Talk:Orthomolecular medicine/Archive 7

Digestive Factors
I've never heard this term in a discussion of nutrients. Please show me a reference where it is defined. Mmyotis  (^^o^^)  00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the sentence's nutritional construction, the "digestive factors"also Nature and Proc Nutrition Soc, p.158 (e.g. bile, HCl, pancreatic enzymes, pepsin, etc) are not called nutrients per se.  Rather this sentence is phased as, "nutrients... *as well as* digestive factors".  Digestion is an essential part of nutrition, those molecules involved in the digestion process also fall under the orthomolecular definition (please reread Pauling's definition).  I provided two reference books from orthomolecular doctors that address these digestive factors individually (the Atkins book actually addresses most OMM supplements, over 120, that pertain to the entire sentence). My edit summary pointed out that classical nutrients are not the only biomolecules that orthomolecular practitioners discuss and utilize to enhance nutrition. In this case orthomolecularly recommended biomolecules enhance the digestion process by use of digestive supplements (any nutrient value is secondary). Again I have provided two OMM references by OMM MDs that show this, please do not try to tell these well known authors, what OMM MDs do or think, that would be your novel WP:OR among other problems.
 * All your links point to exactly the same target, which is a single undefined phrase in a section of a textbook about water absorption. Did you read this source before you linked to it? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In your non-OMM reference, the term "digestive factors" is undefined, but appears to mean "factors having to do with digestion", which is a very general term having no special application to nutrition. What I'm looking for is an OMM reference that discusses the term "digestive factors". If you don't have that, then maybe you could just list the substances considered important for digestion that your OMM references address, and then use the term digestive factors as a modifier. That would be acceptable to me. Mmyotis   (^^o^^)  16:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term "digestive factors" doesn't appear on PubMed, which makes me think this is some kind of OM-specific jargon that needs to be defined in terms of this alternative medical system's usage. If it is defined and attributed it will be fine to include, as long as it is clear that this is an "in universe" term, similar to homeopathy's use of potentization to mean "dilution". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a legitimate summary phrase for which I have linked multiple examples from conventional technical literature such as  Nature and the gastro textbook. Because the general concept of addressing the category of digestion related molecules is broader than just "digestive supplements", I used the summary phrase "digestive factors" which is used in the conventional literature linked above, with many individual molecules identified,. If this is really a problem for you, well, let's start an article on "digestive factors" or find another compact phrase or term of equal content. The point better addresses a frequent, fundamental issue in orthomolecular medical literature, (degraded) digestion and its enhancement, that is often overlooked or less addressed in conventional medical calls until much later in the game, if at all.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well no, as I pointed out above, all you have done is included three identical links to the same page of a textbook that deals with water absorption. I'd assumed this was simply carelessness on your part, but if you continue to claim that you have provided multiple sources I'd have to start to suspect that you were trying to mislead people. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was in & out too quickly and didn't realize I really had a "cut and paste" problem on the links from last night, some of your questions seem pretty pettifogging where you have much better resources for instant gratification on minor word & phrase searches. "digestive factors" seemed pretty self evident from the usage alone.


 * Many mainstream articles seem to know and use "digestive factors" without need for much further explanation: Handbook of Food Toxicology (2002); JACN, 2003; Brit J Dermatology(2006); Brit J Nutrition(2006); BMC Pharmacology(2003); J Applied Aquaculture (2003); J Food Science(2006) and for long timespan, [1906.


