Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive 1

page creation
It was actually me, Lumos3, who created this page but somehow I became logged off during the session and it didnt get recorded.

Preliminary review of Orthomolecular medicine
My preliminary review of Orthomolecular medicine is totally unfavorable.

The primary problem seems to be that this article is nothing but a stub article hiding behind a lot of verbiage. Major portions of the Orthomolecular medicine viewpoint are simply not documented in this article. I got absolutely nothing out of this article other than a bunch of commonly held generalities..

The article states: The substances may be administered by diet, dietary supplementation or intravenously, for example. What is that supposed to mean? I have no idea. As far as I know, diet has absolutely nothing to do with Orthomolecular medicine. Intravenous treatments would seem to require professionalized care, while dietary supplementation says self-care.

This article totally fails SQG#3. The proponent's viewpoint is largely missing. No wonder that opponents have yet to attack this article. There is nothing to prove or attack as it is presently written. -- John Gohde 23:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Compliance Audit of 6/01/04
This article was recently subjected to a compliance audit by the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. We have a master list of 20 Key Questions that are designed to measure the compliance of CAM articles to our Standards of Quality Guidelines.

Overall, this article created a negative impression. The primary problem seems to be that this article is nothing but a stub article hiding behind a lot of verbiage. Major portions of the Orthomolecular medicine viewpoint are simply not documented in this article. I got absolutely nothing out of this article other than a bunch of commonly held generalities.

Orthomolecular medicine was the first article to be audited. It was also the first to pass our audit. The answers to 4 questions indicated non-compliance to our standards of quality quidelines. This resulted in a passing grade of 80%. The Physical mode of action was determined to come from proper nutrition. -- John Gohde 05:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No footnote to support the health claim that RDA is inadequate.
 * 2) No explanation of therapeutic effects.
 * 3) No listing of effective medical conditions treated.
 * 4) Did not recommend complementary treatment.

Why was this article listed under "evidence of effectiveness"?:


 * Creagan ET, Moertel CG, O'Fallon JR. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1979 Sep 27;301(13):687-90. PMID: 384241 Abstract

Read the abstract. The researcher's conclusions are:

"One hundred and fifty patients with advanced cancer participated in a controlled double-blind study to evaluate the effects of high-dose vitamin C on symptoms and survival. [...] The two groups showed no appreciable difference in changes in symptoms, performance status, appetite or weight. [...] the survival curves essentially overlapped. [...] we were unable to show a therapeutic benefit of high-dose vitamin C treatment.".

I fail to see how this is evidence for effectiveness in any way -- in fact it is quite the opposite. Sheesh. Mortene 10:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Implying a "balanced diet" is not enough - POV?
In the section Relation to conventional medicine there's a phrase I find implies that diet isn't enough, but without citing any references etc:


 * However most conventional doctors have little knowledge of the concepts of orthomolecular medicine and tell patients that a balanced diet will provide all the nutrition a person needs to be healthy.

It seems to me it wouldn't hurt with either some rephrasing, or an expansion as to why diet alone isn't sufficient (and perhaps also why OM non-followers find diet is enough).


 * The problem here is that a basic tenet of Orthomolecular medicine is that a balanced diet does not provide enough vitamins. I would agree that the sentace is pov. It really neeeds to split into two parts one saying that many doctors have limited knowlage of orthomolecular medicine and another saying that the conventional medical view is that a blanaced diet is sufficientGeni 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, in this sentence:


 * Proponents point to an almost zero level of deaths caused by overdosing of vitamins compared to the significant numbers from pharmaceuticals.

What is "almost zero"? "Significant numbers"? It seems very vague.

11:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It has to be vague becuase exact numbers are hard to define. There have been a very small number of deaths from vitamin overdoesing but the total number probably isn't even into triple figures.Geni 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence
I have just conducted a (brief) literature review, looking for randomised placebo-controlled trials. Unfortunately, there are very few. Those that I did find, I have added to the article. (None of them supported megavitamin usage.) I didn't bother to add the numerous case reports, most of which showed harm arising from megavitamin use. Axl 20:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Gastrointestinal Origin of Mental Illness?
15/10/2005, Based on the writings of Nutritional Psychiatrist Dr Dr Reading http://www.gutandmentalillness.com

(This article is not intended as replacement for medical treatment.)

Often overlooked in the development of many illnesses, especially mental illness and neurological disorders is the role of the gastrointestinal system. It is known that both our gut and brain originate early in embryogenesis from a clump of tissue called the neurcast, which appears and divides during foetal development. While one section turns into the central nervous system another piece migrates to become the enteric nervous system and thus form both thinking machines. Later the two nervous systems are connected via a cable called the vagus nerve. This nerve meanders from the brain stem through the organs in the neck and thoric and finally ends up in the abdomen. This establishes the brain gut connection. So it is from a correctly functioning gut that we enjoy neurological, psychological and immunological health.

It is currently known among gastroenterologists that children with neurological problems often exhibit gastrointestinal upset. Most medical practitioners associate that the function of the gut is reactive to the mind and not vice versa. This understanding is based of current neuro-gastroeneterology. The guts brain, the enteric nervous system (located in sheaths of tissue lining the esophageus, stomach and colon) is packed with nerves with neurotransmitters, neurons and proteins and support cells like those found in the brain. So when we feel emotional, the enteric nervous system in the gut likely responds to the mind in a certain manner. For example vomiting before an interview.

But contrary to what most people think, latest research indicates that the gut itself may affect the mind and hence how we feel. It is possible that problems with the guts brain - the 'enteric nervous system' and its immunological interactions may indirectly effect the human brain and central nervous system. In this way the gut may be in fact more responsible than we have imagined for our mental well-being...

Gastrointestinal causes of mental illness:

The human body, is an organism of 100 trillion (1014) cells and of this 90 trillion are prokaryotic (bacterial) and 10 trillion are eukaryotic ('human'). Each human cell supports 50-100 bacteria or bacterial descendants. The human gastrointestinal tract is the focal point for this maintaining this balance of bacteria in the body. An advanced array of immunological interactions and defenses constantly interplay between the body and gut to maintain the health of the individual. Infact, the human intestine is the largest organ of the immune system and comprises of millions of bacteria in symbiotic balance with the host. Specialised defences, not fully understood, are in place for the protection of the gut from infectious pathogens and therefore maintain the integrity of the gut mucosa.

