Talk:Daniel Amen/Archive 1

Blatent advertising should be flagged
Amen has some great ideas but this page must show the other opinions or be flagged as a blatant advertisement.

I second that. A simple Google search gives a few sites that claim he is overstepping what can be concluded from his technique; links to these must be shown. I don't have the time or inclination to do this, but this indeed comes on as a blatant advertisement, touting his more respectable contributions but failing to disclose how his SPECT treatments are publicized in mainstream media, rather than peer-reviewed journals. Even the APA claims he is going too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.143.153 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * BULL. WHAT advertising? A list of publications is an ADVERT!? Get a grip.


 * Amen has a significant track-record of good research and good results with his patients. The above two comments indicate laziness on the part of the writers. If nay-sayers wish to post counter-arguments, let them. But if you have no personal experience of the man's work, and haven't bothered to do your own research, keep your fingers off your keyboard and stop your cheap attacks.


 * My wife is a research doctor, and one of Amen's patients. I am a neurofeedback researcher since 1982. I have reviewed Amen's methods and sat in on review sessions. Both my wife and I are tremendously, positively, impressed by the competence of the Amen clinic staff, and of the processes, procedures, and the science supporting Amen's clinical work. Amen's approach to dealing with the brain steps away from the typical US medical-system dart-board and ouija board method of treatment selection.


 * OUR research into Amen's approach suggests that he's the victim of sour-grape complainers who are simply jealous of his creativity and business-savvy. Maclir2001 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)maclir2001


 * It does read like advertising. It needs work/WP:RS. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maclir2001, your own page says you're a "glider and power pilot, by inclination and education a geographer and forester, and work in disaster preparedness and response planning." You don't sound at all qualified to make the claims you're making. Claims which don't matter at any rate because you need to cite them with legitimate external support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.21.225 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Original research aside, there are some concrete reasons that the article fails the "smell test", and they're mostly pertinent negatives. There's no source on what the Marie H Eldredge award is or what it's for - the editor's assertion that it's "for the best research work" can't be narrowed down to something more specific than best at proofreading research papers, much less substantiated (it's on a list of awards that can be for teaching, research, administrative psychiatry, maybe other things). Second, there's no discussion of how the various bits and pieces of resume fodder relate to the work he does currently - validating the "expertise" and "credentials" of an "expert" by discussing work they did other than what they're selling is a hallmark of pseudoscience marketing. Even if he's the guy we've all been waiting for who deserves all the glowing claims of pseudoscience marketing, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Third, there's no discussion of the techniques and technologies that make his work sound impressively technical in terms of when he's using them the way everyone else does and when he's being "innovative"; is he the only one using SPECT the way he does, and if so, why? If not, why not put that into context? Leaving those questions unanswered for people to fill in the blanks with their own narrative (that he doesn't have to answer for) is a great advertising technique, but not a good way to generate reference material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.234.144 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Amen's credentials
I don't think he is currently on the faculty of UC-Irvine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.57.18 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As of 2009 JAN 02, Doctor Amen is listed at the UC Irvine Campus Directory  as "UCInetID: damen Name: Daniel Gregory Amen Title: Asst. Clinical Professor Department: Psychiatry & Human Behavior E-mail: damen@uci.edu Delivery Point: damen@hs.uci.edu Phone: (949) 266-3700"

I consider derogatory, unsigned "contributions" to be highly offensive, and suggest that they should be deleted. In the above case, confirming Amen's UCI association took me less than ONE minute. The anonymous poster could have taken the same effort, if they were actually neutral.

Still, the guy's an unpaid volunteer, probably just so he can have the affiliation. Anyone can walk into a psychiatry department and volunteer. The fact that he is an unpaid volunteer is important and should be noted.

76.103.2.176 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)maclir2001 ref

I think his UCI affiliation is dubious. The salon.com article referenced under "external links" says: "He is a board-certified psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, as his current Web site claims. But as U.C. Irvine assistant director of health sciences communications Tom Vasich explains, the title "assistant clinical professor" is the name for an untenured volunteer faculty member, of which the U.C. Irvine School of Medicine has more than 1,000. Amen is not affiliated with the university's Brain Imaging Center; all of his studies on SPECT scanning have been privately performed at his proprietary Amen Clinics."

If you google the phone number given in his directory listing, it gives his private clinic, not a university office. I don't suppose that this is sufficient evidence to change the article, but I do think we need to be a bit more critical in evaluating his university affiliation.

Davost (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * UC San Francisco Medical School has a similar volunteer clinical faculty status in contrast to tenured paid academic faculty - "Clinical faculty members volunteer their time to teach students and residents, either in their office or on campus." http://www.medschool.ucsf.edu/acf/admin/about.aspx. Assistant Clinical Professor is the 2nd rank above Instructor requiring a minimum of 2 years, a high degree of clinical competence and a minimum of 50-75 hours of teaching per year (full time academic professors teach more hours). http://www.medschool.ucsf.edu/acf/promotions/  Most physicians work with 1 or 2 students or residents a few hours per week during a school term or year round as a way to share their experiences by teaching.  In addition to being able to use the clinical professor title, benefits include attending Medical School CME courses for free or at a discount, access to medical library clinical resources, and some alumni benefits. Petersam (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki his clinical title to Academic_rank Petersam (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Made a minor correction to term "Professor-VOLUNTEER" the loud and childish capitalization is poor grammar. bad etiquette, emotional and quite frankly childish (emotionally immature). I changed it to "Professor-Volunteer" which maintains the information the writer wishes to convey while being grammatically and stylishly more consistent.24.200.55.244 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, "Professor-VOLUNTEER" is exactly the way he's listed on the UCI website. UCI probably isn't being childish or immature in listing him that way, they probably do it because it's a very important distinction to make. I'd suggest going back to the way UCI did it.

