non-physicians consists mostly of Alternative Medical Systems. These are the schools of health care that are currently competing with medicine, as a replacement.
 * Complementary medicine -- Everything positive and negative about practices that are are used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine. There is no debate taking place on this article, since by definition complementary medicine is both legal and a recognized branch of medicine per the medical boards of the respective jurisdictions of where it is legally practiced. -- John Gohde (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Complaints
I see a reason to merge the articles. This article completley avoids saying what complementary medicine is. The article is also rather incoherent. "What is viewed as being alternative changes over time. Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at OxfordDefines, stated: "If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine." Dawkins clearly states the need for techniques to be supported by adequate evidence so am I to understand that all forms of complementary medicine are supported by double blind trials? In that case, what does this mean; As its name suggests, complementary medicine differs from alternative medicine in that it does not offer a competing (or 'alternative') viewpoint to that based on science-based knowledge. This statement suggests that complementary medicine is does not contradict science based knowledge but it also implies complementary medicine is not science based knowledge either, as does this stament "in addition to the conventional therapies" (as conventional therapies is generally taken to mean evidence based medicine). The template also lists homeopathy in the article list. The homeopathy article states "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible". If homeopathy is complementary medicine as the template suggests, then complementary medicine DOES contradict current scientific knowledge.

Also I'm removing the Dawkins quote because the staement he made has been applied to a context where it is simply not applicable and I am sure he wouldn't appreciate the use of his statement in this way. The presence of that quote in this article gives the implication that Dawkins thinks complementary medicine is evidence based. However, I somehow doubt that Dawkins, with his scientific background believes that homeopathy is not in contradiction to scientific principles and is based in evidence. Nor, did he use the word complementary in that sentence. He would just called it medicine, not complementary medicine.

I believe that complementary and alternative medicine mean the same thing and this article has failed to differentiate between the two. Not there are three categories that must be distinguished; conventional medicine, alternative medicine and complementary medicine. All this article is done is establish that alternative and conventional medicine are different. Can someone please just give me one example of a form of medicine that would be considered complementary but not alternative.JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed section reasoning
I placed the tag there for several reasons. Firstly I disagree with this statment on two grounds "As physicians are using complementary medicine in their daily medical practice, calling what they do as being alternative and outside of medicine is simply no longer correct". There is a push towards evidence-based medicine in medical practice. Giving a treatment that is not evidence based when there are evidence supported treatments available puts doctors at professional and, in some places legal, risk. It does not turn a treatment from being alternative to being conventional/complementary. Only evidence can do that. Secondly are more doctors doing it? There is no reference for this.

Then there is another issue which is somewhat related to the disputed title, "The new practice of complementary medicine shields physicians from disciplinary action in many different jurisdictions for unprofessional conduct or failure to practice medicine in an acceptable manner as long as board specific practice requirements are satisfied and the therapies utilized do not present "a safety risk for the patient that is unreasonably greater that the conventional treatment for the patient's medical condition." This is a Texas view. This is not a worldwide view and probably not even a USA wide view. Also the article forgot to cite this "the practice rules for integrative and complementary medicine does not protect physicians against liability for knowingly misrepresenting their experience with alternative therapies or promising particular results." so basically physicians can give a treatment but they have to point out there is no evidence that it works. This "Whether conventional treatment options were discussed." also suggests doctors should be offering patients conventional treatments first. It should also be considered that this is a legal reference and does not represent the opinion of any medical body. Then there is the issue that all of this has little relevance to the title and cannot support the claim that "Calling it "alternative" is no longer correct". The final nail in the coffin is the fact that article itself does not support the distinction between complementary and alterantive medicine making statements such as "Many alternative medicine therapies are considered holistic..."