Overuse of antibiotics, poor diet, stress, infection and inherited gut disorders such as celiac disease are known to contribute to weakened gastrointestinal health. When the balance of the gut is compromised there is increased risk of gut infection and possible breakdown of the immunological health of the body. So important is this balance, it is noted that 'The brain and body state' is achieved as a reward for looking after our micro flora - according to Evgeny Rothschild, (Science Spectra 6, 1996).

Recurrent gastrointestinal infection, gastritis, post antibiotic infection (colonization of bad bacteria), tropical sprue and inherited gastro-immunological disorders such as celiac sprue, non-celiac sprue and food intolerances may lead to the development of mental illness and disease. For example, current research into autism has postulated that a certain subset of children who had MMR vaccine may have developed a persistent gastrointestinal infection with the measles virus. This has been confirmed through colonoscopies of these children who exhibit inflammation in the small bowel. As a consequence, the poor health of their small bowel has caused these children to deteriorate neurologically.

When the gut can not eradicate a pathogen or suspected antigen correctly a cycle of deterioration occurs in the gut. Normally when a pathogen is acquired by the gastrointestinal tract an auto-immune response is triggered to eliminate this infection. Often diarrhoea, fever and vomiting occur and usually the infection is self limiting and the individual recovers. However, in a subset of people with weakened gastrointestinal systems either inherited or due to environmental factors, the immune response may be inadequate. This leads to persistent gastrointestinal illness. Often a long term immune response to a pathogen not eliminated correctly will trigger persistent inflammation. For example, often seen in cases of inflammatory bowel disease such as Ulcerative colitis, the immune system over-responds and the colon become chronically inflamed due to infection. Repeated inflammation sets in a cycle of deterioration of gut mucosa. In the case of mental illness it is mostly likely that an insufficient gastro-immunological response occurs in the small bowel. No symptoms of gastrointestinal upset may occur except for mental illness. Repeated immune response due to infection or allergy may result in inflammation, particularly in the area of the small bowel and over time this may lead to damage of the mucosal villi and in turn increase mucosal permeability. With partial-atrophy (flattening) of the villi there is less absorption of food and less immune secretory factors from the villi (IgA, IgM, IgG) cells to prevent further infection. These villi are also responsible in secreting of digestive enzymes, but with greater pathogenic load and poor motility due to infection there is less enzyme release and hence digestion of ingested substances deteriorates. Due to this a cycle of malabsorption can set in, and with malabsorption there is less chance of epithelial repair. This is because epithelial cells are constantly replacing themselves and to do so require a constant nutrient supply. Without adequate and dense nutrition they can not replicate and this worseness mucosal integrity. In this way, a vicious circle of inflammation, infection, allergy, permeability and malabsorption continues. Overtime, the immunological response of the small bowel may deteriorate, possibly due to autoimmune tendency to the bowel from the body. This may lead to small bowel bacterial overgrowth or candidiasis which in turn increase the leaky ness of the gut. Once depleted and inflamed, the villi fail to protect the mucosal integrity and allow the intestine to become permeable to more substances. In this way, the small bowel may allow the undigested contents to 'leak' into the blood stream. As enzyme secretion diminishes, due to pathogenic and pancreatic overload there is an accumulation of absorbed undigested materials in the body. These easily cross through a more permeable gut and overload the liver and kidneys with greater than normal toxin levels. In particular, the phase one to phase two detoxification pathways of toxins in the liver can become insufficient for this load and chemical sensitivities may then develop. Without adequate detoxification the poorly digested toxins accumulate in the body. Allergies to certain foods are often acquired from incomplete digestion and elimination. Allergies in turn also create nutrient deficiencies. In many gut related mental illnesses malabsorption develops both from allergies and poor enzyme release possibly due to pathogenic overload. Malabsorption creates severe disturbances in the body. Many mental patients are known to often exhibit low serum levels of B vitamins and minerals, especially vitamin B12 and B6 and zinc which are vital for normal the function of the brain and stability of mood. Recent studies have shown the many schizophrenics have poor taste and sense of smell - indicative of zinc deficiency.

In addition, the correct break down and digestion foods are required to produce the vitamins needed to create the hormone cortisol. Cortisol and related steroids can only be manufactured with adequate B vitamins, esp. B5, B1, B2, B3, Mg, ZN, and vitamin C.Hence, malabsoption prevents cortisol production in the body. Cortisol is an anti-inflammatory compound and is very important for the homeostasis of the body. With low cortisol the body can not fight allergies, infection or inflammation as well. Cortisol is also is important in mood regulation, stamina levels and blood sugar regulation. Low cortisol can result in mood swings, depression, paranoid and psychotic behaviour. Hypoglycemia results from food allergies, malabsorbtion, low cortisol, Candida, pancreatic overload - all which derive from digestive problems. Hypoglycemia can cause many mental problems such as anxiety, shaking, crying, panic and mood changes. Insufficient break-down of the hardest to digest (and most commonly consumed) foods leads to incompletely digested fractions or peptides. With stressed detoxification systems these peptides can accumulate in the body. Certain peptides readily cross the blood brain barrier and interfere with brain functioning. Milk and bread exhibit peptides called exorphins from gluten and casein which act as opoids in the human brain and have psychoactive effects. Many psychotic patients have specific IgA antibodies to such peptides indicating that these fractions have accumulated in their brains. It is also possible that poorly digested food fractions may trigger an autoimmune response in the brain due to repeated cerebral allergy. It is postulated that the constant accumulation of such toxins as well as bacterial endotoxins overtime may deteriorate the blood brain barrier itself allowing for greater permeability of the brain to further toxins. In children and young adults, opoids inhibit the normal maturation of the central nervous system. As the human brain, especially the frontal lobe, does not complete development until the age of 25, permanent damage to the brain often results from these opoids. This explains the rapid onset of autism in healthy children who suddenly deteriorate with severe developmental and learning disorders. Whilst with schizophrenia, this correlates with onset and worsening of symptoms seen in the late teens and early twenties of growing adults. It is likely that the developing brain is damaged from the build up of poorly digested food fractions. These once healthy individuals may have in fact acquired their mental illness through a poorly functioning gastrointestinal-immune system rather than inheriting mental illness. Further examples are of this are seen in Western Ireland which has a high incidence of both celiac sprue and schizophrenia. This also indirectly highlights the mechanism for the inheritance of schizophrenia, whereby inheritance of poor gut function is passed on (not necessarily the gene for dopamine excess) which slowly erodes the developing brain eventually causing mental symptoms.