Criticism
The criticisms against Amen are all valid (that none of his claims have been validated), yet Amen keeps deleting them. Isn't there some way to keep this guy from updating his resume by deleting criticism about himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.216.106 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes do not reflect the body of work of Dr. Amen
The persistent negative slant is unfair and inaccurate to Dr. Amen. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a slam on professionals. All of the information in my edit is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ispect (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific about what you mean by the "persistent negative slant" and how it is "unfair and inaccurate". Wikipedia is supposed to present a balanced neutral view of a topic based on what has been published in reliable sources, which I (and I guess other editors) feel the article achieves reasonably well at the moment. Your edit may be accurate but it is by no means neutral. For example, you do not cite a source for the fact that Amen is "lead researcher on the world’s largest brain imaging/brain rehabilitation study on professional football players" or "His clinics have the world's largest database of brain SPECT scans related to behavior, now reportedly totaling over 70,000 scans." etc. etc. If you have reliable, third party references to back up what you are adding, then we can discuss the changes here, but the community will not allow the article to be written in a way that is promotional of Amen. SmartSE (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite Dr. Amen's very large body of work, including over 40 professional articles and 28 books, this page devotes most of its space to criticism from an organization (quackwatch) that has itself been crticized all over the web. Dr. Amen IS the lead researcher and author on the largest brain imaging/rehabilitation study on professional football players and the published references were provided.  Do you work for Wikipedia? Do you have the final say on what goes on this page?  Is this the place to ask permission for changes ahead of time?  Just need to know how to proceed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ispect (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the article should summarise what has been written by Amen. If no independent sources have discussed how Amen has published so many articles, or that he is the leading researcher on brain imaging/rehabilitation studies of professional football players, then we shouldn't mention it. If there are sources that discuss these, then please provide references. The quackwatch article is written by Harriet A. Hall and constitutes a reliable source. What's more, quackwatch is not the only place where Amen's techniques have questioned as well as the book review in the American Journal of Psychiatry already included. I don't work for Wikipedia - all editors are volunteers - but yes, this is the place to suggest changes to the article, particularly if you have a conflict of interest in regards to how Amen is presented on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any other questions. SmartSE (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Today I added multiple independently referenced additions to "Career and Work." In addition, I took out the word "unpaid" volunteer, in his clinical appointment.  Volunteer means unpaid.  In addition, I have listed his 28 books that are written and listed on Amazon. ispect  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ispect (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Changes that were described above were reverted without explanation by another user. SmartSE what can be done about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.132.146 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of your additions were not suitable - adding lists of books etc. appears promotional, especially when they are referenced using amazon links. Adding Dr. everywhere is unnecessary and non-neutral, as if trying to reinforce on the reader that Amen is to be trusted. Regarding papers he has written, it's a tricky one, but I don't think it should be included unless another source has written about them, I consider it original research (which is forbidden) to do otherwise, and if someone is interested then google scholar is a better place to look. The part you added to the criticism section is also dodgy as the in the case of the first paper, it is talking about diagnosing dementia, not predicting alzheimers years in advance which is clearly different. I can't say anymore without repeating my earlier points. SmartSE (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you SmartSE. Published books are not advertising but part of this person's work career. If this is the fact then I will run a very comprehensive search for any references to any type of media within wikipedia and delete it. It's either one way or the other. And I do know that there are several references for other individual to the books they have written. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin. It either has to be one way or the other. --Fthomas137 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and clarification. There has been publications written about Dr. Amen that may be candidates for publishing, I will consult with your opinion before doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.132.146 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please preserve article and please leave your ego outside wikipedia
Hello? This is a well known author and I came to Wikipedia to look him up. I came up against the crazed referencing policy that is eating away at wikipedia. WTF get yourself a job in a library stack but don't harm our resource. This is not pruning and cleaning -- it is a knowledge massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In what year was Dr. Daniel Amen born?
In what year was Dr. Daniel Amen born? He promotes health in old age, and appears to be quite healthy, but he never provides his age. In all of the biographical material about him on the internet, even in critical articles, none of it cites his birth year. We can estimate it at approximately 1956, based on his earliest college graduation in 1978, but it seems to me any encyclopedic article about him should provide a birth year. bbuc (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Amen Clinic
The Amen Clinic is the only justifiable page relating to Dr. Amen on Wikipedia. If no merge, I suggest a deletion. Indolering (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the two should go. Everything at Amen Clinic is enough about Amen himself that I don't think they have independent notability, and this article has survived an AfD process once already. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 04:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Regarding the merge, I think that this article could use a rewrite to establish neutrality and remove any promotion of Amen. He is independently notable. On the other hand, the Amen Clinic article should be separate from the Daniel Amen article. Right now, Amen Clinics does rely heavily on talking about Amen, it could also use a rewrite. The Amen Clinic article should be about Amen Clinics, if these are rewritten, I think the articles wouldn't need to be merged. News Team   Assemble! [talk?]  12:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You assert that Amen is independently notable. please provide support for this assertion. Currently, I disagree, per above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 14:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found some references that I'll add to the page to better establish notability. Also, according to the AFD, Quackwatch is not a reliable source. I'll work on fixing that as well. News Team   Assemble! [talk?]  01:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the WP:RSN archives? Because that would be the place to check suspicions about reliability, not the AfD. You seem to be going about this in a curious manner. It is not one I recognize as the attitude of someone looking for consensus. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 03:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:RSN archives. I haven't seen that before. I was reading the AFD that you mentioned above and saw some editors debating Quackwatch's reliability, that's why I mentioned it, to get your/any other interested editors consensus first. I'm not sure how to go about getting consensus before working on the flags. I can post my sources if that helps. I agree that the current text is likely connected to Amen, so I'd like to use my sources in an effort to re-write this page. News Team   Assemble! [talk?]  04:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with the merge, Amen doesn't appear to be notable aside from his clinic's activities. Alexbrn talk 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed my position - see below. Though I agree that the two articles should be merged, it's Amen Clinic that should become the redirect. Dr. Amen created his theories and the Clinics, i.e. without him no clinics. The media also refers to him more than his clinics, and it's these citations in WP:RS than establishes WP:N, i.e. Dr. Amen is more notable than his clinics. If the merge isn't done, Dr. Amen's article needs at least one section on his theories and medical treatments. Either way the text in both articles need much more work, beyond the WP:NPOV issues. (As I just did, I hope each of you will do some editing on these two articles, merge or not.) Lentower (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The notable thing here is the procedure: it is the focus of nearly every source. Without that, Amen is simply not notable. A comparable article is Burzynski Clinic (also the result of a merge). A BLP would be inappropriate type of article for content which, by following the sources, will be primarily focused on questions of medical practice, effectiveness, and ethics. Alexbrn talk 06:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)(UTC)
 * Alexbrn: your use of the word notable differs from the WP:N policy. Under WP:N, Dr. Amem is also notable as a celebrity, the writer of many books, much media coverage, successful businessman, etc. Many more WP:N sources than his diagnostic and treatment procedures. Lentower (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Each merger decision needs to stand on it's own. Without reviewing that discussion, and seeing both articles before the merge into Burzynski Clinic, it's not possible to see if that merger decision is comparable. Lentower (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013
 * Oppose (I've changed my position from the strikeouted paragraph above, after re-reading WP:N and WP:MERGE) It's clear that the subjects of both articles meet WP:N, and the merger should not be done. Each article has enough WP:RS. Both articles as they stand, would survive WP:AFD. Dr. Amen's article needs at least one small section on his theories and medical treatments, that should have a 'See' redirect to the Amen Clinic article. The text in both articles need much more work, beyond the WP:NPOV issues. (As I have done, I hope each of you will do some editing on these two articles, merge or not.) Lentower (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Both are notable. The article does need a major rewrite though, perhaps I'll take a crack at it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