 * More definitional usages:
 * "... absorption across the intestinal mucosa, related to digestive factors (eg pancreatic enzymes, bile)..." Examination Paediatrics: A Guide to Paediatric Training (2006);
 * "Table 10.1, Factors for causing vasodilation of hepatic arterioles...Digestive Factors - Secretin, Bile Salts" Physiology for health care and nursing (2003);
 * "when the digestive factors, that is, HCl, pepsin, bicarbonate, bile extract, and pancreatin,..." J Nutritional Biochemistry;
 * "Two digestive factors, hydrochloric acid (gastric acid) and pepsin, are produced in the glandular portion of the stomach." "Tufts U'';
 * " The stomach will release three basic digestive factors. (1) HCl, (2) pepsin, and (3) lipase. The HCl and pepsin will..." Clinical Nutrition Using the Seven Lines of Defense Against Disease (1980)
 * "...secretion of the digestive factors, acid and pepsin."British Journal of Surgery, 2005
 * Here is a reference that looks promising; I am surprised it was not picked up by PubMed:
 * Jacobs, A. (1970) "Digestive factors in iron absorption." Prog. Gastroenterol. 2, 221-233.
 * OMM overlapping practices: "Naturopathic medicine...Support/restore digestive tract: May not be making optimal gastric acid and other digestive factors as a result of long term stress stealing circulation away from those tissues that produce it." J of Family Practice(2005)--TheNautilus (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if it was just carelessness I apologise for doubting your good faith. The problem you have here is that a doctor will not feed people hydrochloric acid, for obvious reasons! So using the vague term "digestive factors" in a different way from the sources is very confusing. Furthermore, since you added this phrase to a version that already mentioned digestive enzymes, you must mean something apart from enzymes. So if you don't mean enzymes, and can't mean bile and acid, what exactly do you mean? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can work on different enzyme specifics see below. I mean digestive factors broadly.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to get some orthomed papers to establish that they consider digestive factors an important part of their approach? Linus Pauling defined OM a certain way, but other definitions can be considered, and certainly if the discipline is focused around supplying nutrients would include factors which increase absorption of nutrients. II  | (t - c) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, some OM sources defining what they mean by digestive factors would be ideal. Does the Linus Pauling Institute have anything about this on their website? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The LPI has a section on fiber, including functional fiber with confers health benefits. The JOM has some mention of probiotics. Not much mention of digestive factors, although I would classify these things as digestive factors. II  | (t - c) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiber is already mentioned in the lead and body of the text though, so we've covered that (although the writing could be better). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article uses "digestive factors" the same way as a summary, for HCl, pepsin, pancreatic enzymes, bile etc., as the references given, where any given article may be explicitly concerned about listing a particular subset of the digestive factors. OMM references on digestive problems tend to discuss one organ or one chemical entity or product at a time. Many of the  papers I cited tended to use it just *once* or twice as an inclusive or global term.


 * Doctors (MD, DO) *do* prescribe patients (diluted) HCl caps, or even mixed in food (rare), starting over a century ago. Today prescribers are more likely to use betaine HCl or glutamic HCl caps than liquid HCl caps. Many non-geriatric MDs may be unfamiliar, having been sucked into pharma's 7+ billion/yr (ca 2000) 30+ yr proton inhibitor story which at various times have been the #1 pharma sales category as well as the corticosteroids before that. A part of this discussion is in the Jonathan V Wright book that I referenced.  The digestive area is so distorted, I daresay a modern patient could walk through half a dozen doctors and not get a 1st, 2nd or even 3rd round diagnosis for hypo-, achlorhydria that will later read hard data on a Heidelberg gastric analysis, YMMV.  The digestion issue is often a starting point for OMM MD's, nutritional DO's & NDs and is likely a distinguishing feature from "modern" conventional medicine. My impression is that this is how a lot of the nutritional medicine traffic starts, with intractable gut problems not well addressed or recognized conventionally but resolve quickly on acid, pancreatin and nutrients.


 * As for enzymes, lack of OMM familiarity may be a problem, they are used *both* digestively and systemically, differing by administrative technique and, often, by chemical identity.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Betaine HCl, are you sure? I'd need to see some good sources for that, since giving somebody a chloride salt of a quaternary amine and telling them it would help acidify their gut seems verging on the absurd. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * HCl was in oral use by at least the 1880s and betaine HCl was commercialized by 1905 . Here's a few links:Meyer Brothers Druggist(1905), Proc Am Pharma Assoc(1905). Acidol is betaine HCL aka oxyneurine back then, presumably for Intrinsic Factor stimulation and B12 absorption.


 * Betaine Hydrochoride is a commonly available & inexpensive supplement, about 1c to 5c per cap/tablet. Lots of GI papers, 1910+.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you knew any chemistry you'd realise that in the hydrochloride salt the carboxyl group is protonated, giving the salt betaine chloride which is a weak acid rather than HCl which is a strong acid. However Googling on this shows it to be an area attracting a huge amount of quack therapists and pseudonutritionists. So since this concept seems to be used in these areas I suppose it is fine to add it to the article. Maybe just say "Products that claim to aid digestion", since that is a verifiable statement that is entirely true. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Such an assertion is putting (erroneous) words in my mouth again, pushing an ill-informing POV. Very bad taste. I said nothingdif about buffer, poise, pH, strength or chemical demand for either compound in water or complex media. To assert otherwise is once again a provocative phantasm of your imagination or "misunderstandings". Is HCl acid "stronger"? Sure. However the gastric contents quickly buffer and expend the small amounts of higher acidity materials in either case. Simply, I showed that pharmaceutical sources originated betaine HCl for digestive medical problems over a century ago.repeated dif Sorry you're still struggling with some concepts of 19th century scientific breakthroughs (1822 - ca 1890s) that helped found modern gastroenterology (see also William Beaumont, William Prout, Ellen Swallow Richards, Ivan Pavlov).  Perhaps statements like that are why people (me, too) are beginning to realize QW symps' POV assertions are unreliable, medically dangerous, phoney baloney, bullying bs.


