User:Abyssinia H/Sandbox


 * Can I ask that we tone the rhetoric down please? I'm not saying the compromise proposal is a good idea or a bad one (though my gut reaction is that it would cause more problems than it would solve), but the goal here is to do what is best for Wikipedia and its readers, not to WP:WIN. Certainly, there have been antics (my AGF guess is that the "likely socks" Brangifer refers to are separate people but both affiliated with the same IM organization) and edit warring on Integrative medicine isn't helpful on either side, but I'd like to see us try to tone out that nonsense while we discuss the issues on their merits. I somewhat resent the comment above that "no legitimate arguments have been proposed," as I see comments like the ones by Gandydancer and Sbharris (clearly neither are SPAs), along with my thoughts on non-alternative medicine topics that would go in an IM article and think they are are at least worthy of being called legitimate.


 * I might be naive about this, and I fully admit I've been learning about the concept of IM as we go, but I feel part of the sticking point is the statement that there is no alternative medicine, just real medicine (EBM) and quackery. Certainly both such categories exist and much of what falls into the AM category is quackery, but why can't there be a third category: evidence based medicine that is less commonly applied in the modern western medical system? That's how I'm increasingly understanding IM: (my own rough definition here) a philosophy of medical practice and research that emphasizes the coordination of evidence-based therapies holistically and amongst different disciplines.


 * For example, see A multidimensional integrative medicine intervention to improve cardiovascular risk from J Gen Internal Medicine. Patients with cardiac risk factors were assigned to integrative medicine specialists and health coaches to create programs incorporating such elements as meditation/relaxation, stress management, motivational techniques, and health education, while those in the control group received only standard medical care. The result was a statistically significant improvement for those in the integrative arm. In the vast majority of cases, patients in the United States who present in this situation might receive advice from their doctors to lose weight, exercise more, reduce stress, etc... (and these interventions are certainly associated with better outcomes), but most don't receive the integration and care management that integrative medicine seeks to provide, especially when it comes to supp.


 * Now, this doesn't mean the article doesn't need improvement. All the health claims backed by sources that aren't clearly IM related need to go, and I'd like to see most things sourced by reviews instead of single studies. Actually, I'd like to see the article focus more on the concept and less on specific health claims anyway.


 * P.S. For future reference, the line is "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war." Cheers, Zachlipton (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)