After six months of no consensus, I feel it is doable to remove the merge tag. I've expanded the article significantly, enough to show clear separate notability especially through his mentions in multiple books (mentions of him, not his clinic). If another editor still wants to remove the article, I suggest attempting AFD. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving Criticism section
Hi, I propose moving around the "Criticism" and "Charity work" sections of the article. Right now, the article is not all that cohesive and it jumps from Amen's education and career background to the quotes from Amen's attorneys and Hall. If anything, the "Charity work" could be combined into the Career section and expanded. News Team  Assemble! [talk?]  00:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

More need to be said about the treatments Dr. Amen & his clinics prescribe.
Assuming references can be found, the article needs to discuss what treatments Dr. Amen & his clinics prescribe. Probably many of the treatments are medically sound (I've seen one of his PBS specials, and there he suggested weight loss, physical & mental exercise, stress reduction, and other things that are medically sound). Though the SPECT scans may not useful diagnostics, are any of the prescribed therapies questionable or harmful? Etc. Lentower (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Lentower, I found some references that could be added:
 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/14/can-daniel-amen-read-your-mind.html
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9836429/Dr-Daniel-Amen-interview-the-shrink-who-believes-technology-will-replace-the-couch.html
 * http://www.ocregister.com/articles/brain-335531-plan-daniel.html
 * http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2009/06/dr-daniel-amens-letter-to-the-los-angeles-lakers-about-candy-man/
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/daniel-amen-pioneer-or-profiteer/2012/08/08/e1988fea-e17d-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_gallery.html#photo=7
 * http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2594658306001/the-male-brain-vs-the-female-brain/
 * http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500165_162-930771.html
 * http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Dr-Daniel-Amen-Brain-Scans-Trauma-Depression-Junior-Seau-NFL-USC-Football-149949155.html
 * http://www.today.com/id/16673923/ns/today-today_books/t/use-your-brain-have-hotter-sex/#.Ukrl7Bb4vpg
 * http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/18/killer-brain-vs-normal-brain
 * Most of them are about Dr. Amen, a few on his clinics. I think these could be used for your suggestions. What do you think? Thanks. News Team   Assemble! [talk?]  00:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks NewsTeamAssemble. I hope you and other editors can do this and other work on this article.  My editing priorites are elsewhere. Lentower (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Want better
I think this article needs considerable improvement. It doesn't really discuss his work much at all (including sections on positive and negative), and it doesn't read NPOV at all. Can we do better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.140.28 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reads like a Resume
The article reads like a resume, listing every paper he's ever published (w/ abstracts), every book he's written and everything he's ever done (member of a forensics team is NOT an award/honor!). It's quite clear that there are a number of editors (Maclir2001 esp.) who are quite enamored w/ Dr. Amen, but that's no excuse for the incredibly poor quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.21.225 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Another point: Shouldn't something be added about Oral Roberts University Medical School. I'm far from sure but I don't think it was in operation long and had very few graduates. It is difficult to find information about it. What is Oral Roberts University Medical School? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.254.242 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the article in 2010, but by early 2014 it ended up reading like a hatchet job or a smear piece. I've added valid neutral citations to remedy this.
 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul Kariya
The article has Paul as an NFL player who suffered through concussions and eventually retired from football due to post-concussion symptoms. I believe Paul was a NHL hockey player and a great one at that.

Thanks

The DogRanger — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogRanger (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK thanks! I'll fix that!
 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening
MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view".

Saying that his therapy "is controversial" is manipulative language. There is no "fact" that can be cited that his therapy is controversial in and of itself.

What CAN be said is that "there is controversy and disagreement ABOUT his therapy".

This is extremely important. There is no "proof" that his therapy itself is controversial. But there is proof that there is controversy and disagreement about his therapy.

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement. The lead could certainly do with more adding, but it's much better to edit it rather than remove the fact that his use of SPECT is controversial. SmartSE (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Controversial" simply means giving rise to opposing views so it's best just to put that (it's hardly, uh, controversial). Some of the material added to the lead was puffery, and some simply not supported by the Telegaph article cited. I have fixed. Alexbrn talk 08:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually that's not right, 1) WP:LABEL states that the specific word "controversial is not to be used in article leads because Wikipedia considers it to be a "contentious" label. More specifically, see WP:LABEL, inside of the example box in that section.


 * 2) Furthermore, MOS:LEAD actually says that controversy should instead be described in leads. For example, it says ...and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.  "Summarizing any important points" means the controversy should be described in points (although in brief, for the lead, and then of course in more expanded detail later in the article).''


 * 3) Additionally, WP:YESPOV says that we should avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects.  The phrase, "Is controversial", is stating an opinion as a fact. The fact is that there is controversy about the therapy. There is no proof that this therapy "is controversial" in and of itself.


 * 4) WP:YESPOV also says that these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. "Attributed in the text" does not therefore mean just having a footnoted citation, it means that the controversy must be described.


 * Also, 5) MOS:INTRO says Do not hint at startling facts without describing them


 * And, in the section entitled "Biographies of living persons" found under MOS:LEAD, it says ''Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves.

''


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to your comment, where you wrote the following, "it's hardly, uh, controversial" Please keep your posts civil. See WP:CIVIL, see under Edit summary dos and don'ts where it says Don't make snide comments


 * Thanks,


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not using "controversial" as a label for Amen, we're saying his advocacy of SPECT is controversial (as MOS:LEAD says, "rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies"). OTOH your description of it as professional debate is rather watered-down, when the Telegraph source cited has "many representing major institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association — label him a snake oil huckster who preys on the afflicted". Instead we are now stating in WP's voice that he "pioneered" diagnostic methods as though they work. Alexbrn talk 06:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that the article was labeling Amon, I wrote that that the language "labeled" his therapy.


 * Yesterday you edited out the "about" part, and instead wrote as if the therapy itself "is" controversial. There is controversy about the therapy, which is more accurate. Here's why-- for some people it "is" controversial and for some people it is not. Therefore the therapy itself can not be purely controversial. But again, there is certainly controversy about it.