The combination of the malabsorption of essential nutrients, allergies, low cortisol and accumulation brain opoids and insufficient detoxication to eliminate these toxins may overwhelm the ability of any individual to function normally. By initiating a chain of 'health breakdowns'(See the Gut and Mental illness flow chart diagram), a poorly functioning gastro-immunological system and its cumulative effects, ultimately result in mental illness. The path to recovery or prevention of such illness therefore lies in restoring the immunological balance of the gut.

Good gut management and gut repair can modify and manage many immune disorders outside the gut. Without gut repair and good gut ecology return of health is unlikely. The Below complementary treatments have assisted people with mental illness, learning disorders, hypoglycemia, autism, memory problems, chronic fatigue, bowel disease, auto-immune disease, arthritis and coeliac and latent cealiac disease. For treatment strategies see http://www.gutandmentalillness.com Based on the writings of Psychiatrist Dr C.M. Reading

Merging of megavitamin therapy
I disagree with the merging of these two articles. While megavitamin therapy is associated with orthomolecular medicine, it is a different concept and is not unique to ortho, and shares it own potential benefits and risks and should remain separate. I am not an advocate of either therapy. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moertel refs: anti-vitamin C Shibboleths
Moertel's 1979/1985 opuses "refuting" Pauling and orthomolecular vitamin C use should be removed from the Orthomolecular refs on their own merits, including substantial chemo use. Technically, Creagan, Moertel et al (1979) simply did not come close to replicating Pauling and Cameron's work so it certainly did not specifically refute the EC+LP work. As for broadly discrediting vitamin C, previous clinical experience (E. Cameron & L. Pauling; FR Klenner) suggested that higher doses of intravenous vitamin C would be necessary with cancer, especially initially. With presumably chemo damaged patients (especially degraded intestinal, liver function, immune function and now resistant cell lines)  Moertel was compelled to recognize some of the shortcomings of the 1979 trial, part of why there was a second trial, published 1985. It is unfortunate for us, the multitudes, that these parties could not work together to really identify the technical differences and allow the next generation to better understand those differences and questions more thoroughly.
 * Creagan E. T., Moertel C. .G, O'Fallon J. R., Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1979 27 September; 301(13):687-90.

Remaining differences btw even the 2nd Moertel trial and Cameron & Pauling include: lack of initial IV vitamin C to achieve high initial blood levels, oral form differences (neutralized AA-DHA-sorbitol solution, vs dry AA caps), less than 10 g/day AA, duration:(EC+LP) 200+ days avg lifetime continued trmt vs Moertel's abruptly halted ascorbate treatment after 72 days avg. Moertel used subsequent chemo after the AA halt and the ~2 year follow up was analyzed as "vitamin C results". No Mayo patients actually died while on vitamin C. A likely important protocol change, the patients subsequent survival after the AA halt only then was equal or worse than the controls. Unaddressed were population and dietary differences btw rural Scots and Minnesota. Any oxalate based excuse about IV ascorbate was not satisfactory even then - adequate water, B1, B6, Mg, methylene blue, dialysis, discontinuance, initial renal exclusion were readily available options. Also Cameron had demonstrated extended experience without renal stone formation problems by then.

One might get the idea Moertel et al were not trying to make a treatment succeed or constructively explain differences as much destroy Pauling and the proposed treatment substance. Moertel's refusal of communication prospective and retrospective, analysis methods, lack of data preservation/sharing, lack of IV vitamin C and general handling of Pauling by ambush appears consistent with prejudicial handling. Subsequent development work to date continues to show merit and mechanism on IV vitamin C, including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2005). Abram Hoffer continues to progress on adjuvant cancer treatments using 12+g/day oral C and strong multivitamin/antioxidant, multimineral regimes.

The continued use of the Moertel reference seems misplaced and misleading at this late date in the Orthomolecular category, especially since both Mayo studies heavily involved chemo treated patients, #1 before AA, #2 after AA. The Mayo-Moertel studies' priority even 20 years ago seems more a pro-institutional bias than careful science about the utility and potential merit of ascorbates in cancer treatment and orthomolecular medicine. I can't see its merit here. 69.178.31.177  9 January 2006 (UTC)

Relation to conventional medicine
This entire section shows a strong pro-POV. Statements that doctors "have little knowledge", and attacking the studies done, especially when no rigorous pro studies exist. The fact is that conventional medicine regards this as pseudoscience, and that is not really in the article.-- John DO | Speak your mind   20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The addition of even more pro POV language is not helping.-- John DO | Speak your mind   07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Without being argumentative, I am trying to concisely describe the nature of a beast, its claims, its impact, its controversy, its merits, its travails, its unpleasantries. from NPOV: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why..."

re pseudoscience: Many of the pioneers mentioned here were no mere 36 x 3.8 MSTPs. Yet historically they are often suddenly dismissed as crazed or ignorant cranks once they encounter forbidden turf yet while honoring the principles of science. I have specifically added the conventional medicine disagreement to the section. I separated the rebuttals by sentence, but those factors are crucial to understanding the current gap, why there is a such technical philosophy/opinion split. Without these stmts, it appears mysterious why the gap should exist. Unless, of course, they were, and many are, simply fools or frauds...hmmmm.

The "litte detailed knowledge" part is perhaps no fun but that is pretty much the consenus from the "dark side", of course, and frankly, from some within conventional medicine (I personally got candid conversational versions of it 2x last month). Perhaps that sentence is the part you should hone or comment on. But I really don't think the average conventional doctor has spent that much time seriously studying this subject and its history, much less researching it and experimenting. Pauling's comment was that doctors then (ca 1990s) pretty much relied on authoritative pronouncements because of their busy schedules. 69.178.31.177  20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A look at Orthomolecular literature clears up things fairly quickly. This boils down to a tacit acknowledgment of the lack of scientific rigour in the field. An attitude of "If it's harmless and the patients report results, that means it works!" permeates the field. A brief overview of the Journal reveals attacks on double blind studies and worship of anecdote. And it is all so unnecessary. The nutrition industry is a huge industry. All it would take would be good outcome studies and this would all become mainstream. But we know that isn't likely to happen. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 11:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Too shallow, read the serious OM article refs in the biochemical parts of the books. You're still being too dismissive (just like me for 30+ yrs) to grasp what is really there (still feeding the "little detailed knowledge" that you bristle over). In the IOM website I dislike Kunin's webpage probably the most, too inclusive of therapies (not the impacted fields) that are naturopathic not biochemical i.e.#13-17,20-24 (hydrotherapy etc...). 18, 19 light related are biochemical because of vitamin D (skin:10,000-50,000iu vs 200-400-600iu RDA) and retinal physiology at least. The grab bag of naturopathy is simply where most orthomolecular support exists. I might suggest studying enzymes and megavitamin applications to see if anything connects with your technical background at some level. Conventional medicine (ie Harrison's) sometimes actually acknowledges them in passing (after fruitlessly screwing with the clean angio, liver, kidney workups across several months, on the hypertensive 80 y.o. old lady's elephant-like ankle edema - what cheap vitamin(s) would you consider? - after Harrison's 12th ed.). Maybe find about the more useful forms of megavitamin-like things (ie mixed cartenoids, D3, gamma/mixed tocopherols for cardio, isoprenoids in cancer (K-2/mk-4, coQ10, delta tocotrienol 'E'), R-alpha lipoic acid, NAC. Some of this stuff is in alt med, foreign med, some is buried in the pharma patents). You wouldn't even get close to those nasty weeds (herbals).