In short I think the section should be removed and the article should be merged with alternative medicine JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I totally disagree. And, I will probably address all points that are addressable before today is over. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I inserted a reliable source and the information from that source, altered the title. The section still supports the opinion that the term "complementary" is more correct, but in a different way (patient use as opposed to doctor prescription). Since I agree with most of my own edits I removed the tag. If anyone disputes my changes and wants to reinsert the tag they may do soJamesStewart7 (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressable Points Raised
It is not my responsibility to translated your rather rambling thoughts into a list of coherent points. But, here is what I have gotten out of your comments.
 * 1) article completely avoids saying what complementary medicine is
 * 2) * Article now says it ten different ways.
 * 3) template issues
 * 4) * Created a top level template for this series of template to avoid this type of confusion in the future.
 * 5) * Put the new template into this article.
 * 6) complementary and alternative medicine mean the same thing and this article has failed to differentiate between the two
 * 7) * The two terms when not used as slang mean quite different things. The article now comments on the differences as well as provides links to articles on the other topics.
 * 8) three categories that must be distinguished; conventional medicine, alternative medicine and complementary medicine
 * 9) * Added See other reference at the very top of the page.
 * 10) * Article provides links to these topics from within the article.
 * 11) example of a form of medicine that would be considered complementary but not alternative
 * 12) * Several examples are provided in the Definition section.
 * 13) Calling it "alternative" is no longer correct SECTION
 * 14) Giving a treatment that is not evidence based...
 * 15) more doctors doing it reference
 * 16) does not protect physicians citation
 * 17) not a worldwide view
 * 18) * Articles provides definitions from the USA, United Kingdom and New Zealand.

-- John Gohde (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I did not lay out my issues with the article clearly enough previous. What you wrote pretty much details all of my concerns. Many of my compliants outside of the "Calling it alternative is no longer correct" section have been addressed. However, there are some problems. Although definitions of complementary medicine from multiple countries have been provided, the article still only provides the Texas legal view. Furthermore the article basically assumes that Texas law may be appllied to the world stating, "The new practice of complementary medicine shields physicians from disciplinary action in many different jurisdictions..." Laws from several different places will have to be cited to support this claim. The lag of laws from different areas was what I was referring to when I said that the article lacks a worldwide view

In regards to the rest of this section I think it may be better to drop any talk about how often physicians perscribe altogether. I can find a reliable source that states that patients often use forms of alternative medicine alongside evidence based medicine, making it complementary.


 * See the second paragraph of this reference.  The more accurate term is comoplementary medicine.  Right off the bat, that reliable source is obviously using "alternative medicine" as slang. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think that it is often the patients that push for alternative treatments, not the doctors, so discussing what the patients choose as opposed to what the doctors give may be more accurate.

Some of the recent changes are somewhat POV eg "An alternative interpretation, however, is that it complements more of the needs of the patient, rather than those of biomedicine". Somehow I think doctors will take isssue with this statement. The statement also fails to clearly state whose alternative interpretation this is (although this may be deduced from the reference). In any case doctors practicing conventional medicine clearly think they are addressing their needs. Many skeptics would also argue that complementary medicine doesn't help anything at all and thus cannot complement any needs.JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, see the second paragraph of this webpage. I was attempting to paraphrase the second paragraph of this source. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at my source which I am adding to the article, I have decided to remove all cliams that doctors routinely perscribe complementary medicine. Most patients don't even tell their doctors they are using alternative medicine. See the article, and the referenced source for details.JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not finished editing. But, I am burnout on editing and will resume fixing the noted problems tomorrow. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am back again. My first impression is that what you did was to make an addition rather than a replacement.  Wont know for sure, until I fix today the problems on the disputed section of this article. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I am sure that enough information exists on the Web to adequately support this section; it is simply taking way to long to locate it. The bigger picture is maintaining a well developed article on complementary medicine rather than keeping every word or section written by me on it. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this Direct Quote Outside the Scope of Complementary Medicine
I think this statement, "Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is one such practice that has shown therapeutic benefits for patients with a wide range of medical illnesses, including cancer. ... The practice of MBSR has been found to improve patients' coping with prostate cancer55 and to decrease stress and mood disturbances in a group of patients with mixed types of cancer." should be removed as I believe that it falls outside the scope of the article. It would be completely impractical to discuss the efficacy of every complementary treatment in this article so I think we should either pick out a general statement such as this "There is little scientific research on 					 the safety and effectiveness of some complementary 					 therapies" from this source: http://www.webmd.com/balance/should-i-use-complementary-medicine#tx1097-Intro (I am picking this out because it was easy to find. NCCAM may be a better source) or not discuss efficacy at all.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are clearly conducting original resource which is prohibited.


 * It is a direct quote of a published research study. The only question is rather it exists or not.  And, it does.