 * If you are offering to accept the "digestive factors" related additions to better describe OMM's scope, I will thank you for that. However that in no way mitigates my concerns about blatant WP:BLP and WP:RS violations on the POV box considering the large amount of more recent and much more authoritative references that I have previously cited here (2006-2008).--TheNautilus (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You still have provided no references that link such products with orthomolecular medicine, Imperfectlyformed and I couldn't find anything in the LP institute and I could only find a single reference to this in the JOM link. If you wish to add this we'd need to show it is actually a normal part of OM, rather than something you developed and is unique to your practice. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "my practice"?!? Another (highly erroneous) howler, Tim. I have among the least commercial - personal professional interests here, since they are *non-existent*. I have no prior internet health & medicine presence outside of WP, unlike a number of the QW Usenet/etc warriors here, where QW et al explicitly embrace an internet warfare model and psyche. 10 years ago, I even thought I could cherry pick "the good parts" out of QW articles that I now know rest on a firm foundation of lies, misconceptions, misrepresentations & fraud in toto. The references with the Wright and Atkins books, well known OMM authors, are quite WP:V, RS to describe major OMM related practices.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What books by Wright and Aitkins? None of the links you've provided so far are to OM books. Was that one of the ones you tried to add to your first comment on the subject? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Atkins and Wright--TheNautilus (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you just give these sources before? These are fine for supporting the phrase "products that claim to aid digestion." and establish that they are actually used in OM. They of course don't establish that these products do aid digestion, but that isn't necessary for talking about the fact that such products are sold with this as their claimed purpose. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did show them early on, first trial text edit (without), and then added both references, 2nd try 4 hours later.


 * I still strongly prefer "and digestive factors" without elaboration in the Lead, save any discussion details for later. The use of betaine HCl or HCl acid caps and digestive enzymes as replacement therapies *should not* be controversial in terms of action - this is *really old* medicine and pretty fundamental & obvious chemistry. I believe the only issue is safety in extreme circumstances, e.g. will some numbskull really eat so many acidol tablets that despite ample warning signs, said party continues to repeatedly take so many extra caps/tablets despite obvious gastric discomfort and nausea? (this would still be a training and supervision issue)  The "conventional" prescription form of digestive enzymes costs about 20x more for pills with a manufacturing & lifecycle potency tolerance of +-10% rather than supplements with +-20% tolerances. In some cases the prescriptions use a pancrelipase with extra percentages of lipase that in fact forms the absolute upper safety limit on digestive enzyme use for cystic fibrosis patients.  Usually one of the safety factors with malabsorbers would be pill burden, they are looking for ways to cut the number of pills, not to take large extra.


