Misplaced Pages

Talk:Orthomolecular medicine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:05, 23 August 2008 editTimVickers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,184 edits POV, OR; ref support problems: link← Previous edit Revision as of 03:47, 23 August 2008 edit undoImperfectlyInformed (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers13,371 edits POV, OR; ref support problems: cNext edit →
Line 475: Line 475:
::::::Meh, I wouldn't have put it in, but I see the link and do not feel strongly enough to advocate for its removal. I'd really like to see a statement about how he's an OM practitioner or advocating in South Africa as such. That'd seal it for me. ] (]) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::Meh, I wouldn't have put it in, but I see the link and do not feel strongly enough to advocate for its removal. I'd really like to see a statement about how he's an OM practitioner or advocating in South Africa as such. That'd seal it for me. ] (]) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::::: Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath. JOM 6:3 1991 - that's pretty conclusive to my mind. ] (]) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC) ::::: Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath. JOM 6:3 1991 - that's pretty conclusive to my mind. ] (]) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Interestingly, Hoffer says (1994) that Matthias Rath "has charged Pauling with stealing his ideas about vitamin C and its role in the genesis of arteriosclerosis. The suit has not been settled". Looking through JOM, Rath's only role throughout that journal appears to be as coauthor with Pauling in the Vitamin C/heart disease thing. He's a notable supporter, sure, but it may be somewhat misleading to put him in the list of "notable supporters", as he doesn't seem closely associated with the movement itself -- more like tangentally associated. ] | (] - ]) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


==*naturalists*, not naturopathic== ==*naturalists*, not naturopathic==

Revision as of 03:47, 23 August 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Calm talk with tea

Archiving icon
Archives

Digestive Factors

I've never heard this term in a discussion of nutrients. Please show me a reference where it is defined. Mmyotis 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In the sentence's nutritional construction, the "digestive factors" (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 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:
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 nothing 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 TreatmentII | (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 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 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 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 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 comment 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  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  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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. Give me some sources which support such a categorization, and I'd be okay with the label. -- Levine2112 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 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SA:"In the last class I taught about ps, we devoted an entire week to the subject!" - 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
What does this article tell us about the subject at hand specifically? -- Levine2112 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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "kunin" :
    • http://orthomed.org/kunin.html Principles That Identify Orthormolecular Medicine: A Unique Medical Specialty by Richard A. Kunin
  • "wund" :
    • , Wunderlich RC, Orthomolecular Medicine Online, accessed 6 Nov 2006
  • "cassileth" :
    • Cassileth BR. Alternative medicine handbook: the complete reference guide to alternative and complementary therapies. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 1998:67.
    • {{cite book |author=Cassileth, Barrie R. |title=The alternative medicine handbook: the complete reference guide to alternative and complementary therapies |publisher=W.W. Norton |location=New York |year=1998 |pages=67 |isbn=0-393-04566-8 |oclc= |doi=}}
  • "Jukes1990" :
    • {{cite journal | author = Jukes, T.H. | year = 1990 | title = Nutrition Science from Vitamins to Molecular Biology | journal = Annual Review of Nutrition | volume = 10 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–20 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.nu.10.070190.000245}} A short summary is in .
    • {{cite journal | author = Jukes, T.H. | year = 1990 | title = Nutrition Science from Vitamins to Molecular Biology | journal = Annual Review of Nutrition | volume = 10 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–20 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.nu.10.070190.000245}} A short summary is in .

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

not OMM

Moved the amygadlin parts here for discussion. One JOM article mentioned it almost as a news item among many, that's not a recommendation much less advocation. Jane Brody has been a QW buddy and OMM critic, including the ignorants part on *obstructing* vitamin C testing. Her articles on OMM were long considered not fair minded or accurate. e.g. Jane Brody seems to allow her antagonism to megavitamins and orthomolecular treatment to carry her far past the point of reasonable criticism. She has casually evaluated and disregarded important research and scientific documentation of efficacy in the diagnosis of many conditions. Her resistance has indeed become ritualized. - Allan Cott, M.D., P.C. (NYT, 1983; JOM 1984)

  • Not RS, Not OMM RS: Life Enthusiast Co-op, some random supplements manufacturer site that has a Abram Hoffer article with a web frame of links that includes "B-17". Nope.
  • Brody, NYT 1991 off topic reference with passing comment on OMM about the psychiatric war of APA, the laetrile comment was not connected to OMM. Nope.
  • Even the BC Cancer Agency, which has published a number of patently false statements on OMM related items before, did not connect laetrile to OMM, rather the OMM link is in the frame's linked general index. Nope.

OMM (JOM) recognizes there are separations on issues from groups that may overlap in may other nutrition and natural health areas. Laetrile is one such separation with other natural/metabolic groups. This just causes confusion & unfair criticism.

Neither Abram Hoffer, Linus Pauling, nor JOM editor Saul advocate(d) laetrile. They certainly do not consider it a vitamin, in fact, it is potentially a double toxin, cyanide and benzaldeahyde, a chemotherapeutic toxin agent, an area where the seam between orthomolecular medicine and some other (herbal?) groups shows. Although virtually everyone in the natural world would have looked at it in the 1960s-1970s and may feel that it was questionably assessed (Moertel & MSK again), the OMM world doesn't see it as a big OMM issue.

One gets the impression in Tim's press to disparage & discredit OMM, there are hurried, unread searches, and is not properly investigating his target.--TheNautilus (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in is there a statement on laetrile from Hoffer or Pauling? It says Saul does not regard it as a vitamin, which is useful, but there is no quotations from anybody else on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the 1970s, some proponents of alternative medicine have described cancer as a vitamin deficiency disease and advocated the use of "metabolic therapy" using a mixture of vitamins, minerals, pancreatic enzymes, and the compound amygdalin or laetrile. which they claim to be a vitamin. The status of "metabolic therapy" as part of orthomolecular medicine is uncertain. On the one hand, it has been described in a book by R. A. S. Hemat on "Principles of Orthomolecularism". However, although laetrile is mentioned in a review of the "Orthomolecular Treatment of Cancer" by Abram Hoffer, as one of several substances used in the alternative treatment of cancer, he does not class this as an orthomolecular compound. Similarly, although Andrew Saul writing in 1999 described laetrile research as "tantalizingly successful", this author also disagreed with the classification of this product as a nutrient. There is no scientific evidence that amygdalin is either a vitamin or is effective in treating cancer. The US Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted people selling laetrile as a cancer treatment, calling it a "highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer."

Tim, you're going to have to change your wording to accurately reflect Hoffer's wording. He explicitly states that he will not discuss laetrile. He mentions it only as something that people might be curious about, but that he doesn't feel is "orthomolecular", along with a bunch of other alternative cancer treatments like Esiac. Really, this should be just embarrassing for you. This is an obvious violation of WEIGHT and especially COATRACK, and it certainly doesn't belong in the history section. I will continue to remove it (perhaps weekly) if it is placed in. Unfortunately I've had bad luck with drawing anyone outside with a RfC, so I don't think that will help, but I'd sure the more reasonable people at Arbitration would back up policy, and maybe Mediation if we could arrange to have a reasonable person. If we were going to add this, it would need to be reduced to two sentences and placed in an appropriate section on cancer treatments. Suggested sentences:

"Laetrile, an ineffective alternative cancer treatment, is sometimes called vitamin B17 and extolled as an orthomolecular medicine, but Abram Hoffer, in a paper on orthomolecular cancer treatments, states that he will not discuss laetrile. An associate of Hoffer's, Andrew Saul, states that it is not a vitamin. Andrew Saul believes laetrile is "probably a palliative treatment" (slowing cancer rather than curing). He writes that laetrile's effectiveness at treating tumors in mice as described by alternative medicine figure Ralph Moss seems "tantalizingly successful", but laetrile has been tested in humans, and appears to be ineffective. The US Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted people selling laetrile as a cancer treatment, calling it a "highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer."