 * You clearly improperly reverted the article upon the basis of comments placed under a misleading section title. -- John Gohde (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See comments from above. Obviously, article development for the respective branches of complementary medicine articles belongs on their respective articles rather than on this article. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This does not seem obvious to me. How does one decide if a particular branch is "complementary" or "alternative"?  I know one doctor who says that Omega-3 should be taken by everyone for heart health.  I know another doctor who says there is no significant evidence that Omega-3 helps at all - he says it's not dangerous but that there's no reason for anyone to use it.  Without debating Omega-3, that is an example of one therapy that seems to be in the twilight zone between complementary and alternative.  To split the articles, we would need to search out reliable sources for every one of the modalities to figure out which article to put it in, and proponents or detractors of each kind would be moving them back and forth constantly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of the mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) techiques was provided in the article, as well as in the full text of that particular research study. It is also rather self-explanatory.  Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) techniques makes the patients feel better and more comfortable.  Nobody is claiming that they cure cancer, for example.  Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) simply helps patients cope better with chemo and radiation therapy. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're totally missing the point with MBSR. Neither I or Jack-A-Roe or Fyslee have stated that MBSR has stated that MBSR is or is not effective. In fact we have suggested that we do not want to discuss whether it is effected or not because it falls outside teh scope of the article. Why should the article go into detail about the effectiveness of MBSR but not osteopathy, or accupuncture or hypnotherapy or aromatherapy or any of the other treatments mentioned on the page. Why don't you start a mindfulness based stress reduction page and link to it or link to the mindfulness based cognitive therapy page instead? JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points. While some specific therapies can be named as examples, going into detail is simply getting off-topic. They can just be wikilinked and all the details can then be found in their own articles. -- Fyslee / talk 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A very bad point. This research study specifically states "has shown therapeutic benefits for patients with a wide range of medical illnesses" -- John Gohde (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually no one is disputing the study, only the placing of such a statement in this article where it doesn't belong. The place to use that statement is in the article about that therapy. We can't go into detail about specific therapies here. We wikilink them and that's usually enough. -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this; there are too many modalities to include all the details in the main article, it needs to be an overview. There do need to be references in the main article to provide examples of studies about effectiveness of some of the methods, for perspective on the overall efficacy of alternative medicine, but not every detail about every type.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article: To merge or not to merge
Also on the topic of scope, the content of this page seems to be veering more and more towards the content of complementary and alternative medicine and that of alternative medicine. For example "Complementary medicine is often used alongside conventional treatments" is discussed in a bit of depth here but similar comments appear on complementary and alternative medicine, "The majority of individuals (54.9%) used CAM in conjunction with conventional medicine." The examples of types of complementary medicine are also more or less identical to that of alternative medicine. The only differentiating factor seems to be whether the patient also seeks conventional treatment. I can't see how we can stretch out that one difference to a whole article without a lot of redundancy. It seems to me that it would make more sense to just add a "Types of use" section to the CAM page and copy over relevant information from this article. In any case I think the community needs to reach some sort of consensus about what this article should discuss and how it will differ from other pages. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The splitting of the properly merged alternative medicine article into its formerly separate (three) articles has created more problems than it's worth. We are discussing the same therapies. The differences are only in the setting, and that can be explained and defined in relatively short sections within one article. We encountered these problems before and finally solved all these problems by merging the articles and things were going just fine until someone got the idea that their master plan should be forced on Wikipedia. Now we have lots of needless repetition and confusion. It's much easier to keep things straight when we have it all on the same page. -- Fyslee / talk 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that the articles would be better if merged. Within the article on Alternative medicine, a section on CAM can easily address the legal/regulatory aspects of that term.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the sad things about this is that many good sources are lost because of them being inadvertently placed in the "wrong" article, getting deleted, and never seen again. If it was all done in the same article, we would have a wonderful powerhouse of collected information, without duplication or loss. I find this waste of time and loss of information very disturbing and tragic. This subject deserves extremely thorough coverage and we aren't getting it. -- Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A few weeks ago, I placed merge tags on the three articles and posted an RfC suggesting a merge. There was little response other than one editor who strongly disagreeed and posted a lot of information on the talk page, inter-threading and confusing the proposal.  For lack of interest by others, and lack of desire by me to get into that kind of argument, I removed the RfC and tags after a week or so.  The RfC talk page section has been archived and is at this link.    Since I've already done that work once, I'm not motivated to set it up again.