 * Strictly speaking not all orthomolecular replacement of digestion enhancements has to be through supplements, e.g. papaya (popular) or fresh pancreas, or cooked very rare (probably less popular than liver...), can be used to help replace digestive enzymes, or other techniques to reduce enzyme demand. Historically in medicine (think Sir William Osler & his compatriots), various stomach functions were physiologically aided through common salt, iron salts, and bitters that could be part of the diet. Dr Pemberton, used phosphoric acid in the forerunner of Coke for tummy relief through acidulation. Also I believe that indigenous peoples sometimes ate the gastric contents directly. So stating the broad concept, as documented historically in medicine, rather than limiting to a supplement or a product is more completely descriptive of OMM.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just report what is stated in the references and do not make claims of efficacy. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
The pseudoskeptical "pseudosci" slam has been discussed many times and found without technical merit or foundation as applied to OMM, and in this apparition appears to be not only a BLP violation but potentially libelous and is entirely inappropriate for WP.--TheNautilus (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of the infobox may have been discussed, but there has been no consensus reached. Many editors think the infobox is appropriate and necessary for this article. Please leave the infobox in place and work with the other editors to discuss your objections and reach a consensus. Mmyotis   (^^o^^)  11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a serious WP:BLP issue for several living doctors, the box should stay deleted until any extraordinary (and scientifically deprecable) actions occur to the contrary here. Are there hot medical and scientific controversies? Sure, some the best PR pharma dollars can buy. A pseudoscience? No - the subjects are testable, the persons involved are qualified, peer published MDs and/or PhDs, with ongoing testing and clinical observation. I might note that the cranky sources of many long running quotes (and popular misinformation on this subject) against orthomolecular medicine have (1) suffered a number of legal defeats on their attacks including for their lack of credibility, (2) persistently spread scurrilous statements about OMM that would constitute gross scientific misconduct on any honest academic standard (e.g. making conclusory statements about a subject having repeatedly used confounded tests on a subject in the range 0 or 0.1x - 2x instead of on 10x-300x for *several* variables with known threshold phenomena, in an identifiably nonobjective manner), (3) are increasingly being recognized as such, e.g. "markedly biased" by medical science authorities at a national level, and (4) the public reversal of scientific position on some related issues, by national level medical science authorities (e.g. vitamin C). Not only are OMM recommendations testable (and subject to improved knowledge, hence not PS), in the recent past, various national medical bodies have belatedly adopted previous orthomolecular range recommendations for folic acid, fish oil and vitamin D for general population and vitamin C is progressing, slowly (as well as Hoffer's historical mega-niacin for CVD). Conventional multivitamin-multimineral makers have now widely copied the iron free supplements OMM sources provided decades earlier. Also I noticed that one of the doctors that you included has been pretty legally active before.  This "PS" agenda is politicalization & attack that needs to stop.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've copied your comment above to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Amongst numerous other issues, the box is wholly inconsistent with WP:NPOV. It also contravenes WP:OR (on the grounds that there is no WP:SOURCES from where this specific collection of claims can be sourced). I therefore concur with those editors who see it as entirely inappropriate for WP. Vitaminman (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a source to the infobox that discusses this specific issue using OM as one of its examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS issue also, Beyerstein is a psychologist, not a medical authority, where aspects of the psychology field have been criticized as pseudoscience. Further since his 1990s paper, he cites his orthomolecular beef with vitamin C, his comments have been shown to be obsolete by *real* medical science authorities.  For cancer, these are in a series of papers NIH-PNAS-CMAJ since 2000, in addition to recognizable intrinsic flaws to knowledgeable, unbiased observers since 1985. For viral infections, Hemila shows that prior statments about monotherapeutic vitamin C are categorically flawed with "tantalizing" positive data starting well below the orthomolecular range, much less with the other nutrients like vitamin D.  Menalascino (1988) does show that *there are* recognized megavitamin uses in psychiatry and the OMM nutrient - psychiatry questions remain an area of early (still very low dose & incomplete formula) testing.  So these negative conclusory statements have no current authority and lots of known flaws and errors, by parties grinding an axe with a crank.