I would be very interested to see your individual comments on Kunin's 15 principles of OM though. Resolving the experimental science situation/discussion is going to take effort, the predrilled presumptions in your stmt are legion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.31.177 (talk • contribs)


 * Biochemical models are of limited relevance to actual practice. The difference between "medical orthodoxy" and orthomolecular views is that of science vs. pseudoscience. As clinicians, we "orthodox" types may sometimes try unproven treatments based on theory on a case by case basis if the situation is unusual enough that data does not exist. But we don't generalize from one patient to general effectiveness. The difference is a fundamental one very well illustrated by that link above. Medicine is about outcomes, and outcomes studies are necessary before effectiveness is proven. What it would take to "connect to my technical background" are outcome studies. Prove your claims. Again, all it will take are outcome studies proving the orthomolecular methodology. For example, look at the claims regarding redox therapy. If high intravenous doses of vitamin C really cure cancer, do a placebo controlled double blind trial. If proponents did provide trials that proved their claims, this entire discussion would be moot. High dose vitamin C would be orthodox. Instead of definitive data, we are provided with a variety of biochemical justifications of why "it should work" and case reports saying "it does work". Why do proponents find scientific methodology (i.e. double blind placebo controlled trials) so onerous? Using precise biochemical language instead of more patient accessible language does not make it more scientific. As it stands orthomolecular medicine looks like snake oil gussied up with biochemistry. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest what you think is NPOV for the two most unpalatable sentences in the section? --69.178.31.177 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are people who use scientific sounding language to obfuscate matters. Science is more than using scientific terminology. Science is seeking truth through research. If good experiments are hard to design, it just means we have to work harder, not abandon experimentation altogether. Merely asserting "flawed design" with no proof is pointless. The "small studies" that you mention are almost uniformly with no controls, subject to all of the problems above mentioned of dbRCTs and subject to observer bias, secondary gain, and placebo effect. In essence they aren't "small trials", they are anecdotes. There is also a difference between "real science" and engineering. Medicine is more akin to engineering and other applied sciences in that results have a real consequence. Engineers are also "parochial" in their obsession with their version of outcome studies. If anything they are even more conservative over innovation than physicians. As for dbRCT's, your claims are arguable, but no excuse for not doing them. "Captive pharma" and "tobacco science" are ad hominem and irrelevant and ignore the fact that the nutrition industry generates massive dollars as well. Again the objection seems to be "it might be corrupt so let's not do studies". Alternative medicine types seem to love pointing to Vioxx et al and ignore the fact it was these same studies that discovered their inadequacies. If "captive pharma" had approached these drugs with the same attitude as orthomolecular medicine, we would never have known about the dangers. After all, they were theoretically sound. "Big Med" is not a religion, it is a business, and that is enough for us to approach their work with some skepticism. But that does not invalidate research. It seems the essence of your argument is that research need not be done because it is too expensive or too difficult. My "pseudoscience 'tude" is not without reason. Act like scientists, and we will treat you as such. Glorify the anecdote and attack experimentation, and that 'tude is unlikely to change. Ok, end of diatribe on my part.-- John  DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You think I am glorifying the anecdote. I am not. You misread me entirely. I am saying that there are other forms of testing besides the holy "big scale" dbRCT as currently implemented, that should be specifically assessed for the nature of the product, situation and application. I like lots of tests and data, especially some of my own. Multiple kinds of tests are harder to dodge, even crude tests. This is sort of like the Hubble telescope, $2b error, despite high price testing, it turned out a knowledgable amateur could have nailed the embarrassingly large optical error for ~$10. Pauling had a knack for it.
 * You say there are other forms of testing, but do not suggest any, and unless you mean to question the fundamentals of experimental design, you can't away from the fact that without blinding and adequate controls, bias will eliminate any demonstration of causality. There is a reason dbRCT's are necessary. And more data is always better all other factors being equal. You also cannot compare apples to oranges, which is why meta-analyses are always less significant. And they are only significant if the individual experiments are statistically significant. This is why analyses of 500 case reports yields little. Your analogy is strained and we both should know that "a knowledgeable amateur" could never have produced a mirror of those specifications anyway. Knowledgeable amateurs have always been adept at poking holes and pointing blame, but producing the results is something else altogether. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have some years of original research, experimental experiences, games from faulty vendor data and memory at a rough intersection between a number of Fortune 50s. I have nailed a number of hard to spot cases of experimental design rigging from academic/corp. research and other situations (serious technical action/personnel/contract changes ensued). Usually with a much simpler test or careful analysis. Sometimes with massive, cheap test data. Nominal "bs" dbRCT fail to automatically impress me, partly because of their designs. In reality I think dbRCTs are often oversold but do sometimes uniquely resolve issues. dbRCTs have become a rich man's game in medicine.
 * I will take you at your word concerning your criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry. Of course there are studies of dubious value. You aren't saying anything new. GIGO applies to dbRCT's as well. But that is a problem that applies to all experimentation. As to "rich man's game", it seems we are back to "it's too hard to do, so don't do it". Your statements thus far consist of unsupported allegations of "a better way" and unsupported allegations that "dbRCT's are oversold" sprinkled with warnings of corporate deception.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In many branches of engineering and science it is axiomatic that if the vendor controls the data (client accepts it), the vendor controls the client. Ditto lack of infomation. Medicine in this aspect is owned by pharma, you are naive to think otherwise. When a test design is successfully spiked, below the threshhold of detection, many kinds of inferential manipulation are possible. In essence, Moertel did this to Pauling below the *public's* threshhold of detection (understanding & absent/withheld data).
 * As is readily apparent not nearly all data is controlled by the industry, unless you invoke the boogeyman of conspiracy. Calling me naive does not prove it. As for Moertel and Pauling, another unsupported allegation that would have been easily remedied by research by proponents. If the higher doses really work, that is easily demonstrated. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Much corp. intelligence goes into achieving the max possible without detection. Welcome to the basic facts of life in corp. America. From a budget basis I think NIH has long failed to adequately test some OM, objectivity questions aside.
 * The lack of corporate benevolence is hardly a surprise. As for the NIH, again a few good outcome studies would spur them to action. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Often I think that there are cheaper, massively more productive ways to do more tests with more resolution, less customer sacrifice. You think you are the massive skeptic; in my eyes you are still too trusting. May we forgo the tree marking now?
 * I am not so trusting that I will believe that statement without proof. I have little interest in territorialism. If you truly demonstrated vitamin C cured cancer, I would line up to applaud you. You mistake me, I have nothing against any treatment if it works. But your treatments are unproven and your field does not seem interested in changing that. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have established my approach to the wording of the paragragh, I would appreciate removal of the sign or your help to balance the NPOV. The article should forthrightly acknowledge the nature of the controversy.--69.178.31.177 08:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, see below for my suggestion. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