 * But if anyone wants to merge the three pages, I support the idea. My initial proposal was to merge all three articles into CAM, but merging into Alternative medicine would be equally OK with me; the others can be redirected either way.  I prefer keeping all in one place to avoid the confusion and duplicated effort, as you noted.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so it seems to me that Fyslee and Jack-A-Roe and I support a merger proposition but John Gohde opposes it. However, John Gohde states in this link that "For your information, a consensus has already been reached. It was to keep all three articles separate". If John Gohde can provide evidence of this consensus (by linking to the relevant discussion page) and this consensus was recent I will not bother making another merger proposal. As WP:Consensus states though, consensus can change so I will consider this reproposing if this consensus was from long ago. It is unfortunate that the last merger proposal fell inactive (I was not aware of it at the time). As people have voiced support for it it seems like a worthy proposition and I am yet to see any user other than John Gohde oppose it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See the talk archive for complementary and alternative medicine. There were two recent attempts to merge. The result of the first recent merge attempt was to go with the umbrella concept of a CAM article. The last one was done by Jack-A-Roe. I don't trust the editing of anybody who constantly flips flops their position.

Why don't we merge all the medicine related articles into just one article on medicine? I find them all horribly redundant.

We have 3 separate articles because they cover three separate topics, when their correct definitions are used.

I am all for removing duplication between the 3 articles. Unfortunately, some editors insist upon trying to duplicate everything everywhere. I Especially do not trust the editing of anybody who cannot tell the difference between the three topics.

There are rules to be followed when merging an article. And, you definitely are not following them.

I think you guys should start by removing all the duplciation put into the complementary and alternative medicine. Please stop trying to duplicate the alternative medicine article. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The last one was done by Jack-A-Roe. I don't trust the editing of anybody who constantly flips flops their position. "  First, your comment is uncivil, and second it's wrong.  I have not changed my position, I've supported the merge all along.


 * "Why don't we merge all the medicine related articles into just one article on medicine?  I find them all horribly redundant." - Please review  Sarcasm is really helpful.


 * "There are rules to be followed when merging an article. And, you definitely are not following them."  What rules are those?  We are discussing and seeking consensus.  So far, the only person who has objected to the merge is you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I love that Sarcasm essay. A similar one that John should read is this one - Rouge admin. These people are truly his enemies. These admins are the ones who are truly "mentally ill", to quote John (can you hear, see, or feel my sarcasm?...;-) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We have 3 separate articles that are about the same topic - alternative medicine. The only difference is in describing what setting in which the same methods are used. That doesn't require three articles. In fact the terms CAM (Complementary and alternative medicine) is often used interchangeably with alternative medicine, which can make it confusing if one attempts to stick to one definition that describes any difference. By explaining that in one section of one article, we can then move on to use both terms in the same article, and we'll know that we are referring to the same methods, regardless of the setting in which they are used.


 * The claim that the term "CAM" is more popular than the term "alternative medicine", well, where's the proof? Some simple Google searches can solve that matter:


 * "alternative medicine" - 21,700,000 hits
 * "alternative medicine" + "Complementary and alternative medicine" - 1,770,000 hits
 * "Complementary and alternative medicine" - 1,060,000 hits
 * CAM + medicine - 873,000 hits
 * Complementary + "alternative medicine" - 559,000 HITS
 * "alternative medicine" + CAM - 359,000 hits


 * What is evident from reading the IOW report and reading the writings of Gohde and other CAM advocates, is that they wish it were more popular, and they are trying to get people to change terminology. They don't want to be perceived as alternative or fringe. It's a form of political correctness, and we know what that is all about - it's a means of sweeping an uncomfortable truth under the carpet.


 * As far as "not following" the rules for merging, no one is really merging yet, so no rules are being broken. If you see any rules being broken, just specify them and provide the wikilinks to them, then we can fix it.


 * As far as consensus goes, there never really was a true consensus, only a very heavy handed pushing through of an upheaval of the previous merge which solved alot of problems. That was basically against consensus but somehow was allowed to happen. I stopped getting involved in the discussion beause of the strong statements of ownership, threats, and personal attacks. It's easy to claim a consensus when one scares other editors away. The current situation isn't working and won't work, so a return to the merged article can solve the problems just as it did before. The only way three articles can avoid repetition is by them being owned and controlled by one person, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. Since many different editors will come and go, and either cannot read John's mind, or do not agree with him, they will inevitably end up duplicating efforts in all three articles. We can avoid that by ignoring and defeating his ownership and control, and by keeping things in one place so duplication will immediately become evident to all parties. Consensus does change, and since John's attempt hasn't worked, but only led to confusion, it's time to return to a workable solution. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't trust the editing of anybody who constantly flips flops their position" - who has actually changed their position. Looking at the talk page from the last merger proposal it seems like Jack-A-Roe just backed down after you took a rather strong stance against the merger. No one else commented in that discussion. Hardly a flip-flop.