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose the pseudoscience infobox. Founded by a Nobel Laureate, who maintained till his death that there were major problems with the so-called replications, and composed almost entirely of people with MDs and PhDs. Just doesn't fit the pseudoscience mold. We still don't have any of the actual studies on here which discredited the orthomolecular findings, and the orthomolecular people claim that these studies didn't follow the correct procedure, e.g. in the case of schizophrenia the orthomolecular approach is thought to work only on a subset who are diagnosed with the "Hoffer-Osmond" test. As far as vitamin C and cancer, an interesting study came out recently, purportedly in the PNAS, although I haven't been able to find it: Vitamin C Shows Promise as Cancer Treatment II | (t - c) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the key questions here is how including a box entitled "Pseudoscientific Concepts" is supposed to be consistent with WP:NPOV. And where is the specific reliably sourced reference WP:SOURCES to support this title and the named individuals who appear under it? To those who are intent upon keeping the box, I suggest that, to reach a consensus WP:CON, a compromise will be necessary. I therefore propose that if the box is to stay it should be retitled 'Key Proponents', so as to remain consistent with WP:NPOV. Vitaminman (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding your objection. Could you please explain why you believe that the infobox is NPOV? Mmyotis   (^^o^^)  11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because describing the subject of the article - and its supposed proponents - as "pseudoscientific" is clearly taking a very negative position - and one that even the reference cited doesn't support, as described below. In addition, in one case, a supposed proponent listed in the box doesn't even describe himself as practicing "orthomolecular" medicine anyway. Rath describes himself as "the founder of Cellular Medicine". Whether or not this amounts to the same thing is beyond the scope of this article unless it can be definitively proven through the use of reliably sourced references WP:SOURCES that it is the same thing. Vitaminman (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As editors of wikipedia, we should avoid letting our POV influence the way we interpret whether something should be included in an article. Editors can't refuse to include documented atrocities committed by one nation or race against another on the grounds that it puts that nation in a negative light. OMM is commonly understood by reliable sources to be a form of pseudoscience, and this needs to be documented in the article, whether or not we percieve it as shedding a negative light on that subject. To believe or to argue that it shouldn't is to express a non-neutral point of view. At least, that's how it looks to me. Mmyotis   (^^o^^)  16:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your answer suggests that you have not read and/or understood the previous discussions here at OMM Talk, 2006-8.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my answer indicates that I have read and understood the previous discussions on the OMM talk pages, but that the understanding I took from them is different than yours. If there was a particular section that you feel I might have missed and could change my understanding, please point it out to me. Mmyotis   (^^o^^)  12:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I obviously agree with your point that we should avoid letting our POV influence the way we interpret whether something should be included in an article, as should we all. But you're missing my point. In short, the reference cited doesn't support the statement in the infobox, as described in my previous comment (11:16, 9 August 2008) below (now further indented with a minor rephrasing, to avoid confusion).Vitaminman (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement "Proponents claim that doses of vitamins and nutrients, generally much larger than those recommended by nutritional science, can cure or prevent most diseases" is not even properly supported by the reference, which, although fifty pages long, makes only one single mention of the word "orthomolecular". (See page 14 ). It would therefore appear that the use of this reference contravenes the policies on neutrality and verifiability. Vitaminman (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular source is very useful in addressing this question since it specifically discusses the difference between science and pseudoscience and uses "orthomolecular medicine" as an example of pseudoscience. Perhaps if you were to find some sources that discussed pseudoscience but classified OM as scientific then we could include these as an alternative viewpoint? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim, the example in question is a one-word mention amidst a 50-page document. The validity of the argument that it uses "orthomolecular medicine" as an example of pseudoscience rests upon whether or not such a passing mention contravenes the very specific issues discussed at . I would say that it does not. Whilst I would have no objection to the material in the infobox remaining in the article, as a means of ensuring a NPOV, I do not think that it is in any way justified to highlight these issues in box format in the way that they are at present. IMHO, the reference cited in no way justifies this material being displayed in this way. Vitaminman (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence concerning OMM & megavitamins refers to tests that have now long been shown to be intrinsicly flawed by more recent mainstream commentators & authorities, and of no relevance to OMM claims. Time for some honest testing, after 3/4+ century.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to assume good faith, but it's difficult when an editor suggests that scientists are generally dishonest, or that there might be some kind of plot against OMM. This issue will never be settled while an editor who acknowledges only studies that support a particular POV is involved. You seem a nice enough guy, but I question your ability to be a productive editor of this article. Mmyotis   (^^o^^)  12:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Dealing with this subject requires lots of AGF, its actual WP:V, RS basis in science and factual history are much, much different than its critics & competitors popularly (and inaccurately) assert & omit, and consequently, what you hear and perceive.