15 Principles
Here is a list of 15 principles that identify the spirit" of Orthormolecular Medicine:

1. Orthomolecules come first in medical diagnosis and treatment. Knowledge of the safe and effective use of nutrients, enzymes, hormones, antigens, antibodies and other naturally occurring molecules is essential to assure a reasonable standard of care in medical practice.
 * Backed up with no outcome studies. Nutrition is important, yes. There is little evidence that all this supplementation does more than create expensive urine.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Orthomolecules have a low risk of toxicity. Pharmacological drugs always carry a higher risk and are therefore second choice if there is an orthomolecular alternative treatment.
 * Several "orthomolecules" have been shown to be very toxic. The artificial distinction between "natural" and pharmacological is dubious. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Laboratory tests are not always accurate and blood tests do not necessarily reflect nutrient levels within specific organs or tissues, particularly not within the nervous system. Therapeutic trial and dose titration is often the most practical test.
 * The first part is of dubious relevance since "nutrient" levels need to be associated with disease first. The second part is even more dubious and just asking for placebo effect.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Biochemical individuality is a central precept of Orthomolecular Medicine. Hence, the search for optimal nutrient doses is a practical issue. Megadoses, larger than normal doses of nutrients, are often effective but this can only be determined by therapeutic trial. Dose titration is indicated in otherwise unresponsive cases.
 * A good excuse to not do studies.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

5. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of the United States Food and Nutrition Board are intended for normal, healthy people. By definition, sick patients are not normal or healthy and not likely to be adequately served by the RDA.
 * Unsupported blanket statement showing a lack of understanding of fundamental biochemistry. Depending on the actual illness, a person may need more/less or the same of "nutrients". These things would require research.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Environmental pollution of air, water and food is common. Diagnostic search for toxic pollutants is justified and a high "index of suspicion" is mandatory in every case.
 * Environment pollution may be common. But causality has to be demonstrated. And the methods used to "determine toxicity" must be proven.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Optimal health is a lifetime challenge. Biochemical needs change and our Orthomolecular prescriptions need to change based upon follow-up, repeated testing and therapeutic trials to permit fine-tuning of each prescription and to provide a degree of health never before possible.
 * Unsupported statement backed by little other than speculative data. Prove it first. Seems like an excuse for variable treatment methods.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

8. Nutrient related disorders are always treatable and deficiencies are usually curable. To ignore their existence is tantamount to malpractice.
 * I would agree except that what is defined as "nutrient related disroders" are dubious and backed by little data.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

9. Don't let medical defeatism prevent a therapeutic trial. Hereditary and so-called 'locatable disorders are often responsive to Orthomolecular treatment.
 * The first part can be used as justification for anything. The second is unfounded except by anecdote. Causality is again the issue.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

10. When a treatment is known to be safe and possibly effective, as is the case in much 0 Orthomolecular therapy, a therapeutic trial is mandated.
 * A tantamount admittance that orthomolecular medicine is not proven. Not all treatments are safe. And informed consent should be a priority in treatments of questionable benefit regardless of safety. Any misrepresentation is fraud.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

11. Patient reports are usually reliable, The patient must listen to his body, The physician must listen to his patient.
 * Ok. Except that the placebo effect has been amply demonstrated.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

12. To deny the patient information and access to Orthomolecular treatment is to deny the patient informed consent for any other treatment.
 * The responsible clinician is not responsible for supplying information about dubious treatments. This has been well established.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

13. Inform the patient about his condition; provide access to all technical information and reports; respect the right of freedom of choice in medicine.
 * No argument there. But inundating the patient with technical jargon about molecular models and glossing over the lack of data supporting actual effectiveness is fraud.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

14. Inspire the patient to realize that Health is not merely the absence of disease but the positive attainment of optimal function and well-being.
 * Ok.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

15. Hope is therapeutic and orthomolecular therapies always are valuable as a source of Hope. This is ethical so long as there is no misrepresentation or deception.
 * The first is arguable. I agree with the second.-- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 01:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty conventional, so let's try to finish. I would like the article to be coherently OM descriptive perhaps so that OM might seem self-immolating to you. I think this is extensive detail readily available to aid any POV you may feel got slighted and yet preserve the concise quality Wiki usually misses.