Saul's concluding opinion is not that it is tantalizing successful, but that it is probably a palliative treatment. If you want to take out that sentence on treating mice, that seems good to me -- because it could be confusing to readers, who might think there is, after all, some evidence. II | (t - c) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought that since Hoffer mentions this in a review of OM and cancer, he was therefore implying it was part of OM. However, I can see the argument that he did not make any explicit comment on whether or not this was in fact part of the subject he was discussing, it could be an aside on related forms of alternative medicine. I've reworded this a bit more. I do think we need to discuss this topic. The overlap however between "metabolic therapy" and orthomolecular medicine is too large to ignore, and Laetrile is certainly a very notable part of the history of "vitamin treatment" of cancer. If there is a clear example of a leading proponent of OM distancing themselves from these claims that would be great, but Saul's statement is at best a bit ambiguous. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We could add it to the section on cancer treatments, but my impression was that use of Laetrile was mostly historical. Do many people still advocate its use? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably only in sketchy Mexican clinics. However, apparently many AltMed people do not consider the case closed on it -- after all, Saul says it is probably a good palliative treatment, and Moss's site is still out there. There's no evidence that OMM ever really advocated its use historically, however, and it just seems out of place. There's no evidence that Krebs was related to OMM at all. It fits best in a cancer section. Also, I think you're confused, or your source is confused. Laetrile is not metabolic therapy. Metabolic therapy is "detoxification" i.e. Gerson therapy type stuff, along with a bunch of other wacky things. Laetrile is thought to be a naturally cytotoxic chemical. Some AltMed people do the "laetrile + metabolic therapy". Two separate things. The ACS has a good page on metabolic therapy. I still think that there's no reason for this to be on this page. The connection is too tenuous. Metabolic therapy, yes, to some degree. Laetrile, no. II | (t - c) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As that ACS page says "At least one metabolic therapy system also includes the drug laetrile" The Encyclopedia of Cancer also has an entry on this which says Laetrile. Laetrile, which is also known as amygdalin or vitamin B17, is a chemical found in fruit pits, lima beans, sorghum, and clover; it contains sugar and produces cyanide. The cyanide is considered to be the primary anti-cancer agent in laetrile. Laetrile has been used by itself to treat cancer and as part of metabolic therapy, but it has not shown any anti-cancer effectiveness in NCI clinical trials.". The "deficiency hypothesis" and "metabolic therapy" is discussed in this review and this much longer and more historical review. This probably isn't a term with a single defined meaning, indeed PMID 16931201 uses it in a completely different context. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As I think Tim has discovered, it's pointless to debate what is and is not "metabolic therapy", since the term has been applied so haphazardly, vaguely, and inconsistently as to be essentially meaningless as a discrete category. MastCell  20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. Tim just stated exactly what I said: laetrile is used in addition to metabolic therapy, which is synonymous with "detoxification" methods. It's clear cut and simple. Nobody in AltMed thinks that laetrile is metabolic therapy. Incidentally, here is an article in the JOM critical of "foot pad" detoxification. Most (or perhaps all) of the detox stuff is wacky, sure, but it has to be some sort of "detox" to be called metabolic therapy, I'm thinking. II | (t - c) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, Tim's source said that metabolic therapy systems "include" laetrile and that laetrile is "part of metabolic therapy". If "nobody in AltMed" thinks that laetrile is part of metabolic therapy, then that underscores the vagueness which I was describing. MastCell  21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually yeah, you might be right.Metabolic therapy is a catchy, somewhat meaningless word. Still, the ACS says just says that one of its forms included laetrile, ostensibly under the claim that laetrile is nutritional. II | (t - c) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that at best some people believe that Laetrile is a vitamin and that it is part of OM, this is of course laughable, but since this is such a prominent subject in "vitamin cures" in the most general sense of the phrase I think we do have to address it in the article - if only to make a clear distinction between this form of "vitamin-based metabolic therapy" and mainstream orthomolecularism. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Merged version

"Amygdalin (Laetrile), an ineffective and toxic alternative cancer treatment, is sometimes called vitamin B17 and extolled as an orthomolecular medicine or "metabolic medicine", but Abram Hoffer, in an article on orthomolecular cancer treatments, states that he will not discuss laetrile. An associate of Hoffer's, Andrew Saul, states that although it is not a vitamin, he believes it is probably an effective palliative treatment because descriptions of animal tests seem "tantalizingly successful". There is no scientific evidence that amygdalin is either a vitamin or effective in treating cancer. The US Food and Drug Administration has prosecuted people selling laetrile, calling it a "highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer."."

SOAPy, offtopic and confusing, or even misleading to a skimmer. Best moved to other articles with perhaps a minor link. This still encourages OR that creates inaccurate OMM links and dilutes the article.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice that "Vitamin B17 and cancer." is classified under the heading "Materials re: the use of orthomolecular medicine as a treatment for cancer." in the collection of Linus Pauling's papers at Oregon State University. link Maybe Pauling has published on this topic? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This is speculation (OR) for both of us without the actual files. But looks like source articles, correspondence, LP non-publication material: manuscripts, research notes, correspondence, figures, experimental data, non-Pauling reprints and other scientific research materials. We can be reasonably sure LP informed himself on the subject and corresponded with others to investigate it.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim's statements seem to eagerly confuse any & all mentions & claims of the word "vitamin" as being OMM - most definitely not. He needs to stick to WP:V, RS.

Of course there are many nutritionally oriented groups. Many borrow OMM for improvements to their lot, with or without acknowledgment. It is important to both OMM and the public, that these maintain intellectual integrity and not be confused. Kind of like counterfeit pharmaceuticals, a putative antibiotic even with convincing packaging and some active ingredient, can lead to a poor or even fatal result. In a historically confused subject, where the public has no accurate background (in fact, lots of misinformation, see it here all the time), it is doubly important that additional confusion and misinformation not be added in a putative reference work.

Now we have quoted positions on Hoffer and Saul. As for Pauling, I'll have to comb, but I can't recall him ever accepting laetrile, or even scientifically associating with laetrilists. In fact, I am thinking of part of a scandal where Pauling uncharacteristically denounced and summarily (r)ejected a younger associate, where test materials likely containing laetrile had been sneaked into the lab from certain Christian fundamentalist diet advocates. Several such right wing, Christian groups have had a deep abiding interest in laetrile all through the 60s, 70s, even to the present.--TheNautilus (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the merged version above? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I object in case you missed it before as SOAPy, offtopic and confusing, or even misleading to a skimmer. ... still encourages...inaccurate OMM... and dilutes the article. Also Saul's statement is stated as *personal speculation* about something not OMM, that is rather about politics in science and other groups' treatment.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV objection

What is the NPOV problem with noting that OM is distinct from many other forms of alternative medicine in that it does not involve magical thinking? This is what the source says, so this isn't OR, and this seems to me to be quite a positive thing to note about this systems of thought. I've tried tweaking the text a bit more, but if you could explain your objection I might have better idea of what form of words you'd find acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks between "damned by faint praise" and suggestive insinuations, sort of like an adversary saying "recent, official tests prove the is not a moron or crazy" by raising questions and doubts, like "by how much?" or "what about before and how long ago?" see also WP:WEASEL--TheNautilus (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What insinuations? The present text makes a clear and positive distinction between OM and many of the more "unconventional" forms of alternative medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

However, orthomolecular medicine is distinct from many other forms of alternative medicine, such as homeopathy, since its ideas are biologically-based and consistent with scientific laws, it does not involve magical thinking, and it can generate testable hypotheses.

