This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I'd like to propose a revision to the "Testing of Efficacy" section, particularly here:
Cancer researcher Andrew J. Vickers has stated:
"Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label "unproven" is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many alternative cancer therapies have been "disproven.""[89]
This paragraph/quote represents an apparent conclusion of one commentator, Andrew J. Vickers, but isn't completely accurate or objective. For example, hydrazine sulfate has indeed been involved in a number of double-blind studies conducted in the United States and Russia. There are a number of studies published in peer-review that have shown a statistical advantage for patients receiving hydrazine sulfate who also suffered from non-small cell lung cancer and other tumor types. It is not accurate to say that hydrazine has been proven "ineffective" in all clinical trials. It is true to say that several studies also conducted at the behest of the National Cancer Institute either showed no effect from the drug, or were inconclusive. But not all studies were ineffective. One of the main issues here has to do with disagreements over whether trial patients were also receiving other MAO inhibitors which are alleged to negate the effects of hydrazine (also an MAO inhibitor) according to the drug's developer Joseph Gold MD. Gold argues this point, the NCI disagrees and the GAO seconds the NCI. But there are a number of controversies regarding the GAO findings. For example, an ammendment to their original NCI-suppportive report supports Gold's contention that mutliple psychotropic drugs were being used concomittantly with HS forcing even the GAO to write an ammendment saying that these findings only "add to the controversy".
Forgive me for trying to write a chapter on Hydrazine Sulfate! I'm only doing this to show how deep and complex the issues are and that the blanket statements, this drug is ineffective doesn't really even touch the tip of the iceberg.
Bottom line: hydrazine sulfate remains controversial with some patients reporting benefit.
Also, please consider the Vickers reference to Livingston-Wheeler. Only one clinical trial was conducted by Barrie Cassileth MD and published in the NEJM. In that study, neither group---Livingston's OR those treated conventionally---improved and both groups deteriorated at a similar rate. In addition, one-third of patients in the Livingston treatment arm were still reportedly receiving conventional therapy. Medical author Michael Lerner who is one of the most balanced commentators on alternative cancer therapies suggests that the results of the NEJM study could theoretically be interpreted to say that both treatments---Livingstons' and conventional--are "equally dubious".
I think it important to delineate that the Cassileth trial did not show a dinstinct and decided advantage of one treatment over the other in terms of treatment response and survival. In fact, Dr. Cassileth herself, explained at the study's conclusion that the Livingston results aren't necessarily applicable to results that might be gotten with patients less seriously ill treated in a similar trial---in effect, leaving the question open. At the very least, I think Cassileth's comments should be included here as she was the principal investigator of the study and one of the more prolific alternative medicine investigators in the nation.
One final point if I may. Gold never referred to hydrazine sulfate as a "cure". The Vickers reference to 'alternative cancer cures' thus represents a presumed conclusion on the authors' part but not a position advocated by the drugs' inventor. I have never heard any responsible party who has written about hydrazine sulfate refer to it as a 'cure' including Lerner, Moss or others. The drug is referred to as an adjunctive therapy that might improve patients' health statuses by neutralizing cachexia (weight loss) and possibly promote a control of disease over time though that question is still controversial. This reference might thus need some qualification or clarification.
I would be glad to offer any feedback regarding this revision as requested of me. Best Ronsword (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a reasonable suggestion. Waiting to see how the discussion on hydrazine sulfate unfolds here - I believe with the intent of only including one or two sentences in this article.Ronsword (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
<span id="Closing discussion per WP:NOT#FORUM WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"> Here's a rough draft of the revision I'd like to propose as an addendum to "Testing of Efficacy":
Ronsword (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Advocates of alternative therapies, however, present completely different viewpoints and cite what they say are deeply held, inherent biases against their treatments. For example, Dr. Joseph Gold MD, the developer of the cancer drug hydrazine sulfate, notes that while the FDA has officially stated that “Hydrazine sulfate has shown no anticancer activity in randomized clinical trials….” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Transcript, meeting of Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, Rockville, Maryland, May 7, 1999) there have been “many controlled human studies demonstrating the anticancer activity of hydrazine sulfate, dating from as far back as 1975 and published in leading peer-reviewed cancer journals which circulate worldwide” (references cited)
Gold also cites four nationally sponsored randomized double blind clinical trials establishing the drug’s anti-cancer effects (references cited). Other issues may involve biases inherent to studies used to assess alternative therapies. For example, the therapy of Virginia Livingston is officially considered “unproven” but the trial in question only included patients suffering from unresectable cancers not amenable to any know form of therapy. Author Michael Lerner questions whether such biases only insure a potentially negative outcome. In fact, both groups of patients (Livingston and those receiving conventional therapy) deteriorated at similar rates and none were cured, leading to a possible interpretation, as noted by Lerner, of both therapies being “equally dubious” regarding end stage disease (references cited).
Gandydancer Thank you for your comments. Wikipedia should most definitely not condone any selectively biased screening of material.
The fact is, Andrew Vickers' citation in "Testing of Efficacy" reflects the conclusions of a mainstream investigator who may be reflecting an institutional bias against alternative cancer therapies by virtue of his black and white conclusions. However, the issue is far too complex to be so black and white. For example, there are differing conclusions than Vickers' that have been rendered by other authorities regarding some alternative cancer theapies; how, then, can Vickers be the only source that supercedes all others as the citation of choice in an encyclopedia purporting toward objectivity? As I have written earlier, I am not a hydrazine sulfate advocate; I only present this addendum because there are numerous scientifically controlled, double blinded studies published in peer review journals worldwide which present a different perspective to what Vickers articulates.
I therefore wish to present this perspective to allow readers another concrete and scientific side of the equation. To not do so would be irresponsible in my view.
For those interested, here are a few of the citations I refer to:
1. Seits, J.F., Gershanovich, M.L., Filov, V.A., et al. Experimental and clinical data on the antitumor action of hydrazine sulfate. Vopr. Onkol. 21:45-52, 1975. 17. PMID 1090085
2.Gershanovich, M.L., Danova, L.A. , Kondratyev, V.B., et al. Clinical data on the antitumor activity of hydrazine sulfate. Cancer Treat. Rep. 60:933-935, 1976. 23. PMID 1009524
3.Gershanovich, M.L., Danova, L.A. , Ivin, B.A. and Filov, V.A. Results of clinical study of antitumor action of hydrazine sulfate. Nutr. Cancer 3:7-12, 1981. PMID 7050922
4.Filov, V.A., Ivin, V.A. and Gershanovich, M.L. (eds.). Medical Therapy of Tumors, U.S.S.R. Ministry of Health: Leningrad , l983, pp. 92-139. (in house publication)
5.Filov, V.A., Gershanovich, M.L., Danova, L.A. and Ivin, B.A. Experience of the treatment with Sehydrin (hydrazine sulfate) in the advanced cancer patient. Invest. New Drugs 13:89-97, 1995. PMID 749915
6.Chlebowski, R.T., Heber, D., Richardson , B. and Block, J.B. Influence of hydrazine sulfate on abnormal carbohydrate metabolism in patients with cancer cachexia. Cancer Res. 33:867-871, 1984. PMID 6692384
7.Chlebowski, R.T., Bulcavage, L., Grosvenor, M., et al. Hydrazine sulfate in cancer patients with weight loss: a placebo-controlled experience. Cancer 59:406-410, 1987. PMID 3791153
8.Tayek, J.A., Heber, D. and Chlebowski, R.T. Effect of hydrazine sulphate on whole-body protein breakdown measured by14 C-lysine metabolism in lung cancer patients: Lancet 2:241-244, 1987. PMID 2886716
9.Chlebowski, R.T., Bulcavage, L., Grosvenor, M., et al. Hydrazine sulfate influence on nutritional status and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 8:9-15, 1990. PMID 1688616
Ronsword (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the statement of Virginia Livingston being 'unproven' is in this citation: ^ Cassileth, B (April 25). "Survival and Quality of Life Among Patients Receiving Unproven as Compared With Conventional Cancer Therapy". New England Journal of Medicine 324: 1180.
The trial in question including patients with unresectable cancers is also per the NEJM article. Ronsword (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
. Vopr Onkol. 1994;40(7-12):332-6.
[Therapy of primary brain tumors with segidrin]
[Article in Russian]
Filov VA, Gershanovich ML, Ivin BA, Danova LA, Gurchin FA, Naryshkin AG, Leshchinskiĭ VI, Zemskaia AG, Nikiforov BM, Breĭvis PV.
The results of segidrin administration to 46 patients with malignant and 6 patients with benign tumors of the brain are presented. Pronounced therapeutic effect for the whole group was 63.5% and 73%, if partial regression of neurologic symptoms in the entire brain and separate foci is considered. These indexes for patients with malignant tumors only were 61 and 71.7%, respectively. Since segidrin has virtually no significant untoward side-effects, it is considered a most safe medicine for managing brain tumors. It is recommended in cases of inoperable tumor and for post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy with a view to extending the patient's survival time and improving the quality of life.
PMID 7610631 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Experience of the treatment with Sehydrin (Hydrazine Sulfate, HS) in the advanced cancer patients. Filov VA, Gershanovich ML, Danova LA, Ivin BA.