 * I have seen in Wikipedia policy where there are standards for what is or is not quoted in a Wikipedia article. The Telegraph article is not quoting anyone directly' as saying "snake oil huckster who preys on the afflicted". Because Amen falls under Wikipedia "living Persons" policies, there is a higher threshold there for what is quoted in an article, and anonymous-second hand representations that some unnamed person is saying "snake oil" (not at all real, direct quotes) don't meet the threshold.


 * On the other hand, it is definitely OK to look for direct quotes from professionals in the field and then 1) characterize them (in a general, non-inflammatory way) in the article opening and then 2) list as many individual ones as you like in the "controversy" section in the main body of the article.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In the lede, "There is professional debate about SPECT scans for psychiatric and neurological diagnosis and others in his field have disagreed with his diagnostic methods." This doesn't seem to reflect "Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public. None of the nation’s most prestigious medical organizations in the field — including the APA, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the National Alliance on Mental Illness — validates his claims. No major research institution takes his SPECT work seriously, none regards him as “the number one neuroscience guy,” and his revelations, which he presents to rapt audiences as dispatches from the front ranks of science, make the top tier of scientists roll their eyes or get very angry." (Tucker 2012). We don't need direct quotes from professionals in the field when a reliable source has published a good summary of them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't read your last post yet (I will). But I do agree with you about the word "pioneering". I unconsciously carried that over from one of the articles I was citing and when I see that, yes you are right, it does look like that word choice is assuming that we have a cure here. What we should assume here, as editors, is that we don't know.


 * It's good to keep in mind, though, that even a blizzard of professional doubt doesn't automatically mean that his diagnostic method or therapy is therefore wrong. History is overflowing with heavily doubted, heavily publicly and professionally criticized ideas that turned out to be right, running from Einsteins theory of relativity to Churchill and what he was saying (when nobody believed him) about what Hitler was really up to.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't say it's "wrong", but equally don't imply it's effective in WP's voice, especially when it seems to be the object of scorn from the profession at large. For neutrality, the mainstream view must be clear in the article. Alexbrn talk 07:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm back. You said the following: This doesn't seem to reflect "Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock,


 * Can you provide direct quotes from these individuals saying "no more than myth and poppycock"? Instead the sources are anonymous and unnamed (that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for famous people).


 * "Scorn" is what most people do a lot of the time. What Wikipedia wants are specific quotes from specific, credible people. Or, in a lead, a general characterization that is of professional people and what they said professionally, not what they say when they take off their professional hats and act like kids on a playground (which all adults do at times). So a lead isn't a place for the words "snake oil" or "poppycock", but it can be a place for a general characterization of what professional comments are made.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * About the institutions that you mentioned-- When they say "Haven't validated" what they mean is, they haven't tested his theories. They haven't checked them out in the laboratory. That's what "haven't validated means"-- There have been few third-party tests. When they say "unvalidated" they mean "untested". That is not the same as "30 double-blind studies were done, proving him wrong".


 * I've got some sad and scary news to share about the APA. They haven't tested (what is being called "validated") the overwhelming majority of ALL (non pharmaceutical) psychological/psychiatric studies that have ever been done. That does not mean they did verification studies and could not replicate results. But what it means is that most studies in the fields of (non-pharmaceutical) psychiatry and psychology never get (scientifically rigorous) replication tests at all. It isn't usually done, as a rule, unless there is a medication involved. Most of (non pharmaceutical) psychology and psychiatry is actually just opinion, the whole field just barely qualifies as a science. So his critics are not as credible as it might initially seem.


 * Does this make Dr. Amen right? No, absolutely not. But does it make him wrong? No it doesn't do that either. Psychology and psychiatry are weak (also called "soft" sciences). That means that, in reality, we can't really know if he's right. But it also means that those people in those institutions can't really know if he's wrong either. This isn't physics or mechanical engineering, it's psychiatry.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The source is not unnamed, the article is authored and published by a reliable source. The author attributes the statement to "Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers". That meets WP standards as a high quality reliable secondary source providing analysis with a sound basis. The article also includes specific quotes and statements attributed to organizations,

"In my opinion, what he’s doing is the modern equivalent of phrenology," says Jeffrey Lieberman, APA president-elect, author of the textbook "Psychiatry" and chairman of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. (Phrenology was the pseudoscience, popular in the early 19th century, that said the mind was determined by the shape of the skull, particularly its bumps.) "The claims he makes are not supported by reliable science, and one has to be skeptical about his motivation.";

"I think you have a vulnerable patient population that doesn’t know any better," says M. Elizabeth Oates, chair of the Commission on Nuclear Medicine, Board of Chancellors at the American College of Radiology, and chair of the department of radiology at the University of Kentucky.;

"A sham," says Martha J. Farah, director of the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania, summing up her thoughts on one of Amen’s most recent scientific papers.;

"I guess we’re all amateurs except for him," says Helen Mayberg, a psychiatry, neurology and radiology professor at Emory School of Medicine and one of the most respected researchers into depression and brain scanning. "He’s making claims that are outrageous and not supported by any research.";

"I can’t imagine clinical decisions being guided by an imaging test," says Steven E. Hyman, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health and current director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.;

The APA, in fact, has twice issued papers that dispute "claims being made that brain imaging technology ... was useful for making a clinical diagnosis and for helping in treatment selections.";

The APA first debunked many of Amen’s SPECT claims in a 2005 report.;

Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, wrote on his blog that while the technology "might be playing in prime time on some TV infomercials, brain-imaging experts say we’re not quite there yet.";

Anissa Abi-Dargham, a highly regarded professor of clinical psychiatry and radiology at Columbia who has done extensive work with brain imaging, spoke at an APA symposium on the limits of SPECT. She listened to Amen’s hour-long lecture there. Reached by phone recently, she said: "Had I known what this was, I would have never agreed to be part of it. It was not a scientific debate. It was propaganda for his clinics.";

Kirsch, the Harvard psychologist, who has studied placebos for 30 years....He says that it is incumbent upon Amen, as a scientist and practicing psychiatrist whose work has come under scrutiny, to prove his theory to a scientific standard. "Before you start promulgating this and marketing it and profiting from it, you should ethically be bound to demonstrate it scientifically in a peer-reviewed, respected journal," Kirsch said, and then you must have it tested by others. Otherwise, you might as well get a pair of ponies, a buckboard and a traveling salvation show: "You’re just going down the path of being a snake oil salesman."

It certainly seems to me that the author has substantial, well attributed statements to base the summary given on. On what basis would you find the summary as given by the author of the article not factual and accurate? The above comments can certainly be included in the article.