Section Dispute
obviously I didn't refresh recently. working on it thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.31.177 (talk • contribs)


 * How about something like this? Although the International Society of Orthomolecular medicine has many conventionally trained physicians among its members, the field enjoys a contentious relationship with conventional medicine. Conventional medicine deems orthomolecular practices to be unscientific due to the lack of authoritative trials demonstrating efficacy. They also refer to several trials with negative results. Proponents dismiss the negative trials as lacking validity due to differences in dosage, frequency, and other factors. Critics refer to the continued lack of positive trials at any dosage or frequency. Proponents also dismiss the need for authoritative trials pointing to their patients' perceived benefit, a position also deemed unscientific by critics. -- John DO | Speak your mind  [[Image:T-Rex 200.jpg|25px|I doubt it]] 05:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

SectPOV
I attempted to better represent the conventional medical criticism of orthomed. I removed the toxicity claim and counterclaim as not representative. I also removed the section on nutrition and testing as having little relevance to the discussion. I attempted to represent the spirit of our discussion here in the short paragraph. Please continue to edit so we can achieve a consensus on NPOV. Despite our differences in opinion, I feel that is possible. -- John DO | Speak your mind  12:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got to run but I think it is overcut for a new reader concerning some questions frequently on their minds. The dbRCT issues have run amok in current edit, now I am uneasy.  Too eager, will dismiss therapeutics that are in fact mainstreaming  ie  E-2000iu in  Alzhiemers, D3 1000-4000iu in several med schools, K2 in cancer (Japan).  I think we are out of balance. Btw what do you think of the 20yrs post-Pauling IV C work by H Riordan, MD.   He was an interesting case in a clinical development but of course is cut short (stroke).  --69.178.31.177 13:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We could change the phrase to "scientific studies".-- John DO | Speak your mind  13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear John, I have thought about this. Orthomolecular medicine was founded by accomplished scientists. The words "pseudoscience" and "unscientific" are terms of disparagement when applied to a subject that has some form of evidence basis. After the first laboratory and clinical studies, "it is science," everything becomes a discussion of priority. The dbRCT, a prioritized form of evidence, in its various forms is a laborious, costly effort that typically far exceeds the resources of small groups; its definition basically excludes the individual researcher or clinician. The dbRCT does not define science or even scientific medicine. It is a premium tool that can even be abused; to my eyes clearly so with respect to the historical relationship between conventional medicine and embryonic orthomolecular medicine. In the spirit of fair coverage, "unscientific" was tolerated as a passing commentary representing the sentiment of many conventional doctors whose lack of detailed familiarity with OM is noted; it is *not* a central theme of OM. This would be the tail wagging the subject, albeit the tail in this case is much larger. The word "pseudoscience" used here would be simply a perjorative provocation. Many such opinions on orthomolecular medicine appear to be made based on hearsay or discredited reports.

Accordingly I don't think the word "unscientific" is relevant, applicable or suitable here - elementally not true and simply distracting. Because of this element of contention, most other issues will need to be treated outside this section.--69.178.31.177 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, while it is true that "pseudoscience" and "unscientific" are terms of disparagement, they are also terms that are used by conventional medicine to criticize orthomed. Whether or not proponents such as yourself agree is immaterial as to the fact that they do characterize orthomed as such. NPOV entails description of both sides and adequate weight given to the majority opinion. These facts are not in dispute: 1) Conventional medicine views orthomed as unscientific and as pseudoscience, 2) Orthomed disputes this, 3)Orthomed is the very small minority in this debate. This accurately reflects the view of conventional medicine, which is the title of the section. Also, your edit eliminated the primary objection (lack of positive studies) and substituted the secondary objection (the presence of negative studies). Also by both characterizing the studies as disputed and explicitly disputing them in the next sentence, you are giving the proponents undue weight. This in essence sets up another straw man argument. Also, the argument that doctors are "unfamiliar" with orthomed implies that familiarity would lend to acceptance, which has not proven true. Conventional medicine's view of orthomed may not be central theme of the OM, but it is the central theme of this section. -- John DO | Speak your mind  22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I redid the section without using "pseudoscience" or "unscientific" despite the fact that they are terms that accurately reflect the view of critics. -- John DO | Speak your mind  22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

John, Tired or I may have annoyed you, I apologize. You normally write with a little more balance. "...3)Orthomed is the very small minority in this debate. This accurately reflects the view of conventional medicine, which is the title of the section."
 * Consensus science is an oxymoron. Science can be extremely contentious. The orthomed founders have unusually strong science backgrounds w.r.t. avg medical students. The section is "relation with..." not merely (ignorant as in lack of detailed knowledge) scurrilous "views of...".

"Also, your edit eliminated the primary objection (lack of positive studies)"
 * Factual error - Lack of dbRCT is not lack of studies, or even a lack of positive studies per se, perhaps "positive enough," recycle dbRCT discussions

"Also by both characterizing the studies as disputed and explicitly disputing them in the next sentence, you are giving the proponents undue weight.
 * A number of "disputed" studies are described *politely* as "disputed". Pauling himself, known for blunt precison and clarity, after digging up *some* of Moertel's hidden material, publicly stated Moertel's study as a "fraud". At the time, this was widely dismissed (me too) as sour grapes from an old man past the age of senility.  Being older, more directly familiar with these kind of things, I have started a little background checking into Pauling and the Moertel-Pauling situation.  Pauling, typically writing a book in a few months, still seems clear in 1986 as do his later interviews.  In fact LP's writing style still so paralleled a friend from CalTech's speech, it is like talking to my friend.  As for Moertel, now that I better understand OM and catching sandbagged tests (not OM), from what I have gathered, LP seems to have been a little overcautious in his criticism.  "Mainstream"/govt'l tests of vitamins so typically compromise 1-3+ elements of the OM protocols that it is rare to see a direct test of the protocols best accepted to succeed. Deliberately running tests well below known threshholds without acknowledgement or claiming it as a valid repetition is widely viewed as scientific misconduct.  Industrially, doing it subtlely to disparage a product's evaluation, is known as "sandbagging the test".  In academia, carefully hiding it is called "fraud".  Again given the section "relation..." and the continuing pattern (fact) and magnitude (fact) of the errors, some note seems obligatory, not just mere "balance". And yes, it is a scandal.

"...the argument that doctors are "unfamiliar" with orthomed implies that familiarity would lend to acceptance,"
 * Well, it would not be the first time and in fact I think the rate of infection associated with substantial knowledge is quite high. I cannot say that I personally have ever encountered a MD that was both critical and reasonably (conversationally) knowledgeable, whereas I have encountered several "converts". Frankly there seems to be an autoabort button planted during med school that shutdowns the analytical functions about this subject.  I have read critical MDs, now online, that are fairly knowledgeable, some for 20 years.  I have come to view some parts of their stmts to be hideously unfair, inaccurate and misleading.  If I want to talk casually to a MD I need to speak his language or about an interesting non-medical topic. Otherwise, they just meltdown (I no longer mention any of this to long time personal friends, and we don't talk as often).