Re your conclusion suggests...scientists are generally dishonest: Let me parse my brief commentdif a little more finely. The biggest complaint there is the *absolute lack of authoritative testing* despite lifetimes of effort to get it. E.g. after 3/4 of century there are *no* formal, institutional scale tests reported on vitamin C based, therapeutic range OMM protocols. Especially those therapeutic uses considered easiest, most successful and compelling (viruses and toxins). None, not even close by order(s) of magnitude (some preliminary cancer & C trials are now in progress, where C is eventually expected to be identified as an adjuvant to other cytocidal agents, this based on Klenner, Pauling and Riordan's historical statements). Despite the massive claims made against Pauling, none of the dozens of "expert" tests even remotely resemble his lowest dose advice, 1 - 2 grams per hour at the *very first* hint of a cold for ~2/3 a chance of aborting it, after more than a third of a century. Nothing like Klenner, Cathcart or most modern versions (a front loaded 50-150 grams/day oral, and/or IV) along with other OMM intake ranges. *Based on the historical record*, I do think that there are *some* misguided and/or dishonest individuals, that frequently have played important roles as gatekeepers, that have greatly influenced public *opinion*, and that disrupted representative testing all that time.

Once more than one or two assumptions are distorted, (mis)perceptions run riot, even (or especially) in science. The lawyers experience this all the time with individual pieces of key evidence being allowed or excluded. Popular notions of OMM have *many* such distortions, compounded by a general lack of familiarity with its very scope, definition and history.

I am a productive editor here. Doctors, scientists, the QW faithful, passersby, and trolls beat on me until I get points elaborated and the wording clear enough, with sufficient V, RS references, to effectively collaborate with other WP editors despite the huge perceptual gap that has to be bridged.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As a classic example of pseudoscience held up in all the major reference works that discuss pseudoscience, this infobox should remain. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A classic example of pseudoskepticism and perhaps trolling, citing no reliable source, persistently citing POVish, obsolete criticism demonstrated to be intrinsically flawed by national authorities in 21st century sources, promoting defamatory ad hominem.


 * SA's restored POV box only re-cites the non-peer reviewed/unpublished work of some pyschology prof with an abnormal interest in the paranormal, that is flatly contradicted by expert papers like Hemila(2006) & NIH (2001-2007) on the promising experimental status of vitamin C or Menalascino (1988) on the multiple conventional uses of megavitamins in psychiatry. Also Cecil Medicine 23rd ed (2007), Ch 143, p. 1033, now prominently includes an actual table of megavitamin doses for (increasingly) common gastric problems (OMM provides more complete & detailed versions). Still, recommendations like, Vitamin A 25,000 IU, a "megadose" super B complex tablet, 25000-50,000 IU vitamin D (hope D3 has replaced the old D2), Vitamin E 400-800 IU, folic acid 1000 mcg, Mg, 100-600 mg, Zn 25-50 mg, B12: 2000 mcg and vitamin K 5000 mcg, have got make one wonder if the self-claimed "scientific skeptics" at some sites (or here) have any inkling what they are talking about.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely not getting involved here, but the idea that Cecil's supports orthomolecular medicine is a bit of a red flag that led me to actually pull out my copy and blow the dust off its cover. TheNautilus, the table you refer to lists vitamin supplementation recommendations for individuals suffering from celiac disease, a pathological malabsorption syndrome. These megadoses are recommended only in cases where impaired absorption of vitamins must be overcome. That is, in individuals with celiac disease, these megadoses of vitamins are necessary to achieve sufficient levels of vitamins which a "normal" person would get from their RDA. This well-known and well-described aspect of gastrointestinal pathology does not in any way support the ideas of orthomolecular medicine as they are set forth by its proponents - in no way does this indicate that megadoses of vitamins are beneficial in any way for patients without specific gastrointestinal pathology and well-defined malabsorption syndromes. Please be more careful when using these sorts of references, as this verges on a misrepresentation of the source (or at least a gross oversimplification) in my opinion. MastCell Talk 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that they have real correspondence, not acknowledgment or total agreement.


 * I'll agree "malabsorption syndromes", I am not so sure that 23 is as restricted in its wording as, say, XVI (I doubt I can find one easily). 23 acknowledged that malabsorption is not necessarily everything or nothing and may be erratic on individual nutrients & hard to recognize. I'll revisit 23. OMM definitely considers digestive problems an underserved market, with the misses showing up on its doorstep where an OMM, nutritional or naturopathic PCP seems far more likely to significantly address digestive suspicions sooner with more lab work, not later, not 50-50, or on referral (good luck HMO pts). I see four issues: (1) it is unclear what threshold of obvious it takes to get the *average* PCP or some non-gastro specialists to recognize & investigate (3 strike rule), our opinions are likely to vary; (2) one part of your concern seems that clinical definitions may not match exactly; (3) my point is that there are patient populations where OMM and conventional recommendations have some striking resemblances on the basic malabsorption nutrients list (and that related populations may be a significant part of OMM's popularity); and (4) there is another part that may reflect your concern, above, where OMM agrees to disagree, on optimum blood levels and such levels as a *standard* nutrition target.


