Jump to content

Talk:Alternative medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 15 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelica.gnlz (article contribs).

Mainstream reflects popularity not a specific medical practice

[edit]

The article creates false dichotomies between broadly applied and innovative practices. No critique of pharmaceutical practices is provided (i.e., what works in highly controlled clinical trials may be far less efficacious in the "real world"). A more helpful start to this topic might first parse medical care for acute and chronic physical injury and disease, mental and behavioral trauma and progressive illness, and personalized genetic functionality and dysfunction. This said, indivifual situations might reflect a combination of physical, behavioral, and genetic issues thereby calling for a combinatorial approach. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can improve the article then find useful sources and then make use of theWikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cheers 22FatCats (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added references will not ballance the bias in the entre. An implicitclaim is made that alternative and complementary care is ineffective. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no a priori assumption that CAM is ineffective. But if a CAM approach is shown to be effective, it is no longer CAM, it becomes mainstream medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream likr 5NP acuponcture for managing withdrawal ? An assumption must be made that a treatment may be effective before it is declared to be ineffective. There are areas of treatment where safety and egficacy have been demonstrated under controlled vonditions. Behavioral health is an underserved aspect of mainstream healthcare. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acupuncture is neither mainstream nor effective. See Acupuncture. --Hob Gadling (talk)
If you cannot improve the article within the framework of Wikipedia rules, then you cannot improve the article; you are in the wrong place and should go to a forum instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
November 30, 2023
Efficacy and Safety of Auricular Acupuncture for DepressionA Randomized Clinical Trial
Daniel Maurício de Oliveira Rodrigues, PhD1,2,3; Paulo Rossi Menezes, MD, PhD1; Ana Elise Machado Ribeiro Silotto, BSc1,2; et alArtur Heps, BSc1; Nathália Martins Pereira Sanches, MD4; Mariana Cabral Schveitzer, PhD5; Alexandre Faisal-Cury, MD, PhD1
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2345138. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.45138 BlueSkiesRI (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the guidelines for sourcing on medical topics at WP:MEDRS. This paper does not meet that standard. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSkiesRI, that's an odd choice. It shows safety but lack of efficacy.[1] It is also not suitable here as it does not pass muster as a MEDRS source. We prefer systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our standards are higher than those used by medical journals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The rules of evidence preclude. I am through here. BlueSkiesRI (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Anthropology of Happiness

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2025 and 15 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lenasotirop45 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Elliefeuster.

— Assignment last updated by Elliefeuster (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems quite biased

[edit]

This article is exceedingly heavy on the POV that all alternative medicine is "quackery", and some sort of scam as compared to modern patent medicine. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to try to maintain a NPOV? Most of "modern medicine" is based on isolating the testable active constituents of traditional/folk medicine, synthesizing similar molecules, testing them for comparable activity, patenting them, and proceeding to claim they are safe and effective, while as the same time claiming that the original folk medicine is ineffective, or worse yet, dangerous. It's a matter of perspective which one is truly intending to take advantage of the patient. Thoric (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biased for mainstream science. For each alt-med remedy which gets turned into a mainstream medicine, "Big Pharma" has to research 9999 alt-med remedies which are dead ends. Alt-med is dangerous especially for making people forgo effective treatment.
E.g. TCM says boil Artemisia. What does boiling do? It destroys the active ingredient.
Besides, harvesting Artemisia is an awfully inefficient way of getting the substance needed for producing artemisinin. A GMO yeast does the job much better than harvesting the plant. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]