"Conventional medicine's view of orthomed may not be central theme of the OM, but it is the central theme of this section."
 * within the confines of fact, reasonable balance, avoiding gross mischaraterization and prejudical language. Also, "relation..." is not "view..."--69.178.31.177 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not annoyed, but I admit to a certain fatigue this morning. If I was rude or imtemperate, you have my apology. I thought we were engaged in a lively discussion. As you may have already noticed, while I took a strong partisan position on the Talk page, I approached my edit of the article with what I hope to be balance and NPOV. I continue to contend that the dbRCT is the most authoritative type of study available currently to demonstrate efficacy. This is the reason my first attempt specifically mentions dbRCTs. While you have pointed out some problems with dbRCTs, your objections apply equally to all other types of studies. I don't see any other types of experiment design that can eliminate bias and demonstrate causality the same way a dbRCT does. And I don't understand why large organizations like the ISOM cannot do the required studies to prove efficacy. If dbRCT's can be done to assess gingko biloba for altitude sickness, why not orthomed? Yes, there is a systemic bias against unproven treatments. This reflects the scientific conservatism of the profession, a position that is unlikely to change. We just can't afford to be an "early adopters" when lives are at stake.-- John  DO | Speak your mind  05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Closer to consensus
I think we are fairly close to consensus. I had five minor disputes with your last edit. 1) I think the first two sentences need to flow together, if you like them to be separate sentences, the word However is a good compromise. 2) The orthodox view does not dispute "many" OM therapies. It disputes OM. 3) I am not sure "refrains" is the best word to describe the attitude of conventional medicine towards OM. The attitude is considerably harsher, but "disputes the validity of" is fairly toned down but still descriptive of the sentiment. 4) The issue of positive studies. I think authoritative is fine, but the word sufficient implies that some authoritative studies exist and conventional medicine does not consider any orthomolecular studies to be authoritative. 5) Lastly, I don't think the "adoption by conventional medicine" sentence is really accurate. The rift is considerably wider than that. Mention of nutritionally based therapy is considered tantamount to quackery. I don't see any evidence that there is any "adoption" going on at all, since any adoption of OM is treated as defection. While there is now some preventive nutrition, therapeutic nutritional supplementation is not at all accepted. While this article should not be a conventional medicine polemic against OM, the relationship between the 2 should be accurately characterized. -- John DO | Speak your mind  12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

re previous: ISOM is still a relative midget, NMD & OM are hardly monied specialties. Without actual facts, I would think that a ginko application might not have much required or contention like a cancer trial.
 * "...as unproven." Since this is the term frequently used as a medical catchall, I think "insufficiently proven" better represents what an ordinary encyclopedia  reader would most accurately understand and best represents the differences between CM and OM here.  Since "unproven" is the category that includes grossly fraudulent and even dangerous products, it is too broad.
 * "Proponents note that..." - hitting the trmt protocol range, etc, is a yes/no fact, not an opinion
 * "negative studies" can imply harmful as well as absence of sufficient success
 * "Adoption of orthomolecular therapies by conventional medicine has been generally slow."  Both ways: reluctance based on conventional medicine view of merit, and decades slow even when proven (e.g. niacin)

re: Closer
 * ok
 * 1) interesting situation: OM vs it's therapies. OM - pariah, ok.  Therapy actually three cases: a) overlap (same therapy much much more conservative use B,E, K1, enzymes; b) official acceptance (niacin)  c) bootleg (not exactly sure)
 * 2) reject was too prejudicial, refrains is too mushy needs word/work
 * 3) I can live w/o sufficient
 * 4) "leakage"

Looks okay to bleary eyes. I think that should do for a while. Are we done on Section POV? --69.178.31.177 13:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought this was in previously, "most" twice, although CM would like to generally disdain OM, can't avoid fact of overlaps and agreed authoritative support in some cases, as #2 above. --69.178.31.177 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think OM means more than just nutritional therapies. There is a certain methodology that is rejected by CM. There is a slight amount of overlap in the substances used, but the way they are used is different. But I don't object to most or the international reference.-- John DO | Speak your mind  23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

dark side
Assuming methodology is "next" on your list, current differential diagnostics would probably be started with the two nutritional / natural med textbooks, Pizzorno & Murray (2 vol, 3rd ed; pp*density is a little less than Harrison's) or Werbach & Moss (lightweight, quick), they cover some of the testing. Orthomed usually relies on what is integrated into NMD and what floats in from CM with adds on, rather than distinct OM diagnostics (no schools). OM psychiatry has more independent methodology but then you are another step or two out...how far are you going?
 * I don't really have a list, I just browse and edit when I see something that I think needs editing. But we could probably clean up redox therapy sometime.-- John DO | Speak your mind  03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OM tests
John - Searching for NPOV again. The sentiment that you state for CM is true, but the issue itself is debated and the language a little too prejudicial. Many of the tests used are either standard or similar, sometimes extended versions. 46+ blood panels, a number of the nutrients and many others are relatively the same. "Promiscuity of use" is a real difference. Some of the tests not validated with CM nevertheless have extensive science pedigrees, just not fully validated with CM. Some tests you are thinking of may be outside of OM range, one of the other, farther out naturopathic areas. Also competition tends to remove some junk, one analytical lab will dissect the others to achieve a commercial advantage. Not saying its perfect. They are trying to build additional useful data for diagnosis, trending and / or general OM recommendations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.31.177 (talk • contribs)
 * Ok, but let's simplify to just "Many of the tests are not accepted by conventional medicine". The preceding text is a bit excessive and unclear for a lay reader who may not be up on the process of research. -- John  DO | Speak your mind  13:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Germ Theory
disease has "multiple non-specific causes"... DOes that mean that the theory referenced here rejects teh germ theory of diseases? Or is it just referring to non-infectious diseases? Clarification needed in article. (I can't tell if it is harmless otherwise) Midgley 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Purification Rundown
I have concerns about this Purification Rundown link. (1) it seems more like advertising or extraneous POV; (2) it is not a general orthomolecular medicine reference - it is a specific subject ref where the context of this article's development was for general refs to avoid endless is too-is not arguments that were trashing the page, see "References" above, early Jan 2006, between DocJohnny & 69...177; (3) I think that there are source and verifiability issues,  (4) without that much knowledge of Scientology, much less its detox treatment ritual, following the P-R link and also google, I see two items that raise flags about the "orthomolecular purity" of this treatment. Just because a treatment might claim some orthomolecular roots, self described personnel or is described as such, does NOT make it a principled orthomolecular treatment. I think that an encyclopedia article would best focus on clear examples.