Prof. N.N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Abstract The results of Sehydrin (Hydrazine Sulfate, HS) treatment of 740 patients with the advanced, recurrent or metastatic solid tumours of various localizations or malignant lymphomas, for whom all the methods of specific treatment (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) had been exhausted are presented in this work. The objective response, symptomatic therapeutic effects and toxicity were estimated. Clinically significant objective responses were registered in patients with the soft tissue sarcomas, including neuroblastomas, and paradoxically--in such semimalignant tumours as desmoids. Although the objective response in patients with the lung cancer (90%--non-small cell) was only 4%, stabilization of long duration was registered in 22% of cases connected with the impressive relief of heavy common symptoms in 38.5% of the treated patients. Such a subjective response was established in 46.6% of all the 740 cases. The drug given per os was well tolerated by patients in primary and subsequent courses and did not induce myelosuppression or other significant side effects. On the basis of observations available, Sehydrin may be assessed as an alternative drug for the treatment and symptomatic therapy of patients with some advanced solid tumours and malignant lymphomas at a disease stage when the other methods of treatment can not be used. A possible mechanism of antitumour and symptomatic action is being discussed. PMID 7499115
Ronsword (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and advice noted (see revised citations above). Also, II's point as to too much detail is a valid one. Presumably, said revision can be shortened to something such as
Ronsword (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments? Ronsword (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"hydrazine sulfate" cancer review
finds several hits, though most are older. Since 2002 there are three. PMID 16293879 and PMID 15061600 were both clearly against the use of hydrazine sulfate, while the latest, PMID 16768027, (full text here)is in Spanish. While my Spanish is anything but strong, I'm pretty sure that the conclusion "El Sulfato de Hidracina no debería utilizarse por su inefectividad como estimulante del apetito" is in line with the other two. LeadSongDog come howl 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I won't quarrell the above points, and I will yield to the majority. Though I would like to clarify for the record, hydrazine sulfate (HS) has only been "disproven" depending on the sources cited. In Russia, for example, the drug (named "Sehydrin") has been "proven" in multiple peer reviewed, clinical trials, and is prescribed routinely for cancer patients as an adjunctive not front line therapy. Russian scientists have found that HS---which has never been considered a cytotoxic drug---results in "disease stabilization" i.e., halting of tumor progression (not necessarily reduction of tumor mass---an endpoint not claimed by its developer) in 30-35% of patients so evaluated. The Russians have had extensive clinical experience with HS spanning three decades and involving over 700 patients For those interested, please see full article at: [2]. Finally, the Russians are aware of, and have addressed the 3 negative clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, offering their views on why their American colleagues' results differ from their own. I personally remain somewhat agnostic on the entire issue (it is an extremely complex one), but hardly feel empowered enough to argue that one group of American investigators are right, and the rest of the world is wrong Ronsword (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, you're correct, nationality should have nothing to do with it as per the comment posted above that the "best sources" are "unfortunately usually in English".
FYI I'd suggest reading the full text article I provided above (see URL) for better perspective. It is incorrect to say that Filov found HS to be "nearly irrelevant to disease progression". In the study I cite, he clearly describes disease "stabilization" as synonymous with "interruption of the tumour progression". In that regard, 'interruption of the tumour progression' of more than "3 months... was observed in 216 out of 740 patients (29.2%). Filov continues that "Stabilization (totally in 35.5% of patients) was most frequently observed in the patients with the Hodgkin’s disease, breast, lung, rectal, and colon cancer, in hypernephroma (in 5 out of 9 patients), generalized melanoma (in 13 out of 31 patients), soft tissues sarcoma (in 19 out of 39 patients), head and neck cancer (23 of 48 patients) and in the disseminated b cancer (28 out of 66 patients). It must be re-emphasized that the objective responses and stabilization of the tumour growth occurred in patients having the terminal phase of the disease".
[Also per the Filov study, 6 advanced and unresectable cancer patients experienced complete and total remission. While too small a number to ascribe any significance, it is nonetheless interesting considering the usual odds for spontaneous remission are in the estimated 1:60,000/1:100,000 range].
Incidentally, this trial was published in 1995---several years after the negative NCI sponsored trials commenced. And the latter trials are addressed in the Filov article. If I'm reading the data correctly, the last large scale trials conducted in the US were concluded in 1994. Several of the newer citations you mention are, I believe, references to the earlier negative trials but not additional and contemporary trials. Thus, rehashing earlier negative trial results doesn't necessarily comprise a new body of research.
To reiterate, Sehydrin continues to be prescribed as a proven cancer adjuvant drug in Russia based on the above quoted citations. Thus, Hydrazine sulfate is now "disproven" in the United States, but "proven" in Russia. That is simply a statement of medical and historic factRonsword (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
WLU, the source you are asking about is in the Filov published article of 1995 [3]]. I include a link to the full article text here because the abstract PMID 7499115 doesn't include the discussion/observations of the Russian oncologists concerning the failed NCI studies. In that discussion, Filov et al. specifically reference the 3 most current NCI sponsored trials that failed to show any benefit from HS (PMID 8201372, PMID 8201374 and PMID 8201373) as per their own article references 17,18, and 19. Filov acknowledges that his own trial also didn't show "tumor regression" but instead, cessation of tumor growth - that being a major point of disagreement among the Russians. They consider HS an adjuvant used for disease stabilization as opposed to its objectively cytotoxic role.
For your benefit, I include the Filov conclusions below. (Note, when he references "single-arm trial" as per first sentence, he is talking about his own Russian trial. Please also note, when Filov references "frequency of stabilization" he is describing interruption of tumor progression):
You suggested the modification: "Though used as an adjuvant in Russia, in the United States HS is considered a disproven approach." The current Russian use of Sehydrin is indeed a statement of fact. Thus, can you tell me in earnest why readers of an online encyclopedia should not know this fact?Ronsword (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The difference between the Russian and Western studies is simple: the Western studies were placebo-controlled and randomized. The Russian study was an observational cohort. It's that simple. That's why the Russians reported a positive finding and the Western studies didn't. A scientifically literate individual would assign more weight to the randomized, placebo-controlled results than to the uncontrolled observational cohort. MastCell Talk 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Ya, the problem with the 'best' trials you refer to is that they were, in fact, considered flawed by other reputable scientists. These trials included the potentially fatal use of incompatible drugs---MAO inhibitors---with hydrazine sulfate, also an MAO inhibitor. Is it quality science, or shoddy science to include two or more incompatible agents in a carefully controlled study trial? Therefore, I referenced the Kaegi article because its conclusion of "uncertain" is based on this very controversy (e.g GAO's admission that the NCI trials did in fact allow additional drugs that were not supposed to be allowed). Yes, the Kaegi article is 12 years old---and written 5 years AFTER the NCI trials which are now, um, 16 years old.Ronsword (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I have taken the Canadian article out of context. The Canadian citations I quote are, in fact, related to the GAO controversy. If you read the PDF link I provided above, the Canadians---in addressing criticisms of their conclusion of "uncertain" in a later editorial (1999) write that their "concerns" ..."were reinforced by our review of additional material pertaining to an investigation into the conduct of the HS trials, which was...carried out by the GAO." One can reasonably infer from this last sentence that they are referring to the GAO's concerns about MAO's---the primary thrust of the GAO investigation in the first place.
The Canadian's thus conclude that "on the basis of that material, it was entirely reasonable to conclude that the evidence for and against the efficacy of HS was uncertain".
I can't speak to Gold's objections to MAO incompatibility. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I again ask the question: is the use of two or more incompatible drugs in a clinical trial good or bad science---non withstanding efficacy outcomes?Ronsword (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this is all very fascinating but the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the main page. Based on the discussion, this isn't going to happen. So if people want to debate this further, I have one word - email. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The "characterization" section looks very good, at least in principle. One problem: under the section headed by "Scientific community", "institutions" are given far less space than "scientists", even though it is widely accepted on WP that institutions are superior sources for scientific topics (see, e.g., WP:MEDRS). By word count, "institutions" receives 100 words and "scientists" receives 546. More specifically, Stephen Barrett (most of whose work is self-published without indications of peer review) alone gets 110 words, more than the entire "Institutions" section; the Institute of Medicine, one of the best English-language sources for the life sciences, gets only 26 words. One might justify that state of affairs by arguing that Barrett and others have published a great deal more than some of the scientific bodies cited: the NSF, for example, devotes only 7-8 paragraphs to CAM in a paper discussing science fiction and pseudoscience. The IOM, however, published a 360-page book, Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. (Barrett has criticized the IOM book, but his criticisms depend on CAM being held to a different set of ethical standards of research than biomedicine, and if anything, his reasoning, tone and self-publication show how far he has diverged from mainstream discourse.)
Yes, sometimes we do need to rely on less than wonderful sources (like Barrett) as "balancing" sources when few sources other than promoters of a given CAM exist. But for characterization of CAM itself, we have an extremely high-quality source in the IOM, one that is superior to any individual scientist publishing via peer review, let alone scientists who self-publish and eschew the peer review process. Yet this source is given extremely short shrift. Therefore, we have a major undue weight problem as things currently stand. Does anyone disagree? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The evidence-base for complementary medicine in children: a critical overview of systematic reviews. Reference for article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If editors here need a break, I'd suggest today's episode of [The Irrelevant Show], which has a nice bit on "alternative crime". Enjoy. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
uf, I see talk pages here are huge, could there be a FAQ page, made by editors which have been involved in this article for a longer time? I see the issue was debated many times, but getting to the gist of the argument seems fairly time consuming if it means digging through archived conversations. I'm simply wondering if either the article or title or both might reflect the opinion of some who consider complementary and alternative medicine quite distinct - for instance, Prof. Michael Baum Interview from "The Enemies of Reason." , or at least the uncut version of it available at Richard Dawkins Foundation channel - where he takes 'alternative' to mean basically unproven alleged remedies, and complementary only to actually proven medicine that 'complements' traditional treatments - he worked with art therapies, and proven herbal remedies, though its not clear to me what he actually means by 'complementing'.. Aryah (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Integrative Medicine is NOT the same as "Alternative" medicine. I really think it should have its own page and not be redirected. Integrative Medicine is the use of western/ allopathic medicine in combination with other non-conventional yet *evidenced based* treatment modalities. It differs from the old termenology "CAM - Complementary and Alternative Medicine" because of the strictly controlled research component -- in other words, only using treatments that have been researched and shown to be as effective as other treatments (i.e. the use of acupuncture for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. See reference at http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.med.51.1.49?journalCode=med) This is why Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Hopkins, UCLA, UCSF and all other big name MED schools have an Integrative Medicine dept., NOT a "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley19 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
This section may warrant a bit of cleanup, especially the second through fourth paragraphs. For one thing, there are six citations of an article from The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, which appears to serve as the Center for Inquiry's anti-CAM editorial page. Compounding the potentially POV tone, the statements taken from these 'speculations' begin to be worded like facts. For instance:
"There is also an increase in conspiracy theories towards conventional medicine and pharmaceutical companies..."
On that subject, I believe the term 'conspiracy theories' might be a bit weighted. Perhaps some expansion with references cited on these pages would be helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Controversy_about_drug_development_and_testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#Controversy_about_drug_marketing_and_lobbying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration
Apologies if this has been discussed. Any thoughts? AveVeritas (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
At this point on Wikipedia, we don't really accept new edits without sources, especially in controversial areas where there could be a lot of disagreement. So I removed the new section, which was recently added by User:PPdd. The section had an obviously rather negative spin on alternative medicine, which is OK but it needs to be sourced and also probably balanced by a rebuttal per WP:NPOV. Ideally, we have an academic source which doesn't seem to be on a crusade but is rather documenting facts.