 * Do I expect agreement or open conventional acknowledgment? no, under both groups' approaches to EBM, OMM fundamentally will usually be the first mover on accepting treatments and nutrition reflecting recent discoveries & research. None of these issues support the PSCI attack, rather they address priorities, regulatory environment, philosophy, methodology, assessments about total risk, and problem solving approach.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is simple: "digestive problems" is a vague term which applies in some sense to nearly every human being at some point. Celiac disease is a specific, well-defined clinicopathological entity with hard and fast diagnostic criteria. Cecil's recommends high doses of vitamins as a supportive measure in people with celiac sprue. You are using this to imply that Cecil's supports high doses of vitamins for the prevention or treatment of disease people in with "digestive problems". This is my concern. I express no formal opinion on the "pseudoscience" matter; in fact, I view it largely as a moot point and a distraction, since people will draw their own conclusions about how to label the field in any case. MastCell Talk 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSCI issue
What you have here is a WP:PSCI situation. The ArbCom decision tells us that in order to label something as "pseudoscience", we need to show that it is either an "obvious" or a "generally considered pseudoscience". Currently, we have only one source labelling this topic as such. According to PSCI, we would need much more. So simply provide a definitive source (such as an Academy of Science) or provide many reliable sources. Otherwise, we can't label this pseudoscience per WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Orthomolecular medicine is categorized under Category:Pseudoscience and no one has objected to this. This is because orthomolecular medicine is generally considered pseudoscience. The "one source" we have labeling it as such is good enough and reliable enough to establish that this is pseudoscience. Statements from academies are not necessarily going to be forthcoming because most pseudoscience is simply ignored by the academic community. This is ensconced in WP:FRINGE. Note that we have no independent sources which dispute the categorization of orthomolecular medicine as pseudoscience, so I think we're done here with the disruption of tendentious POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PSCI categorically does not require declarations by an academy of science. Skinwalker (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and I don't mean to imply that it does. However, it does require that we demonstrate that the subject is either an "obvious" or a "generally considered pseudoscience". We can do this by provided reliable sources which make such an assertion. Currently, the only source which I have seen here making an assertion that this subject is pseudoscience is the one from Beyerstein, which according to some here is "an unpublished paper by someone with a PhD in psychology". It was also written by Beyerstein over 13 years ago and is only accessible via WebArchive such that it isn't always available to see at a consistent URL. I just don't see how this source alone qualifies us making the judgment that this subject is an "obvious" or a "generally considered pseudoscience". We need to set the bar higher than this for sure. If no other sources are presented, I'd be inclined not just to remove this infobox but also the categorization per WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most everyone else will find the source very good for our purposes. As I said, take it up at WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Take up your complaints with WP:RSN or at WP:FTN. Since the article is categorized as pseudoscience and is considered classic pseudoscience in all the normal sources, including the infobox is not a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What normal sources? The only one I have seen was the unpublished, 13 year old one by Beyerstein. If there are other sources declaring this a pseudoscience, then please present them. Again, I am a neutral party here. I know nothing about Orthomolecular medicine and thus have no opinion on whether or not it is a pseudoscience. Prove it to me (a neutral reader) by giving me sources to back up the claim and thus satisfy WP:PSCI. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple sentences in an unpublished paper by someone with a PhD in psychology is just not a good enough source. II  | (t - c) 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it up your incredulous characterizations at WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as this is about WP:PSCI more than WP:RS, I would recommend taking it up at WP:NPOV/N (a venue which should in theory deal with PSCI disputes). As for the categorization as pseudoscience, unless reliable sources can be presented which demonstrate that this subject is widely considered a pseudoscience, then I object to this article being placed in such a category. Personally, I know nothing about this topic, so consider me pretty neutral here. And as neutral party, I would like to know why this subject has been labeled "pseudoscience" here at Wikipedia. Give me some sources which support such a categorization, and I'd be okay with the label. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure you can take it there too. I took it up at WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's start at FTN and see where that leads. I really feel that this whole matter can get cleared up if some authoritative source is produced declaring Orthomolecular medicine a pseudoscience. I have requested such a source for some time now and - to the best of my knowledge - no one has produced one. I we are dealing with something which is "generally considered to be a pseudoscience" then producing such a source shouldn't be terribly difficult. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SA:''"In the last class I taught about pseudoscience, we devoted an entire week to the subject[OMM]!" '' - add an element of WP:COI to the list of problems.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

cont'd

 * I looked for some more sources on the topic, since this argument is becoming a little distracting
 * Alternative (complementary) medicine: a cuckoo in the nest of empiricist reed warblers could be useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does this article tell us about the subject at hand specifically? -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) no mention of orthomolecular, (2) almost all conventionally "tested" megadoses are not orthomolecular megadoses. (3) Author in Tim's ref doesn't know his --- from a hole in the ground. A big mistatment for OMM: ...megadoses of vitamins) are effective to prevent the common cold, but not to treat pneumonia; ... not anaphylactic shock.