from WP:WEASEL, For example, saying "some people claim that The Beatles were a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth. Can easily be stated without it to yield equally clear and positive version w/o insinuated ambiguities.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand your objection. The article does not state that "Some people claim that orthomolecular medicine is distinct from many other forms of alternative medicine..." It simply says "However, orthomolecular medicine is distinct from many other forms of alternative medicine..." Would you prefer it if it omitted the word "many" and said orthomolecular medicine is distinct from areas of alternative medicine such as homeopathy? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It also is a non-specific deprecation of altmed in general. Too SOAPy, too many negatives and double negatives (e.g. "does not contravene"). A more direct statement would be: "orthomolecular medicine is distinct from many other forms of alternative medicine, since its ideas and recommendations are biologically based , use the existing medical literature, and generates testable hypotheses, scientific and clinical data."--TheNautilus (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you test "clinical data"? Data are not testable, you use data to test hypotheses. I've removed the double negative. We can add "biologically-based" if you wish (see above), but what is your reason for omitting the referenced statement that it does not involve magical thinking? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Re-order: "...and generates scientific and clinical data as well as testable hypotheses." "magical" raises a question in some readers mind even though legally correct.--TheNautilus (talk) 13 August 2008
I don't think guesses about what readers might imagine are appropriate reasons for removing factual material from an article. What source would you cite for stating that OM produces scientific data? Given the non-acceptance of the JOM by the scientific community, I see that as a rather contentious claim that would need a source in mainstream science stating this explicitly. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. II | (t - c) 02:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the statement about generating scientific data seems fine, or that including this sentence as above seems fine? Serriously though, this statement abut generating data would need a source - especially in light of OM's antipathy towards randomised controlled trials and the application of science to assessing medical treatments. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Accepted scientific data? Riordan(OMM, C & cancer) & Levine(NIH), post 2000 PNAS where Riordan's data pre-2000 started the ball rolling.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, your inclusion seems fine. I'd really like to include more of these RCTs which occurred in the 60s and 70s. As I've told you, the way to get to NPOV is to show, not tell. So show that studies were done, they turned out negative, and let people come to their own conclusions as to whether OMM is a pseudoscience based on these facts. Don't cite unpublished papers by a psychology PhDs. We already have, in the lead, that OMM's methods are considered ineffective, and that some consider it quackery/food faddism, from more reliable sources. Adding the pseudoscience infobox adds zero value to those statements. All it does it make certain people, myself included, annoyed, because it is an obvious violation of NPOV. II | (t - c) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I'd misread your comment and had started to argue with you! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 60s-70s-80s papers' conclusions quoted against OMM have been shown to be waste paper by mainstream authors since 2000, - APA (1973) vs Hoffer, C and the whole/old mess. Orthomolecular recommendations have been *roughly matched* in many cases by modern mainstream medicine in various countries and settings: folic acid, fish oil, vitamin D, etc.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Rather than engage in an umpteenth circular and unresolvable argument, can you (we) find any reliable sources that indicate, without use of editorial synthesis, that the older papers are "waste paper" or that mainstream medicine has embraced what previously were specifically "orthomolecular" treatments? MastCell  23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hemila (2006) says, after an exhaustive (~15 years) metastudy, published piece by piece, all the old cold + vitamin C papers are miscalculated, misinterpreted , misrepresented and many authors show bias. Earlier OMM treatments are usually "absorbed", noted by OMM proponents, not readily mainstream acknowledged. OMM is largely a shunned name.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you specify which work by Hemila you're referring to? I'm not finding one which meets your description. MastCell  23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked up nearly every article written by Hemila during the past 4 years, and his findings indicate that Vitamin C has no usefulness in preventing colds. Douglas RM, Hemilä H (2005). "Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold". PLoS Med. 2 (6): e168, quiz e217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020168. PMC 1160577. PMID 15971944. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) OrangeMarlin 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe (see below) that the work TheNautilus refers to is Hemila's doctoral thesis, not a peer-reviewed publication. Is that correct, TN? MastCell  04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

<removed indent>Below is a quote from Hemila:

Implications for practice The lack of effect of prophylactic vitamin C supplementation on the incidence of common cold in normal populations throws doubt on the utility of this wide practice. In special circumstances, where people are engaged in extreme physical exertion and/or exposed to significant cold stress the current evidence indicates that vitamin C supplementation may have a considerable beneficial effect, but caution should be exercised in generalizing this finding that is mainly based on marathon runners. The prophylaxis trials found 8% reduction in common cold duration in adults, and 13.6% reduction in children, but the practical relevance of these findings are open, since the therapeutic trials carried out so far have not found benefits and this level of benefit probably does not justify long term prophylaxis in its own right. In summary, on the basis of our analysis, there seems no justification for routine mega-dose vitamin C supplementation in the normal population. Prophylaxis may be justified in those exposed to severe physical exercise and/or cold. So far, therapeutic supplementation has not been shown to be beneficial. Implications for research With the findings from our analyses, it does not seem worth while to carry out further regular prophylaxis trials in the normal population. However there will be value in better understanding the role of vitamin C in those exposed to heavy exertion and cold stress. The findings in marathon runners, skiers and soldiers operating in sub-arctic conditions warrant further research. None of the therapeutic trials carried out so far has examined the effect of vitamin C on children, even though the prophylaxis trials have found substantially greater effect on duration in children. In view of the greater incidence of respiratory infections in children such therapeutic trials are warranted, especially where there is known to be sub-optimal dietary intake of vitamin C. The findings in the Anderson 1974 studies on the therapeutic use of very high doses of 4 g and 8 g on the day of onset of respiratory symptoms are tantalising and deserve further assessment in the light of the uncertainties raised by the problems with the placebo groups in that important study.

See Douglas RM, Hemilä H, Chalker E, Treacy B (2007). "Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD000980. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub3. PMID 17636648.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). OrangeMarlin 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think exactly the same source distortions were discussed and rejected in TheNautilus/I'clast's RfC. See talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No Tim. It is you and the "skeptic" tag team that are making POV distortions beyond the specificity, reliability and currency of your "references". First you use vague "nutritional" generalizations (e.g. by a 1997 AMA page etc as RS references) to push in deprecating SOAPy quotes of obsolete & POV statements by extreme critics not peer reviewed either and economic competitors. Then you want to ignore mainstream authorities in recent sources like Hemila (2006) that directly show Barrett & Herbert's fatal errors and marked bias, where in their QW-NCAHF etc articles, Barrett & Herbert constantly attack OMM &/or Pauling, pretty much addressing vitamin C in the same breath as slamming them, so using Hemila (2006) not OR. Certainly not the same as the self serving OR on references you love to claim as negatively addressing OMM.
Similarly Hemila (2006) and previous papers address the previous mainstream literature's generally fatal errors and bias on vitamin C that are generally repeated in mainstream texts and journals, papers that do often directly criticize OMM &/or Pauling. Also Hemila (2006) incorporates OMM by reference but only directly refers to Pauling (numerous times).
Your other references. Other old canards are still being repeated by less informed mainstream authors (remember that old saw about texts being 20 years behind?), such as BC Decker's patently false "never" blurb in Cancer Medicine(2003), uncritically parroting known partisan Cassileth's old misstatement, not an informed or peer reviewed or discussed-at-length POV deprecation.
Your more recent nutritional reference, a negative nutritional sound bite, (Braganza 2005) was criticized for missing an important DHA study where Braganza excused herself for publication date and conceded error on mercury contamination and confusing a saturate with the DHA polyunsaturate - hardly an authoritative, current source on OMM, or even introductory organic chemistry. --TheNautilus (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting source

The Principles of Orthomolecular Medicine seems to give a much broader definition of OM than we use in this article. What do people think of including this as a source on OM beliefs? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. It is a little self-serving. Basically Kunin is saying that everything marginally scientific (at least based on empiricism) in AltMed is orthomolecular medicine. I think a lot of people would take issue with that, and rightly so. He is an interesting source contesting the classification as unscientific, as he notes that AltMed has fallen away from science, and that this is a bad thing. He maintains that OMM is still scientific, and claims it draws from mainstream work rather than doing a lot of its own testing. I'm not saying his words should be pointed out in the article as an objection to your recent characterization, however. That paper bothers me in its illogical capitalization. I wonder if he grew up in Germany.
I'll think about how this might be factored in then, the definition of OM does seem to depend on who you listen to. The addition in the text is intended as a replacement for the pseudoscience infobox, see Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Compromise. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Pauling and Hoffer are the principal authorities on definition of principles and related statements.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Tim Vickers