The contention that these institutions don't perform scientific studies is false. The APA, NIMH, American College of Radiology, Society for Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the National Alliance on Mental Illness all perform many studies, publish them in highly reputable journals and perform replication studies. Untested and unvalidated medical treatments are considered WP:FRINGE. "Few third party tests" is further evidence that Amen's ideas are fringe. Not that such evidence is needed given the statements from experts in the field and a nationally recognized expert body.

The lead would more acurately say, "Amen's ideas are not accepted in the fields of mental health or medical imaging and have been substantially criticized." - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a fairer summary, I think. Alexbrn talk 09:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In specific regard to study and publication: Lieberman is well published and Columbia University is a research center. Oates is well published and both the American College of Radiology and the University of Kentucky sponsor, conduct and publish substantial amounts of research. Farah, also published, at the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania another institution which conducts considerable research. Mayberg "one of the most respected researchers into depression and brain scanning" works at Emory University which conducts and publishes research. Hyman is former director of the National Institute of Mental Health which conducts, sponsors and evaluates volumous research including meta-analyses. He is current director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard a major research center with numerous publications. Insel current director of NIMH. Abi-Dargham has done extensive work with brain imaging.

Sounds like there is a lot of research being done. Neurology, imaging and mental health are extensively studied. Blanket criticism of the APA does not apply to this article and is not acurate in the context of this article.

Amen's ideas are within a realm of science which has been the subject of extensive scientific research and they are not supported by the mainstream scientific consensus. Please read WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scientists can not support MOST psychological theories of any kind. Because psychology does not lend itself easily to the scientific method


 * There are two overlapping areas here. When you are talking about purely medical, biological studies of the brain (not involving psychology) yes, those studies are scientifically very rigorous--


 * But when you are talking about psychology (the part of psychiatry that deals with things like ADD and ADHD there is a profound LACK of double-blind, scientific study from end-to-end on these subjects. The reason is that it's actually very hard to do. When someone describes a psychological problem to you, or when someone else observes a psychological problem in another, this is automatically highly subjective. Science tends to break down. Studies can be done scientifically on a psychological issue, but it's far harder and is a much more murky, illusive thing.


 * So, the hard scientists you are quoting can not prove or disprove MOST of psychology. It's not just Amen, it's almost anything to do with psychology. So they are just doing what hard scientists do. Scientists can not support MOST psychological theories of any kind. Because psychology does not lend itself easily to the scientific method.


 * The real truth is, no one can easily prove that Dr. Amen is right. And no one can easily DISPROVE it either. Because it's psychology, which is not a hard science and does not lend itself easily to the scientific method.


 * So neutrality in the article needs to reflect that. Also I have found a Wikipedia policy on the press and medical claims. It says that newspaper reports are not good medical sources. I'll post it shortly.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another shocker for you. Most psychological therapies (that are supported and accepted) have a 35% or lower scientifically proven success rate. If you enjoy turning the screws on article topics and making articles topics look like a cynical sham, congratulations! You can spend the next 20 years doing this to MOST psychology articles to your hearts content. However the truth is, the 35% or less proven rate isn't actually proof. In reality it is very very questionable that you can ever apply the scientific method to something as elusive and as hard to pin down as psychology with as much success as you do to say, physics or engineering.


 * So if you want to be fair, you write and edit Wikipedia articles like this--


 * "Nobody knows for sure, and this can not be known for sure, but this is the theory and this is the therapy."


 * But if you want to be unfair, you can run witch-hunts on MOST psychology related articles, because they are all vulnerable in this way. Very few psychology theories or therapies can be well-verified by hard science, because psychology is very elusive and hard to pin down You can just turn the screws on every psychology article that you can get to, and each one will be vulnerable in the same way. Then you can do your best to make each therapy and each theory look like a cynical scam. Science can not evaluate psychology in the way that it can evaluate an atom, or a chemical or a fish or a tree. And so science can not protect most psychology related Wikipedia articles from the approach being used to this article. '''Cynicism and mistrust aren't facts, they are like smog and they are everywhere. If you want to fill psychology articles with the smog of cynicism, you can. But you might not actually be defending the truth nearly as much as you think.


 * Real fairness is simply this, "We can't really know the truth either way, but here is the theory and here is the therapy." THAT is the real truth, not cynicism and scorn.


 * Cynicism is easy, ambiguity and uncertainty is harder, but in fields like psychology, it is actually much closer to the truth, most of the time.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

&hellip; or, more simply, we could just abide by Wikipedia norms and duly include what reliable sources state. Alexbrn talk 10:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, and especially-- don't use that as a guise to promote a negative, cynical slant to the whole article.


 * Almost all new theories, even in the hard sciences get lots of criticism from professional peers. Einsteins theory of relativity was roasted by other scientists for years, That is typical, not unusual. So were many theories now known to be true. A good roasting by ones professional peers should not be the be-all, or end-all, of any responsible article. Many new theories get very critical responses. However the roasting should certainly be included, but it's never the whole story and it is never the final word.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality in this article does not mean evaluating the feasability of research in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, that belongs in the articles on those subjects (is there substantially). A WP editor's synthesis of the state of a field of study is irrelevant, particularly when at odds with the extant scholarship. Despite contentions otherwise the field of psychology has developed methodologies for evaluating techniques of diagnosis and treatment. Again such discussion is not for this article but those on the appropriate subjects, unless reliable sources discuss the evaluation of Amen's ideas specifically. Such discussion could be included in the article as WP:DUE.

A theory not supported by scholarship in its field is WP:FRINGE thus the article should treat Amen's ideas as such. They are borderline pseudoscience (see WP:FRINGE/PS).

A newspaper article which provides direct quotes from experts is publication of the experts (sources) quoted, the fact that so-and-so said such-and-such can be from a newspaper article.

Other sources support the lack of acceptance and support in the mainstream scientific community and appear later in the article. In particular Hall 2007, which provides some explanation of the methods that could be used to evaluate Amen's diagnosis and treatment using scientific criteria. provides further discussion.

The Hall 2008 reference in the article points out, "Amen recommends a number of questionable treatments, some of which have been tested and found not to work, and many of which are not recommended by science-based medical doctors" This makes it clear that not only Amen's ideas of diagnosis are not accepted but his practice of treatment is not accepted. Hall goes on to say, "Desperate patients are being sold hope at these clinics, at a high price, at a small but real risk, and without any scientific evidence that SPECT improves patient outcome over those who receive optimum treatment without SPECT." Note the mention of a method of scientific evaluation, patient outcome. Again the contention that such evaluation can not be done scientifically is the opinion of an editor not the experts in the field.