I looked up the complementary and alternative medicine archive. Here are relevant quotes:
 * 1) "There should NOT be a redirect from the 'CAM' article to the 'alternative medicine' article as they are not the same. There needs to be scope to describe the difference between complementary medicine and alternative medicine, and this redirect will supress this. If there was an earlier consensus (which I do not see), then it was done by very few" Davwillev. From what I can see he never explained the reason behind his position.
 * 2) My thought is that the first two are the main articles; whereas the umbrella term should discuss the notable use and application of the term in the world. -- Levine2112. Interesting thought but currently it seems like CAM is the main article and complementary and alternative medicine say similar things.
 * 3) Integrative, Alternative and Complementary Medicine all basically come under the same heading of Alternative medicine. Why not just improve the alternative medicine article?--Mr-Natural-Health 13:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I have obviously changed my position. Plus, quoting quotes from 2003 to determine is a consensus was recently reached is absurd. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Agreed. This article is the same topic as the alternative health article. The two should be merged. RK 15:22, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Waiting for 68.167.248.20 to do the merging as I have better things to do with my time. :)--Mr-Natural-Health 10:16, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * 3) But..... alternative medicine is a term to distinguish traditional medicines and other systems, old or new, based on intuitive, or spiritual, or proto-scientific bases. Complementary medicine is mainstream allopathic medicine that allows for some alternative medicines, as long as they don't seem obviously counter-indicated, to be used side-by-side with allopathic medicine. And integrative medicine is medicine that looks at both allopathy and various alternative approaches with a critical eye and uses one or many approaches, but as a unified approach. There are differences between these things, and it looks like the WP articles and the way they redirect don't really reveal this subtelety (as well as giving air to scientistic complaints about these topics in a manner out of proportion with actual professional opinion, IMHO, btw....) Friarslantern 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading this, I really don't believe a consensus was ever reached. A lot of people seem to be making different and perhaps contradictory distinctions between complementary and alterantive medicine. Furthermore NCCAM seems to group the terms together. I think anyone opposing the merger really needs to show a RS that demonstrates how complementary and alternative medicine. Also these differences really need to stem beyond the setting ie if it is the same types of medicine eg homeopathy, acupuncture in both, we should just cover it in one article and make a "Types of use section" or something. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors brought up the proposal to merge twice in recent times. Both times they totally failed to participate in any discussions. Furthermore, there were no reverts. Nor opposition of any kind, until now. -- John Gohde (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with James that there was not a clear consensus. The degree of overlap between the three topics is extreme.  How would one determine whether a particular therapy is "complementary" or "alternative"?  Would we continually monitor the NIH CAM page and when they approve something, move it from alternative to complementary?  But they are just one source.  What if some doctors start using a treatment that has not been completely proven, how many doctors have to use it before it changes from "alternative" to "complementary"?  If the articles attempt that differentiation, there will be a constant churn of topics from article to article.


 * Why was there minimal response to the merge discussion last time? Could be, it was right before the holidays and people were busy.  Whatever the reason, that was then and this is now.  The current situation is that three editors have stated the merge is a better method, and one editor has stated he prefers the three separate articles.  Our choices at this point are to either proceed with the merge, or to open the floor for discussion with comments from the wider community. That could be done through adding merge tags, posting and the related Wikiprojects or another WP:RFC.  I don't have time to organize either of those methods, but if someone else wants to do them, I support the merging of the three articles, for many reasons.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Complementary medicine -- Everything positive and negative about practices that are are used in conjunction and cooperation with conventional medicine. There is no debate taking place on this article, since by definition complementary medicine is both legal and a recognized branch of medicine per the medical boards of the respective jurisdictions of where it is legally practiced.


 * In other words, complementary medicine simply talks about what can be said of it that does not apply to alternative medicine. This is what the article is attempting to do.  Its strong point is clearly in the field of palatine care.  The article brings out a number of topics that apply only to complementary medicine.  Complementary medicine is mostly about mind-body interventions which in turn are mostly about making patients feel more comfortable.


 * Whereas, alternative medicine clearly applies to NCAMM's alternative medical systems classification which are in outright replacement competition with conventional medicine. In short, there are some rather major differences between the two articles.