Hi there. 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 you 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? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim left the message above to me today, and I'm seeing conversations about these changes in many locations. I'm not sure where to respond, so maybe here? Here are my thoughts. For me to accept anything in medicine as passing the "sniff" test of being legitimate, I ask two questions: first, is it plausible, not just at the surface but based on my knowledge of science; and second, has it been validated or tested (repeatedly) by reasonable scientists in the world. Everyone seems to compare OMM to Homeopathy, and, for me, Homeopathy misses the mark on plausibility and on validation. There isn't any way I can imagine that 0 molecules in solution have any ability to do anything.
OMM may seem plausible on a surface level, but dig down one or two levels, and it really makes no sense. OMM's basic tenet is to allow us to live longer without diseases killing us. My basic issue about the plausibility of OMM is that our average lifespan has skyrocketed only in the last 100 years or so. That's not enough time for evolution to kick in, so what possible nutrient would have a natural selection effect on the evolution of humans? None. In fact, over the past 10,000 years, human diet has gone from a hunter to hunter gatherer to lazy ass kids eating greasy potato chips in front of their Xbox (oops, I rant). In a short 10,000 years, I'm hard pressed to think how natural selection would have selected for individuals who respond to micro or macronutrients. I know we eat a lower fiber diet today than we did maybe 100 years ago, but then again, we eat a higher fiber diet than we did 10,000 years ago. Maybe high fiber prevents intestinal diseases. Maybe not. Maybe countries with lower colon cancer rates are a result of diet, genes, and who knows what else.
But setting aside evolution, where else is there plausibility? Pauling suggested taking lots of Vitamin C to prevent colds. Well, the body just can't absorb that much Vitamin C. In fact, my guess is that the urine of Americans is probably filled with the filtered out vitamin pills that we all down. Mostly, it comes down to the fact that many, if not most, of the claims of OMM are just that: claims. I think if we took the various points that make pseudoscience, including use of vague claims, reliance on confirmation, lack of progress, etc, OMM meets the test of pseudoscience.
Anyways, "lack of serious testing" implies pseudoscience to me. If the proponents can't even show us a reasonable mechanism on how it might work, let alone scientific validation that it does, what else can we call it but pseudoscience? So, the long answer is that I think the statement is a bit weasely (is that a word). It's more than unscientific, it is pseudoscience, not much different than homeopathy, except that I know that Vitamin C prevents scurvy. That is, the body needs these vitamins to be healthy, but that's not OMM, that's just basic physiology. It's the claims beyond the basic medicine that drives me up the wall. OrangeMarlin 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as your recent addition that it is unscientific, that's OK by me. But it doesn't justify a pseudoscience box. The problem with boxes is that they're too large and prominent, and so people don't even bother to read the prose. It characterizes something which is not generally considered pseudoscience per se, like Astrology or Iridology, in a way which violates WP:PSCI. Perhaps if more testing had been done on their claimed treatments, taking into account OMM practices, and OMM people still believed it. But we don't know if that would be the case. II | (t - c) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we call a spade, a spade. It really meets all of the qualifications of pseudoscience, and therefore is. Maybe someone reading this article will save themselves $500 a year in multivitamins that don't work. Eat some extra broccoli, spinach, blueberries, keep out the fat, and call it a day. OrangeMarlin 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You think it does. What you're talking about is original research, and you don't really seem up on the research itself, anyway. The original hypothesis that niacin could treat schizophrenia was based on a biochemical foundation, and the research was done on patients which the original hypothesis was not extended to. Every science has some rough starts, and Pauling and Cameron's research on vitamin C and cancer was probably one of those. But currently research is continuing in the area of vitamin C and cancer. As I showed you in an earlier link, intravenous vitamin C reduced certain tumors 50% in mice. The hypothesis that omega-3 fatty acids can treat mood disorders is supported by some of the data available -- there's just not a ton of that data. Similarly, tryptophan has an obvious biochemical foundation for its use against depression and insomnia, as it is a precursor for several neurotransmitters. See the wikipedia section on it. Tyrosine, phenylalanine, and methionine are also precursors to important neurotrasmitters, with some studies showing that they are promising. SAM-E (wiki section) is similarly promising. These things are ignored for some reason by mainstream medicine, so there is not a ton of data available, but much of the data is promising. Why they are ignored is a relevant question. It is not due to the a lack of biological plausibility or tons of negative data. Most doctors just make assumptions, as you are doing right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talkcontribs) 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Your anger-filled response is not helpful, but let me answer some of your comments. Vitamin C may or may not do anything. Since I study medical research as more than just a hobby, I can tell you very few studies performed on mice ever lead to clinical results. Tryptophan is, at best, a simple amino acid that may or may not have an effect. And the rest of your stuff, wiki is the worst source ever for confirmation. Your responses are not very helpful to the conversation. OrangeMarlin 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
All of the anger is in your head. :p I'm completely calm, and I was completely calm while writing that. My apologies if my response came off as angry; perhaps I need to use more emoticons. Your statement about mice results not translating into human results is unsubstantiated by anything I've ever seen, and you weren't able to direct me to a link. It would be interesting to see a study on this. There is a lot of literature on mice models. They're getting better, as well. Regardless, whether or not the mice research matters is irrelevant. Positive mice results are considered to be preliminary research warranting further research, not negative. The fact is that there is plenty of positive data out there. That makes it hard to say that OMM is a pseudoscience. II | (t - c) 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
PMID 14508091 (It is not uncommon for new anti-cancer drugs or therapies to show highly effective, and sometimes even spectacular anti-cancer treatment results using transplantable tumors in mice. These models frequently involve human tumor xenografts grown subcutaneously in immune deficient hosts such as athymic (nude) or severe combined immune deficient (SCID) mice.) Also addressed in PMID 14519650. Of course mouse models aren't useless, or no one would use them, but they are demonstrably inconsistent in their translation to efficacy in clinical terms in humans. Yes, they are getting better, and it may be that they're more useful in the targeted-therapy era than they were in the cytotoxic era. But the mouse xenograft model, at least, has a shortcoming that's become more and more obvious: one of the central themes in recent cancer research has to do with the interaction between the tumor itself and abnormal cells in the surrounding stroma. Xenograft models don't reliably recapitulate this apparently important interaction, to say nothing of the current mania for "cancer stem cells". But I agree - positive preclinical results are generally necessary for a compound to move forward. But when a compound has promising preclinical results followed by deafening silence in terms of human results, the proper conclusion is not that a conspiracy exists, that it's been ignored or suppressed, or that it hasn't been studied. The proper conclusion is that it lacks efficacy in humans until proven otherwise, as do many preclinically effective compounds - it's the null hypothesis, and it needs to be disproven. MastCell  03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those sources. Yes, I agree, although there haven't been many rigorous studies of intravenous vitamin C in humans with cancer, as was done with these mice. Currently there is one Phase II trial planned. The Phase I trial was not all that great, although it did show a lack of major toxicity. After the Phase II trial finishes we'll have a conclusion, and I'd say there's a good chance it will be negative. Anyway, we're into a tangent. Major points are: using nutrients for conditions aside from deficiency, or looking towards deficiencies as a first approach, are not necessarily a crazy way to approach some diseases. Yes, many of the approaches are not backed by highly rigorous evidence, but medicine has not always regarded strict RCTs and systematic reviews to be necessary prior to using a treatment. Plus, the fact is that OMM has had objections to the early studies. They are now being addressed to some degree. How OMM reacts to the results of these newer studies will determine whether it is a pseudoscience -- ie whether it pretends to be a science but rejects the findings of science. Get them to the point where they can't offer a criticism, and see what they say. OMM ostensibly bases much of its approaches on its own data. These data are mainly case studies, and they exist on the JOM (which has a lot of out-there claims -- MastCell would probably be particularly irritated with the selenium/AIDS hypothesis discussed on Wiki's selenium page). Hoffer also claims to have done some of his own RCTs in the 60s. So they claim to hold to a scientific standard, they claim to have the data, and if the tests were done in such a way that they couldn't offer criticism, yet negative results were found, I imagine they would yield their case. II | (t - c) 04:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh God... are you trying to give me a heart attack? I promised myself I'd stay away from cleaning up selenium until the SELECT trial results were finalized and published. I've pretty much given up on correcting every instance where a correlation is presented as causation in Misplaced Pages medical articles, but the HIV/AIDS/selenium thing should probably be addressed. MastCell  17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A couple of responses to Tim:
  1. The compromise is mostly ok, but I would change "lack of serious testing" to "lack of demonstrated efficacy" - I believed this stuff has been tested and found to be ineffective.
  2. Are there any meta-analyses that deal specifically with orthomolecular and megadose therapy that are published in reputable journals? These were very effective at the homeopathy article in shutting down the "my random uncontrolled paper in J. Clin. Bull. proves XYZ" edit warring. If reliable tertiary sources are available they should be prioritized.
  3. I believe it's time to pursue further dispute resolution against TheNautilus. I note a semi-aged user conduct RFC that describes many of the same behaviors he is currently displaying. His trumpeting of a paper from 1944 after dismissing a 1990 article on the grounds of age (in the same hour, even) was simply jaw-dropping, as was his accusations of SOAPboxing above. I am extremely hesitant to ask for discretionary sanctions, however, since they have been a complete and utter disaster when applied.
My 2p. Skinwalker (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The best third-party review of the evidence that I've seen was done by Menolascino. The paper is cited in this article. Email myself, Tim, or TheNautilus for a copy. II | (t - c) 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
re #1 In case you missed all the *current* discussions & references I gave: , "found ineffective" is recognized as obsolete error, post 2000. You're just closing your eyes and pushing POV.
re #3 Misciting my use of the 1944 reference, used to show historical, advanced mainstream interest, simply seems to lack AGF and is attacking me. Sounds like a pseudoskeptical tag team attack forming to push its POV.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not okay, Marlin, Skin. OMM is about science & medicine (including developing hypotheses) and a historically frustrated scientific process.
Some of Marlin's statements seem to confuse Science and Medicine, and place one group's definition of medicine as the only definition, or arbitrator of "medicine". Many stages of science (with financing & politics) are typically passed before something is now granted status as officially (FDA) recognized, AMA blessed "medicine".
The pseudoscience POV pushing here remains so much ignorant and/or biased pseudoskeptical rhetoric. Many aspects of OMM involve physiological responses that reflect simple, often outrageous, denial on the basis of absolutely no relevant data from its critics. (The 4600 BC creationists are less scientifically benighted than some OMM critics - at least no high school dropouts could rerun 4600 BC but persistently neglect to do so). OMM pioneers have provided what they can from personal resources, but institutional scale testing requires substantial support. Most of what OMM has gotten from the institutions can be classified as neglect or sabotage, often from hostile competitors. Much of OMM remains in a early scientific stage through this no-so-benign neglect by those with the money and the responsibility to test new public health innovations.
The nutrition related aspects of increased life span have many threads, + & -. Many aspects of food preparation & handling of course eliminate many cases of typhoid, cholera, etc that stunt the old 19th (and before) century family trees. Improvements to storage, refrigeration, reduced spoilage & salt, and rapid transport allowed us many dietary elements not availably geographically (bananas) or seasonally (fresh fruit & vegetables). The rise of RDAs (often more generous in the first rounds) eliminated many common, severe medical problems. Of course, sweeteners (sugars), a big minus today, have been a growth market since the discovery of the Americas. Various negative 20th century threads are something a negative technology effect, e.g. margarine (rising transfats) from ca 1900 to perhaps peaking in the 80s in many diets, oxidized fats (nice ex lg, permeable plastic bottles of polyunsaturated oils, fried), sugar & starch galore that do *require* additional nutrient levels in the literature, inadequate fresh, whole foods. That last 100 lbs of sugar, starch and transfat, with inadequate RDA intakes (vitamin D, maybe E) and omega3, are probably major players in many chronic problems today that may have already peaked the post-infancy population's average age attainment.
The real pseudoscience lies with those who *refuse* to *accurately* assess &/or trial the nutrient dense *packages*. Only a relative few OMM recommendations are even frequently monotherapeutic (e.g. niacin & IV vitamin C). Even there "big science" totally fails to do the easy testing *badly*. The problem is not OMM, it is corrupt gatekeeprs & malignant pseudoskeptics prating their dangerous falsehoods with a bullhorn to a nutritionally ignorant, gullible medico-technical "elite" with no real education or independent nutrtional research. Niacin has been off and on attacked by statin (and fibrozil) makers with sabotaged & misrepresented tests (complaints from largely ignored authoritative researchers taken from letters to NEJM, JAMA, Ann Int Med). IV vitamin C for toxics and viruses remains unexamined after literally trillions of dollars & 3/4 century. Although many medical charities & foundations, government agencies, medical societies can be scored for their systematic errors, neglect and bias on this subject, special criticism goes to certain authoritarian (not -ive) and pseudoskeptical individuals & groups that have derailed many budding efforts by economic, social, legalistic, and unscientific attack. With similar never-ending recurrence here at WP.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This statement, while undoubtedly heartfelt, is completely and utterly unproductive. I won't get into the specifics of the above rhetoric, but hearing it repeated at length in place of a more content- and source-based discussion is disappointing. MastCell  23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry MC, I don't have a better approach for new editors with strong "skeptical" points of view. But if I don't explain afresh they'll run away with erroneous edits, again. The sources I present are frequently being ignored, but their unrelated references on misc nutrition groups are being used to denigrate OMM that fits their pov.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you're the skeptical one. You're skeptical of real science, real verification, and real reliable sources. And you shouldn't treat new editors in any way but respectfully. BTW, who are you calling new?  :) OrangeMarlin 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I do treat new editors respectfully. I am not "skeptical" of "real science", I expect those who claim it so, to honor it, and its methods with prioritized V, RS sources. The PSQW POV on OMM on vitamin C, APA v Hoffer, and Pauling is tired & WP:RS discredited-in-the-mainstream. Just most people don't know that, and a number of editors are simply POV & resistant. I've shown this with far more recent, authoritative medical science figures than the recycled QW-NCAHF, & its old (deceased) friends, gunk that represents dramatically misleading statements by some very biased parties, now demonstrated to be unreliable *opinions*, no matter how common or popular with certain editors here. When identifiably unreliable material (like the recycled QW articles on OMM) are recycled into "RS" sources, it doesn't make the dreck "scientifically reliable" over the more recent, more authoritative medical science. It just means that (medical or "scientifc") author is still years behind, continuing to spread errors and misrepresentations, contradicted by more recent WP:RS scientific sources. Tim has done this to me several times now.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