The contention that psychology cannot be scientifically studied is not supported by the mainstream scientific consensus (see the article Psychological research), it is the repeated opinion of a WP editor. Butcher 2008 says, "...brain experts need to make the limitations of their technologies clear to the media, and bring to account fellow neuroscientists who abuse their knowledge in this way." After refering to Amen thusly, "...the Los Angeles Times made a similar mistake when it gave space to Daniel G Amen, a self-help guru, psychiatrist, and director of Amen Clinics..." The description of Amen as "a self-help guru" probably belongs in the article as it reflects comments of several other authors in addition to Butcher.

This article should reflect clearly the lack of acceptance and support from the professional community of Amen's ideas, this is what NPOV means on WP. The lack of studies published in reliable journals is a defining feature of a fringe theory in science and medicine. The view of reputable sources in the field is what WP reflects.

BTW per WP policy Einstein's theories (and "many theories now known to be true") would not be represented as accepted until they were accepted by the mainstream consensus (see WP:Crystal). WP is based in WP:Verifiability, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The final word is never spoken, but WP speaks in the voice of the current mainstream consensus.

An editor concerned about "a negative, cynical slant" should provide other reliable sources to provide balance. Per WP:NPOV, "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." Please provide reliable sources whose opinion can be included based on their weight. If there are specific examples of bias or slant in the content provide such examples and suggestions that follow policy.

'''Per WP:NPOV the article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Please provide significant views published by reliable sources that provide other views, they can be included in the article according to their WP:DUE weight'''. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS (under the section, "Popular Press") says that you can't use news articles to determine a fringe medical theory. You have to go to science books, articles or journals. Not all science magazine articles are accepted either.


 * You say I have excluded sources, but I haven't excluded any.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Does WP:MEDRS state "you can't use news articles to determine a fringe medical theory"? Where? We can use reliable sources to report expert opinion and if they state or imply something is fringe then so be it. We must neutrally relay what sources say. Alexbrn talk 12:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here: WP:MEDRS (under the section, "Popular Press"). It explains why as well.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That article reads like an OP ED as well. The journalist injects his own opinions repeatedly and he could have cherry-picked (been selective about) his sources. Not very professional. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That MEDRS text doesn't mention "fringe". To determine if something is fringe we'd use sources that address that question - usually Quackwatch, encyclopedias of pseudoscience, etc. Of course we don't use press articles for biomedical information (the province of the WP:MEDRS guideline) - but that is not what is proposed here. Alexbrn talk 12:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please show the Wikipedia policy link and section where you use Quackwatch to determine a fringe theory. That organization is compulsively skeptical, very negatively biased.
 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quackwatch says this about acupuncture: "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and Chinese Medicine". Really? I've had a sprained knee relieved in 20 minutes by acupuncture. Good thing I didn't check with Quackwatch before I went to the acupuncturist who fixed my knee.
 * Here is the article on Qwackwatch that enlightens everyone about acupuncture http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html
 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

break
Quackwatch has been repeatedly found a RS for fringe/altmed topics: Alexbrn talk 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, the same Qwackwatch that says that acupuncture doesn't work? http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html


 * Never mind that acupuncture has rapidly stopped the pain in my sprained knee, stopped my migraine headaches and relieved my asthma in minutes.


 * Wikipedia really has gone downhill.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK wait, I just read this. These are not policies about Quackwatch, they are just discussions, and also one admin appeal that is not accessible, so we don't know how it was decided.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you won't find policies are made about specific sources. These previous discussions do reflect community consensus however, and "is Quackwatchh RS?" is one of Wikipedia's perma-FAQs, particularly around fringe topics! Alexbrn talk 13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of Amen's therapies are not criticized by his colleagues

 * He is actually pretty mainstream in his approach to managing ADD, ADHD, anxiety, etc., and has very few critics in this area. It is the diagnostic method and the sub-categorization system (defining new subtypes of each of the two attention-disorders) that he has developed, utilizing SPECT, that has been criticized.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem to be reflected in the sources.


 * Luecther 2009, "Some of the techniques he describes are unproven methods of his own invention; others are based on his own strongly held religious beliefs; still others are methods of unproven efficacy, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. He attempts to ground and justify his approaches in clinical neuroscience, but his justifications come across as post hoc rationalizations for his preferred approaches,"


 * Carroll, "But then he suggests that these modest proposals joined with taking supplements, which he just happens to sell from his website store, can ward off or halt Alzheimer's, among other things. You won't find too many scientists agreeing with that hopeful claim.""Who wouldn't want the least toxic treatment? Are other doctors giving their patients toxic drugs when natural supplements with no adverse side effects would serve them just as well? That seems to be the implication, though it's absurd.""Burton also castigates Amen for his supplement recommendations for the prevention of Alzheimer's. The recommendations seem based more on wishful thinking than compelling scientific data."


 * Hall 2007 "Some of Dr. Amen's treatment suggestions also worry me. For example, he recommends: (a) uses for dietary supplements that are not supported by good evidence, (b) EMDR (a highly questionable approach), and (c) hyperbaric oxygen therapy for conditions not generally considered to warrant such therapy." Hall 2008 "Some of the treatments he offers are even more disturbing. Once the pretty pictures have guided him to a diagnosis, Amen recommends a number of questionable treatments, some of which have been tested and found not to work, and many of which are not recommended by science-based medical doctors – such as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and oral GABA, which is not likely to help with any problems in the brain since it can’t get there: it doesn’t even cross the blood-brain barrier. For “temporal lobe issues” he prescribes phosphatidyl serine, gingko biloba, vitamin E, and ibuprofen." - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a good source that could be used to provide some broader context as well. It discusses Amen in depth and was well reviewed. SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've added it to "Further reading" for the time being; it can be incorporated more fully in the upcoming re-write. Alexbrn talk 22:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article has swung towards poor sourcing and trivial information today and needs a lot of work. There are some other sources in Amen_Clinic which might come in handy. SmartSE (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fringe
Per MEDRS, "If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles."

Thus what applies is WP:FRINGE in WP's treatment of SPECT and Amen's treatments. The subject does not have high quality MEDRS discussing it. It does have substantial discussion as fringe.

Butcher is pretty high quality his comment is giving Amen space in a newspaper was a mistake. Hall as mentioned provides pretty substantial criticism in accepted reliable sources.