 * Klenner used IV (mega)vitamin C starting ca 1943 for viral pneumonia reporting startlingly good results, where the Cochrane Collection (2007) shows that even relatively low megadoses, e.g. 1+ gram/day oral rather than requiring OMM's ca 150 grams/day oral, may make a significant difference in mortality and morbidity among young military recruits. Initial and recurring reports of prevention of shock and anaphalactic shock continue largely unaddressed, but it is used as such with surprising good results since ca WWII (president of Am Chem Soc, Use of Vitamin C in Traumatic Shock, lab experiments on preventing anaphalaxis, maybe here (1944 AJR), OMM source on anaphalaxis), another victim of a pharm "accident" no doubt.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we believe a paper from 1944 represents current thought in OMM, when you are arguing here that a source from 1990 is outdated? Skinwalker (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Holmes, 1946) shows the interest of independent, substantial mainstream scientists then (e.g. President of the American Chemical Society), a small example of how far behind the author is in his reading and (unreliable) knowledge on the area. The Ely, J Orthomolecular Med, 1999, shows the modern ascorbate-anaphalaxis link. Ditto the book, Curing the Incurable (Levy 2002), JOM review of Levy's book.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we believe that the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, a publication with an impact factor of approximately zero, represents modern and mainstream thought in medicine per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE? Skinwalker (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The JOM example shows that OMM does use megadose C treatments the way the author disclaimed, in direct contradiction of the ignorant author's quote. That conventional medicine does its own thing without C is their pts concern, especially in a crisis.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question, and you're attempting to change the subject. Why should we prioritize the opinions of low quality journals, as measured by impact factor?  It is not a controversy that OMM uses large doses of vitamin C.  The disagreement over whether it and other aspects of OMM works or not is the "controversy", which has been definitively settled by mainstream research. Per WP:FRINGE, we describe lack of efficacy as the majority view in these cases.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not paying attention here. I keep showing you (and many others in Talk), as of 2000 +, the real mainstream authorities have admitted that nothing definitive exists on the few Orthomolecular monotherapeutic substances that they even claim to have previously tested. In fact, that the old "definitive" data is flawed, frequently & seriously misanalyzed, misreported, misrepresented, just as Pauling and the OMM PhD/MDs complained. That the "mainstream" hasn't even begun to truly test the proper OMM protocol ranges in length of time, frequency, dose and OMM combinations.


 * Here is some of the 21st century sound of flushing old mainstream cack "answers" by current authorities: Cancer & C, JACN, 2000CMAJ, 2001Ann Int Med, 2004, PNAS, 2005CMAJ, 2006, rePNAS, 2008,PNAS, 2008) Cochrane Reports on Pneumonia & C: (Hemila & Louhiala, 2007), Respiratory illness, (Hemila, 2006), mostly colds & flu.  The POV that you are pushing is old, corrupted BS.  I repeatedly have shown many intransigent, "skeptic" WP editors here are stuck on serious misconceptions about science from the 19th, 20th & 21st centuries, with almost absolutely no idea what OMM is or isn't.  They erroneously think the "articles" at Quackwatch or NCAHF, which are filled highly misrepresented assertions & bias about OMM, have any remaining validity.  On OMM, the QW / NCAHF articles  are just cranky pseudoskeptic pages with long unrectified misrepresentations for the gullible.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "(Holmes, 1946) shows the interest of independent, substantial mainstream scientists" - you argue that a paper from 1946 can be used to demonstrate mainstream scientific interest in a topic and at the same time make this edit. Astounding. I just don't know how to respond to that. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Historical, unrecanted mainstream interest. How? with AGF & NPOV. See also Hemila (2006), p63: Problems with statements by experts - The status of an ‘expert’ implies that an individual is thoroughly familiar with the particular field. Unfortunately, in the vitamin C field, the track record of many experts is poor.... and he demolishes previous "mainstream" miscalculations, misinterpretations, misstatements, and bias, based on his peer reviewed papers, 1991-2006.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise
Hi people. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could we live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff as a replacement for the pseudoscience box? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your suggested wording sums up the situation as I see it. But I would qualify who is doing the regarding here. I expect you know that some in OM see a deliberate conspiracy by those who stand to profit from patented medicines to discredit forms of treatment that cannot be patented even if their efficacy has been demonstrated. I suggest a small addition.


 * "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific by some critics."


 * In support of this we need to cite who the people are who are commenting negatively on orthomolecular medicine itself, rather than just multi/mega vitamin taking. ie the critic should mention OM directly. Lumos3 (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)