highly biased POV, ignorance and attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNautilus (talkcontribs) 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody mind if I started collapsing these rants? Skinwalker (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Go for it Skinwalker. OrangeMarlin 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I just tried to look up Cochrane - anything there on OMM?Their website is down currently Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing directly "OMM says...". Only on vitamin C trials that quit well below the orthomolecular range but show increasing promise (author later says in 2006, need to do more, higher dose studies) toward the higher end of these previous tests (4gms/day to 8 grams, once) for colds (OMM would be ~40 to 150 grams/day, divided hourly) and (Hemila, Louhiala in Cochrane Rev 105A, (2007)one striking study on 1 gm/day vitamin C and pneumonia, again well below the OMM range (30+ grams/day IV, &/or 100-200 gms orally).
Hemila (2006), p 70 (of 146): CONCLUSIONS ... The potential effect of vitamin C on the common cold has been a controversial topic for several decades. It has been shown in this thesis that since several major reviews on vitamin C and the common cold present the findings of original trial results erroneously, the conclusions of the reviews are unjustified. Two of these flawed reviews were used as references in major textbooks on infectious diseases and in the US RDA nutritional recommendations as support for the claim that vitamin C has no effect on the common cold. ... The most influential vitamin C common cold trial, carried out by Karlowski et al. (1975), was re-analyzed in this thesis. It was shown that the original conclusions of the authors were inconsistent with the published data.--TheNautilus (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding that this is Hemila's doctoral thesis, and not a peer-reviewed publication, that you are citing? MastCell  03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, and I really don't care about doctoral dissertations, but Hemila's publications over the past 3 or 4 years indicates that he doesn't think Vitamin C does much of anything except prevent scurvy. This appears to be another quote mining episode. Let's archive this useless conversation. OrangeMarlinContributions 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hemila (2006) is a recap of his papers published in journals, 1992-2005 and is published by the U of Finland. According to the RS talk (sometime ago) *University published/distributed* theses seemed to also be acceptable. Hemila is in essence a reigning "vitamin C" authority. His Cochrane reviews on the colds + vitamin C steer away from many issues, simply taking the very most conservative position of what has been proven to therapeutic standards exclusively limited to Class I evidence, dbRCT. Hemila (2006) clearly says vitamin C results trend up with dose and needs more, higher dose tests, his 2007 papers based on others' tests likewise show C+pneumonia as promising. Pls quit bulldozing or ignoring the current the references that disagree with the QW PS

So the proposed statement would read as such: 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. This is a cause-and-effect statement. Distilling it: A lack of research is the cause and the effect is that the subject has been labeled as unscientific. From which source are we getting this cause-and-effect? Or are we drawing our own conclusions based on several sources? Again, I know very little about OMM, so please just verify the statement with a reliable source which on its own lays out this cause-and-effect conclusion. -- Levine2112 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "unscientific" is unfortunate. Orthomolecular medicine certainly has a scientific basis, and was developed by scientists using scientific procedures. I think it would be much better to describe it as "not scientifically proven."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterrabe (talkcontribs) 2008-08-15T05:56:09 (UTC)