Thornton says, "Amen explicitly recognizes his divergence from mainstream medical views" and goes on to provide a pretty thorough explanation of how Amen's work is fringe. "This circularity highlights the fact that the images are not primarily diagnostic tools, but rather persuasive tools that have functions independent of their medical utility." "Here, cingulate is as an adjective that describes not biology but observed character." "The role of brain images, then, is not primarily diagnostic, but rather rhetorical - to facilitate the dissemination and adoption of brain based vocabularies and paradigms for living." "Amen's distinction between 'will-driven' and 'brain-driven' behavior further illustrates how the language of health is used to craft a division between the actual self and the real self." Thornton is published by Rutgers University Press.

Leuchter in a 2009 review of Healing the Hardware in Am. J. of Psychiatry (doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.08121843) describes Amen as " a self-described clinical neuroscientist, psychiatrist, and brain-imaging specialist" and says, "The data that support this use of SPECT imaging for diagnostic evaluations of children and adults seldom have been submitted for publication to peer-reviewed scientific journals." He says Amen makes a good case but uses primarily anecdotes and that "For each of the vignettes Dr. Amen presents, many psychiatrists would have chosen treatments similar to those he used when confronted with the particular symptoms he describes, based solely upon clinical judgment. There is no systematic analysis of the 45,000 imaging studies to demonstrate how Dr. Amen’s approach is superior to treatment-as-usual by a psychiatrist. Thus, there is also no evidence presented to justify exposing patients to the radiation of a SPECT scan and to support the considerable expense to patients, families, and their insurers." He goes on to say, " Some of the techniques he describes are unproven methods of his own invention; others are based on his own strongly held religious beliefs; still others are methods of unproven efficacy, such as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. He attempts to ground and justify his approaches in clinical neuroscience, but his justifications come across as post hoc rationalizations for his preferred approaches." and "However, the reader who has any degree of familiarity with mental illness and brain science is left unconvinced that his highly commercialized use of scanning is justified. Dr. Amen’s self-help approaches and his invocation of the linkage between brain and soul appear as little more than an attempt to dress his treatment approaches in the garb of popular neuroscience. He has published a series of cases describing his methods, but he has not subjected his treatment approaches to the level of systematic scientific scrutiny expected for scientifically based medical practice." That pretty clearly screams FRINGE from the pages of reputable journal.

Farah in a 2009 editorial in The Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21133) says, "Another profitable but unproven application of brain imaging is an an aid to diagnosis for psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. Definitive diagnoses are not always possible in in psychiatry, especially pediatric psychiatry, and companies such as the Amen Clinics and Brain Matters are profiting by suggesting they have a more scientific basis for diagnosis than conventional psychiatry. Tens of thousands of individuals, many of them children, have been exposed to the radiation of SPECT scans and paid thousands of dollars out of pocket (because insurers will not pay) against the advice of many experts including the American Psychiatric Association's Council on Children Adolescents and their families."

In a 2012 article in AJOB Neuroscience Farah and Gillihan (doi:10.1080/21507740.2012.713072) explicitly state, "On the other hand, not withstanding a small number of practitioners (including Amen) who use functional brain imaging as a diagnostic tool, the established view in psychiatry is that brain imaging has no role to play in clinical care." Again Amen specifically identified as fringe. They go on to quote The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry (2008) "Neuroimaging does not yet play a diagnostic role for any of the primary psychiatric disorders." Further, "The Amen Clinics use a system of diagnoses that does not correspond to the standard system defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association." How many ways can you say fringe. Perhaps like this, "The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven." They go on to discuss that Amen declined to participate in a blinded study and that Amen's counter was the he had not been 'formally' approached. They explain there is no evidence for a benefit of using SPECT in diagnosis but there are clear risks and costs. The Amen materials are described as "sidestepping the question of SPECT for psychiatric diagnosis" and using a quote from Insel out of context. (starts to walk like a, talk like a...).

Insel (NIMH Director) has made his view of neuroimaging for diagnosis clear in his 2010 blog post (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2010/brain-scans-not-quite-ready-for-prime-time.shtml#2) "Although brain scans as part of a clinical psychiatric workup might be playing in prime time on some TV infomercials, brain imaging experts say we're not quite there yet.", "Moreover, more powerful, less invasive technologies have often been supplanting SPECT in psychiatric research over the past decade." and "As exciting as such advances are, brain imaging is still primarily a research tool when it comes to mental disorders. Scans are appropriate for ruling out obvious pathology, like brain tumors, as possible causes of symptoms. The differences in brain structure and activity seen in disorders like schizophrenia or ADHD, for example, are typically only meaningful when comparing group statistics. There is simply too much individual variation in brain structure and function for an individual's scan to be diagnostic or predictive, given the current state of the science."

A 2010 letter to the editor of Am. J. of Psych. by Adinoff and Devous (doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10020157) describes the dangers of the use of SPECT for diagnosis while it is unproved. Coming back around to Hall in a 2013 article on Science-Based Medicine she provides a thorough scientific critique.

Without published research SPECT and Amen's ideas and treatment are evaluated using the best available sources and treated as fringe. There is the possibility that MEDRS material will be published on SPECT, the Amen Clinics and Amen's ideas, until then it remains largely non notable fringe theory. Again provide RS that says otherwise and it can be included as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What this does is ruin this guys ability to forward a new idea. It strangles creativity. It kills possibility.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To 2602......WP:Forum talking about strangling creativity and kills possibility seems to be forumish. However Dr. Amen could conduct double blind tests and try to validate his approach. However it appears through his actions like he is more interested in appearing on PBS and selling books then validating this procedure, which he believes is so successful. I don't know seems weird to me. Off Forum.  VViking Talk Edits 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As further evidence that Amen's ideas are fringe here is a top level MEDRS source that states, "We conclude that, at the present time, the available evidence does not support the use of brain imaging for clinical diagnosis or treatment of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents." in the summary with "a cost effectiveness study concluded that the addition of SPECT and fMRI did not offer advantages over the usual diagnostic work up of Alsheimer's disease.", "The primary clinical use of SPECT in pscychiatry has been to rule out the neurological conditions listed above." The conditions listed above do not include those for which Amen uses SPECT. The source continues with a summary of research studies that have shown some promise, the Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders section, "A 2000 review of studies in children and adults concluded, 'The techniques do not yet contribute to individual diagnoses.'" In the section Bipolar Disorder and Depression the source cites a comprehensive review "The potential for utilization of brain-imaging tools to elucidate the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder is still largely unrealized..." In a section titled, Provisional Nature of Findings, "Despite the exctitement neuroimaging has brought to the field of psychiatry, it remains an investigational tool." The source goes on to cite a 10 year review which, "concluded, citing iconsistencies in the data, 'Although neuroimaging technology holds great promise for neurodevelopmental research, it it not yet a diagnostic tool'" and "This opinion was echoed by Santosh, another review author, who states, 'As yet, no specific and consistent abnormality has been detected in childhood psychiatric disorders.'" The source concludes discussion with, "Even with the continued advances in the understanding of brain structure and function in psychiatric disorders since these reviews, brain imaging has still not progressed to the point of being useful for the clinical diagnosis of these disorders in individual patients. As of this writing, no studies have been published in journals indexed by the National Library of Medicine examining the predicitive ability of neuroimaging for psychiatric disorders for either adults or children."




 * What about this paragraph from Bhattacharya 2013 that includes Amen's own statement, "But what these images reveal is unclear. There’s no telling if the damaged brain is depressed or schizophrenic or none of the above. And as Amen admits, a slight adjustment of the settings on the software can transform a 'healthy' image to one that has suffered severe trauma. “You can make it look like anything if you want,” he says." Sounds pretty fringey to me.


 * Again if there are reliable sources that present another view, or hopefully some more recent reviews than those cited, please post them so they can be included in the article as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Mediation request - User Cliffswallow-vaulting
As everybody here knows, a new account, User:Cliffswallow-vaulting, appeared from nowhere and requested mediation. I posted a request there asking Cliffswallow-vaulting to explain his/her relationship to this article. I also posted a comment that this article is not ripe for mediation. Both matters should be discussed there.Jytdog (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock, as is likely 107.218.9.122 who recently edited the article. The WP:IDHT levels in evidence are starting to get disruptive. Alexbrn talk 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the request for mediation was premature, especially as many the contentions made are clearly false and there is evidence on this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No I was not able to make a moderation request without first creating an account, which I only did a few hours ago.
 * I'm 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45, I will try my best to remember to lo0g in from now on when posting.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "condemned" in the article lead is inappropriate
1) This is an abuse of MOS:LEAD.

MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening

MOS:LEAD says "no contentious language in the opening". The word "condemned" is very contentious. It is also clearly being used by the editors to condemn the article subject (both the person and his theories).

Saying that his therapy "is condemned" is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word "condemned".2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also as per WP:MEDRS, a determination of a WP:FRINGE theory must not be drawn from newspapers (instead medical publications would have to report the theory as "condemned").

MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view".

MOS:LEAD also says Science that is being questioned, is not considered to be the same as a fringe theory (paraphrase from WP:FRINGE).

From WP:FRINGE--

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Dr. Amen, the proponent of this theory and the subject of this article, has the following credentials:

1) He is a board certified psychiatrist.

2) He is a board certified neurologist.

He is a graduate of the following schools:

Amen received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982. Amen did his general psychiatric training at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and his child and adolescent psychiatry training at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu.

He also works for the NFL (the National Football League as a neurologist(a Doctor) (See article).

Therefore, as per WP:FRINGE, his diagnostic approach and therapy should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Here is a table of independent studies on attempts to scientifically correlate Dr. Amens theory and diagnosis method (using SPECT imaging to correlate brain scan patterns to ADD or ADHD. Although not conclusive, they do rise to the level of the following, found in WP:FRINGEas a reason not to treat the article as a fringe topic, again-- should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists

Lastly, Dr. Amen has 22 (twenty-two) published peer-reviewed articles, listed on PUBMED, an authoritative source, here is PUBMEDs listing of his articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28Daniel%20Amen[Author]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch

See some of them here (along with submitted and still pending articles): http://www.amenclinics.com/the-science/dr-amen-s-published-research

None of this proves that Dr. Amen is right, and his theories have certainly been criticized by number of his colleagues (not unusual at all in medicine and science) but altogether, none of this proves that Dr. Amen's theory meets the standards of WP:FRINGEeither. At worst it is "Questionable science" (as defined by WP:FRINGE, and at best it is a new idea meeting the same flurry of doubt that most new ideas get in science and medicine.

In any case, the article does not warrant WP:FRINGE labeling or editorial treatment, and so words like "condemned" and "controversy" are not appropriate for the lead. It would be appropriate however to say something like, "a number of scientists in his field have criticized his theory" or, "the veracity of his theory is still under debate in the scientific community".

Thanks, 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fine - in fact rather mild - summary of RS. Stet. Alexbrn talk 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Condemned" is a mild word? I'm sorry but I don't see that.
 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In comparison to what some sources say, yes it is. It's not contentious: the RS lines-up neatly on the subject of Amen's SPECT advocacy, with no (noteworthy) contending voices. Alexbrn talk 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Using the word in the article in this way interprets other scientists, none of whom are quoted as having used this word.


 * It also draws conclusions for the reader editorially, rather than factually.


 * Also the use of the word "unaccepted" is unsubstantiated, in fact the right word is "debated".2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good plain summary. Summarizing is what we do in ledes which - incidentally - should make mention of noteworthy controversy. Since controversy seems to be Amen's primary claim to notability, it needs to be included. Your desired changes would skew us away from the neutral. Alexbrn talk 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP-editor has started off on a bad foot. MOS:LEAD nowhere says (as the IP quoted) "no contentious language in the opening". It does explictly say: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies" (emphasis added). So yes the controversy needs to be stated and yes "condemned" is entirely appropriate summary of the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly the editor has a bad case of IDHT. The source says and I quote, ""The lack of empirical validation has led to widespread condemnation of diagnostic SPECT as premature and unproven" in . Thus the words condemned and unproven are directly from the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thus the contention, "Saying that his therapy 'is condemned' is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word 'condemned'." is false. The two professionals in the field who are quoted include Martha J. Farah, director of the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently the editor has confused fringe with pseudoscience. Fringe is "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". I described Amen's ideas as borderline pseudoscience only on this talk page not in the article. The article nowhere describes Amen's diagnostic approach as unambiguously pseudoscientific. Please see WP:PROFRINGE. Also per FRINGE, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." well the Washington Post Magazine article clearly helps provide a reliable source for documenting the level of acceptance among the relevant academic community. Amen's credentials do not create acceptance by the mainstream scientific consensus. Primary studies conducted by those who have developed a technique (and vastly commercialized it) do not provide evidence of acceptance in the professional community. Published statements by notable members of the community provide clear, verifiable evidence of a lack of such acceptance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I happened upon this page from seeing a link somewhere else, and I'm not interested enough to watchlist it (so please ping me if you want me to look back here), but after a quick read of the discussion, a suggestion occurred to me: change "condemned" to "criticized". It really accomplishes the same thing, I believe, but it may be a less contentious word choice. If that helps, great, and if not, no big deal – but I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)