For an exaggerated example of this concern: There is a conventional medicine oncology treatment that uses injected vitamin C. The idea is that a  daily shot of IM vitamin C roughly triples the cumulative body tolerance to Trisenox (arsenic trioxide) chemotherapy. There is no way you can call that whole treatment "orthomolecular medicine" even though it uses a long described (in orthomed) property of vitamin C. Perhaps a more accurate orthomed connection would be a comment in the Pur'n Rundown article that explores whether Pur'n Rundown was partly developed with material "borrowed" from orthomed or perhaps "Niacin" uses. Google ("Purification Rundown" + "abram hoffer") or + "orthomolecular" shows almost no hits (Abram Hoffer largely defines niacin and orthomed). I can think of dozens of specific treatments/links that might more clearly illustrate orthomed than this link. --69.178.31.177 12:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

# of orthomed practitioners, "normal" diets
"...is practiced by a few hundred physicians. It..."

The source of "hundreds of physicians" appears to be an old Barrett figure, at least over a dozen yrs old possibly several decades, by a notorious and sometimes scurrilous orthomed opponent, whom even some of his supporters here at Wikipedia have acknowledged a strong bias as simply pleasing to certain professional factions. I think that an objective # of practitioners statement would best be stated in perhaps the 2nd, 3rd paragraphs, or even a separate 4th paragraph with some sources. IMHO, the first paragraph is best oriented toward summarizng the description of the area.

Several points should be constructively considered here: (1) When is a conventionally trained doctor (in the US, DO or MD) being orthomolecular or an orthomlecular dr - 1 type of treatment, 2 types of treatments or everything - how do parts count? Especially when a previously recognized generic treatment is displaced by a less able (but highly advertised) pharmaceutical. There is no "ortho" school. And yes, success may mean mainstream absorption. (2) Naturopaths, 4 & 5 yr NMD/ND, duly licensed in a number of US states and a few DC essentially practice some degree of orthomolecular medicine in a number of cases (optimum nutrition) as probably do some psychology PhDs and other allied health professions. (3) What geographic area are we talking? I know of 3rd world MDs, educated in or influenced by NoAM, that apparently picked up on some Hoffer / Klenner results in the 50s/60s before Hoffer and Pauling really defined the field. (4) reference quality sourcing of an accurate, current estimate may be an interesting exercise. Actually the correspondence claims of Klenner, Shutes, et al might support "hundreds" as of the 1950s. (5) stmt placement can be distracting to the introduction of an article

"...and asserts that a normal diet is insufficient for health..." modified, "normal" certainly begs the question of whose normal.--69.178.41.55 10:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
The article makes lots of wild claims of efficacy, but there's next to no balance suggesting skepticism, even though "orthomolecular" is a pseudoscientific term, and the regimen is criticized as quackery. Article needs substantial cleanup. -- FRCP11 08:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the article is descriptive of orthomolecular medicine philosophy & practices and doesn't make "wild claims". This article was hashed out at length, reasonably amicably, in January with Doc Johnny, a conventionally oriented Aggie DO, see Talk section, ,, ,,,  above. I have read QW and its predecessors for over 25 years and have become a little disillusioned with them. I agreed that QW "Orthomolecular" objection / criticism link in January  as representative of a POV.  Also they have been minded in court a number of times now to watch which way those other fingers point...--69.178.41.55 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * --pov-- --expert--  These tags simply assert a desire or pov without specific comment or edit, for verbiage that has been previously addressed and "medically" agreed. Incisive or constructive comments are welcome.--69.178.41.55 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A NPOV article would note that most doctors consider this pseudoscience, and then report both sides. This article reports one side, with one buried link representing the other side without any text in the article.  That Doc Johnny acceded to this POV violation does not mean that I have to. -- FRCP11 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Counselor, your statements suggest that you have done very little investigation, much less open minded research, on this subject. What is your most controverted legal situation that public perception is very different and very prejudicial when you get into the details? Orthomolecular medicine, psych and megavitamin therapy (my current reply there) have a much different history than you have likely heard.  Many orthomed pioneers, conventionally trained doctors and patients start out with sterling conventional backgrounds, and over the years/decades find themselves in a different position because they investigate, observe and measure.  Most conventional doctors have very little background in high dose nutritional research, it seems to be their achilles heel and trial by (in nearly financially defunct, high cost advertisements in the printed media) unsupported "preliminary" press releases is common. One might agree with those things doctors *positively* know, pharmaceutical substance X does this -Y- with this side effect -Z-, for n=6000 subjects, but a *close inspection* of primary literature often shows the short comings in doctors' positions on orthomed. They are almost entirely focused on pharma products rather than the natural biochemistry, that's where the grant monies - federal and private - are, promotions etc.  In fact a number of physician statements that I see in other Wiki articles on vitamins aren't even current with conventional refs, say Harrison's Principles of of Internal Medicine or Krause's but I have not had/taken time to chase them down.  If you are going to persist, may I suggest you treat the subject seriously, look at the article references, as if you have a client that might really be innocent despite the  lynch mob...For this article, what do you dispute?  Who do you think might be "expert" on orthomolecular medicine vs just having an adversarial opinion?  Have you actually read any of the orthomed references? They were chosen for availabililty such as in a metropolitan library or current purchase.


 * There are several ardent conventional med editor physicians that have participated on this article that seem to not have taken exception to the POV problem you now seem to see. Andrew73 is a Havard hematology/oncology fellow, Midgely is vociferously against non conventional therapies, Jfdwolff is a prolific Wiki conventional med editor. This is not some hidden hack article.--69.178.41.55 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've stated the basis for the tag. The article pushes a single point of view on the subject, and a fringe minority view at that.  It thus violates WP:NPOV.  Your counter-argument doesn't respond to the NPOV issue.  Under NPOV, it's irrelevant whether that fringe minority view is "correct" in some Platonic way.  In this particular instance, it's all but certain that the fringe minority isn't correct, but, in any event, WP:NPOV requires the majority view be accurately and fairly represented in proportion to the extraordinary claims made in this article. -- FRCP11 23:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is studiously NPOV descriptive about the subject, *improvements* are welcome. (1) there are actually two orthomed critical links, the Washington U at St Louis link is simply slightly less blatant in its presentation. (2) The OM Relation to conventional medicine section is all about a large faction of "conventional medicine's" disagreement without hijacking the article's description. Doc Johnny put a lot of effort in to get it there and to document our respective points of view in Talk.--69.178.41.55 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)