another version

A more *factual* statement would be in the form: "The safety and efficacy of vitamin C are now considered open questions in mainstream medicine (Hemila, 2006)(Hemila, 2007), after being stymied by decades of bias, error, and neglect, with some promising scientific and clinical reports Similarly much of OMM remains unaddressed and not proven by rigorous trials in mainstream medicine although many OMM recommendations originate in research and clinical reports from the mainstream literature."--TheNautilus (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bias, error, and neglect"? What are you on about? It's not "mainstream medicine's" fault that Linus Pauling didn't understand the basics of clinical trials and comparison groups, or that the vast sums of money donated by Hoffmann–La Roche (yes, a drug company) to the Linus Pauling Institute were spent on things other than a simple randomized controlled trial. It's not up to "mainstream medicine" to disprove every claim someone makes about a vitamin - it's up to the claimants to prove their contentions. Otherwise, I think last sentence is reasonable, in that it describes the lack of rigorous testing but also the fact that OMM recommendations originate from an interpretation of the mainstream medical literature. MastCell  21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
wrote Cameron, would be to conduct a double-blind test in his terminal patients...Cameron refused ]
I put that in to show the balance with TV's previous suggestions, that we should be descriptive rather than judgmental. Hemila(2006) covers bias and error, among others. Things were a little different in the 1930s-1950s & when Klenner first reported his findings. Many people actually had an expectation that the USPHS, HEW and major charities & foundations (tied to mainstream medicine mechanisms of acceptance, perhaps similar to Circulation and the AHA today) really were trying to solve specific crises with big ticket crash programs, leaving no stone unturned. E.g. polio, several rounds of funding for massive investments in iron lungs, some *still* in use today, multiple rounds of vaccine research & high mortality failures. Here is Klenner, claiming in 1949 (JAMA noted), he can easily take a comatose, flaccid polio victim that is dying or mangled, stick a rectal thermometer in one end, pump them up with IV C (and thiamine) on the other end, showing his hospital logs & results, and the victims *walk* again after a brief recovery. Yet... the major groups do NOTHING to investigate and perhaps obstruct. The public suffered a number of years more until first Salk vaccine advanced to several shots and then the publicly distributed sugar cubes with Sabin's vaccine (ca 1962). Given the public health stakes, previous statements and promises then (govt, charities & foundations, AMA), the refusal to make decisive tests then still carries baggage over from a much different environment today. Klenner comments about this. I grew up with one of the crippled polio victims that could have benefited in the time gap between Klenner (1949) and wide vaccine coverage (ca 1959). Wonder how that kid would feel to know it was, perhaps if Klenner was right, utterly unnecessary because some mainstream organizations didn't do as they promised & check it out?--TheNautilus (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me make sure I understand. Klenner treated 30 or 40 patients with polio using vitamin C, and claimed essentially a 100% success rate in preventing paralysis. Of course, if you take 100 patients with febrile polio and do nothing, ~99 of them will get better without paralysis. This is where a control group is extremely handy; otherwise, I could claim to have cured those 99 patients by making an offering to Ahura Mazda. But wait: Klenner also treated patients with paralytic polio and reported "curing" one completely. That sounds great until you recognize that spontaneous complete recovery of motor function occurs in about 1/3 of patients with paralytic polio. Look, if Klenner was able to experiment on hundreds of people over 40 years, write up his results in 20-some papers, and travel the country promoting his results, surely he had the ability to perform a simple controlled trial? I know the AMA and the NIH are convenient boogeymen, but there are obvious explanations for their lack of interest in Klenner's claims beyond bias, ignorance, and greed. MastCell  22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Klenner felt this testing was the job of younger, more aggressive researchers that had actual doubt. He didn't have the stomach for placebo controlled dbRCT, perhaps similar to some Europeans & perhaps best not for a radical doctor in a small town.
"The safety and efficacy of megavitamin C treatments are again considered open questions in mainstream medicine . Similarly much of orthomolecular medicine remains unaddressed and not proven by rigorous trials done to mainstream medical requirements although many orthomolecular recommendations originate in research and clinical reports from the mainstream literature."--TheNautilus (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As for the institutions, the story starts here with interesting hominid results by Jungeblut at Columbia (1935-8), derailed at the Rockefeller Institute ca 1939, fixing the negative outlook of those whose merest whims could make or break advanced research(ers) in America (RI made Pauling). Perhaps one of the more important C negabodies for a generation was Thomas Milton Rivers an important figure at Rockefeller at the time of Sabin's test failures. River keeps popping up with C related polio comments & important job positions that could affect it, for whom WP has little biography, although he certainly does merit a bigger one. Rivers can be found offhand criticizing vitamin C & C antiviral researcher(ers), stridently, such as William McCormick, a big OMM vitamin C pioneer, among others. Rivers' career led from defining virology at the Rockefeller in the 1920s (*his* launch point), to military and government posts during WWII to the Nat'l Foundation for Infantile Paralysis into the 1960s, in the groups that controlled the vast purse strings for testing and research on polio (the high profile virus research $ of the 30s-50s). His opinion, right or wrong, counted, and may partly account for over a generation of funding roadblocks to vitamin C testing and venue.
Based on lab tests that simply missed many actualities of human polio and, by far, vitamin C treatment in the "Klennerian" range on viruses in general.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You failed to engage any of the arguments MastCell just raised. Incidentally, MastCell, asking that Klenner perform a RCT in the 1950s, when the first one probably occurred in 1948, seems a little bit much to ask. Are you referring to another type of controlled trial? II | (t - c) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I said a "controlled trial". You're correct that randomization dates to the mid-1940's or so, but the use of an appropriate control group to gauge the effectiveness of an intervention was established well before that time. Go a few pages forward in that issue of the BMJ () :) MastCell  06:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Relevant background to "boogeyman". Trying to help rationally identify historical origins in the medical research establishment's negative outlook from now obscure beginnings. For Klenner's time, "larger scale, institutionally supported/vetted controlled testing" (not necessarily randomized), perhaps a single blind RCT. The double blind, without the emphasis on "prospective", was introduced in different research segments and countries at different times, e.g. Pauling cited an early dbRCT based study by Cohen, Diehl, Baker (1942) done at U Minn winter 1939-1940. RCTs, took life after the Kefauver Harris Amendment in 1962 following the thalidomide disaster.
Klenner's perspective on speed & certainty with IV C on dire illness with viruses and toxins was that he couldn't ethically handle giving "controls" a placebo treatment. Whereas the doctors that were not yet convinced, were in a much better position to test since much of the treatment available was supportive or controversial, e.g. for viral pneumonia in early 40s, oxygen or Xrays up to several hundred rad (multiple treatments). Another puzzle piece is that we don't know how many of Klenner's correspondents tried to test or publish but were ground or hammered into silence, or just ignored. Even Pauling encountered, and was restrained, by all of these hurdles where he studiously attempted to avoid the reflexive skepticism associated with Klenner's quantities. (I have to admit, the first I ever happened to see a mention of Klenner's quantities in the early 1980s in yet another magazine blurb on Pauling & C, just based on some physician in a small NC town, without his name or story, I thought the amounts were absolutely incredible).--TheNautilus (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition problem for OMM and vitamin based research

If you look in the medical databases you find tons of studies on almost every vitamin, mineral and other plant based substance, for an overview (click on references when you drill down). Almost none of these studies use the term OMM even though they work with the same approach.

Before antibiotics and the rise of the "modern" xenobiotic pharmaceutial paradigm during the 1920s to 1950s, the medical journals were full of reported studies of how ultra high doses of intravenous vitamn C could cure and suppress most diseases. An overview of these studies from the paper based archives can be found in the book "Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins" by the MD Thomas E. Levy. Hence, there is ample Reliable Sources from mainstream medical journals to support OMM if we only went back in the archives. (To fully embrace the insights from these studies would of course be a deadly threat to the profits of Big Pharma.) MaxPont (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC) MaxPont (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, your argument would possibly be more persuasive if you didn't invoke the tired trope of Big pHarma. But you have, so your arguments will probably be conflagrated with conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccinationists and other woomeisters. Shot info (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I brought up Big Pharma was because MastCell dismissed criticism of the pharma industry (above).Have you ever read the book "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" (Random House 2004) by the former NEJM editor Marcia Angell? She is no friend of alternative medicine but is still highly critcal of Big Pharma. Have you ever heard of medical ghostwriting? Do you think that is an ethical practice in a scientific community? If other editors want to dismiss my arguments because I am critical of the pharma industry, well what can I do about that? MaxPont (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't read the book in question - and probably won't, I tend to stay away from Industry-Insider-Tells-All-Their-Secrets-They-Don't-Want-You-To-Know type novella. All I suggested is that arguments are more persuasive if you don't seem like a crank: note, I'm not suggest that you are a crank or that your particular edits resemble a crank's - I'm just saying in general, arguements are "better" if they cannot be dismissed (however rightly or wrongly) easily. Now I'm not going to get into an arguement about certain US business practises here, mainly as you have your opinion, I have mine and whether or not they differ or are similar (probably the latter you may find) I'm just dropping a suggestion. You don't have to pick it up (and it seems that you won't based on your comments). Unless of course you wish to discuss, in which case drop me a line on my talk. FWIW, I wonder who manufactures all that Vitamin C? :-)
It would be interesting to see what sources Levy cites. One of the better nutrition journals, The Journal of Nutrition, is free access all the way back to 1928. Jungeblut published a few papers on vitamin C back then, including the earliest animal trials involving polio. He seemed to give it up, however. I'm fairly certain that if these great results were really happening, we would have heard of them. And we have ... McCormick and Klenner made these claims. That's nothing new. Their claims are out there, and even referenced to some degree in the article. See, for example, this page on McCormick. II | (t - c) 07:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If skeptical WP editors doubt that there are OMM & common roots in the conventional medical literature, consider: In several countries, infants ...were safely given from 1/5 to 1/2+ million units of vitamin D in a single...dose. Referenced pp 544 & 584-591 in the medical textbook and major vitamin medical reference of the period, The Vitamins in Medicine (1953), 3rd ed, Bicknell and Prescott.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
These older studies have been dismissed because they were not double blind and randomized. Medicine is one of the few disciplines that only accept RCT as valid evidence. The requirement for RCT would make almost all other disciplines (geology, astrophycics, computer science, etc.) "unscientific". MaxPont (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really, other sciences don't really depend on human f/back, which is why EBM has it "gold standards" to standarise the non standard f/back. Of course there are elements of medicine that don't need RCT, broken limbs is one I can think of off the top of my head - no doubt MC will know of others - but "mechanistic" type of medical practises probably have a direct corollary with geology, engineering (my b'ground) and the like. If chemical responses in the manufacture of Vit C gave responses like Humans did (placebo effect and all that) then yes RTC would be a good approach to working out the "best" practice of producing Vit C. But it's a chemical, and we know how to make it, so RCT isn't really needed. But this is rather by the by. Shot info (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Shot, I daresay many chemical manufacturing processes need RTC (real time control) in some shape or form.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, they may need RTC but not RCT :-) Shot info (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
MaxPont achieved the trifecta: all three sentences in his post were incorrect.