I noticed that the section used the phrase "science based medicine", as contrasted with alternative medicine. This type of comparison needs to be sourced. I would prefer that we try to avoid this term, which is rarely used in sources, and rather stick with the more standard term of mainstream medicine or conventional medicine, or perhaps if appropriate evidence-based medicine. Science-based medicine is associated with a small group of bloggers over at the website Science-based medicine. While they have a lot of good articles, they also have quite a few bad ones and tend to lean very traditional and pro-industry (ie, use a lot of drugs, don't worry much about side-effects, drug companies don't really distort research, xenobiotic chemical exposures are nothing to be concerned about, etc) - for example, when their founder Steve Novella decided to look into Bisphenol A, he just invited a chemist from the industry trade group to give a podcast lecture without any counter view, which is somewhat representative of the group's approach to questions. It's not a reliable source and we shouldn't be discreetly plugging them. II | (t - c) 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Alt Med journals revisited: Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by alt med and pseudoscience journals - Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here[5]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying to fix this article to reflect the fact that the placebo effect has been considered, studied, puzzled, and so on in the medical community for some time. It is well known that even voodoo "works". What is not so well known is that antidepressants, for instance, except in severe depression, don't. Except that they do work, due to the placebo effect. (Though unfortunately some pretty serious side effects "work" extremely well, too.)
It seems we have a new editor who is hell bent on letting wikipedia readers know that they are being lied to by alt med about the placebo effect. The problem that I'm running into is the fact that he is using an article in the NEJM, written by physicians, supporting the use of the placebo effect, not some wild and crazy alt med proponents. If I do not understand the situation, please let me know. But if I am correct and he does not make that plain in the article, I am going to delete his edits. Gandydancer (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I almost wrote that perhaps the doctor should consider using a cheaper drug while waiting for the placebo effect, but in part that undermines the effect itself. It's well-known that a $50 antibiotic prescription works far better than one that is only $15. I actually believe that this is part of "amoxicillin-resistance"! SBHarris 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, however it seems that I have been unable to make my point clearly. It seems to me that you have been attempting to edit this article to show that alt med/IM take advantage of the placebo effect. But you seem unable to accept the fact that both mainstream and alt med alike are aware of and use the placebo effect. It makes no sense to point our alt meds use of placebo when mainstream "use" it as well. Please see this site: http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2010/October/Rachel636.pdf Gandydancer (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There are very good recent reviews on developments in fMRI imaging of the pain response that provide considerable insight into the mechanism of the placebo response. See for instance PMID 21041961 and PMID 20376600. It is clear too that much of this work is dependent on the use of new-generation (>7 Tesla) equipment to achieve higher spatial resolution.(PMID 21041961, PMID 20376603). We can now measure a patient's response to a placebo intervention. The step that has yet to be taken is to quantify these responses for various interventions and measure the relative effects of different forms of placebo intervention. We may yet see (warning:wp:CRYSTAL) that the various interventions hitherto dismissed as voodoo, magic, autosuggestion, etc are not all equal. But we are clearly moving into an era where these things can be measured directly. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If one looks through the placebo article, one sees mention and discussion of "deception" many times, and the ethical dilemma that can damage the doctor-patient relationship. The article is also in Category:Deception, which is quite appropriate. Here's a bit from the lead:
So "prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS." Pretty sound advice. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I said there were small studies and plausable mechanisms. But how much enthusiasm does that (should that?) justify in a clinician? You're sort of getting my point. Fish oil is one of my favorite treatments, because it helps: inflamation, pain, depression, migraine, bipolar disorder, ectopic neurological firing in heart and brain, lowers serum triglycerides dramatically, helps with non-alcoholic steatosis of the liver, etc., etc. Omega-3 fatty acids are present to keep membrances fluid in the cold, and remember are the original ingredient in Chinese cold water snake body oil, aka snakeoil. Which turns out to be even more useful than aspirin, and not as dangerous. Fix yer Rheumatiz, only a 3 dollars a bottle.
Now, I don't think I've hurt anybody with fish oil. And I've probably saved more than one patient from NSAID gastric bleeding (mortality-- ~15,000 people per year, morbidity, ~100,000 hospitalizations per year in the US). But am I deluding myself? Do I care if I'm deluding myself? Are you going to rain on my parade? Must I be less enthusiastic about fish oil, and give patients a fishy stare when I vaguely suggest it *might* be worth trying, and at least isn't harmful... Boy that's a placebo effect killer right there, even if there would otherwise be a placebo effect. You see the problem. Oh, that self-deception, don't you hate it. Rationalists must forge on and give the NSAID, because the studies are larger. And because they don't make fish at Pfizer. SBHarris 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Now lets fill up the article and eliminate the junk (like the stuff I put in it). PPdd (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)((cite magazine))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help); Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(help)The first is an interesting read. It's a review written by True Believers that makes clear what those beliefs are and might be useful. The second is a practioner-as-celebrity puff piece we shouldn't touch. The third is a hefty work that can be found in major medical libraries. It should prove useful for describing Int Med, though we'll need to be careful about whether its contents are supported in more independent sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at #The placebo effect looks like it might be going somewhere a bit broader, but I would like to initiate a limited discussion of whether we should include the statement However, a 2010 survey of family physicians found that 56% of respondents said they had used a placebo in clinical practice as well. Eighty-five percent of respondents believed placebos can have both psychological and physical benefits. (source, full text (pdf); article revision). I have no particular complaint with regards to the source, though WP:PRIMARY, WP:MEDRS, and WP:WORLDVIEW suggest that we should prefer to make a more comprehensive point using multiple sources or a review; 412/970 is actually a pretty respectable response rate for this sort of thing. WP:PROMINENCE, however, is also policy. Why should the article about alternative medicine include a survey of how MDs practice medicine? It is off-topic here. The question of medical ethics raised explicitly by the source and implicitly by the sentence here is way off-topic to this article. Could this be addressed instead by rewording the material leading up to this sentence to avoid implying that MDs never prescribe pure placebos? I do not see such an implication myself, as the key parameter being discussed is that some people recommend doing so instead of doing it as a pragmatic response to calls of fix it with a pill, doc. Please keep this discussion focused on the narrow issue at hand, with broader issues confined to the discussion above or some more appropriate forum. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a new page at Integrative medicine that is mostly redundant with Alternative medicine but contains a bit of content that should be merged here. We just had a discussion last month (note that the page histories have been swapped) indicating a continued consensus that this topic is best treated at a single page. The original merge discussion a few years back gave a strong consensus for this, but it is possible that consensus has changed. In any event, that page needs a strong WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV filter applied to it. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
— SLSQK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Bonniehorrigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Alt med is a medicine that parts that did not work when tested, or are untested. Integrative medicine claims it is alternative medicine integrated into evidence based medicine. But that means IM has parts that don't work or are untested, so IM is an alt med. So there is no difference between IM and alt med. PPdd (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am closing this proposal by removing the merge tag from the integrative medicine article. The discussion seems to have died down without any consensus to merge (i.e. no merge actually occurred). Accordingly I don't think it needs a complete rationale, but for the record there are some strong, well-thought arguments on both sides, and an outcome not to merge is supportable by the argument that though related and probably overlapping, integrative and alternative medicine are two different subjects so separate material can reasonably be maintained in articles on each. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Attention is needed at the Osteopathy article per this. PPdd (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
A publication produced in association with the British Medical Association recommends several CAM to deal with stress.Could mention in the Education section.Oxford73 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
On this or the pseudoscience talk page there was an objection to calling sicint the alt med TCM as being "pseudoscience", arguing that it soes not claim to be science. But here is a quote from a very prominent TCM historian/practitioner -
"detailed practical instructions that make Chinese medicine a science... whether modern laboratory verification has been able to perceive any benefits or not"
And here is almost the exact same structure with the words generalized in the definition of pseudoscience -
"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology."
Here is the full quote -
"It is further said in the oral traditions of the Fire Spirit School that the seedlings of aconite (“Traditional_Chinese_medicine#Aconite_root
— The King of TCM Herbs]]” and the “Queen of Poisons”) need to be harvested high in the mountains where they endure great cold—maybe this is why this herb is so powerful in driving out damp cold—-and then should be planted at the winter solstice in the Jiangyou area among other crops. The aconite plant then grows in the time of year when the yang is in its ascendancy and is harvested at the summer solstice before the yang starts its decline. This herb thus very literally absorbs only the energy of the yang part of the year. This attention to timing is important, but most growers now disregard this key feature. I believe very strongly that it is these types of detailed practical instructions that make Chinese medicine a science in its own right, and that it is important that they be heeded, whether modern laboratory verification has been able to perceive any benefits or not. The principle that involves herb cultivation in the right place and harvesting at the proper time of year is called didao yaocai. This term means “genuine,” and expresses the proper yin and yang properties of the herbs due to correct attention to planting in the right place (di: yin) at the right time (dao: yang). Only then can this herb considered to be genuine. It is not just a matter of correct species identification.[13]"
Interestingly, the quoted person is a historian of the oral tradition, and make his assertions in oral interviews, so it is still a secondary source, but marginally so under WP:RS. An objection per RS might be that he qualified it with a "I believe that...", but his belief is clearly intended to carry the authority of an assertion about the primary sources he is describing, and is only worded with "believe that" as a characteristically modest style of that tradition. Another objection is that connecting the two is OR or Synthy, but that defies WP:Common sense, and would force anything on WP to be an exact quote. So such objections would be somewhat WP:POINTy. PPdd (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but do you have a grasp of basic set theory? This is the "alternative medicine" article. TCM is usually grouped within that category. Now you say you present evidence that "TCM is pseudoscience". Well, then why do you bring it up instead of at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? How does it follow that an umbrella term is "pseudoscience" if you can show that one of its sub-branches is "pseudoscience"?
It is obvious, I hope, that the term "alternative medicine" includes a wide field of approaches, some of which are clearly pseudoscience. But it also includes others which are either not clearly pseudoscience, or clearly not pseudoscience. It follows that the "pseudoscience" category is misplaced here. It's like, say, slapping The template Category:Carnivorans on the Mammals article, because obviously some mammals are Carnivora. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems we have a dispute over starting the article with "In Western culture...". It is ... any healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine" globally speaking - not limited to western. Much of it originated in western cultures as folk medicine where "conventional or science based medicine" was unavailable. So we need to drop the "western culture" bit unless it can be supported as commonly used by reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Hope springs eternal I guess. There is still Dawkins, the Australian comic, and so on. If you are correct on this one, how could these others still be acceptable?.Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is my post from when I deleted Dr. Davis:
I do not feel that it is correct to open the article with a statement by a person who, as far as I can tell, is not qualified to make a judgment on CAM. If someone has more information on Dr. Davis, I'd like to see it, since when I google him I come up with next to nothing. On the other hand, the well known Cochran group says something quite different to define CAM:
What are considered complementary or alternative practices in one country may be considered conventional medical practices in another. Therefore, our definition is broad and general: complementary medicine includes all such practices and ideas which are outside the domain of conventional medicine in several countries and defined by its users as preventing or treating illness, or promoting health and well-being. These practices complement mainstream medicine by 1) contributing to a common whole, 2) satisfying a demand not met by conventional practices, and 3) diversifying the conceptual framework of medicine."[17]
Furthermore, if one were to use the statement, "that which has not been shown consistently to be effective" one would need to include some mainstream drugs, antidepressants, for just one example. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
And the reply I got:
Gandydancer, you're throwing our "not noteworthy" quite a bit. By whose definition? Are you engaged in whitewashing by removing critical POV? If they're sourced properly, then your personal opinion needs to be weighed against the opinions of lots of other editors before you start deleting sourced material. That's normally considered vandalism. You have been bold and removed material. That it was sourced is problematic, so you shouldn't have done it. But since you were reverted (twice!) and stil persisted, that's a violation of the WP:BRD cycle. It only has one cycle. You should have immediately, right after the first restoration, started this discussion. It's good you're doing it now and we might we get somewhere with this.
Ludwigs, I reverted one of your deletions as we don't delete POV here, especially when properly sourced. If the wording could be made better, as well it might, then let's discuss it here first.
As you know, this article has been a war zone many times and we need to avoid returning to those days. It can certainly be improved, so suggestions are always welcome. I'm not saying that your objections might not have legitimacy. I'm just saying that we should discuss it first. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, I did not revert twice. I reverted once and asked for a discussion. Eventually the problem was ended with Dr. Davis appearing not only in the lede but in the body of the article as well. So it goes. Gandydancer (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Shamanic healing methods employ a creative visualisation technique. They involve hunting the visualisation of the disease,quite often a worm, pulling that worm from the body and destroying it either by my twist and rip apart or conflagation which are my two alternatives. Be aware that fighting your disease is a fight and the harder one visualises it's destruction the faster one heals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha-ete (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of their factual basis the claims made in the following two quotes taken from the lead do contradict each other,
"The claims made by alternative medicine practitioners are generally not accepted by the medical community because evidence-based assessment of safety and efficacy is either not available or has not been performed for these practices."
and
"Unlike mainstream medicine, CAM often lacks or has only limited experimental and clinical study; however, scientific investigation of CAM is beginning to address this knowledge gap."
because a) "generally not accepted" does not mean the same thing as "has only limited experimental and clinical study" and because b) the first does not address the fact, addressed the second quote, that some of these claims are being investigated and may soon become facts.
I suggest that we remove the first quote mostly because it is redundant. Four out of five of the paragraphs in the lead are about this topic, namely how mainstream medicine is more credible than alternative medicine. I would also suggest removing the first quote from the lead because it is probably factually incorrect since the second quote that it contradicts is a direct quote from a report prepared by the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. makeswell (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. But, the quote from the lead states that claims from CAM are, "generally not accepted," and therefore implies (potentially) that the claims are thought of as untrue rather than their truth values being unknown. We could rephrase this to state clearly that there simply enough known about CAM claims to prove or disprove them, but that information is already stated four times in the lead, as shown in the four quotes taken from the lead and shown below,
I think that the lead is too redundant and we should probably abbreviate it. What do you all think we should do? makeswell (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please give your input about what you think we need to do in regards to the lead. Please provide specific suggestions about direction you would like to take. Please format any new and distinct topics as subheadings. Thanks.
The original lead:
One possible revision of the original lead:
I think it is a good idea to remove these two sentences (shown in the third bullet below) because the topic of how little studies have been done on CAM is currently repeated four times in the lead, as quoted below,
The first and third bullets cover nearly the exact same topic, so I think it's redundant for us to keep both. makeswell (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been 15 days, one person agreed with the changes, and zero people have voiced any qualms about the revision I proposed, so I'm going to go ahead and publish them. makeswell (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I personally felt that the lede was heavy on the scientific study and light on the actual practice of alternative medicine. It is our responsibility to be objective and maintain a neutral viewpoint. In concordance with this we should present what exists: the scientific opinions (about what exists or doesn't) in addition to the widespread practice of alternative medicine. I hope the revision reflects this NPOV attitude. makeswell (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
i would like to see a history section here. :)
75.149.68.209 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This section seems to criticise opponents of Alternative medicine, not alternative medicine itself...
"The NCCAM budget has been criticized[97] because despite the duration and intensity of studies about the efficacy of alternative medicine, there have been exactly zero effective CAM treatments supported by scientific evidence to date."
Sounds here like someone is real arrogant about alternative medicine, and their use of the words "exactly zero effective[...]" etc., make it sound a bit biased towards proponents of Alternative Medicine, not sceptics who are criticising it.
"Despite this, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine budget has been on a sharp sustained rise to support complementary medicine. In fact, the whole CAM field has been called by critics the SCAM.[98]"
Come on, how is this criticism? Sounds like..."support" to me, from what the author even wrote in there ("support complementary medicine").
As the author goes on:
"There really is no such thing as alternative medicine--only medicine that has been proved to work and medicine that has not." Dr. Arnold Relman, editor in chief emeritus of The New England Journal of Medicine"
Sounds like more support.
In fact, the only writing relevant to this section at all is the last two sentences:
"Speaking of government funding studies of integrating alternative medicine techniques into the mainstream, Dr. Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale School of Medicine wrote that it "is used to lend an appearance of legitimacy to treatments that are not legitimate." Dr. Marcia Angell, executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine says, "It's a new name for snake oil."[97]"
Am I missing something here, or does this section need a rewrite?... 174.62.155.87 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Not comepletely sure, but isn't there a therapy called Zero Balance? I'm not sure if its classified as alternative medicine, but I'm looking for it. 74.138.183.168 (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ontario medical college votes for tougher scrutiny for alternative medicine. Tom Blackwell, National Post Nov 29, 2011
Brangifer (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I added an Ernst quote to the last chapter ('Appeal') in the main article, giving its title extra meaning and poignacy.Sleuth21 (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk page violation. Wikipedia is not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article, along with similar articles, is entirely biased in favor of the anti-CAM point of view. Even if a notable figure such as Linus Pauling expresses support for large amounts of vitamin supplementation, for example, anything supposedly "discounting" it is brought up as "evidence". Obviously, this is the result of long, sustained effort by ideological vigilante groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.105.84 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Bichel, "Post-vaccinial Lymphadenitis Developing into Hodgkin's Disease", Acta Med Scand, 1976, Vol 199, p523-525. Stewart, AM, et al, "Aetiology of Childhood Leukaemia", Lancet, 16 Oct, 1965, 2:789-790. [Listed under Vaccine Adverse Reactions.] Glathe, H et al, "Evidence of Tumorigenic Activity of Candidate Cell Substrate in Vaccine Production by the Use of Anti-Lymphocyte Serum", Development Biol Std, 1977, 34:145-148. Bolognesi, DP, "Potential Leukemia Virus Subunit Vaccines: Discussion", Can Research, Feb 1976, 36(2 pt 2):655-656. Colon, VF, et al, "Vaccinia Necrosum as a Clue to Lymphatic Lymphoma", Geriatrics, Dec 1968, 23:81-82. Park-Dincsoy, H et al, "Lymphoid Depletion in a case of Vaccinia Gangrenosa", Laval Med, Jan 1968, 39:24-26. Hugoson, G et al, "The Occurrence of Bovine Leukosis Following the Introduction of Babesiosis Vaccination", Bibl Haemat, 1968, 30:157-161. Hartstock, , ""Post-vaccinial Lymphadenitis: Hyperplasia of Lymphoid Tissue That Simulates Malignant Lymphomas", Apr 1968, Cancer, 21(4):632-649. Allerberger, F, "An Outbreak of Suppurative Lymphadenitis Connected with BCG Vaccination in Austria- 1990/1991," Am Rev Respir Disorder, Aug 1991, 144(2) 469. Omokoku B, Castells S, "Post-DPT inoculation cervical lymphadenitis in children." N Y State J Med 1981 Oct;81(11):1667-1668. Vaccines and Chromosome Changes Leading to Mutations: Knuutila, S et al, "An Increased Frequency of Chromosomal Changes and SCE's in Cultured Lymphocytes of 12 Subjects Vaccinated Against Smallpox," Hum Genet, 1978 Feb 23; 41(1):89-96. Cherkeziia, SE, et al, "Disorders in the Murine Chromosome Apparatus Induced By Immunization with a Complex of Anti-viral Vaccines," Vopr Virusol, 1979 Sept Oct, (5):547-550. [Note: SCE means sister chromatid exchange and is an indication that genetic mutations are occurring, which could possibly lead to cancer-causing mutations.] Vaccines and Auto-immunity Citations: Romanov, V A, et al, "Role of Auto-immune Processes in the Pathogenesis of Post-Vaccinal Lesions of the Nervous System", Oct 1977, Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, 10:80-83. Grachev, V P, et al, "Formation of Auto-antibodies in Laboratory Animals After Inoculation of Viruses With Different Virulence. I. Results of Studies ..., July 1973, Acta Virol (Praha), 17:319-326. Movsesiants, AA, et al, "Experimental Study of the Ability of Different Strains of Vaccinia Virus to Induce Auto-Antibody Formation", Vopr Virusol, May-Jun 1975; (3):297-302. Negina, IuP, "Comparative Study of Auto-antibody Formation Following Immunization With Different Types of Typhoid Vaccines", Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, May 1980; (5):69-72. Vaccinations and Diabetes Citations: Sinaniotis, et al, "Diabetes Mellitus after Mumps Vaccination", Arc Dis Child, 1975, 50:749.66 Polster, H, "Diabetes insipidus after Smallpox vaccination", Z Aerztl Fortbild (Jena), 1 Apr 1966, 60:429-432. Patan, "Postvaccinal Severe Diabetes Mellitus", Ter Arkh, Jul 1968, 40:117-118. Classen, JB, MD, "The Timing of Immunization Affects The Development of Diabetes in Rodents", Autoimmunity, 1996, 24:137-145. Classen JB, "The diabetes epidemic and the hepatitis B vaccines," N Z Med J, 109(1030):366 1996 Sep 27. [letter] Classen JB, "Childhood immunisation and diabetes mellitus," N Z Med J, 109(1022):195 1996 May 24 [letter] Poutasi K, " Immunisation and diabetes," N Z Med J 1996 Jul 26;109(1026):283. [letter; comment] Other Articles Linking Diabetes to Vaccines: Dokheel, T M, "An Epidemic of Childhood Diabetes in the United States? Evidence from ....", Diabetes Care, 1993, 16:1606-1611. Parent ME, et al, "Bacille Calmette-Guerin vaccination and incidence of IDDM in Montreal, Canada," Diabetes Care 1997 May; 20(5):767-772. House DV, Winter WE, "Autoimmune diabetes. The role of auto-antibody markers in the prediction and prevention of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus," Clin Lab Med 1997 Sep; 17(3):499-545. Zeigler, M et al , "[Autoantibodies in type 1 diabetes mellitus]" Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena). 1994 Aug; 88(7-8:561-5 Vaccines and Nervous System Changes: Bondarev, VN et al, "The Changes of the Nervous System in Children After Vaccination", Pediatria, Jun 1969; 48:20-24. Ehrengut W, "Central nervous sequelae of vaccinations," Lancet 1986 May 31;1(8492):1275-1276. Provvidenza, G et al, [On a Case of Benign Acute Cerebellar Ataxia in Childhood], Arch Ital Sci Med Trop, 43:189-194, Apr 1962. Katsilambros, L, "[The Phenomenom of Apathy in Man and Animals After the Injection of Viruses in Very High Doses. Clinical Data]", Rev Med Moyen Orient, 20:539-546, Nov - Dec 1963. Vaccinations and Autism Citations: Eggers, C, "Autistic Syndrome (Kanner) And Vaccinations against Smallpox", Klin Paediatr, Mar 1976, 188(2):172-180. Kiln MR, "Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine." Lancet 1998 May 2;351(9112):1358. Selway, "MMR vaccination and autism 1998. Medical practitioners need to give more than reassurance." BMJ 1998 Jun 13;316(7147):1824. Nicoll A, Elliman D, Ross E, "MMR vaccination and autism 1998," MJ 1998 Mar 7;316(7133):715-716. Lindley K J, Milla PJ, "Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine."Lancet 1998 Mar 21;351(9106):907-908. Bedford H, et al, "Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR vaccine." Lancet 1998 Mar 21;351(9106):907. Vijendra K. Singh, Sheren X. Lin, and Victor C. Yang, "Serological Association of Measles Virus and Human Herpesvirus-6 with Brain Autoantibodies in Autism," Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, Oct 1998, Vol. 89, No. 1, p 105-108. ["None of the autistic children in the study had measles in the past, but all had the MMR" stated David Whalgren.] Vaccines and Demyelination Citations: Herroelen, L et al, "Central-Nervous-System Demyelination After Immunization with Recombinant Hepatitis B Vaccine", Lancet, Nov 9, 1991, 338(8776):1174-1175. Kaplanski G, Retornaz F, Durand J, Soubeyrand J, "Central nervous system demyelination after vaccination against hepatitis B and HLA haplotype." J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995 Jun; 58(6):758-759. Matyszak MK, Perry VH, "Demyelination in the central nervous system following a delayed-type hypersensitivity response to bacillus Calmette-Guerin." Neuroscience 1995 Feb;64(4):967-977. Tornatore CS, Richert JR, "CNS demyelination associated with diploid cell rabies vaccine." Lancet 1990 Jun 2;335(8701):1346-1347. Adams, JM et al, "Neuromyelitis Optica: Severe Demyelination Occurring Years After Primary Smallpox Vaccinations", Rev Roum Neurol, 1973, 10:227-231. In 1988, Dietrich used MRI to show that developmentally delayed children had alterations in their myelin. Coulter described that central nervous system damage can be exhibited as abnormal behavior of the child. In 1935, Thomas Rivers, experimental allergic encephalitis (EAE) can be the result of a viral or bacterial infection of the nervous system. "The fact of the matter is that it is a matter of record that it was known that vaccination produced encephalitis since 1926." The authors stated, "In regions in which there is no organized vaccination of the population, general paralysis is rare. ... It is impossible to deny a connection between vaccinations and the encephalitis (brain damage) which follows it." Vaccines have been linked to seizures, convulsions and epilepsy. Vaccinations and Seizures: Hirtz DG, Nelson KB, Ellenberg J H, "Seizures following childhood immunizations", Pediatr 1983 Jan; 102(1):14-18. Cherry JD, Holtzman AE, Shields WD, Buch D, Nielsen, "Pertussis immunization and characteristics related to first seizures in infants and children,"J Pediatr 1993 Jun;122(6):900-903. Coplan J, "Seizures following immunizations," J Pediatr 1983 Sep;103(3):496. Barkin RM, Jabhour JT, Samuelson J S, "Immunizations, seizures, and subsequent evaluation," JAMA 1987 Jul 10;258(2):201. Griffin MR, et al, "Risk of seizures after measles-mumps-rubella immunization," Pediatrics 1991 Nov;88(5):881-885. Griffin MR, et al, "Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine," JAMA 1990 Mar 23-30;263(12):1641-1645. Cizewska S, Huber Z, Sluzewski W, "[Prophylactic inoculations and seizure activity in the EEG]," Neurol Neurochir Pol 1981 Sep-Dec;15(5-6):553-557. [Article in Polish] Huttenlocher PR, Hapke RJ, "A follow-up study of intractable seizures in childhood." Ann Neurol 1990 Nov; 28(5):699-705. Blumberg DA, "Severe reactions associated with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine: detailed study of children with seizures, hypotonic-hypo-responsive episodes, high fevers, and persistent crying."Pediatrics 1993 Jun; 91(6):1158-1165. Vaccinations and Convulsions Citations: Prensky AL, et al, "History of convulsions and use of pertussis vaccine," J Pediatr 1985 Aug; 107(2):244-255. Baraff LJ, "Infants and children with convulsions and hypotonic-hypo-responsive episodes following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization: follow-up evaluation," Pediatrics 1988 Jun; 81(6):789-794. Jacobson V, "Relationship of pertussis immunization to the onset of epilepsy, febrile convulsions and central nervous system infections: a retrospective epidemiologic study," Tokai J Exp Clin Med 1988;13 Suppl: 137-142. Cupic V,et al, "[Role of DTP vaccine in the convulsive syndromes in children]," Lijec Vjesn 1978 Jun; 100(6):345-348. [Article in Serbo-Croatian (Roman)] Pokrovskaia NIa, "[Convulsive syndrome in DPT vaccination (a clinico-experimental study)]," Pediatriia 1983 May;(5):37-39. [Article in Russian] Vaccinations and Epilepsy Citations: Ballerini, Ricci, B, et al, "On Neurological Complications of Vaccination, With Special Reference to Epileptic Syndromes," Riv Neurol, Jul-Aug 1973, 43:254-258. Wolf SM, Forsythe A, "Epilepsy and mental retardation following febrile seizures in childhood," Acta Paediatr Scand 1989 Mar;78(2):291-295. Vaccines and Brain Swelling: Iwasa, S et al, "Swelling of the Brain in Mice Caused by Pertussis ... Quantitative Determination and the Responsibility of the Vaccine", Jpn J Med Sci Biol, 1985 , 38(2):53-65. Mathur R, Kumari S, "Bulging fontanel following triple vaccine." Indian Pediatr 1981 Jun;18(6):417-418. Barry W, Lenney W, Hatcher G, "Bulging fontanelles in infants without meningitis." Arch Dis Child 1989 Apr;64(4):635-636. Shendurnikar N, "Bulging fontanel following DPT" Indian Pediatr 1986 Nov;23(11):960. Gross TP, Milstien JB, Kuritsky JN, "Bulging fontanelle after immunization with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine and diphtheria-tetanus vaccine." J Pediatr 1989 Mar;114(3):423-425. Jacob J, Mannino F, "Increased intracranial pressure after diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis immunization." Am J Dis Child 1979 Feb;133(2):217-218. Dugmore, WN, "Bilateral Oedema at the Posterior Pole. Hypersensitivity Reaction to Alavac P injection." Br J Ophthalmol, Dec 1972, 55:848-849. Vaccines and Neurological Damage: Nedar P R, and Warren, R J, "Reported Neurological Disorders Following Live Measles Vaccine", 1968, Ped, 41:997-1001. Paradiso, G et al, "Multifocal Demyelinating Neuropathy after Tetanus Vaccine", Medicina (B Aires), 1990, 50(1):52-54. Landrigan, PJ, Whitte, J, "Neurologic Disorders Following Live Measles-virus Vaccination", JAMA, Mar 26, 1973, v223(13):1459-1462. Turnbull, H M, "Encephalomyelitis Following Vaccination", Brit Jour Exper Path, 7:181, 1926. Kulenkampff, M et al, "Neurological Complications of Pertussis Inoculation", Arch Dis Child, 1974, 49:46. Strom, J, "Further Experience of Reactions, Especially of a Cerebral Nature in Conjunction with Triple Vaccination", Brit Med Jour, 1967, 4:320-323. Berg, J M, "Neurological Complications of Pertussis Immunization," Brit Med Jour, July 5,1958; p 24. Bondarev, VN et al, "The Changes of the Nervous System in Children After Vaccination", Pediatria, Jun 1969; 48:20-24. Badalian, LO, "Vaccinal Lesions of the Nervous System in Children," Vop Okhr Materin Dets, Dec 1959, 13:54-59 Lorentz, IT, et al, "Post-Vaccinal Sensory Polyneuropathy with Myoclonus", Proc Aust Ass Neurol, 1969, 6:81-86. Trump, R C, White, T R, "Cerebellar Ataxia Presumed Due To Live Attenuated Measles Virus Vaccine," JAMA, 1967, 199:165-166. Allerdist, H, "Neurological Complications Following Measles Vaccination", Inter Symp, Brussels, 1978, Development Biol Std, Vol 43, 259-264. Finley, K H, "Pathogenesis of Encephalitis Occurring With Vaccination, Variola and Measles, Arch Neur and Psychologist, 1938; 39:1047-1054. Froissart, M et al, "Acute Meningoencephalitis Immediately after an Influenza Vaccination", Lille Med, Oct 1978, 23(:548-551. Pokrovskaia, Nia, et al, "Neurological Complications in Children From Smallpox Vaccination", Pediatriia, Dec 1978, (12):45-49. Allerdist, H, "Neurological Complications Following Measles Virus Vaccination. Evaluation of the Cases seen Between 1971-1977″, Monatsschr Kinderheilkd, Jan 1979, 127(1): 23-28. Ehrengut, W et al, "On Convulsive Reactions Following Oral vaccination Against Polio", Klin Paediatr, May 1979, 191(3):261-270. Naumova, R P, et al, "Encephalitis Developing After Vaccination without a Local Skin Reaction", Vrach Delo, Jul 1979, (7):114-115. Goswamy, BM, "Neurological Complications After Smallpox Vaccination", J Ass Phys India, Jan 1969, 17:41-43. Schchelkunov, SN et al, "The Role of Viruses in the Induction of Allergic Encephalomyelitis," Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR, 1990,315(1):252-255. [Vaccines contain viruses, too] Walker AM, "Neurologic events following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization," Pediatrics 1988 Mar;81(3):345-349. Shields WD, et al, "Relationship of pertussis immunization to the onset of neurologic disorders: a retrospective epidemiologic study," J Pediatr 1988 Nov; 113(5):801-805. Wilson J, "Proceedings: Neurological complications of DPT inoculation in infancy," Arch Dis Child 1973 Oct; 48(10):829-830. Iakunin IuA, "[Nervous system complications in children after preventive vaccinations]," Pediatriia 1968 Nov; 47(11):19-26. [Article in Russian] Greco D, et al, "Case-control study on encephalopathy associated with diphtheria-tetanus immunization in Campania, Italy," Bull World Health Organ 1985;63(5):919-925. Ehrengut W at Institute of Vaccinology and Virology, Hamburg, Germany states, "Bias in the evaluation of CNS complications following pertussis immunization are the following: 1) Notifications of post-immunization adverse events, 2) Publications by vaccine producers on the frequency of adverse reactions, 3) Comparison of permanent brain damage after DPT and DT immunization, 4) Pro-immunization, 5) Immunization associated viral encephalitis, 6) Accuracy of statistics, 7) Personal. A review of these points indicates an underestimation of CNS complications after pertussis immunization." Reference: Ehrengut W, "Bias in evaluating CNS complications following pertussis immunization." Acta Paediatr Jpn, 1991 Aug; 33(4):421-427. Vaccinations and Unexplained Diseases: Hiner, E E, Frasch, C E, "Spectrum of Disease Due to Haemophilus Influenza Type B Occurring in Vaccinated Children", J Infect Disorder, 1988 Aug; 158(2): 343-348. Olin P, Romanus, V, Storsaeter, J, "Invasive Bacterial Infections During an Efficiacy Trial of Acellular Pertussis Vaccines - Implications For Future Surveilance In Pertussis Vaccine Programmes", Tokai J Exp Clin Med, 1988; 13 Suppl: 143-144. Storsaeter, J, et al, "Mortality and Morbidity From Invasive Bacterial Infections During a Clinical Trial of Acellular Pertussis Vaccines in Sweden", Pediatr Infect Disorder J, 1988 Sept; 7(9):637-645. Vadheim, CM, et al, "Effectiveness and Safety of an Haemophilus Influenzae type b Conjugate Vaccine (PRP-T) in Young Infants. Kaiser-UCLA Vaccine Study Group," Pediartics, 1993 Aug; 92(2):272-279. [The vaccines caused fevers, irritability, crying, and seizures, but were declared to be "safe and ... effective ... ".] Stickl, H, "Estimation of Vaccination Damage", Med Welt, Oct 14, 1972, 23:1495-1497. Waters, VV, et al, "Risk Factors for Measles in a Vaccinated Population", JAMA, Mar 27, 1991, 265(12): 1527. Stickl, H, "Iatrogenic Immuno-suppression as a Result of Vaccination", Fortschr Med, Mar 5, 1981, 99(9);289-292. Vaccine Citations Linking the Vaccine to the "prevented" Disease: Nkowane, et al, "Vaccine-Associated Paralytic Poliomyelitis, US 1973 through 1984, JAMA, 1987, Vol 257:1335-1340. Quast, et al, "Vaccine Induced Mumps-like Diseases", nd, Int Symp on Immun, Development Bio Stand, Vol 43, p269-272. Green, C et al, "A Case of Hepatitis Related to Etretinate Therapy and Hepatitis B Vaccine", Dermatologica, 1991, 182(2):119-120. Shasby, DM, et al, "Epidemic Measles in Highly Vaccinated Population", NEJM, Mar 1977, 296(11): 585-589. Tesovic, G et al, "Aseptic Meningitis after Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine", Lancet, Jun 12, 1993, 341(8859):1541. Johnson, RH, et al, "Nosocomial Vaccinia Infection", West J Med, Oct 1976, 125(4):266-270. Malengreau, M, "Reappearance of Post-Vaccination Infection of Measles, Rubella, and Mumps. Should Adolescents be re-vaccinated?" Pedaitric, 1992;47(9):597-601 (25 ref) Basa, SN, "Paralytic Poliomyelitis Following Inoculation With Combined DTP Prophylactic. A review of Sixteen cases with Special Reference to Immunization Schedules in Infancy", J Indian Med Assoc, Feb 1, 1973, 60:97-99. Landrigan, PJ et al, "Measles in Previously Vaccinated Children in Illinois", Ill Med J, Arp 1974, 141:367-372. 11111 NA, "Vaccine-Associated Poliomyelitis", Med J Aust, Oct 1973, 2:795-796. Vaccine Failures Citations: Hardy, GE, Jr, et al, "The Failure of a School Immunization Campaign to Terminate an Urban Epidemic of Measles," Amer J Epidem, Mar 1970; 91:286-293. Cherry, JD, et al, "A Clinical and Serologic Study of 103 Children With Measles Vaccine Failure", J Pediatr, May 1973; 82:801-808. Jilg, W, et al, "Inoculation Failure Following Hepatitis B Vaccination", Dtsch Med wochenschr, 1990 Oct 12; 115(41):1514-1548. Plotkin, SA, "Failures of Protection by Measles Vaccine," J Pediatr, May 1973; 82:798-801. Bolotovskii, V, et al, "Measles Incidence Among Children Properly Vaccinated Against This Infection", ZH Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol, 1974; 00(5):32-35. Landrigan, PJ, et al, "Measles in Previously Vaccinated Children in Illinois", Ill Med J, Apr 1974; 141:367-372. Strebel, P et al, "An Outbreak of Whooping Cough in a Highly Vaccinated Urban Community", J Trop Pediatr, Mar 1991, 37(2): 71-76. Forrest, JM, et al, "Failure of Rubella Vaccination to Prevent Congenital Rubella,"Med J Aust, 1977 Jan 15; 1(3): 77. Jilg, W, "Unsuccessful Vaccination against Hepatitis B", Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Nov 16, 1990, 115(46):1773. Coles, FB, et al, "An Outbreak of Influenza A (H3N2) in a Well-Immunized Nursing home Population," J Am ger Sociologist, Jun 1992, 40(6):589-592. Jilg, W, et al, "Inoculation Failure following Hepatitis B Vaccination," Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Oct 12, 1990, 115(41):1545-1548. Hartmann, G et al, "Unsuccessful Inoculation against Hepatitis B," Dtsch Med Wochenschr, May 17, 1991, 116(20): 797. Buddle, BM et al, "Contagious Ecthyma Virus-Vaccination Failures", Am J Vet Research, Feb 1984, 45(2):263-266. Mathias, R G, "Whooping Cough In Spite of Immunization", Can J Pub Health, 1978 Mar/Apr; 69(2):130-132. Osterholm, MT, et al, "Lack of Efficacy of Haemophilus b Polysacharide Vaccine in Minnesota", JAMA, 1988 Sept 9; 260(10:1423-1428. Johnson, RH, et al, "Nosocomial Vaccinia Infection", West J Med, Oct 1976, 125(4):266-270. Vaccines Causing Another Vaccinal Disease: Basa, SN, "Paralytic Poliomyelitis Following Inoculation With Combined DTP Prophylactic. A review of Sixteen cases with Special Reference to Immunization Schedules in Infancy", J Indian Med Assoc, Feb 1, 1973, 60:97-99. Pathel, JC, et al, "Tetanus Following Vaccination Against Small-pox", J Pediatr, Jul 1960; 27:251-263. Favez, G, "Tuberculous Superinfection Following a Smallpox Re-Vaccination", Praxis, July 21, 1960; 49:698-699. Quast, Ute, and Hennessen, "Vaccine-Induced Mumps-like Diseases", Intern Symp on Immunizations , Development Bio Stand, Vol 43, p 269-272. Forrest, J M, et al, "Clinical Rubella Eleven months after Vaccination," Lancet, Aug 26, 1972, 2:399-400. Dittman, S, "Atypical Measles after Vaccination", Beitr Hyg Epidemiol, 19891, 25:1-274 (939 ref) Sen S, et al, "Poliomyelitis in Vaccinated Children", Indian Pediatr, May 1989, 26(5): 423-429. Arya, SC, "Putative Failure of Recombinant DNA Hepatitis B Vaccines", Vaccine, Apr 1989, 7(2): 164-165. Lawrence, R et al, "The Risk of Zoster after Varicella Vaccination in Children with Leukemia", NEJM, Mar 3, 1988, 318(9): 543-548. Vaccination Citations and Death Na, "DPT Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death - Tennessee, US Dept HEW, MMWR Report, Mar 23, 1979, vol 28(11): 132. Arevalo, "Vaccinia Necrosum. Report on a Fatal Case", Bol Ofoc Sanit Panamer, Aug 1967, 63:106-110. Connolly, J H, Dick, G W, Field, CM, "A Case of Fatal Progressive Vaccinia", Brit Med Jour, 12 May 1962; 5288:1315-1317. Aragona, F, "Fatal Acute Adrenal Insufficiency Caused by Bilateral Apoplexy of the Adrenal Glands (WFS) following Anti-poliomyelitis Vaccination", Minerva Medicolegale, Aug 1960; 80:167-173. Moblus, G et al, "Pathological-Anatomical Findings in Cases of Death Following Poliomyelitis and DPT Vaccination", Dtsch Gesundheitsw, Jul 20, 1972, 27:1382-1386. NA, "Immunizations and Cot Deaths", Lancet, Sept 25, 1982, np. Goetzeler, A, "Fatal Encephalitis after Poliomyelitis Vaccination", 22 Jun 1961, Muenchen Med Wschr, 102:1419-1422. Fulginiti, V, "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Diphtheria-Tetanus Toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Visits to the Doctor: Chance Association or Cause and Effect?", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 7-11. Baraff, LJ, et al, "Possible Temporal Association Between Diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-Pertussis Vaccination and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", Pediatr Infect Disorder, Jan-Feb 1983, 2(1): 5-6. Reynolds, E, "Fatal Outcome of a Case of Eczema Vaccinatum", Lancet, 24 Sept 1960, 2:684-686. Apostolov. et al, "Death of an Infant in Hyperthermia After Vaccination", J Clin Path, Mar 1961, 14:196-197. Bouvier-Colle, MH, "Sex-Specific Differences in Mortality After High-Titre Measles Vaccination", Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique, 1995; 43(1): 97. Stewart GT, "Deaths of infants after triple vaccine.", Lancet 1979 Aug 18;2(8138):354-355. Flahault A, "Sudden infant death syndrome and diphtheria/tetanus toxoid/pertussis/poliomyelitis immunisation.", Lancet 1988 Mar 12;1(8585):582-583. Larbre, F et al, "Fatal Acute Myocarditis After Smallpox Vaccination", Pediatrie, Apr-May 1966, 21:345-350. Mortimer EA Jr, "DTP and SIDS: when data differ", Am J Public Health 1987 Aug; 77(:925-926. Vaccines and Metabolism Citations: Deutsch J, " [Temperature changes after triple-immunization in infant age]," Padiatr Grenzgeb 1976;15(1):3-6. [Article in German] NA, "[Temperature changes after triple immunization in childhood]," Padiatr Grenzgeb 1976;15(1):7-10. [Article in German] [Considering that the thyroid controls our Basal Metabolism, it would appear that vaccines altered thyroid activity.] Vaccines Altering Resistance to Disease: Burmistrova AL, "[Change in the non-specific resistance of the body to influenza and acute respiratory diseases following immunization diphtheria-tetanus vaccine]," Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 1976; (3):89-91. [Article in Russian] Vaccinations and Deafness Citations: Kaga, "Unilateral Total Loss of Auditory and Vestibular Function as a Complication of Mumps Vaccination", Int J Ped Oto, Feb 1998, 43(1):73-73 Nabe-Nielsen, Walter, "Unilateral Total Deafness as a Complication of the Measles- Mumps- Rubella Vaccination", Scan Audio Suppl, 1988, 30:69-70 Hulbert, et al, "Bilateral Hearing Loss after Measles and Rubella Vaccination in an Adult", NEJM, 1991 July, 11;325(2):134 Healy, "Mumps Vaccine and Nerve Deafness", Am J Disorder Child, 1972 Jun; 123(6):612 Jayarajan, Sedler, "Hearing Loss Following Measles Vaccination", J Infect, 1995 Mar; 30(2):184-185 Pialoux, P et al, "Vaccinations and Deafness", Ann Otolaryng (Paris), Dec 1963, 80:1012-1013. Angerstein, W, et al, "Solitary Hearing and Equilibrium Damage After Vaccinations", Gesundheitswesen, May 1995, 57(5): 264-268. Brodsky, Stanievich, "Sensorineural Hearing Loss Following Live Measles Virus Vaccination", Int J Ped Oto, 1985 Nov; 10(2):159-163 Koga, et al, "Bilateral Acute Profound Deafness After MMR Vaccination- Report of a Case", Nippon Jibiin Gakkai Kai, 1991 Aug;94(:1142-5 Seiferth, LB, "Deafness after Oral Poliomyelitis Vaccination - a Case Report and Review", HNO, 1977 Aug; 25(: 297-300 Pantazopoulos, PE, "Perceptive Deafness Following Prophylactic use of Tetanus anittoxin", Laryngoscope, Dec 1965, 75:1832-1836. Zimmerman, W, "Observation of a case of Acute Bilateral Hearing Impairment Following Preventive Poliomyelitis Vaccination (type 3)", Arch Ohr Nas Kehlkopfheilk, 1965, 185:723-725. Vaccinations and Kidney Disorders Citations: Jacquot, C et al, "Renal Risk in Vaccination", Nouv Presse Med, Nov 6, 1982, 11(44):3237-3238. Giudicelli, et al, "Renal Risk in Vaccination", Presse Med, Jun 11, 1982, 12(25):1587-1590. Tan, SY, et al, "Vaccine Related Glomerulonephritis", BMJ, Jan 23, 1993, 306(6872):248. Pillai, JJ, et al, "Renal Involvement in Association with Post-vaccination Varicella", Clin Infect Disorder, Dec 1993, 17(6): 1079-1080. Eisinger, AJ et al, "Acute Renal Failure after TAB and Cholera Vaccination", B Med J, Feb 10, 1979, 1(6160):381-382. Silina, ZM, et al, "Causes of Postvaccinal Complications in the Kidneys in Young Infants", Pediatria, Dec 1978, (12):59-61. Na, "Albuminurias", Concours Med, Mar 1964, 85:5095-5098. [vaccination adverse reactions] Oyrl, A, et al, "Can Vaccinations Harm the Kidney?", Clin Nephrol, 1975, 3(5):204-205. Mel'man Nia, "[Renal lesions after use of vaccines and sera]." Vrach Delo 1978 Oct;(10):67-9, [Article in Russian] Silina ZM, Galaktionova TIa, Shabunina NR, "[Causes of postvaccinal complications in the kidneys in young infants]." Pediatriia 1978 Dec;(12):59-61, [Article in Russian] Silina EM, et al, "[Some diseases of the kidneys in children during the 1st year of life, following primary smallpox vaccination and administration of pertusis-diphtheria-tetanus vaccine]." Vopr Okhr Materin Det 1968 Mar; 13(3):79-80, [Article in Russian] Vaccines and Skin Disorders Citations: Illingsworth R, Skin rashes after triple vaccine," Arch Dis Child 1987 Sep; 62(9):979. Lupton GP, "Discoid lupus erythematosus occurring in a smallpox vaccination scar," J Am Acad Dermatol, 1987 Oct; 17(4):688-690. Kompier, A J, "Some Skin Diseases caused by Vaccinia Virus [Smallpox]," Ned Milt Geneesk T, 15:149-157, May 1962. Weber, G et al, "Skin Lesions Following Vaccinations," Deutsch Med Wschr, 88:1878-1886, S7 Sept 1963. Copeman, P W, "Skin Complications of Smallpox Vaccination," Practitioner, 197:793-800, Dec 1966. Denning, DW, et al, "Skin Rashes After Triple Vaccine," Arch Disorder Child, May 1987, 62(5): 510-511. Vaccinations and Abcesses: Sterler, HC, et al, "Outbreaks of Group A Steptococcal Abcesses Following DTP Vaccination", Pediatrics, Feb 1985, 75(2):299-303. DiPiramo, D, et al, "Abcess Formation at the Site of Inoculation of Calmette-Guerin Bacillus (BCG)," Riv Med Aeronaut Spaz, Jul-Dec 1981, 46(3-4):190-199. Vaccinations and Shock: Caileba, A et al, "Shock associated with Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Syndrome following Injection of DT.TAB Vaccine, Prese Med, Sept 15, 1984, 13(3):1900. See also the following: Pathel, JC, et al, "Tetanus Following Vaccination Against Small-pox", J Pediatr, Jul 1960; 27:251-263. Favez, G, "Tuberculous Superinfection Following a Smallpox Re-Vaccination", Praxis, July 21, 1960; 49:698-699. Bonifacio, A et al, "Traffic Accidents as an expression of "Iatrogenic damage", Minerva Med, Feb 24, 1971, 62:735-740. Baker, J et al, "Accidental Vaccinia: Primary Inoculation of a Scrotum", Clin Pediatr (Phila), Apr 1972, 11:244-245. Edwards, K, "Danger of Sunburn Following Vaccination", Papua New Guinea Med J, Dec 1977, 20(4):203. Stroder, J, "Incorrect Therapy in Children", Folia Clin Int (Barc), Feb 1966, 16:82-90. Wehrle PF, "Injury associated with the use of vaccines," Clin Ther 1985;7(3):282-284. Alberts ME, "When and where will it stop", Iowa Med 1986 Sep; 76(9):424. Breiman RF, Zanca JA, "Of floors and ceilings - defining, assuring, and communicating vaccine safety", Am J Public Health 1997 Dec;87(12):1919-1920. Stewart, AM, et al, "Aetiology of Childhood Leukaemia", Lancet, 16 Oct, 1965, 2:789-790. Nelson, ST, "John Hutchinson On Vaccination Syphilis (Hutchinson, J)", Arch Derm, (Chic), May 1969, 99:529-535. Mather, C, "Cotton Mather Anguishes Over the Consequences of His Son's Inoculation Against Smallpox", Pediatrics, May 1974; 53:756. Thoman M, "The Toxic Shot Syndrome", Vet Hum Toxicol, Apr 1986, 28(2):163-166. Johnson, RH, et al, "Nosocomial Vaccinia Infection", West J Med, Oct 1976, 125(4):266-270. Heed, JR, "Human Immunization With Rabies Vaccine in Suckling Mice Brain," Salud Publica, May-Jun 1974, 16(3): 469-480. Tesovic, G et al, "Aseptic Meningitis after Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine", Lancet, Jun 12, 1993, 341(8859):1541. Buddle, BM et al, "Contagious Ecthyma Virus-Vaccination Failures", Am J Vet Research, Feb 1984, 45(2):263-266. Freter, R et al, "Oral Immunization And Production of Coproantibody in Human Volunteers", J Immunol, Dec 1963, 91:724-729. [Guess what copro- means .... Feces.] NA, "Vaccination, For and Against", 1964, Belg T Geneesk, 20:125-130. Sahadevan, MG et al, "Post-vaccinal Myelitis", J Indian Med Ass, Feb 16, 1966, 46:205-206. Castan, P et al, "Coma Revealing an acute Leukosis in a child, 15 days after an Oral Anti-poliomyelitis Vaccination," Acta Neurol Bekg, May 1965, 65:349-367. Stickl, H, et al, "Purulent [pus] meningitides Following Smallpox Vaccination. On the Problem of Post- Vaccinal Decrease of Resistance", Deutsch Med Wschr, Jul 22, 1966, 91:1307-1310. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
|
After careful thought, advice from an expert fellow editor, re-reading of some comment-archives and WP:guidelines and trying to understand their spirit, and after contemplation of my umbilicus: will not use revert. But will argue if this remark is deemed off-topic and sectioned, too. See also my older comment, immediately above the WP is not a forum note above, under Appeal and dated 13 December 2011. Rules are there to be broken, very occasionally and, as I said, afer careful thought. I wanted to bold the careful as well, but leave it italic. Carries more weight, counter-intuitively. Sleuth21 (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Tim Minchin comments were WP:UNDUE. Or, more broadly, the random comments of any given comedian about alt. med. are WP:UNDUE. Minchin is not a recognized authority on the subject, he is not directly involved in major legislation or campaigns related to it, and thus his opinion simply isn't important. As such, it violates WP:NPOV to include his comments here.Vitaminman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This statement Some researchers in alternative medicine object to this categorization, preferring to emphasize differences of approach, but nevertheless use the term CAM, which has become standard.[3][9] is not backed by the sources. I removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Collapse conspiracy theory driven soapoboxing
|
---|
This is perhaps one of the most biased articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. It is obviously written by people who know nothing about the topic and are merely trying to discredit alternative medicine so as to prop up Big Pharm and the anti-scientific cult of conventional medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.179.244 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
I've added a citation needed tag re. the "based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than on scientific evidence" statement in the lead. Not that I doubt someone will be able to dredge something up to claim proof of this, of course, just that I think the article shouldn't get away with saying this without providing proper supporting evidence per WP:RS. Vitaminman (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The latest issue of FACT provides full access to multiple interesting articles that can be used here and in other relevant alt med articles (the PDFs are often good):
Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey folks. Although this is a controversial topic, the sheer number of criticisms contained in this article, and the tendency to lump a variety of sometimes-unrelated practices together under one monolithic 'alternative' heading, seems to suggest that contributors have actively used this article as a soapbox against anything that isn't allopathic medicine. About midway through reading the piece, it became evident that criticisms were simply being 'piled on'. Without taking a stand either way, I would say this article is in need of a serious rewrite. A mainstream view of the subject could still be adequately presented using far fewer individual criticisms, and in a more NPOV tone. As proof of bias, I would point readers in the direction of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis That article, which points out that the practice of allopathic medicine is the third or fourth leading cause of death in the United States, garners little by way of comment or controversy in comparison. 199.7.156.34 (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The 3rd paragraph in the lead currently reads "1998 systematic review of studies assessing its prevalence in 13 countries concluded that about 31% of cancer patients use some form of complementary and alternative medicine." This study includes various practices which would hardly be considered "alternative" to most MDs. Specifically, the study includes diet and exercise as a form of CAM. Obviously, exercise isn't a replacement for chemo, but its a form of "therapy" which is well-grounded in science. I believe we either need to clarify this in the article; or, if that's too cumbersome, the sentence could be deleted altogether.JoelWhy (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The University of Aberdeen ducked any further accusations of promoting "quackery" by deciding against establishing a chair in a form of alternative medicine ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419947&c=1
Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting article:
Brangifer (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Another interesting article:
Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Another interesting article:
Vitaminman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult to comment further without the full text, which I'll have to dig up, but the abstract raises some interesting questions. For example, if patients using CAM died more quickly, they would likely have a lower infection rate - because once you die, you can't get any more infections. I'm ordinarily willing to give authors the benefit of the doubt that they've handled these sorts of competing risks appropriately, but my experience with the alt-med literature has led me not to assume anything of the sort, particularly as the authors rather surprisingly failed to comment on survival or overall mortality in the cohort in the abstract. MastCell Talk 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
At present, the first sentence of the final paragraph of the Lede says: "Claims about the efficacy of alternative medicine tend to lack evidence, and have been shown to repeatedly fail during testing." This sentence seems to contain weasel words doesnt appear sourced, nor does it seem accurate. There is a source later in the body of the article, under evidence, that says: "A 2005 review of 145 alternative medicine Cochrane reviews using the 2004 database revealed that 38.4% concluded positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%) effect, 4.8% concluded no effect, 0.69% concluded harmful effect, and 56.6% concluded insufficient evidence."[4]: 135–136 Thus, the Lede does not accurately summarize the body of the artice. I propose changing the current first sentence of the last paragraph of the Lede with a more accurate statement without weasel words, such as: "Some of the claims about the efficacy of alternative medicine are controversial and only one-third of alternative treatments have evidence to support their use."Puhlaa (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Secondly, the positive trials of "alternative medicine" described in the Cochrane review include a number of trials showing that calcium +/- Vitamin D is effective in preventing bone loss, that iron supplementation is useful in pregnancy, or that folate supplementation in pregnancy reduces the risk of neural-tube defects in children. It's debatable whether those are truly trials of "alternative medicine", since these uses have been accepted and well-established parts of mainstream medicine for quite some time and are probably not the sorts of things people have in mind when they talk about "alternative medicine". If you remove those trials from the analysis, the effectiveness statistics look quite a bit poorer. But anyhow... MastCell Talk 17:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh, SELECT was just a pointless waste of money, as the participants were all replete in selenium (which, if I recall correctly, wasn't even a footnote in the published report). This kind of stuff is very damaging as many medical professionals interpreted it as contradicting an earlier trial which found that selenium prevents cancer in those with marked deficiency). With regard to ginkgo biloba: there are lots of much better interventions, e.g. alpha-GPC or rhodiola rosea which could have been investigated and would likely fall under 'alternative medicine'. It's truly astonishing that ginkgo biloba was selected out of all the promising treatments. Saw palmetto extract is a better example of a notable recent failure. I actually added the cite to Cochrane's 2005 study. I agree with MastCell's overall point, especially in terms of the definition of alternative medicine. However, defining it as only interventions which aren't evidence-based is obviously problematic. Does that mean that the 30% or so of mainstream medical interventions which aren't evidence-based are actually alternative medicine? As my comments about the trials above show, our medical institutions are hardly perfect. The "fringe" of alternative medicine hardly has a monopoly on bad medical decision-making. Alternative medicine includes quite a lot of interventions (mostly herbal/nutritional or lifestyle-based) with decent or highly promising evidence and low side-effect risk which are flat out ignored by the industry, and therefore by doctors who are highly reliant upon the industry to learn about therapies. Many doctors are so deeply afraid of being viewed as quacks that they reflexively reject anything which doesn't come at a huge price tag and a long list of side-effects. II | (t - c) 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits added content from about ten major scientific journals, such as Annals of New York Academy of Sciences and Journal of Academic Medicine, . There is a need for additional information in the lead section, such as regarding many alternative medicine practioners claims that conventional "science doesn't measure everything" (e.g., types of health that are more general, or are specific to a single patient, and thereby not subject to a scientific methodolory involving multiple subjects, and thereby only detectable by a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient), on defects and inconsistencies in the scientific method, and other clearly valid points. A problem I am having with sourcing this is that there is such a diversity of alternative medical practices, that no source from the diverse group appears to be reliable in speaking for a community that does not recognize that one source as speaking for their own position. I would support adding this kind of material to the lead since it is on point to the article topic, and ask for assistance in sourcing it. Please discuss. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that CAM is difficult to define, a recent edit removed one very valid definition of CAM, ie: "Alternative medicine is any practice claiming to heal that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine" The rational being that the editor doesnt think this is correct and the source is weak. I dont need to detail why the editor's opinion is insufficient cause for removal of this text, however, as this is a common and valid definition, I have addressed the second concern by providing some better sourcing options:
Thus, I agree with the addition of new text that states that "CAM is difficult to define", however, I request that the very common and mainstream definition that was removed be re-added.Puhlaa (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
One or two editors may be aware of a continuing discussion at Talk:Science about including subtopics such as "criticism", arising from an excessive delete. One of the comments, referring to WP:Summary style, could be applicable here. It remarked that the criticism section was overlong and the article would be improved by retaining a brief criticism section there while trimming the text by about 20% and leaving the details to the linked pages. In principle this also applies to "Alternative medicine". For ease of writing and speaking it is usually convenient to use terms such as "mainstream" and "alternative" but editors generally will be aware that the practise of healing, in the name of Medicine, is not exclusively the province or domain of the kind of "science" which is anxious for its own reasons to be distinguished from what used to be known as "natural science" or "natural philosophy". The all round view appropriate to Wikipedia needs particular care when reporting unpopular or minority topics, which may in time join the curiosities of history or be seen as contributing to a new found reform. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can see for him/her -self that DomVob's remarks above, separately and together, are mistaken or irrelevant and baseless as regards the opening paragraph here, and may see that his/her "argument is run-of-the-mill special pleading, bordering on POV pushing. Nothing there worth even considering" to use that turn of phrase. Constructive comment from editors wishing to improve the article would, of course, be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It is really a question of good practice in distributing the relevant information between the articles, with cross-ref. links, redirects and disambigs. for the convenience of readers. Given the topic (Alternative medicine), to one who is an empirical sceptic indiscriminate remarks such as the following: _"the article unduly legitimises" the topic, _"we can just redirect to Medicine and be done with it", _"should have a heavy hand taken to it" indicate that, for the sake of editorial practicality, while "Alternative medicine" may well be seen to be within the scope of "medicine", and seeing that the article "Medicine" has the section "Criticism of modern medicine", the Medicine article itself needs some protection from overload. Hence retaining a separate article for AM may be preferable, where points for and against and neutral can be succinctly stated without overt or implicit polemic. Would that be done adequately in "Medicine"? Qexigator (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
DomVob's comment is as far off the mark as the origin of Straw man is obscure. How odd. Qexigator (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Another failure to read as written-- perhaps another instance of straw manning: even odder. Qexigator (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No claim to consensus has been made, and the comments of the four editors, including DomVob's assurance that s/he can't see any point in further discussion, has not been unremarked by...Qexigator (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
"The lead is meant to summarize the article" per IRWolfie 8 November 2012. Given that the main topic is simply "Alternative medicine" and not "The current controversy about 'alternative medicine' " the lead seems to be topheavy, and in point of editing parts of it would be better placed in later sections (leaving aside the sourcing and NPoV questions mentioned above), perhaps as follows, showing by "...1/2/3... " parts omitted for placing later in the article, enumerated below for ease of reference.
Excellent suggestion. I vote yes. TimidGuy (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The moves proposed below are neutral either way, i.e. neither for nor against any of the other points under discussion such as updating sources, and may be helpful for both readers and editors. Qexigator (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
--Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Like the article as it now stands, this thread seems to need untangling. But here are three points arising from above indents. Qexigator's proposed moves are not intended 1_to further any partisan cause for or against; 2_nor to meddle with sources; 3_nor to take any position on the relative or absolute merits of CAM or Quackwatch. My concern is as stated: the lead is top-heavy, and the topic is "Alternative medicine" not "The current controversy about 'alternative medicine' ". Qexigator (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A major theme in at least some alternative medical practices is the claim that some kinds of health are either not measured, or are incapable of being measured, by scientific methods. For example, "spiritual health". This should be included in the article. Perhaps some editors who are practitioners can suggest sources as to these claims. ParkSehJik (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Newman
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).inquiry_cfm
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Hrob2001
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).