Talk:National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

First remarks
I don't think that section headings like "Who we are" and "What we do" are good to include in an encyclopedia article. I generally think of an article as needing to be written from the 3rd person rather than the 1st person. I've been looking a little for recommendations around this in the Wikipedia Help section but haven't come across something specific yet. Courtland 23:52, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I agree. I assume it was cut and pasted from somewhere else. How about paraphrasing it so it is encyclopedic and not a copyvio? alteripse 01:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a copyvio (since the source is a public domain document) but neither is it encyclopaedic, so for that I put a cleanup-tone. -- Paddu 18:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
I created a section for Criticism and moved a paragraph from the opening to there. The paragraph's placement veered a wee bit close to the WP:NPOV cliff and seems better contextualized as criticism. Gobonobo 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This page seems to be mostly plagiarized, and it consequently reads like a brochure. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that a page can be largely unattributed copy and pasting, even if it is not a direct copyright violation. It seems this issue was raised two years ago; is anyone working on this page? 938 MeV (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Budget and charter
Seems to me that information about the budget and charter belong under organization, not criticism. Fyslee seems to have a problem with this, not sure why. hgilbert (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood or are misrepresenting. He had inserted a quote from an AAAS policy review paper published in Science. It outlined the problems with NCCAM and belonged in the criticism section. I am assuming you didnt bother to read or understand that, because when you revised the article you destroyed the sense and continuity and separated part of the account of this paper from the rest. I assume this was accidental, but please be more careful. alteripse (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those were indeed my concerns. Unfortunately a duplicate ended up being created (mention of budget and charter). Another duplicate (Atwood's quote) wasn't ever touched and I have just fixed that one. This is a sensitive section and we just need to discuss changes to it here first. BTW, I don't think I inserted that quote. I just noticed that Hgilbert was significantly changing the section, and based on his track record as an editor on "the other side of the fringe fence", I just jumped to the conclusion that he was vandalizing the section. "Vandalizing" was too strong a word to use and I have apologized on my talk page. Parts of his edits did destroy some of the thought flow, as expressed by Alteripse, so let's be careful and discuss any changes here first. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is still badly written:
 * It's still not clear to me why a bare statement of the organization's budget is a criticism; if it's simply because it's cited to the same reference, there can be multiple citations to the source.
 * The quote indeed criticizes the charter - and I had missed this - but it's not clear that what it refers to is related to the representation of AM practitioners on the board. Can someone look at the original source and either clarify that this is indeed what is critiqued there or, if it is not, move this passage out (linking two things by implication that are not linked in the source would qualify as OR otherwise). hgilbert (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a pdf of the original source, as well as the rebuttal by the nccam director published shortly afterward. Unfortunately you need to be a member to get it from the AAAS site. The principal criticisms are that quite different and scientifically poorer standards are used for nccam research projects than for other NIH research, and that there are massive conflicts of interest in that most of the oversight scientists are among the principal beneficiaries of nccam money. The authors argue that the resulting poor scientific quality of the research, combined with the general attitude of the public and alternative practitioners that negative nccam results will not change practices, makes the nccam as it currently operates a largely wasteful and useless enterprise. The response from the director is that congressional restrictions mandate the composition of the organization and its research, and that more of the focus of the nccam is being directed toward establishing standards for dietary and herbal medicines, since so many are fraudulent and adulterated and the DSHEA regulations provide little consumer protection. Incidentally, the rebuttal from the nccam director includes the public admission that a large proportion of "alternative" remedies are toxic garbage dangerous to the consumer. As you are no doubt aware, this is not a fact freely admitted by most defenders of quackery. alteripse (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Both the framework of the congressional mandate and the director's admission belong in this article, I would think. hgilbert (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I included the complete quote from the NCCAM charter concerning council membership because the previous abbreviated quote suggested a far greater level of 'CAM' representation than actually exists. The previous quote suggested 9 members must be experts in the field of C and A medicine. This is quite wrong, as an examination of the board will show. The board is heavily loaded with representatives from the conventional medicine fields. DHawker (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Better reference of the criticism section
The role of rigorous scientific evaluation in the use and practice of complementary and alternative medicine.

I don't have time to work on it right now, maybe later if someone doesn't do it first. Ward20 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I am thinking about Skeptical Inquirer used on this page. I think this is an RS, but clearly a journalistic type source and not peer reviewed. For claims about medicine-related studies on this page I think one should follow WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh.
WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So is this: http://geomag.gfdi.fsu.edu/tss-copa/nccam_critique.html MrAnderson7 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change
I moved the article from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the new name for the organization National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. The organization hasn't changed everything yet, so we'll just have to update some things a bit at a time as they do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

New URL
Probably should update the URL to https://nccih.nih.gov at some point. The center's web pages have been updated. 96.241.31.30 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505211246/http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm to http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/overview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Examples of NCCAM research projects funded
I added an additional study result to this table. I may add more, unless there is a legitimate objection. The only examples in this table appeared to be cherry-picked mostly from a Skeptical Inquirer article seeking to debunk alternative medicine funding. Gives the false impression that 100% of the studies produce no positive results. It makes sense to include some positive results, too. Happy to discuss. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical. This is a primary reference so not that great in WP. 30 participants and no controls. The conclusion of the article is "might improve MMT outcomes." I think I will revert the edit unless you have better.--Akrasia25 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am willing to discuss this further. Are you applying the same standards to the other studies mentioned in the examples? Surely, you can agree that these examples are cherry-picked, coming from a Skeptical Inquirer article written with the purpose of showing results of a certain type? If we can agree on what examples should be provided, it makes sense to include/exclude certain ones, but until then, it makes no sense to eliminate one because it doesn't follow your particular narrative. I'd love some additional input.Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to imply that they have produced a significant number of positive results, you need a secondary source saying this, rather than indulging in WP:OR by cherry-picking a few primary studies. You need to find studies that secondary sources have felt worth mentioning in the context of whether the funding is worthwhile. The studies listed in the article are significant in terms of the article because they are listed in a secondary source. And the criticism that they have failed to fund research with positive results does not just come from the Skeptical Inquirer. The same criticism is there in the article sourced to Science, the Journal of the AMA, NBC news, and even Tom Harkin. That’s an overwhelming consensus. Brunton (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Remember that the purpose of the examples of research is not to editorialize, as in the articles about funding. That would belong in a "Criticism" section. What you are suggesting is that the "Examples" box be used to make a point. right now it's making the point that the Skeptical Inquirer and a Doctor who has written books against alternative medicine wants to make. There are plenty of secondary sources for positive results, and I will be adding. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WP. As a new editor you might also find the following articles important.

WP:FLAT WP:FRINGE WP:ORIGINAL WP:BITE

and finally, WP:YWAB

--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No need to be condescending. Those are not relevant to this. I would be happy to discuss the actual issue with you, though. I'm interested in hearing your response to my specific statements. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes they are. Another relevant article is WP:CRITS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has multiple independent sources (not just “the Skeptical Inquirer and a Doctor who has written books against alternative medicine”) saying that the results have been overwhelmingly negative. If you want the article to imply that this isn’t the case we’ll need sources for that point of view. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing the article as a whole, we're discussing the examples section. Read the discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you found reliable secondary sources in the meantime which name examples for studies with positive results? If no, there is no point about continuing this discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section?
Given that 90% of this article is listing criticisms, having a Criticism section seems redundant. Jimmy Wales said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Improving the article and adding current sources and focus
The NCCIH was not formed until 2014 so the 2009 reference was not criticizing the current Center. Many of the sources in this article are old. I would think the article would be more useful if the historical order went from current to older. What NCCIH is today should be the focus.

About the deleted paragraph with with the addition
 * “As described in the NCCIH Timeline the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) was formed in 1991 and became the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) in 1998 which Congress renamed in 2014 to reflect its evolving mission. In 2022 the NCCIH budget is $159M with 87 staff."

I don't understand Hipal's objection “rv SOAP, LINKSPAM, change in POV based upon ABOUTSELF refs/links" Bbachrac (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Improperly embedding external links to the center's website and copy and pasting their mission statement aren't improvements to the article - the article is supposed to follow what independent reliable sources say about the center, not what the center says about itself. Your quote from the Merck Manual appears to be a non sequitur, a definition of complementary medicine in general isn't about this center in specific. Also, if you look at the totality of the article and not just the lead, it should be clear that criticism is ongoing, not a one time event in the past. MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKSPAM: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. If you intended them to be references, follow WP:CITE and the format being used in this article.
 * WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing
 * WP:SOAP: Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts
 * See WP:ABOUTSELF for a definition and how such refs can be used.
 * What NCCIH is today should be the focus That would be soapboxing and WP:RECENTISM. The focus should be on what the best independent references have to say, ideally references that provide broad historical context. --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hipal Bbachrac (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia with a Purpose and not just a vehicle for out of context criticism. I think editors should be first presenting clear current information and create the context for discussion. Bbachrac (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The clear and current information is that this is a controversial government department due to its ongoing use of taxpayer money to fund pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently the reliable source 2021 article by Denise Millstine, MD, Mayo Clinic doesn't agree with you.
 * Selection for inclusion as a Merck Manual article “Overview of Integrative, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine” provides validation of its reliability.
 * "Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine are terms often used interchangeably, but their meanings are different.
 * Complementary medicine refers to    non-mainstream practices used together with conventional     medicine.
 * Alternative medicine refers to    non-mainstream practices used instead of conventional     medicine.
 * Integrative medicine is health care that uses all appropriate therapeutic approaches—conventional and non-mainstream—within a framework that focuses on health, the therapeutic relationship, and the whole person."
 * The Merck Manuals are available Online.
 * Also see for example
 * Harvard The Osher Center for Integrative Medicine
 * UCSF Integrative Women’s Health
 * Please clarify why Complementary and Integrative Health is pseudo science and how you know what is pseudo science?
 * Thank you Bbachrac (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate the general status of the whole field with you, this talk page is for discussion of this specific article and its specific topic, not alternative medicine in general. And this specific topic has a well sourced section on the ongoing problems, under the heading 'Criticism'. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)