The older studies are "dismissed" (or, rather, considered in appropriate context) because they are older studies. Would you like a complete listing of peer-reviewed medical literature from the first half of the 20th century extolling the effectiveness of lobotomy? Hell, they've even got a Nobel Laureate of their own. When you find yourself resorting to citing literature from 1940 and then invoking conspiracism to explain the subsequent deafening silence, you're in a very bad spot, as far as Misplaced Pages goes, anyway.

Medicine doesn't "only accept RCT as valid evidence". While RCT's are a desirable standard of evidence for trials of specific interventions, many therapies are widely accepted as useful with far less evidentiary support. Even the most hardened devotee of evidence-based medicine would probably wear a parachute when jumping from a plane.

The last claim, about applying "RCT" to engineering disciplines and the like, is the oddest. Different disciplines implement the scientific method in different ways. I don't prescribe a drug because of its favorable aerodynamic profile in a wind tunnel, and I doubt an aeronautical engineer has much use for randomized clinical trials. MastCell  06:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My book by Levy is is a box in storage locker so I can't find the refs right now. But to take one example from memory. If a doctor from a polio ward in the 1940s reports of 100 case studies where patients had been given IV vitamin C (100 grams per day) and 70 recovered I find it unscientific to pretend that this study doesn't exist. All evidence has do evaluated on its own merits and I find the rigid rejection of facts that don't fit the norm to be utterly in conflict with an open intellectual scientific attitude.
Yes, local anaesthesia and surgery have §not been evalated by RCT before use. In the case with local anaesthesia it is so obvious that it works that no further evidence is needed (in contrast with most pharma drugs that are so ineffective that you can only identify the benefit with statistical methods.)
It seems impossible to get MastCell & Co. to concede to the fact that Big Money can have a corruptive effect on medical professionals. Why don't you take a look outside the medical field. The big car manufacturers bought the public transportation companies in most US cities in the 1920s in order to close them down and force people to buy cars. The tobacco industry spent decades financing corruption in the "science" about the health risks with smoking. The aim of companies is to maximize profits. Suppressing competing products is part of that game. MaxPont (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been a lot of flat wrong "authoritive" assertions, rumormongering, attacks and denials in the popular media AND mainstream medical media about OMM. Although Herbert wasn't the first, he challenged Pauling to show *any* dbRCT on vitamin C. Pauling obliged him with 4 positive dbRCT studies but was rebuffed with bare pseudoskeptical denial, Herbert's buffoonery continuing 30+ years. (Mainstream researchers, reviewers and adjudicators often had to cope with, correct, or restrain, his flawed public statements, aggressive outbursts, and personal attacks.) His associated authors have repeatedly employed wildly misrepresented (-ive) dbRCTs to "disprove" OMM with trivially false conclusions & assertions that in any normal forum would be prima facie scientific misconduct. That many in the medical community uncritically believe (or tolerate) such misrepresentations, can breed great distrust between the camps.
MP's point about pervading influence should not be dismissed casually. Even highly intelligent, honest people within a pervasive system of influence cannot necessarily (or even probably) discern all the distortions in their fact base, observations and social interactions, despite constant vigilance & effort.
IMHO, the loudest broadcast sources of (recycled) systemic bias, error and misrepresentation (such as Herbert) that have been long foisted upon, and uncritically accepted, by many, public or professional, may account for more of the "presumptions" and asymetric perceptions against OMM than the pervasive commercially directed day-to-day activities around the 2+ T$ medical complex. A number of authors have indicated, directly & indirectly, such strident voices have long frozen or poisoned research & communication in an atmosphere of ridicule and fear.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously Shot info is right. As any decent engineer will tell you, if they had to deal with a placebo effect, they would be using double-blind trials as well. II | (t - c) 02:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And if you worked in an area where an exogenous causative factor disturbed your experiments (placebo and nocebo) you would of course explore the potential to exploit this factor to acheive your goals (mental imagery, hypnosis, etc.) instead of suppressing it and pretending it doesn't exist. That would be the true engineering approach, to solve the problem with whatever method that works, instead of upholding some kind of methodological ideological orthodoxy. MaxPont (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course a lot of engineers would disagree with you, but I guess they just don't follow the true engineering approach. You will find that almost all engineers do uphold a some kind of methodological ideological orthodoxy...because it delivers the solution (hence why it is orthodoxy). But we are getting somewhat off topic here, the moral is RCT is not needed for hard sciences. Shot info (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To go back to my original question. There are a large number of studies in the medical databases that would fall within the definition of OMM but where the term OMM is not used in the studies themselves. (Probably because of the negative PR directed against OMM.) How should that be handled in the article? MaxPont (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't want to get into another situation of editors deciding for themselves what is and is not OM. That leaves the door wide open for WP:SYNTH. Leave them out. Jefffire (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And even less do we want to get into a situation where an editor uses different criteria to determine if an article pertains to OMM depending on if it furthers or hinders his prejudices.--Alterrabe (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if something does directly address a claim that is commonly made in an unambigious way then that is generally appropriate. Research into L-ascorbate generally falls under this heading, since Paulus hyped it pretty heavily. The trouble generally comes from people saying "omg this chemical used in study x can be interprated as a vitimin, and it helps, OM is teh roxor" in response to any study published. Jefffire (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy to suppress OM

From the discussions on the talkpage, the idea that the medical-industrial complex is engaged in an active effort to suppress the findings of OM seems to be a very common argument. While this appears a conspiracy theory to me, if this is a major aspect of OM ideas, then we really should have a section on this belief in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Some sources for this section could be:

  • Gertz MA, Bauer BA (2003). "Caring (really) for patients who use alternative therapies for cancer". J. Clin. Oncol. 21 (9 Suppl): 125s – 128s. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.01.195. PMID 12743218. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Weitzman S (1998). "Alternative nutritional cancer therapies". Int. J. Cancer Suppl. 11: 69–72. PMID 9876483.
  • Evelleen Richards. Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics?, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
Covering the interdisciplinary conflicts might be worth a sentence in the history similar to Chiropractoric article, this tends to dilute the article much beyond the space already used. However, merely deprecating these conflicts, and complaints, as "conspiracy theories" will be taken as POV OR & more negative SOAP, when such antagonism and attack are part of the documented history and sociology of, not just medicine & OMM, but competing scientific and business interests in general. Whole departments on the "History of Science" have sprung up since my college days to document these type phenomena & their impact as part of their sociological study of the scientific process.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide some more secondary sources that discuss the idea that OM is being actively suppressed, that would be very useful. Academic reviews of the origin and development of these ideas would be preferable, but books on the topic from respected publishing houses and mainstream newspapers would also be perfectly acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The "suppression" edit, as is, isn't correct. For one, Evelleen Richards' book doesn't speak that way. Also broad "alternative medicine" travails should not be generalized to OMM since the character of broad alt med is quite different than OMM.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The references all comment on megavitamins as one of the alternative medicine belief systems that have generated conspiracy theories about "cure suppression". This is what the sources say, so this is what the article should say, if you believe OM is different, please provide secondary sources that state that it is different and we can include that other point of view as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the book reference, since you added that to the list of references on if there was an "active effort to suppress the findings of OM" I'm a bit surprised you now say that it does not say this. Could you supply a replacement? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, found a good quote from Hoffer on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The suppression argument is a political argument. Hence, sources outside the medical peer-reviewed literature is also acceptable as RS. Just to take one example, Life Extension Magazine, they have a medical advisory board and should probably be considered a RS in this matter. MaxPont (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch has a medical advisory board as well. I think we should stick to the highest-quality sources that we can find. Moreover Life Extension is a commercial organisation selling nutrient supplements link, which raises a question in my mind as to conflicts of interest. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

POV, OR; ref support problems

This sentence needs substantial rework discussed as follows:

Richards was the most substantial reference on politics between medicine & OMM; it should be a larger consideration in any text. Refs & are inadequate to poor references for any such statement. Still working on finding beyond its abstract. This current wording does not appear to conform to its sources: Mainstream medicine regards such ideas as unsubstantiated conspiracy theories,...