 * The merge banners were removed on 09:05, 29 November 2007 and 15:57, 16 December 2007. Neither of those dates were holiday intensive. -- John Gohde (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The pallative care section mentions a whole list of techniques that are mentioned in the alternative medicine articles "Complementary medicine treatments used for pain include: acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, meditation, aroma therapy, Chinese medicine, dance therapy, music therapy, massage, herbalism, therapeutic touch, yoga, osteopathy, chiropractic treatments, naturopathy, and homeopathy." Also, I want a RS for this "since by definition complementary medicine is both legal and a recognized branch of medicine per the medical boards of the respective jurisdictions of where it is legally practiced". The one legal article that is referenced uses the term CAM on several occasions and even makes use of the word alternative to support its arguments "In 1990, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that astounded physicians and consumers alike by reporting that 33% of the U.S. population used at least one form of alternative medicine.". Also the opinions of this article only seem to represent those of the writer, Walter G. Mosher, and not those of any major organisation or legal body. Furthermore complementary is often simply defined as not conventional "Likewise, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners refers to the same practices as "integrative and complementary medicine" and defines it as those "health care methods of diagnosis, treatment or interventions that are not acknowledged to be conventional""


 * "Its strong point is clearly in the field of palatine care" This further supports mine and others claims that the only thing which is different is setting. Pallative care is just one setting. Also I'm starting to understand why you included this sentence "Some mind-body techniques, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, were once considered complementary medicine." CBT wasn't classified as complementary because complementary medicine is, as you say, "about making patients feel better". It is because once upon a time, psychotherapy was not evidence based (see Freud and his unfalsifiable theories). Times have changed and all psychotherapy must be supported by evidence (see the many, many journal articles for modern psychology treatments). So you see CBT wasn't part of complementary medicine because of some treat the disease/treat the whole patient distinction. It was there because of the standard evidence based/not evidence based distinction that seperates CAM from conventional medicine.


 * If NCCAM's alternative medical system classifications refer to alternative medicine only then why did they introduce the section with "What are the major types of complementary and alternative medicine?" The only distinction NCCAM provide is this:"Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine... Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. So the only distinction NCCAM provide is whether the patient also happens to be using conventional treatment. NCCAM suggest that the treatments themselves are the same. Hardly enough of a distinction to base an entire article on.


 * The removal of a merge banner does not imply a consensus was reached. What I am seeing on the talk pages is a lack of response. Given the recent flurry of discussion, this may have changed. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Favor merge with CAM, no question. Merge alternative medicine there too. I don't remember there being consensus to split in the first place. Any alt-med can become a comp-med the moment it is used in conjunction with mainstream-med. One single article on CAM ought to cover the broad field, linking to lists of the various modalities. Agree that having separate articles is inconvenient, confusing and potentially WP:POVFORK-y. Am technically on Wikibreak, but when I get back I will be happy to support an RfC or whatever. --Jim Butler(talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think that editors would edit articles that they happen to know something about. Editing should not be an educational process of discovery. I am very happy that a few editors are starting to learn something about complementary medicine.  But, being confused by the topic is no basis for a merge. -- John Gohde (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC created here Talk:Complementary_and_alternative_medicine. Please direct future discussion to this page and consider briefly restating your arguments on that page. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but either post the proper merge banners in all of the respective articles or kindly cease with your very private discussion. A very public discussion is required by any motion to merge. -- John Gohde (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks James, for setting up the RfC, I've entered a comment there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New Times article
Readers maybe interested in this new article published today in the UK showing the UK government's plans to regulate Alt med. It also contains some interesting current data about alt med in the UK. Peter morrell 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The key section, in terms of whether to merge the various alt/comp articles, is this one: Both alternative and complementary approaches to medicine — when a therapy is used as an alternative to conventional medicine and when it is used in conjunction with it — will be covered by the new regulator, although treatment without consideration of mainstream medicine is likely to come under greater scrutiny. Clearly, and as the article recognises, alt med and comp med are not the same thing. Vitaminman 08:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another! Peter morrell 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Morrell, your worldwide reputation as a medical historian speaks for itself. Editing at complementary and alternative medicine could use the input of such an academic authority. That article needs to be broaden by more of a British perspective on the subject. And, your credentials are impeccable. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Limited?
John Gohde are you trying to tell us that the POV of the mind-body intervention section has been distorted because we decided that the disucssion of the efficacy of specific treatments is better placed in articles about the treatments themselves? I really don't say that this is the case. It would be distorted if we put this information in there as the article would have to point out RS statements for ineffective mind-body interventions. As of now, the efficacy of all specific mind-body interventions is not mentioned. I could see a case if we pointed out all the treatments that did not work but refused to include all the treatments that did but that really isn't the case here is it? JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Boldly merged where no merge has gone before
Changes discussed at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?
So no one, no scientists, real medical professionals and so forth has any problem with the idea of "Complementary medicine"? --192.94.73.4 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

-Probably because it's a meaningless euphemism - except for the implication that it's actually medicine, which is no doubt disputed by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.37.6 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

improvements for content consistency
Move uncited POV & OR text here for discussion: The expressions complementary medicine and alternative medicine'' are not used to describe different methods, only to describe the different settings in which the same alternative methods are often used. '' This assertion is different (more restrictive) than the NCCAM answer, below, and contradicts the reality of closely related therapies that physiologically are necessarily different between complementary and alternative versions as I have discussed at Talk:CAM several times.

From NCCAM, "CAMbasics: What is CAM?": Are complementary medicine and alternative medicine different from each other? Yes, they are different.
 * Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine. An example of a complementary therapy is using aromatherapyA therapy in which the scent of essential oils from flowers, herbs, and trees is inhaled to promote health and well-being. to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.
 * Alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. An example of an alternative therapy is using a special diet to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy that has been recommended by a conventional doctor.

I think that several historical notes need to be added here, too. "Complementary medicine" goes back more than 15 years and tended to imply some distinction of medical or scientific acceptability that has now shifted more to "integrative medicine", as more diverse practices are being allowed or embraced.

And yes, I accidently missed the "Preview" button and needed to re-sign in.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

working on potential new sources
Andrew Vickers, "Clinical review: Recent advances Complementary medicine," BMJ 2000;321(7262):683 (16 September), some discusion letters, identifies potential academic sources with more CAM side b/g e.g. Peter Morrell


 * Hoffer A. Healing Schizophrenia. Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments. CCNM Press (July 1, 2004)
 * Hoffer A. Healing Children's Attention & Behavior Disorders: Complementary Nutritional & Psychological Treatments. CCNM Press (July 1, 2004)
 * Hoffer A. Pauling Dr. Linus: Healing Cancer: Complementary Vitamin & Drug Treatments. CCNM Press (July 1, 2004)
 * Hoffer A. Misconduct in High Places; Freedom to Practice Complementary Medicine Gaining Momentum. J of Orthomolecular Medicine, 8:67-68, 1993. (No known electronic link)
 * Hoffer A. Integrative, Complementary Treatment Options for Cancer with Orthomolecular Medicine--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

inaccurate formulation
This reversion has not been discussed here, and it has been clearly discussed in the presence of Fyslee at the Talk:CAM page. (1)A correct formulation must address facts that do not fit the statement. (2) Further, an issue that probably does need more discussion is "non-conventional" vs "altrernative". Many complementary treatments may not be alternative treatements - such as old treatments no longer taught in med school, not advertised or supported by marketing, that was "forgotten" after 10, 20, 50 yrs despite meeting the clinical and/or scientific standards of the day but whose folio has not been updated to current new treatment regulatory standards - methods so unfamiliar they are simply non-conventional.

(3) Double poisoning: The sentence placement also seems to dismiss the "Complementary medicine" article, as "never mind it's all (bogus) alternative medicine anyway" as does the text.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're reading alot more into it than intended. It's a simple explanation that helps readers understand. That's it. Now as to whether "unconventional" should be used, well that happens to be one of the words often used in definitions of "alternative". Hmmm. I just don't see the problem, and I doubt readers will either, since this is a special interpretation based on some personal way you are thinking. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have simply pointed out the need for precision in wording, applicability, and placement to avoid the error of overgeneralization. I have previously shown real world examples.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is page editing going on, by the way, on pages that are supposed to be about to merge? Redheylin (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to alt-med
There is a difference, in science and by health care organizations and governmental agencies that separates CM from AM from IM and TM. A redirect to alt-med is misleading as a) CM and AM have different acceptances by scientists, governments and insurance companies. CM has an established body of literature with plausible biological rationales.  Not all CAM professions and interventions are equivalent.  These differences should be noted as IM>CM>AM. DVMt (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They are the same thing, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources state they are different, specifically relating to levels of evidence of effectiveness and safety. see NCCAM . DVMt (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)