  • ref by two *marketing* professors, at lower tier universities, using very stale dated sources from partisans, that in several cases are now known to be "markedly biased", obsolete, erroneous, and/or making misleading or misrepresented assertions, particularly about OMM.
  • An article by individual authors with very stale, biased references generally, and no basis to measure the medical profession's opinions, do not constitute a V, RS source for "mainstream medicine regards..."

with a review in Journal of Clinical Oncology stating that the idea there is a conspiracy amongst physicians against unconventional and unproven treatments is a common theme in forms of alternative medicine such as megavitamin therapy.

  • The "megavitamin" as used in this article appears to go well beyond OMM or even any "megavitamin" into broader alternative nutrition practices.
  • This wording engages in OR, creating an even more sweeping statement than the authors (Gertz, Bauer, 2003) engaged, even with some descriptive errors.
  • A stale article or two by individual authors do not constitute a V, RS source for "conspiracy...", especially in any derogatory sense.
  • Source stating A nonjudgmental dialogue becomes paramount..., then immediately recommends (promotes) a known unreliable site, a site particularly unreliable on this subject, OMM & OMM topicsc. Where "harsh", "militant", "systemic bias", "unsupported opinions, "innuendo" are descriptors appearing in mainstream publications about the unreliable site, casts serious doubt on the weight of this source.

All in all, SOAPy with undue POV, weight. This sentence really needs to be redone more neutrally, better sourced, and use better source to text correspondence--TheNautilus (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem perfectly adequate considering the topic - fringe and pseudoscience don't get much attention from mainstream, high-impact sources. I've see the "It's an EEEEEEVIL conspiracy" before, it's a sourced idea, and we've even a policy that points out conspiracy accusations should be met with skepticism (WP:REDFLAG). Proving a conspiracy requires high-quality sources; claiming and rebutting such claims do not require Science or Nature. That there are several references, focussed on regulatory agencies and addressing megavitamin therapy specifically, and one of them is pubmed indexed, suggests that this is indeed an appropriate wording. It's got sources, appropriate ones, in multiple, it's clearly attributed and it's hardly a histrionic wording. I think it's fine and should stand as is. The publication dates are also quite satisfactory - 2003 and 1998 are plenty recent enough and have sufficient historical and contemporary context to suggest that it's a recent opinion not dealing with just the arguments from the 70s. WLU (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A little bit of common sense, please. There's no authoritative evidence of conspiracy, just hysterical nutters who need an excuse for not being accepted. We hardly needed something like a Lanclet reference to say "this is basically rubbish" (paraphrased of course). Jefffire (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it's worthwhile putting in that OMM thinks there's a conspiracy, as well as these counter-claims that there's no. Either both statements, or neither, but I'm leaning towards both. OMM is not unique in claiming a Big Pharma/FDA/"they hate our effective cures because vitamins are cheap" conspiracy, but the sources are there for this page so I think it's worth including. The whole point of having UNDUE, FRINGE and REDFLAG is to deal with topics that are not mainstream but still notable and this is a situation where their nuancing regarding sources seems quite appropriate. WLU (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is particularly useful to put these claims of a conspiracy against OM into context. Such claims are not unique to this area of alternative medicine and the article would be misleading if it implied that they were. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to avoid the C word. Look at the definition of Conspiracy. Mostly it is about breaking the law in collusion with others. The closest definition in this context is actually a "cabal". A seldom used word. Maybe the term suppression is less inflammatory. (PS. Statements like "hysterical nutters" does not further a collaborative atmosphere.) MaxPont (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is the word Abram Hoffer chose when he discussed the topic, the article quotes him directly and his meaning is quite clear. I agree that calling this group of alternative medical practitioners "hysterical nutters" is not particularly constructive, particularly since some of the editors of this page well may be directly involved in OM. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That Hoffer used conspiracy makes it pretty unambiguous, and that's also the tone I've seen used to describe it, and I agree with the context of "in/against alternative medicine as a whole". It's important to portray the perception that companies and regulating agencies are deliberately and actively working against OMM (hence a conspiracy), its debatable if we have to stick close to the legal definition. Really, I have no problem with the text as it is/was before TheNautalis' revert this morning. WLU (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added some text on Matthias Rath as well, a OM practitioner who worked closely with Pauling for many years and was a director at the Linus Pauling Institute. Could you have a look at this? I didn't include his more outlandish claims, but his idea that antiretrovirals are part of a pharmaceutical company conspiracy seemed to fit well with the subject of this section. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm...Rath's wiki page, and none of the sources use the words "orthomolecular", which makes my brow wrinkle. I'd have to review the whole page to see how closely and well referenced the supports for OMM=Vitamin therapy is, and I've not the time for that now. Is it a SYNTH? Tough call, something to watch out for. He's published in the JOMM so that's definitely adding to the credibility of the assertion. WLU (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked into him since he's been listed as in this article one of the Notable supporters of orthomolecular medicine for many years added in 2006. Apart from the fact that he's published in JOM as one of Pauling's co-authors link, listed as a notable contributor to JOM link and worked as a director at the Linus Pauling Institute. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I wouldn't have put it in, but I see the link and do not feel strongly enough to advocate for its removal. I'd really like to see a statement about how he's an OM practitioner or advocating in South Africa as such. That'd seal it for me. WLU (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
An Orthomolecular Theory of Human Health and Disease Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath. JOM 6:3 1991 - that's pretty conclusive to my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Hoffer says here (1994) that Matthias Rath "has charged Pauling with stealing his ideas about vitamin C and its role in the genesis of arteriosclerosis. The suit has not been settled". Looking through JOM, Rath's only role throughout that journal appears to be as coauthor with Pauling in the Vitamin C/heart disease thing. He's a notable supporter, sure, but it may be somewhat misleading to put him in the list of "notable supporters", as he doesn't seem closely associated with the movement itself -- more like tangentally associated. II | (t - c) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

*naturalists*, not naturopathic

Move this edit on naturopathic medicine here for discussion. Among many real differences with naturopathic medicine, this one is questionable and is *not supported* by the Owen Fonorow reference: (1) Fonorow wrote "naturalist", including Thomas Cowan, MD. (2) no "naturopath-" anything was found on my PDF search of the Fonorow reference, (3) Fonorow, a naturopath, is defending against the "naturalist Vitamin C" position. Although the article *might* warrant some brief mention of distinctions between naturopathic medicine and OMM, I have to caution that this is very tricky given the splits between naturopathy, licensed naturopathic medicine and possible variations, and is likely to quickly wander offtopic.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. Laetrile/Amygdalin National Cancer Institute, Accessed 10 August 2008
  2. "Unproven methods of cancer management. Laetrile". CA Cancer J Clin. 41 (3): 187–92. 1991. PMID 1902140.
  3. R. A. S. Hemat Principles of Orthomolecularism ISBN 1903737052, p48
  4. A. Hoffer "Orthomolecular Treatment of Cancer" Life Enthusiast Co-op
  5. [http://www.doctoryourself.com/cancer.html
  6. Laetrile BC Cancer agency, Accessed 10 August 2008
  7. Milazzo S, Lejeune S, Ernst E (2007). "Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Support Care Cancer. 15 (6): 583–95. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0168-9. PMID 17106659. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ US FDA (June 22, 2004). Lengthy Jail Sentence for Vendor of Laetrile—A Quack Medication to Treat Cancer Patients. FDA News
  9. "Unproven methods of cancer management. Laetrile". CA Cancer J Clin. 41 (3): 187–92. 1991. PMID 1902140.
  10. R. A. S. Hemat Principles of Orthomolecularism ISBN 1903737052, p48
  11. A. Hoffer "Orthomolecular Treatment of Cancer" Life Enthusiast Co-op
  12. Saul's belief is based on a misleading selection of tests done by one researcher. This is described in the Kanematsu Sugiura article. [http://www.doctoryourself.com/cancer.html
  13. Milazzo S, Lejeune S, Ernst E (2007). "Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Support Care Cancer. 15 (6): 583–95. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0168-9. PMID 17106659. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Lindeman, M.; Keskivaara, P.; Roschier, M. (2000). "Assessment of Magical Beliefs about Food and Health". Journal of Health Psychology. 5 (2): 195.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. Jonas, W. B. (1999), "Magic and Methodology: when Paradigms Clash", The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 5 (4): 319–321, doi:10.1089/acm.1999.5.319
Categories: